Total Depravity, Implicitly Denied?
Let's examine this doctrine more fully by considering whether we read in many summaries of total depravity not so much what the doctrine actually means and implies but rather, what it does not mean and does not imply. (See comments box at bottom before reading further. I've included representative samples of a common caveat.)
Indeed, many unbelievers lead impeccable lives, even engage in philanthropic work - even work that benefits the kingdom of God! Yet has that ever been a bone of contention or a misunderstanding of the doctrine? Many an unbeliever's external law-works have been a rebuke to me. That said...
Beyond what we find in the comments box (giving those thoughts the most lenient interpretation), with Augustine I think we must also maintain that all the “good” unregenerate man does is merely the result of one lust restraining another. Man’s so-called good, not wrought in regeneration, suits him for depraved and sinful reasons. The miserly man does not spend his money on licentious living, but the reason for such respectable refrain can be a sinful lust for money if not also an insatiable desire for self-respect and the respect of others. But is that what we hear when the doctrine is explained? (Maybe splendid pagans aren’t so really splendid after all?)
God’s common goodness restrains fallen man through the providential employment of man’s sinful passions in conjunction with man being created in God’s likeness.
Accordingly, I for one will not say that Hitler’s judgement won’t be less severe than any of the unsaved splendid popes or Rome's sacrificial nuns. How could I possibly know? Such speculation is beyond my pay grade. What I do know is that Hitler was obviously evil and popes for centuries have promulgated doctrines of demons that have lead multudes to eternal torment. Some bad guys wear white hats, even a mitre at times. God judges righteous judgement taking all into account. I'm finite and my judgement worthless. Hallelujah.
When we say that "man isn't as bad as he can be," or that "he can always do worse” or that “Hitler didn’t kill his mother,” do we already maintain, over-and-above the sinful reasons for sinners not wanting to do worse, that man is unable to do other than what God has decreed? So, in another sense isn't man actually as bad as he can be - both in a metaphysical and decretive sense? (Actually, the former entails the delicious doctrine of concurrence, which pertains to the providentially ordering of the intentions and choices of men that fall out precisely according to the divine decree.) Yet why do we so often hear that man is not as bad as he might be? Isn't that assessment based upon works alone? Yet doesn't God judge motive and the intentions of the heart? Would such people be willing to say that "Satan isn't as bad as he can be?" After all, God has him on the same restraining leash of providence as all mankind. Satan doesn't devour more than he does but that's only because God restrains him. Is fallen man different in this specific regard? Can either Satan or man do other than God has decreed?
Let's be critical in our analyses. There are vast differences between man and Satan. Man is created in God's likeness and by grace recreated in the image of Christ. Another distinction that should come to mind is most men are restrained by conscience whereas Satan isn't. He is evil personified. Satan might be constrained by his creaturely confusion but not his conscience. He is confounded and unconscionable. Whereas man can have natural affection, the devil has none. Yet man's natural affection is self-serving and when judged will be found sinful.
Another balance we do well to maintain is that although man possesses a restraining candle of light, we must be clear that it isn't a virtue; it will not be rewarded on the last day. No, it will actually accuse all on the last day who don't come to Jesus. It's God alone who does the restraining of the unregenerate man either directly or through secondary causes. Ultimately it is God alone who allows the candle to flicker and not go out. Jesus is the light that is given to all men who come into the world. (John 1:9) God restrains man through conscience, for a time, but there will be no such divine goodness in hell.
Yet to be thoroughgoing we must also maintain that man can become increasingly hardened. Also, there will be degrees of torment in hell. How do these truths relate to our understanding of total depravity, if at all? Don't degrees of both hardness and punishment presuppose that man in some sense could become even more culpable than he is? Yet would degrees of culpability suggest degrees of depravity or that man can be worse?
We are right to say that God's providence restrains both the serpent and his offspring so that they cannot commit worse acts than they do, "for who can resist His will?" (Romans 9:19) That man is restrained through his being created in God's likeness is certainly a distinction, but is there a relevant difference pertaining to the question of whether man or Satan can be worse than God has determined? How relevant are the means by which Satan and man are restrained? Is it relevant that man, though evil (per Jesus), doesn't typically pursue that which intrinsically evil, whereas with Satan it's his ultimate delight? (Matthew 7:11; Luke 7:13)
How often do we read that the unregenerate man is not worse than he might be but only because he desires these sins more than those sins, or that God's providence perfectly reflects his divine decree? Where is the accent, on "common grace" and how wonderful it is that the "unchurched" do such wonderful things? Or do we marvel at God's wisdom as he meticulously restrains the utterly evil intentions of the ungodly by their psssion for respectability and enlightened self-interest? Has grace become not so amazing? Was grace considered more amazing 150 years ago among Arminians than it is among even we Reformed folk today?
The profound truth of this doctrine is the very backdrop for the glory of God's saving grace in Christ; yet do we have a good handle of the doctrine? What might be too often missed is that there is no mild antithesis that exists between the seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent. It is a deep seated enmity inflicted by no other than God Himself. (Genesis 3:15)
Because we can tend to be more concerned with the cash value of things than the intrinsic worth of doctrine that gives way to shouts of acclamation, let me close by suggesting that total depravity has far reaching implications in pastoral ministry and evangelism beyond "just" giving glory to God.
Let's discuss on Friday, October 20th at 7:15 p.m.
Comments
Phillip Ryken