The landscape of Christian theology contains doctrines that profoundly shape one's understanding of God, humanity, and salvation. Among the most debated and impactful is the Doctrine of Total Depravity. This doctrine posits a fundamental corruption of human nature due to the Fall, impacting our ability to choose good or respond to God apart from divine intervention. This disputation seeks to critically examine the doctrine, contrasting it with scriptural passages, philosophical arguments for agency, and the atheist critique, ultimately arguing for the primacy of human choice in matters of faith and morality.

The Doctrine of Total Depravity stands in tension not only with other Christian interpretations emphasizing human cooperation with grace but also with deeply rooted philosophical concepts of human agency, self-determination, and moral responsibility, further challenged by secular perspectives that view the entire theological framework as a human construct.

The Doctrine of Total Depravity: Definition and Origins

The Doctrine of Total Depravity, often associated with Augustinian thought and formalized within Calvinism (as the 'T' in the TULIP acronym), does not assert that humans are as evil as they could possibly be, nor that they are incapable of performing actions that are good in a civil or relational sense. Rather, it contends that sin has thoroughly corrupted every aspect of human nature – intellect, emotions, and will – rendering humans spiritually dead and inherently unable, apart from prevenient or regenerating grace, to perform any act that is genuinely righteous in God's eyes, including the act of turning to God in faith. The corruption is total in extent (affecting every part) but not necessarily in degree (people are not maximally evil).

Where does this doctrine originate? While the term "Total Depravity" is not found explicitly in scripture, proponents derive it from interpreting various passages:

• 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." (Often cited to show the pervasive nature of sin before the flood).
• Jeremiah 17:9: "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?" (Used to argue for the inherent untrustworthiness and corruption of the human heart).
• Romans 3:10-12: "as it is written: 'None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one.'" (A key passage used to argue that humanity, left to itself, does not and cannot seek God or achieve righteousness).
• Ephesians 2:1-3: "And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked... carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind." (Interpreted to mean spiritual death and inability prior to God's intervention).

The doctrine, therefore, is a theological construct built upon interpreting these and similar verses through a specific lens, emphasizing human helplessness and the absolute necessity of God's sovereign, initiating grace for salvation.

Inconsistencies and Contradictions within the Christian Framework

While proponents see Total Depravity as a logical deduction from scripture, it creates significant tension with other biblical themes and interpretations:

Less Radical Interpretations

Many Christian traditions (e.g., Arminianism, Methodism, Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy) affirm the Fall and human sinfulness but reject total inability. They might speak of a weakened will or the necessity of God's prevenient grace (grace that goes before) which enables humans to respond freely to the offer of salvation. This maintains human responsibility in the act of faith. Total Depravity, in its stricter forms, seems to negate this cooperative element.

Contradictions with the Literal Word

The Bible is replete with commands, invitations, and calls to decision that seem incongruous with the idea that humans are utterly incapable of responding positively:

• Deuteronomy 30:19: "I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse. Therefore choose life, that you and your offspring may live..." How can God command a choice if the capacity to choose good (life) is entirely absent?
• Joshua 24:15: "...choose this day whom you will serve... But as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD." Again, a direct command to choose.
• Matthew 23:37 (Jesus lamenting over Jerusalem): "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not willing!" This attributes the failure to gather not to inability, but to unwillingness – implying a capacity to be willing.
• Acts 2:38: "And Peter said to them, 'Repent and be baptized every one of you...'" The call to repent implies the ability to do so in response to the message.
• Revelation 3:20: "Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and eat with him, and he with me." This presents Christ seeking entry, contingent on the individual opening the door – an act of will.

These passages strongly suggest a degree of human agency and responsibility in responding to God's initiative, which is difficult to reconcile with the notion of total inability inherent in strict interpretations of Total Depravity.

Human Agency, Self-Determination, and Moral Action

Parallel to theological discussions runs the rich philosophical tradition exploring human agency – the capacity of individuals to act independently and make their own free choices. This includes:

• Self-Determination: The ability to determine one's own course of action, goals, and values.
• Moral Reasoning: The capacity to deliberate about right and wrong, to understand ethical principles, and apply them.
• Moral Action: The ability not just to think about morality, but to act in ways that align with ethical understanding, even when difficult or costly.

This capacity seems inherent in human experience, allowing us to build societies, create laws, and hold each other accountable.

Prominent Philosophers

• Aristotle: Focused on virtue ethics, where humans develop moral character through habituation and rational choice, striving for eudaimonia (flourishing). This presupposes the capacity to choose and act virtuously.
• Immanuel Kant: Argued for the autonomy of the will as the basis of morality. Through reason, humans can discern universal moral laws (the Categorical Imperative) and freely choose to act out of duty. Responsibility hinges on this freedom.
• Jean-Paul Sartre: An existentialist who famously stated "existence precedes essence," emphasizing radical freedom and the individual's responsibility to create their own meaning and values through choices. We are "condemned to be free."

These philosophical perspectives underscore a fundamental human capacity for choice and self-direction. From a theological perspective that doesn't hold to Total Depravity, this inherent agency is precisely what allows individuals to genuinely respond to God's grace. The divine invitation is offered, but it is the individual, utilizing their God-given (though perhaps fallen and weakened) agency, who must choose to accept or reject it. A choice made for someone, without their genuine volitional participation, seems less like a relationship and more like coercion, undermining the basis of love and faith which inherently require freedom.

The Atheist Perspective: A Human Construct

From an atheist or secular humanist perspective, the entire debate surrounding Total Depravity and divine grace is built upon a false premise: the existence of the supernatural, God, sin, and salvation. In this view:

Morality is not divinely ordained but arises from evolutionary processes (empathy, cooperation), social contracts, cultural norms, and rational deliberation aimed at human well-being.

Human agency and responsibility are understood through psychology, neuroscience, and sociology, without reference to spiritual corruption or divine intervention. We are products of nature and nurture, capable of great good and great evil based on our choices, circumstances, and innate capacities. The concepts of "sin" as an offense against God, "spiritual death," and the need for "salvation" are seen as elements of religious mythology, created by humans to explain the world, control behavior, or offer comfort.

Therefore, the doctrine of Total Depravity is not just theologically problematic, but fundamentally irrelevant because it addresses a non-existent problem within a fictional framework. Human agency is simply a feature of our species, exercised within the natural world.

Conclusion: Affirming Choice Over Doctrine

The Doctrine of Total Depravity, while influential in certain theological streams, stands on shaky ground when confronted with contradictory scriptural evidence emphasizing human choice and responsibility, robust philosophical arguments for inherent human agency, and the fundamental critique from secular viewpoints. The insistence that humans are utterly incapable of seeking good or responding to God without prior irresistible grace seems to contradict the very nature of commands, invitations, and expressions of willingness found within the Bible itself. Furthermore, it clashes with our profound, lived experience of making choices, striving for moral improvement, and holding ourselves and others accountable – capacities recognized and explored by philosophy for millennia.

Ultimately, the notion that my will is so bound that I cannot even choose to accept a freely offered gift of grace appears inconsistent and, frankly, counter-intuitive. It diminishes the significance of human decision and the very essence of a relationship based on love, which necessitates freedom.

I possess the agency to weigh evidence, consider possibilities, and make choices, including the choice to accept or reject the Christian invitation to salvation.

Why should I confine my exploration of truth to Christendom alone, especially when faced with doctrines like Total Depravity that seem to contradict reason, experience, and even other parts of its own foundational texts? The universe of potential truths and spiritual paths is vast, and the freedom to explore it, using the agency I demonstrably possess, seems not only a possibility but a fundamental aspect of the human condition. The doctrine of Total Depravity, therefore, appears less like a divine truth and more like a restrictive theological interpretation that fails to account for the complexity of scripture and the reality of human choice.