On Total Depravity - Part 2

“One error is a bridge to another.” —William Jenkyn

The one who accepts and embraces what Scripture teaches about the depravity of man will inevitably come to see that the “T” makes sense and holds the other four points of Calvinism together. You can see it for yourself here in this short (2-minute) clip: This is How Former Arminian, Jordan Steffaniak, Became A Calvinist. It is for this reason that the T must be denied and rejected outright by Non-Calvinists. It is this error here that begets all other errors and produces inconsistencies in Non-Reformed Soteriology.

Jason Breda isn’t wrong when he says,

“…if anything is built off of a false and bad premise about foundation, then we shouldn’t be adhering to it…”

The irony here is that he starts off on a bad premise or foundation when he denies the T:

“…I have to make sure people know that I don’t start with total depravity, because I don’t know how many people know what I hold to, I don’t know how many people have watched any of my videos. But I wanted to acknowledge we’re starting at a different starting point. Like we’re starting at a different foundation…”

The denial of the T is the starting point and foundation of Non-Reformed Soteriology. Men are essentially or inherently good. It starts with man. It is man-centred. On the other hand, when we have a clear picture of our own heart and condition as the Scripture describes them, we begin to see God rightly: “A deeper, truer knowledge of your sin — of your absolute lostness and wickedness apart from Christ — will devastate and liberate you.” (John Piper). The Scripture is clear about the heart of the unregenerate, but in unbelief, we prefer to make a fuss about Election instead.

“There is nothing the natural man hates more than to be told that he is a sinner, and that his nature is twisted and perverted.” —Martyn Lloyd Jones

The trend of modern theology—if theology it can be called—is ever toward the deification of the creature rather than the glorification of the Creator, and the leaven of present-day Rationalism is rapidly permeating the whole of Christendom. The malevolent effects of Darwinianism are more far reaching than most are aware. Many of those among our religious leaders who are still regarded as orthodox would, we fear, be found to be very heterodox if they were weighed in the balances of the Sanctuary. Even those who are clear, intellectually, upon other truth, are rarely sound in doctrine. Few, very few, today, really believe in the complete ruin and total depravity of man. Those who speak of man’s “free will,” and insist upon his inherent power to either accept or reject the Savior, do but voice their ignorance of the real condition of Adam’s fallen children. And if there are few who believe that, so far as he is concerned, the condition of the sinner is entirely hopeless, there are fewer still who really believe in the absolute Sovereignty of God. —A.W. Pink

I have heard many say over the years that they agree with all but one of the doctrines of grace. Some will have none of unconditional election. Others reject the thought of particular redemption. But these are not the real issue. These things are not the main point at which they rebel. The point at which they really rebel is the first. They reject the doctrine of total depravity! By nature they resist the clear teaching of the Bible with regards to the real condition of all men. If they believed what God says that they are, they would believe in the necessity of the other points. If man is totally depraved, that is, if sin has so permeated his whole being, polluted every aspect of his person and left him spiritually dead in trespasses and sin, then salvation can only come by the God of sovereign, omnipotent grace. God must choose him; Christ must die as a Substitute in his place and the Holy Spirit must give him life and faith and preserve him. —Gary Shephard

Now if that sounds strange to you, it is… it is, that Jesus died for, paid for in full the sins of the damned, paid the penalty of divine justice for them just as He did for the redeemed is a very strange notion. And the sinner then determines whether that universally potential death is applied to him or not. This view would say Christ died to make salvation possible, not actual. He died to make it possible, the sinner then makes the choice. He didn't really purchase salvation for anyone, He actually died on the cross and in some way removed a barrier to make salvation a potential. You will not find such language anywhere in the New Testament or the Old. The message that this would send to sinners goes like this… God loves you so much that Christ died for you, won’t you let Him save you? The final decision is up to you. In fact, God loves you so much that He gave His Son and hopefully when you see the sacrifice that Christ made, you will be moved emotionally to love Him back by accepting Him.

Now the problem with this is glaring. Here’s the problem. According to Scripture, sinners are dead…dead in trespasses and sin, separated from the life of God. They are blind. They are perishing. They’re in a state of perishing eternally. They are double blind because the god of this world has blinded their minds. In their natural state, they cannot understand the things of God, they are foolishness to them… with no desire for God and no ability to seek after God and no fear of God before his eyes to all of a sudden pull himself up by his own bootstraps and take hold of a potential salvation that is hanging out there for him… —John MacArthur^[1]

Lest you think I’m saying these things out of my own imagination and wishful thinking, consider what Jesus says in Mark 4:13, “Do you not understand this parable? How then will you understand all the parables?”

Amazingly, Jesus said something about the parable of the sower that he said about no other story or parable that he told. He said that the parable of the sower and the seeds is the key to understanding all the other parables about the kingdom of God. Mark is the only gospel writer who records this statement of Jesus, and because this parable is usually studied in Matthew’s fuller version, Mark’s record is usually overlooked. But in Mark 4:13, Jesus said, “Don’t you understand this parable? How then will you understand any parable?” It is also instructive to note that Jesus did not begin this parable with the familiar introductory words, “The kingdom of heaven is like…” (cf. Matt. 13:24, 31, 33, 44, 45, 47, 52).

Rather, this parable appears, based on its lack of the introductory formula and Jesus' own words as to its importance, to be a key to the others. And that key appears to have to do with the way spiritual truth is received and held onto (something that the disciples would need in order to understand the other parables)— and the reason Israel could not receive the spiritual truth Jesus was giving them. Truth is received in direct correlation to the condition of the heart-ground it falls upon. —HNTC

Here we see the importance of starting with the right foundation or starting point. If one fails to learn what’s taught in the parable of the four soils, one will fail to see clearly the other truth. Non-Calvinists reject the idea that only a changed heart (by the Spirit) is able to hear and receive the word salvifically (cf. John 8:42-47). Yet that is precisely what is taught in Scripture (cf. Deuteronomy 29:2-4). There are countless examples but to keep things short I’ll bring up just one for your consideration.

In Ezekiel 3:4-11 we see a contrast of hearts. God is speaking, Verse 6, “But the house of Israel will not listen to you, because they will not listen to Me;” WHY? “for all the house of Israel are impudent and hard-hearted.” They could not receive God’s words because of their heart-condition. See my post on Acts 7:51 here. But then in Verse 10, “Son of man, receive into your heart all My words that I speak to you, and hear with your ears.” 

The heart of the regenerate can receive into their heart and hear with their ears. The heart of the unregenerate can’t.

“I know that you are Abraham’s descendants, but you seek to kill Me, because My word has no place [finds no place—ESV] in you.” —John 8:37

Do you understand this? How then will you understand everything else? Here is an example of someone who does not understand:

In Acts 7 they resisted the Holy Spirit. How can one resist the draw of the Holy Spirit if the draw is irresistible? It isn’t. God drew Israel in Jer 31:3 with His love. Yet they kept backsliding. If Calvinism were true we wouldn’t have Scripture proving the draw of God can be resisted by man’s free will to reject.^[2]