Nature: Fallen, but not Destroyed

An Exchange on the Doctrine of Total Depravity

[Audio] Nature: Fallen, but not Destroyed

I received several very perceptive comments over the weekend, to which I felt inspired to respond at length, both in the comments thread and in upcoming posts. Thanks to Andrew, TJ, and Matthew for these exchanges - you’re really changing my view of internet comments! Apparently, they can be something of intellectual value.

In only two weeks of writing, I’ve already discussed three times the teaching of “common grace.” I have suggested that it is emblematic of an entire Protestant account of the relation between nature and grace and one that deserves criticism: Common Grace Theology, or CGT. While I’ve criticized CGT for implying a low view of nature, I hadn’t specifically mentioned the Reformed doctrine under which this low view of nature often goes: Total depravity.

A reader, Andrew, prompted me to consider the role of this doctrine in the system of Common Grace Theology. While I plan to write about it at greater length, our comment exchange was worthy of more public airplay; so I have republished it here. Andrew wrote his comments in response to my article, “Christians, Atheists, and Gnostics,” in which common grace came up in the context of finding common ground with atheists in a struggle against a common enemy.

Andrew:

Really enjoying your writing. Thank you!

Have you considered perhaps that the insistence on “Common Grace” in Reformed circles has to do with the theological doctrine (or, I would argue, pre-supposition) of Total Depravity? It seems to me that if the will and mind are so corrupt as to be useless for interacting with truth as expressed in Nature, then “Grace” is indeed the proper term when an unbeliever sees a truth in Nature.

Perhaps I’m mixing categories though. I’m no philosopher!

If the will and mind are so corrupt as to be useless for interacting with truth as expressed in nature, then “grace” is indeed the proper term when an unbeliever sees truth in nature.

Joel:

Andrew, that's it! Now, I'm not sure whether you are in favor of common grace and total depravity or against, but here's what I think (summarized from my two recent articles on common grace and nature):

I think "total depravity" is taken to have the effects on the will and mind that you mention and that that is why "common grace" gets brought in to explain non-Christian truth-finding. I think this is wrong on both counts - though I also think it is an incorrect interpretation of total depravity and common grace.

This perspective amounts to the fall having destroyed human nature, which is not biblical teaching, and it is empirically disprovable: Here we are, nature not destroyed.

In place of that, I argue for nature being fallen but not destroyed (wounded, but not destroyed). And nature is sufficient to explain unbelievers seeing truth in nature. Common grace doesn't need to be called in. (Unless you're very careful about what "Common grace" means - like Bavinck is, for example.) That's a start on an answer, but check out my previous two articles.

This perspective amounts to the fall having destroyed human nature, which is not biblical teaching and is empirically disprovable: Here we are, nature not destroyed.

Andrew:

I'm rather against total depravity (perhaps because it's often explained as a corruption of human nature, before it’s then applied as a destruction of human nature). However, I can get on board with "fallen but not destroyed".

That said, there seems to be a disconnect between "fallen but not destroyed", which presumably would allow even a fallen human to occasionally recognize objective 'goods' seen in Nature, and the state that Reformed folks suggest that mankind is in spiritually. Often humans are described as "dead" (Lazarus dead) rather than "dead" (Prodigal dead). Therefore, as it goes, pre-faith regeneration is necessary to even believe the gospel.

With that view of the spiritual state of man, it’s no wonder that Reformed circles have difficulty with the idea of Nature as a real representation/source of truth to all of mankind. It seems to follow that a “dead” unbeliever would have no actual ability to discern truth from Nature any more than he could discern the truth of the gospel. Some sort of grace appears necessary to discern truth at all… (whether the prevenient “grace” of the Arminian or the pre-faith regeneration / common grace of the Calvinist)…

Isn’t Nature as a source of truth meaningless if that turn is imperceptible or non-discernible? Notably, Paul seems to argue in Romans 1:20 that Nature is discernible such that it condemns the unbeliever as he suppresses the truth that he plainly sees.

Maybe I’m missing something, but it seems that the sticking point is the nature (pun!) of mankind’s “dead”-ness. What do you think?

Additional Note: Doesn’t the contrasting “alive”-ness of the believer (vs. the Lazarus "dead"-ness of the unbeliever) create the sort of gnostic mentality you mention in this post?

Joel:

Andrew, you're definitely inspiring another post in my Common Grace Theology series. I think you hit the nail on the head: "Total depravity is often explained as a corruption of human nature, before it's then applied as a destruction of human nature." Little Wittgensteinian move here: "Total depravity" is a term that has its home in the five points of Calvinism, in the realm of soteriology. It's introduced to argue that, in a fallen condition, no human being has so much as libertarian free will to choose or refuse the gospel offer. It's in this sense that human beings are considered spiritually "dead."

But then, there's an extension of that to all human activity. Not only can we not do an act of, you might say, supernatural good; fallen human beings cannot do any act of even natural good. Given that people do do good as fallen, this must be chalked up to divine, non-soteriological influence: "Common Grace."

I would argue that that extension is just that, an extension; total inability to do "supernatural good" with regard to acceptance of Christ for salvation does not imply inability to do "natural good." So spiritual deadness in the first sense does not imply deadness in the second.

We can easily defend the first point of Calvinism simply by saying that fallen man's ability extends ONLY so far as to do natural good, not to do supernatural good (which in this Calvinist account would mean repentance and faith as denying or transcending fallen nature). Why being unable to do one thing would mean one's inability to do anything is beyond me!

Now, one problem could be the terminology itself. If you wanted to argue that man could do natural good but just couldn't repent and believe without supernatural assistance, would you choose "total depravity" to express this? People will sometimes distinguish it from "utter depravity," but "total" and "utter" don't sound very distinct. I should say more in a future post about this - I know there is the motivation of saying that even every natural act of fallen man is vitiated by sin; I think someone like Turretin distinguishes being able to do a good work formally, and the material or spiritual inward aspect of a good work.

Skipping to the topic of "Nature as a source of truth": Yes! It's meaningless if it is imperceptible and unknowable. Van Tillians in particular love to officially affirm that there is general revelation, and then they make it epistemically inaccessible to man. I've gradually shifted to thinking that if you don't affirm the epistemic accessibility, the knowability of nature, then you don't really affirm a robust, integral metaphysics of nature. Epistemology and metaphysics can't be separated.

And finally, yes, the sort of aliveness of a believer on this account is a magical ability to get every answer right while everyone else is in utter ignorance! It's absurd. In my time at Westminster Seminary, we only read Reformed literature or read non-Reformed literature in order to critique it. From there, I went to the University of Chicago, where the reading room included this phrase, etched in stone:

Read, not to contradict nor to believe, but to weigh and consider.

It was so much more humane and healthy.

Down with Christian Gnosticism! Up with Christian humanism!

Cheers,

Joel

The University of Chicago