A Study on the Extent of Man's Depravity

(“A Study on the Extent of Man’s Depravity”-November 22, 2009)


CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION

This paper is written to better understand the positions taken in regards to the extent of the depravity of man as well as to look at least into some of the ramifications of the conclusions made. In studying the various theological viewpoints on the depravity of man, the ideas range from man not being tainted at all by the original sin of Adam to the opposite end where all of the parts of man (intellect, emotion, and will) have been tainted by the original sin.
It is my belief that where one arrives on this particular issue will influence other theological outlooks they hold in a logical progression. For example, it seems that the five points of Calvinism and Arminianism hinge greatly on the starting point of the view of man’s depravity. It seems that another issue would be the one of who really saves a person, and all theological outlooks have an opinion on this.
One of the greatest issues this doctrine faces, at least in my perception, is which view the Bible itself supports. A great dividing line between the regenerate and unregenerate (though many are ignorant of truth) is where they stand on the idea of total depravity. Many unregenerate people (who even attend churches, though liberal in their approach to the Bible) would deny such claims that they are wholly affected by sin from their very conception. On the same token, the concept of sin towards a holy God can often be highly offensive to the carnal mind. Additionally, the question is raised as to the whether we are guilty of the sin of Adam or not. The doctrine of grace is heavily involved in how Adam’s sin has affected the rest of humanity; either we are in desperate need of the grace of God or it’s just not that big of a deal. Another question I might add to this is the one of man’s free will: is it really free? The answer to such a question is answered differently by each separate view.
I note that this research is not done in regards to the extent of the depth of man’s depravity but rather to the extent of the breadth of man’s depravity. In other words, this paper is not looking to see if total depravity means the degree to which man is bad (which some may take to be fully at seeing the words total depravity at face value), but the extent of his character which has been affected, be that none of him, some of him, or all parts of his composition (intellect, emotion, and will) by which he reasons.
I hope to cover all major viewpoints in regards to the extent of man’s depravity and to offer a firm foundation for what I believe the Bible is teaching on the extent of the depravity of man.
 



CHAPTER TWO
VARIOUS VIEWPOINTS ON THE EXTENT OF MAN’S DEPRAVITY

There are three major viewpoints which will be looked at in this chapter. These three views all have modern adherents and I hope to show the distinctions between the three views. We will be looking at the Unitarian Universalist concept of original sin (which comes from the traditional view of Pelagianism), the Methodist/Lutheran/Seventh Day Adventist concept of original sin (at least three groups that hold to an Arminian view of sin’s effect on man), and finally the Reformed/Presbyterian view of original sin (which goes back to Augustine/Calvin).

UNITARIAN UNIVERSALISTS (A PELAGIAN APPROACH)
The first approach to humanity’s sinfulness we will be looking at is that of the Unitarian Universalists. The Unitarian Universalist Church holds to a concept that the fall of Adam does not affect the rest of mankind. “Unitarians reject the Calvinistic doctrines of original sin and total depravity, the responsibility of the human race for Adam's fall, and the belief that, until converted, man is under the wrath of God. They maintain, on the contrary, that if there is hereditary depravity, there is also inherited goodness: that such phrases as "the wrath of God" are figurative, and cannot apply to the Eternal Goodness. They believe that inherited evil is misery, but not guilt, and is what Paul refers to when he says, twice over, of involuntary wrong-doing, "Now it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me" (Rom. vii. 17, 20). “ We see in here at least a few things of note in regards to the Unitarian Universalists: a denial of original sin, a denial of the evilness of man in the sense of iniquity, and a denial of God’s wrath on sin. Likewise, the notion of guilt for original sin clearly is abandoned as the idea of original sin is rejected.
From the Unitarian standpoint of man being inherently good, it is important to note the concluded directions that man can take. “Man is capable of growth and of great nobility…but man is also capable of decay and of great corruption. We must face this hard truth about man if we are to understand ourselves truly and set free the forces within us that make for growth.” This system is heavily set on celebrating the perceived virtues of humanity. As a result of their view denying original sin, Unitarians “have traditionally believed in the principle of individual freedom—the right to believe as mind, heart, and conscience indicate.” James Freeman Clark writes, “We have within us reason, which is capable of seeking and finding the noblest truths. We have conscience, which shows us the difference between right and wrong. We have the power of freedom, by which we can choose good and refuse evil. We have the sense of the beautiful, the true, and the good; and a longing for what is unchanging and eternal. These powers, which are in all men, constitute the dignity of human nature, and make it capable of perpetual progress. “
R.C. Sproul, commenting on Pelagius, whose beliefs are what we find resurging in Unitarian theology, says:
Pelagius raised this question: Is the assistance of grace necessary for a human being to obey God’s commands? Or can those commands be obeyed without such assistance? For Pelagius the command to obey implies the ability to obey. This would be true, not only of the moral law of God, but also of the commands inherent in the gospel. If God commands people to believe in Christ, then they must have the power to believe in Christ without the aid of grace. If God commands sinners to repent, they must have the ability to incline themselves to obey that command. Obedience does not in any way need to be “granted.”

With all of the literature available from the Unitarian Universalists, it is quite obvious that there is a common belief in the inherent goodness of man. Man is the focus of their outlook; man has the total ability to choose the outcomes of his life as his unaffected intellect, emotions, and will lead him. Jack Mendelsohn, a Unitarian Universalist minister, writes, “Our purpose is to enable heart and mind to capture realizations of what life can be when men live up to their best. “
The theological path that has resulted from such a view on rejecting the doctrines of original sin and total depravity has thus led to other successive beliefs. Christ, in connection, is a supreme moral teacher, who through example can save us from a bad life and has come to show us the love of God; there is no wrath of God on mankind; there is no literal hell but rather only a figurative hell for poor choices; there is nothing greater than living a good and moral life by one’s own choosing.

WESLEYANS/LUTHERANS/SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTISTS (AN ARMINIAN APPROACH)
Paul Enns tells that there are quite a few denominations which hold to an Arminianistic doctrine. “Arminian doctrine is found in widely diversified groups today: Lutherans, Methodists, Episcopalians, Anglicans, Pentecostals, Free Will Baptists, and most charismatic and holiness believers…(and) Wesleyans.” My intent is not to relate the express ideas on the effect of Adam’s sin from every one of these groups, but to highlight a few to give a general consensus of their Arminian point of view.
Luther Lee, a Wesleyan minister, writes:
A large class of errorists deny that man is now depraved, or that he is the subject of inherent corruption of nature, as the consequence of a first transgression, committed by the progenitor of the human family. They maintain that every man enters upon the stage of his life, in moral circumstances as favorable as those which attended the first man, with the exception of the influence of bad examples. This view is believed to be erroneous.

It is important to note at the outset that those who hold to an Arminianistic theology do not deny that man has been wholly affected by sin. Some may misinterpret an Arminian theology as perhaps having less extent of breadth over how it has influenced a person’s avenues of moral composition (i.e. affecting only the intellect), but Arminians clearly do believe that the whole of man has been affected. A Seventh-Day Adventist, Woodrow W. Whidden of Andrews University writes, “While Adventists have not been comfortable with the Augustinian/Calvinistic understanding of original sin, taught in terms of original guilt, we are very much in what could be termed the “total depravity” tradition.” One Lutheran theologian comments, “This Scriptural view of the utter corruption and sinfulness of the entire human race the Lutheran Church holds fast over against the modern view entertained by many people in most of the other Protestant churches and often put forth both in the religious and secular press of the day, that man is not altogether bad by nature, that there is in every person an element of good, and that only some outward influence is required to bring out the good that is in him.”
With this being the case, the next question posed is “Where is the distinction between this view on depravity and the traditional Augustinian view?” Prevenient grace is the key element that draws the distinction. To sum up how it theoretically functions, it is the “preparatory work of the Holy Spirit (which) enables the believer to respond to the gospel and cooperate with God in salvation.” Paul A. Mickey, a Wesleyan theologian, writes, “The prevenient grace of the Holy Spirit draws sinners toward acceptance of God’s offer of salvation.” Lutherans would also concur with this as they strongly resist the idea that man would seek God on His own. Prevenient grace, therefore, is working with the idea of man, though being depraved, being freed up in his ability to choose God, that grace being given unto all men. Under his views on the imputation of sin, Enns comments on the Arminian view that “depravity is not total; people received (a) corrupt nature from Adam but not guilt or culpability.” He also notes, “Arminius taught that man was not considered guilty because of Adam’s sin. When people would voluntarily and purposefully choose to sin even though they had power to live righteously—then, and only then, would God impute sin to them and count them guilty. Although man does not possess original righteousness because of Adam’s sin, ‘God bestows upon each individual from the first dawn of consciousness a special influence of the Holy Spirit, which is sufficient to counteract the effect of the inherited depravity and to make obedience possible, provided the human will cooperates, which it still has power to do’ (quote from Arminius).”
The (Arminian) view of depravity, therefore, is that man is depraved, but legally has not been imputed with the sin of Adam but when he willfully sins himself he is guilty of sin and condemnation. By nature of a prevenient grace that God gives to all, all men are free to choose Him or reject Him. The five steps of Arminianism, “DAISY”, seem to have much outflow from this first point of the acronym, which is depravity coupled with prevenient grace. Salvation is necessary, Christ’s death on the cross was necessary for atonement of sins, and grace is necessary. Still, this system should be highlighted to have a man-centered approach to the gospel, which Arminians would not shy away from claiming. The most basic belief of the Arminian may be that essentially, he chooses to trust in Jesus Christ because his is able by prevenient grace to do so.

REFORMED/PRESBYTERIAN (DERIVATIVES OF AUGUSTINIAN/CALVINISTIC THEOLOGY)
The third major view I will be presenting is that of an Augustinian/Calvinistic flavor. This view is found in Reformed and Presbyterian churches, but is not limited to them. Those who hold to a Calvinistic view point of how salvation works would have a hard time not believing in the total depravity of man. This view of theology does hold to the total depravity of man, that man is affected by sin in all areas (intellect, emotion, and will) in such a way that all are warped or tainted by Adam’s sin. Henry C. Thiessen comments,
From the positive standpoint, it (total depravity) does mean that every sinner is totally destitute of that love to God which is the fundamental requirement of the law;…that he is supremely given to a preference of himself;…that his every faculty is disordered or corrupted;…that he has no thought, feeling, or turn from the love of the truth and become completely insensitive to the Spirit’s promptings.
Furthermore, Millard Erickson writes in regards to man’s natural disposition:
Total depravity means that even the unregenerate person’s altruism always contains an element of improper motive. The good acts are not done entirely or even primarily out of perfect love for God. In each case there is another factor, whether the preference of one’s own self-interest or of some other object less than God.
Not only do we look at the effects of the whole person, but also at the imputation of Adam’s sin. Though the outcome is the same, the two views on how Adam is our representative are the federal and seminal headship views. John MacArthur, writing from a seminal headship view, says
In the same way, although with enormously greater consequences, the sin of Adam was passed on to all of his descendants. When he sinned in the Garden of Eden, he sinned not only as a man but as man. When he and his wife, who were one flesh (Gen. 2:24), sinned against God, all of their descendants—that is, the entire human race in their loins—would share in that sin and the alienation from God and subjection to death that were its consequence. “In Adam all die,” Paul explained to the Corinthians (1 Cor. 15:22).
The following are questions and answers from “The Larger Chatechism,” which is given by the Presbyterian Church USA in their book of confessions:
Q. 22. Did all mankind fall in that first transgression? 7.132
A. The covenant being made with Adam, as a public person, not for himself only, but for his posterity, all mankind, descending from him by ordinary generation, sinned in him, and fell with him in that first transgression.
Q. 23. Into what estate did the Fall bring mankind? 7.133
A. The Fall brought mankind into an estate of sin and misery.
Q. 25. Wherein consists the sinfulness of that estate wherein man fell? 7.135
A. The sinfulness of that estate whereinto man fell, consisteth in the guilt of Adam’s first sin, the want of that righteousness wherein he was created, and the corruption of his nature, whereby he is utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite unto all that is spiritually good, and wholly inclined to all evil, and that continually, which is commonly called original sin, and from which do proceed all actual transgressions.
Q. 26. How is original sin conveyed from our first parents unto their posterity? 7.136
A. Original sin is conveyed from our first parents unto their posterity by natural generation, so as all that proceed from them in that way, are conceived and born in sin.

Those who hold to the view that all men sinned in Adam, he being either the seminal or federal head for all men, further step into the area of guilt. Quoting MacArthur in regards to guilt, “every human being was present in the garden with Adam and shares in the sin he committed there.”
What is the nature of man’s will in regards to this view of total depravity? The Second Helvetic Confession states:
5.045 MAN IS NOT CAPABLE OF GOOD PER SE. In regard to goodness and virtue man’s reason does not judge rightly of itself concerning divine things. For the evangelical and apostolic Scripture requires regeneration of whoever among us wishes to be saved. Hence our first birth from Adam contributes nothing to our salvation. Paul says: “The unspiritual man does not receive the gifts of the Spirit of God,” etc. (1 Cor. 2:14)…Wherefore, man not yet regenerate has no free will for good, no strength to perform what is good…Yet in regards to earthly things, fallen man is not entirely lacking in understanding.
As can be seen in all of the above, the Augustinian/Calvinistic view point holds that when Adam fell in the original sin, all men fell in him (with the exception of the Lord Jesus Christ). All men are held guilty for the sin of Adam; though men have the capacity to do good things, men are warped by sin in their intellect, emotion, and will. The natural disposition of men is that they will never choose righteousness over sinfulness for they are not morally able to do so. R.C. Sproul, commenting on the views of Jonathan Edwards, writes:

Jonathan Edwards made another distinction that is helpful in understanding the biblical concept of free will. He distinguished between natural ability and moral ability. Natural ability has to do with the powers we receive as natural human beings. As human being I have the natural ability to think, to walk, to talk, to see, to hear, and above all, to make choices…We have a mind and a will. We have the natural ability to choose what we desire. What, then, is our problem? According to the Bible the location of our problem is clear. It is with the nature of our desires. This is the focal point of our fallenness…Edwards declared that man’s problem with sin lies with his moral ability, or lack thereof…The sum and substance of the whole debate on predestination rests squarely at this point: Does fallen man, in and of himself, have a natural desire for Christ? Edwards answers this question with an emphatic “No!” He insists that, in the Fall, man lost his original desire for God. When he lost that desire, something happened to his freedom. He lost the moral ability to choose Christ. In order to choose Christ, the sinner must first have a desire to choose Christ. Either he has that desire already within him or he must receive that desire from God.
Under the Augustinian/Calvinistic view, God would have to step in to make this possible, for man would never choose to believe in Him otherwise on account of being totally depraved.
 


CHAPTER THREE
MY POSITION
In light of the major views on the depravity of man (with modern adherents), I myself follow that of the Augustinian/Calvinistic view. There are numerous supportive verses I find in relationship to this, as well as what I feel a stronger biblical position than the other two views.
In regards to the Unitarian Universalist (Pelagian) view, I find some of the greatest flaws to be in their handling of Scripture. There is a great deal of abandonment of a literal interpretation of Scripture by this group. Likewise, in their use of Scripture, they tend to use poor hermeneutics and allegorize many biblical claims. Unitarians place a great deal of focus on their perception of the goodness of humans, far more than they do on biblical claims. I would say that they are highly guilty of eisegesis, reading their preconceived notions into their understanding of biblical texts. The abandonment of the key fundamentals of the faith is a humongous “red flag” as well; I do not see how they could possibly be regenerate by their positions that stem from the denial of depravity. To throw out the sinfulness of man, the divinity of Christ, the wrath of God, the need of spiritual redemption, the doctrine of hell, all miraculous happenings and the claims of Christ are nothing less than heretical. This is one of the most unbiblical forms of “Christianity” (so they label themselves) that I could think of. I believe that their position on man not being affected by sin but rather seeing a bad example in Adam is ludicrous, but more than that, it is in direct opposition to the Bible and the understanding of Scripture that the Spirit of God leads us in. The Bible never claims that men are inherently good; it never claims an “inherited goodness” ever; it never claims that all men did not sin in Adam, but quite the contrary. Romans 2:14-15 says, “For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law.
They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them.” I find it very hard for the Unitarians to deny the guilt of their sin, but Jeremiah 17:17 holds true in the deceitfulness of the heart. Paul writes, “And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled only to those who are perishing.
In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.” (2Co 4:3-4)

In regards to the Wesleyan/Lutheran/Seventh-Day Adventist (Arminianistic) approach, there is far more credibility to their view than that of the Unitarians. The biggest points of dispute I would have with this view are the issue of prevenient grace (I am still uncertain where biblical support for this comes from), as well as man not being guilty of Adam’s sin. I do believe that those who hold to an Arminianistic point of view could be saved, so long as they are placing their faith in the blood of Jesus being shed for their sins. There is not a “must,” likewise, for someone believing in some of the points of Arminianism to believe in all of them, nor to hold them in the standardized terms.
Having covered the two previous views, I find better biblical support for the position of the (Augustinian/Calvinistic) persuasion. There are a number of verses in support of this view. I will be listing them by verse and text that they might be examined.
First, Genesis 6:5: "The LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.” While this verse speaks of the times before the Flood, it is of great note that all men were descendants of Adam and that this was the state that they were in. Here we find that all of man was affected and that there was no righteousness in him. Noah (and his family) was considered righteous by faith (Hebrews 11:7) but there were still no people of exception when it came to being totally depraved.
Secondly, Genesis 8:21 says: "And when the LORD smelled the pleasing aroma, the LORD said in his heart, "I will never again curse the ground because of man, for the intention of man’s heart is evil from his youth. Neither will I ever again strike down every living creature as I have done.” I note that God’s promise is in relationship to the present and future following the destruction of evil men upon the earth through the Flood. The sentence is not implying a past time frame, or a time to come when man might have evil intentions, but that in regards to the whole of humanity, the intentions of every man’s heart (other than Jesus Christ) is evil from his youth—there are no neutral individuals, and certainly no exceptions in regards to being morally good. We’re all evil at heart. Likewise, Psalms 51:5 says, "Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me." Yet again, this is the case of all men who have a sinful nature even before their childhood days; it is at the point of conception, when a human is begun in their existence, that they are marked by a sin nature.
John 3:19: "And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their deeds were evil." Not only are men, evil, but they love their spiritual estate by nature. Our human preference is to embrace darkness while simultaneously having an incredible distaste for the objective truths of God (and true righteousness). In so many ways we are just like Adam and Eve: we too, being in Adam, bought into the lie that we could be “like God” and by nature we’d still prefer to deceive ourselves and have it that way.
Solomon says in Ecclesiastes 7:20: "Surely there is not a righteous man on earth who does good and never sins." No one is capable of not sinning, even when deemed righteous, righteousness only being counted to a man through faith by God(see Hebrews 11).
Jeremiah 17:9 says, "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?” This is one of the best verses in regards to an idea of total depravity, in my opinion. Man is affected by sin in such a way that no sinner can fully trust their own judgments, for their ability to make pure, accurate judgments has been marred by sin. I think this verse would rub very wrong against many people to think that they cannot make perfect, clear, accurate evaluations through any of their resources, be that emotion, intellect, or will-all are affected by sin. The heart says, “I don’t believe in Jesus. I don’t need a Savior. I’m not a sinner.” Jesus says in Mark 7:21-23: "For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, coveting, wickedness, deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride, foolishness. All these evil things come from within, and they defile a person." This follows suit with Jeremiah 17:9. It is the inner faculties of man that are evil because of sin. The conscience says otherwise about our condition, though it may be seared (1 Tim. 4:2) or defiled (Titus 1:15). The effects of total depravity are comparable to a blind person denying the fact of light because they can’t see it. Subjectively, they have never perceived anything beyond darkness, but objectively, light exists, and those not impaired by blindness know it to be true. Whether the blind person can recognize light or has the capacity to believe in it does not matter. What matters is what is true. Yet this is what sin does to all people.
Isaiah 64:6 "We have all become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous deeds are like a polluted garment. We all fade like a leaf, and our iniquities, like the wind, take us away.” In this verse, I see a subjective righteousness under the realm of total depravity. Yes, men can do good things, but their motives are impure and their hearts at the core are evil. Subjectively, we may think that we are righteous before God for what we do by our assessment of what righteousness is. This is most likely much of the problem for the Unitarians, who believe that they are good. The problem rests in the objective Word of God making our sinfulness evident, as well as revealing our righteousness to be worthless.
John 6:44: "[Jesus said,] 'No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day.'" The first part of this verse, in the Greek, is οὐδεὶς δύναται ἐλθεῖν πρός με. I note strongly the word δύναται. It is a word speaking of ability or power. In its usage here, it is in the present tense and in middle/passive deponent voice. Being in present tense, this shows how the problem stands—“no one is able.” This verb sounds like the ability rests in the power of the group (“no one”) but being in middle/passive deponent it does two things: as middle, tends to focus on the subject in relation to the verb (no one is able); in passive, focuses on the subject being acted upon, so that something is acting upon them to render them unable. I would suggest that it is the sin nature of man which acts upon him, thus making him powerless to change his situation as a hopeless sinner. The second part is “unless the Father draws him.” Unless God steps in, man in no way can end his enslavement to sin.
1 Corinthians 2:14 says, "The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned." Here we see the same usage in regards to ability (δύναται is used again here).
Romans 3:10-11: "None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God." I am working with the viewpoint that the Bible is not providing solid evidence for prevenient grace, and therefore no man will ever seek after God. For man to seek after God, God would have to seek him out first. I have never seen any verses that seem to give with any clarity the idea that man’s will has been freed up to make the call on his eternal destiny. I do see, though, that on account man’s moral inability, no man desires or is able to desire God. Additionally, Isaiah 64:7 says, "There is no one who calls upon your name, who rouses himself to take hold of you, for you have hidden your face from us and have made us melt in the hand of our iniquities." Man will never choose God because there are no naturally righteous men, nor is it favorable to his desires.
Ephesians 2:1-3 says, "And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience - among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind." These verses give quite a few truths to grab onto: all men are spiritually dead; they are dead in trespasses and sins; they follow lies and darkness; the wrath of God is toward set against the sinner; all of mankind are children of wrath. Finally, verses 4-5 say, “But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us,
even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ--by grace you have been saved.” It is because of His great love that God made us alive with Christ. It is not because of us, how good we think we are or how righteous we suppose ourselves to be. We were spiritually dead people who could not make ourselves alive in Christ. Regeneration is a gift of God; no one spiritually dead wakes up one day and says, “I’m sick of being spiritually dead. I think I’ll make myself spiritually alive today.”
I believe that the issue of whether we are guilty of Adam’s sin or not is answered in Romans 5:12. “Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned.” The word “sinned,” from “all sinned,” is ἥμαρτον. This verb is in the aorist (past) tense, signifying when all men sinned. All men have been brought under the curse of death because all men sinned in Adam. We are imputed with Adam’s sin directly and imparted with a sin nature indirectly. God in His grace can pardon us of our guilt because of the sacrificial death of His Son Jesus Christ on the cross. “But God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God. For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life. More than that, we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation.” (Rom 5:8-11)




CHAPTER FOUR
CONCLUSION

I write this paper acknowledging my own humanity in my ability to make mistakes, to perhaps miss some issues, as well as acknowledging that the issue of the extent of the depravity of man is not a closed issue. There are many solid Bible-believing Christians out there that may embrace a more Arminianistic approach. Biblically, I do conclude that the Pelagian view is erroneous and heretical. I also am firmly persuaded that man is totally depraved and in need of the grace of God. I myself do not believe in prevenient grace as I look at the Scriptures. I am firmly persuaded that it is God who has done the work to save me and I praise Him for choosing me.

 


WORKS CITED

Clark, James Freeman. Manual of Unitarian Belief. [on-line publication] (American Unitarian Conference, 2003, accessed 20 November 2009); available from http://www.americanunitarian.org/manual.htm

MacArthur, John F. Romans. The MacArthur New Testament Commentary. (Chicago: Moody Press, 1991)

Enns, Paul P. The Moody Handbook of Theology. (Chicago: Moody Press, 1989), p 493

Erickson, Millard. Christian Theology. Second Edition. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1998)

Lee, Luther. Elements of Theology or An Exposition of the Divine Origin, Doctrines, Morals, and Institutions of Christianity. (Syracuse: Wesleyan Methodist Publishing House, 1873)

Luecke, Geo. Distinctive Doctrines and Customs of the Lutheran Church. (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1945)

Mendelsohn, Jack. Why I am a Unitarian Universalist. (Boston: Beacon Press, 1967)

Mickey, Paul A. Essentials of Wesleyan Theology. (Grand Rapids: The Zondervan Corporation, 1980)

Scholefield, Harry B., ed. A Pocket Guide to Unitarianism (Boston: The Beacon Press, 1954)

Schwandt, John and Collins, C. John, eds. The English-Greek Reverse Interlinear New Testament: English Standard Version. (Wheaton: Crossway Bibles, 2006) Unless noted, all Scripture quoted from.

Sproul, R.C. Chosen by God. (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., 1987)
Sproul, R. C. Willing to Believe: The Controversy over Free Will (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1997)

Thiessen, Henry Clarence. Lectures in Systematic Theology. (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1979)

Whidden, Woodrow W. Adventist Theology: The Wesleyan Connection. [on-line publication] (Biblical Research Institute General Conference of Seventh-Day Adventists, 2009, accessed 23 November 2009)
The Second Helvetic Confession. The Book of Confessions. Office of the General Assembly Presbyterian Church [U.S.A.] (Louisville: The Office of the General Assembly, 1999)
The Larger Chatechism, The Book of Confessions. Office of the General Assembly Presbyterian Church [U.S.A.] (Louisville: The Office of the General Assembly, 1999)