Humans Are Not Naturally Totally Depraved

 What does it mean for us to say that a person has free will (free moral agency)? It means that God can make a spirit-empowered appeal to a person’s conscience so that he might choose not to resist God Who stands willing to help sinful humans to have their minds enlightened by God’s holy Word, the Bible. The Bible is a record of what God has revealed to us about Himself.

Our affirming free will in God’s rational creatures need not commit us to a doctrine that has it that the sinful world that resulted after God had declared all His creations good (see Genesis 1:26–31) is something that caught God off guard. He did not suffer defeat of His purpose to have a world of humankind, descended from Adam, living in perfect compliance to God’s will. God, as men’s contemporary, has made occur certain events in the world well after the rebellion in Eden such that they guarantee that He will in time certainly own a perfect world of humankind descended from Adam.

The idea that God actualized a world He foreknew would sin is a doctrine that is neither expressly given in Scriptures nor need we infer it from the Scriptures. In fact, it is contrary to the Scriptures. Some “exegetes” have made the doctrine that the best possible world God found that He could create was nonetheless one that He foreknew would fall into sin. Per this doctrine, God had to choose to actualize such a world because even though it would not remain sinless, yet it supposedly was the only one that offered God the maximum number of those being saved. The doctrine has it that in none of the possible worlds God surveyed did He just happen to find that the first human couple He would create (namely, Adam and Eve) would remain sinless and would procreate sinless offspring. One of the problems here is that such a theory of “possible worlds” still compromises God’s sovereignty because the theory portrays Him as One Whose will, as respects some matter, is a will He may have to abandon, even though it ideally (perfectly) suits His character. The doctrine devolves to the place whereby God had to settle for creating a world that He really did not want because He was trumped by a Second Principle beside Himself, a Principle able to specify/dictate to Him at least the range of His possible choices for the world He should have to actualize.

Certain Calvinists escape postulating a Second Principle beside God, but they know that they must hold that God freely chose some sinners to receive salvation, and that God has not done so for all the rest of sinful men. This idea of salvation is, in effect, presented as a thing that God does on the basis of no righteous principle that He be One Who exercises balanced, impartial judgment. That is a stripe of Calvinism that devolves logically—maybe even unwittingly?—to the position that God, who is our contemporary, does not look into the hearts of His temporal creatures before ever He would decide whether to intervene in behalf of a certain few members of a totally depraved world of men. Indeed, why would He intervene on such a basis since He would always find total depravity, so goes the theory, in any individual whom He would inspect? So, the doctrine of intervention held by some is that God intervenes sufficiently (unto eternal salvation), specially and miraculously in just some individuals’ behalf regardless of the total depravity supposedly in everyone’s heart at the time God would make any intervention for some of them. Therefore, such a doctrine has it that God is totally arbitrary in the matter of His deciding the “forever fate” of individuals because His decision to intervene specially and miraculously in the will of some few men is a decision He has made without any need for Him to be able to make logically meaningful distinctions among members of the fallen human race, and that all others who do not get such good will (favor) from God are individuals who had not been predestined, so goes the doctrine, to receive salvation from God. If Abraham had such a concept of God being a totally arbitrary God, then he would have not appealed to God as he did on the occasion narrated for us at Genesis 18:16-33. And God would have not entered into a soliloquy with Himself for asking Himself ‘Am I keeping hidden from Abraham that I am making an inspection of Sodom and Gomorrah to see if the report that has come to my attention about those cities means that I should destroy them?’ (See Genesis 18:16–21.) Really, Abraham’s confidence in God was that God would not act in a way that would mean an arbitrary disregard of what few persons there might possibly be in Sodom and Gomorrah whose conscience had not yet let them sink into totally depraved, abominable conduct.

In the case of Cain, God made powerful intervention in Cain’s behalf; however, He did not choose to disregard Cain’s free will by creating miraculously in a God-resisting Cain an absence of hatred for his brother. Was God being less than honest in His appeal to Cain? God said to him, “Why are you angry, and why has your countenance fallen? If you do well [like your brother Abel does], will you not [also] be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin [(unconscionable, willfully depraved conduct)] is lurking at the door; its desire is for you, but you must master it” (Genesis 4:7 NRSV). But why make appeal to Cain for him to do an impossible thing, for if it entirely depended on God’s miraculously creating in a God-resisting Cain the will for him to turn himself around−and yet God, so goes the false doctrine, had already decided before ever Cain had been born that He was not going to so create such a will in Cain−, then that means that God was not making in real (phenomenal) time, for sake of Cain’s conscience, an honest, sincere appeal to Cain for him to do something about his situation.