Further reflections on Total Depravity and Limited Atonement

In my first blog I raised my objections to the two Calvinist doctrines of Total Depravity and Limited Atonement. If we are to find the doctrine of Total Depravity in the Bible then we should expect to find it in Genesis 3 in the record of the fall of Man. Conversely this is not the case. Total Depravity was not a curse of the fall. I also considered other Scripture including Ephesians 2:1-2 and examined the NT use of the phrase `death` in relation to sin. I believe the evidence points towards the phrase `death` referring to God`s judgement of sin and not a state of being totally depraved. 

However, there are many other passages of Scripture that pertain to this issue and so I want to expound some of them here. The first passage under consideration in this blog will be 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."

Calvinists make much of the latter part of the verse that says that every intention of the heart of man was continually evil. They contend that this is evidence of the Total Depravity of Man. And I do not disagree that for these people living in the time of Noah that they were totally depraved. The Bible is unambiguous in its judgement upon this generation of mankind. They were evil. So much so that in verse 6 God is sorry for creating mankind! But, can we take Genesis 6:5 to mean that every generation of mankind from the fall to the present day is equally as wicked? I do not think the Bible is making such a categorical statement here. 

If Genesis 6:5 were true of every generation then how was it that Abel was able to offer a sacrifice acceptable to God? (Genesis 4:4) How was Enoch able to walk with God and be taken by God so that he did not die? (Genesis 5:24) And how did Noah find favour with God to be chosen to construct the Ark? (Genesis 6:8-9) Unlike Abram who was chosen by God for no other reason than God`s divine election (Genesis 12:1), Genesis 6 says that Noah was blameless in his time (v.9). God could have destroyed everyone of Noah`s generation, including Noah and then made a second Adam. But God did not. God commanded Noah to build an Ark and to preserve two of every kind of animal. God made a covenant with Noah (v.18) because He showed mercy towards Noah and by God`s grace preserved Noah and his family. 

Genesis 6:12-13 is also crucial to understanding the extraordinary degree of evil that was on the earth at that time. 

"And God saw the earth, and behold, it was corrupt, for all flesh had corrupted their way on the earth. And God said to Noah, “I have determined to make an end of all flesh, for the earth is filled with violence through them. Behold, I will destroy them with the earth."

Verse 12 specifically says that Man had corrupted his way on the earth. Corruption is a deviation, a degeneration of something that is good. Noah`s generation had (past tense) corrupted their way. The past tense use of the phrase `corrupted their way` indicates that the corruption was a conscious act of defiance and rebellion against God. It was a process that had reached its climax in chapter 6. Verse 13 supports this interpretation as God says the earth was `filled with violence`. `Filled` means that violence had reached its peak and Man`s nature had become irreversibly depraved. There was no opportunity to repent because Man had become so corrupt. 

Is this interpretation that the Flood was an act of judgement against a particular generation for their depravity and not a universal statement of mankind`s condition supported else where in the Bible? I believe the answer is yes.

"Yet they did not listen to their judges, for they whored after other gods and bowed down to them. They soon turned aside from the way in which their fathers had walked, who had obeyed the commandments of the Lord, and they did not do so." Judges 2:17

Much like Noah`s generation, the generation of Israel spoken of here in Judges 2:17 were a disobedient and wicked generation who had turned aside to idols. The verse shows that there was a clear break from the ways of their fathers, who, by contrast, had obeyed the commandments of the Lord. How could the fathers of this wicked generation have obeyed the Lord if all generations of mankind, everywhere and at all times were totally depraved and were morally and spiritually incapable of obeying God? They could not. Conversely, the Bible records specific generations who were more wicked and depraved than others. 

Another key text given by Calvinists to support the doctrine of Total Depravity is Jeremiah 17:9:

"The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?" 

 Again at face value this verse seems to provide a cast iron support for the doctrine of Total Depravity as it speaks of the heart as being `deceitful above all things` and `desperately sick`. Once more, I affirm that this verse is true. Absolutely true. But does this verse alone prove the doctrine of Total Depravity? In order to answer that question we must put the verse into the context of chapter 17.

Verse 5 says cursed is the man who trusts in man and whose heart turns away from the Lord.

"Thus says the Lord:“Cursed is the man who trusts in man and makes flesh his strength, whose heart turns away from the Lord."

A curse remains upon the man who turns his heart away from the Lord. But how can we turn away from the Lord if our natural inclination from birth is set against the Lord in the first place?

Verse 7 says blessed is the man who trusts in the Lord. 

“Blessed is the man who trusts in the Lord, whose trust is the Lord." 

So whose heart is deceitful? Both or only one? Which man receives the curse and which the blessing? It is the man who puts his trust in man and in his flesh, who has turned away from the Lord, whose heart is deceitful and desperately sick. How could it be a universal truth if the Lord God Himself pronounces blessing to the man who puts his trust in the Lord? No man could receive that blessing if the doctrine of Total Depravity was true and it would make God duplicitous - God does not intend to bestow blessings because He knows Man cannot trust in Him because of the depraved nature of his being. But He offers the blessings nevertheless to give false hope to the people of Judah. Believing that we can earn our salvation, believing that our self-righteousness is the same as that of God`s Holy righteousness and perfection, and believing our plan is better than God`s plan is the deceitfulness of the heart. Jeremiah 17:1-4 provides yet more context for how to interpret verse 9. Jeremiah was speaking of Judah`s sin (v.1). This sin is described as idolatry (v.2). Judah had forsaken their covenant with God and placed their trust and hope not in their covenant God but in idols and material prosperity (v. 3).

So I do not believe these texts support Total Depravity once understood within their rightful context.

Regarding Limited Atonement, I said in my first blog that Calvinists make inferences from texts not specifically about the nature of the atonement and then read those inferences into key texts in support of limited atonement by way of eisegesis. I looked particularly at John 3:16-18 in support of unlimited atonement (though not universalism) and 1 John 2:1-2. I want to address an OT passage here in this blog that Calvinists use frequently in defense of Limited Atonement.

"But he was pierced for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities;upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his wounds we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned—every one—to his own way, and the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all." Isaiah 53:5-6

Calvinists interpret the `our`, `us` and `we` plural pronouns to mean God`s elect. Therefore Jesus, whom this prophecy from Isaiah is speaking of, did not die for the sins of the world but only for the elect. In one respect this is true as Isaiah was prophesying about the coming of Israel`s messiah. Jesus` people were the Jews. Jesus became the Good Shepherd (John 10:11) to His people Israel. The Shepherd metaphor was used in the OT to speak of God (Psalm 23) in His relationship to Israel. Thus God`s sheep in its original context meant Israel. This is the first problem with using this passage to teach limited atonement, namely God`s elect as spoken of here is Israel and not the Church. Moreover, Israel since the time of Christ to the present day as a whole has not embraced their messiah and so they are not saved (Romans 11:11, 15, 25). This then means that Jesus` atonement is not yet effective for Israel - Jesus` death has not yet accomplished what it set out to achieve. This is a major part of the doctrine of Limited Atonement that Jesus` sacrifice does not just theoretically save all but rather definitely saves the elect. Yet Jesus` sacrifice has not yet definitely saved Israel. Now a potential Calvinist objection to my last statement may be, "but one day they will as Paul foretold in Romans 11:25. Their hardening is only partial, not permanent." This is true and I am not disputing this Biblical truth. Rather my point is that using the plural pronouns `our`, `us` and `we` to teach the exclusivity of Jesus` atonement for only the elect, must account for the fact that Isaiah`s original audience was Israel and not the Church. Thus the nature of election must first be defined before we can use Isaiah 53:5-6 to teach Limited Atonement. The nature of election in the NT is another point of contention between Calvinism and Arminianism, which I do not want to get into here.

Furthermore, the appropriation of Jesus` sacrifice personally using the pronouns `mine` or `ours` is a natural result of salvation, as Jesus becomes our Passover lamb. But that does not mean the atonement is withheld from those who potentially might believe. John 1:11-13 says:

"He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him. But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God."

John says in chapter 1 of his gospel that all who receive Jesus and believe in His name are given the right to become children of God (v.12). "To all" is an inclusive term. All who receive Jesus and believe in Him become children of God: become part of God`s elect. We enter into covenant relationship with God through faith in Jesus Christ. Now verse 13 teaches that this cannot happen without God, for we are not born again by the will of man but of God. This cannot be overlooked or dismissed. When I speak of the ability of Man to respond to the Gospel or saving faith in Christ I do not mean to imply that this is done without the regenerative power of God. Nevertheless, is John 1:13 teaching regeneration before faith? Or is it teaching that one cannot trust in one`s heritage, blood line and chosen status by race, as the Pharisees so often did when debating Jesus? The Pharisees claimed they were children of Abraham (John 8:39) and placed their trust in their status as Jews as God`s chosen people, but Jesus rebuked them telling them they were children of their father the Devil for not believing in Him and doing the works that Abraham did (John 8:44). Abraham was made righteous before the covenant of circumcision was even given to him by faith (Genesis 15:6, Romans 4:11). John 1:11 would seem to suggest this is the case as well. Verse 11 says Jesus came to His own people (Israel) but that they did not receive Him. John is teaching that one can become a child of God through faith and that any confidence placed in the flesh (of birth right, circumcision, heritage etc.) is misplaced and unable to save.

Naturally more could be said and more Scripture`s given. There is not space to thematically exegete every passage of the Bible relating to these doctrines. But I have tried to focus, as I did in my first blog, on the key texts that Calvinists use to support their doctrines and provide reason and I hope evidence why that is not the case.