Depravity and Sanctification
I can’t stop thinking about a post several weeks ago by Tullian Tchividjian titled “Are Christians Totally Depraved?” Tchividjian, if you are not aware, is Billy Graham’s grandson and currently senior pastor of Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church in Ft. Lauderdale, FL., which was previously pastored by the late D. James Kennedy. The question, “Are Christians totally depraved?” piqued my interest because it is one that has often been asked of our students here at DBTS. We currently require our seniors to take a class we call the “Senior Doctrinal Seminar,” where they write out and review their own doctrinal statements. Previous to this class, we required them to write out their statements and face an oral exam before the faculty. Over the years, a number of common questions came to be asked by the faculty, and one of those was, “Are Christians totally depraved?”
The correct answer is “no.” But most students are unsure, and if they do give an answer, it is usually “yes.” This is somewhat understandable if one looks at how total depravity is sometimes defined. Depravity refers to the corruption of sin that is common to all human beings as a result of the Fall (Rom 3:9). Charles Ryrie, for instance, argues that depravity can rightly be called “total” in that the corruption extends to “every facet of man’s nature and faculties” (e.g., heart, mind, emotions, etc.) and that depravity affects all people (Basic Theology, 219). In this sense even regenerate believers are still “totally depraved.”
But there is more to total depravity than these two aspects. Total depravity also means that the unsaved are enslaved to sin, unable to please God, and thus incapable of doing the slightest thing to save themselves. Total depravity includes total inability (Rom 8:7–8; 1 Cor 2:14). But Christians do not suffer from total inability (Rom 8:9). They can please God and thus should not be considered totally depraved.
In his blog post, Tchividjian acknowledged that total depravity means “we are totally unable to go to God” and so in this sense “Christians are obviously not totally depraved.” But then he turns around, in the same post, and argues that “yes,” Christians really are totally depraved. Richard Phillips, senior minister of the Second Presbyterian Church of Greenville, SC, answered Tchividjian in a post titled “Thank God that Christians Are Not Totally Depraved.” One might think that would be the end of the story, but Tchividjian doubled down on his original error in a post titled “Sin Remains: My Response to Rick Phillips.” Amazingly, Tchividjian thinks he is right to refer to Christians as being totally depraved and says Phillips should get over his hang-up about using the phrase in reference to Christians since numerous Reformed creeds and confessions, which Tchividjian quotes, agree with him in stating that Christians are in fact totally depraved. But, in truth, the creeds and confessions cited by Tchividjian do not speak of Christians as being “totally depraved.”
What seems to be eluding Tchividjian is the excluded middle between total depravity and no depravity, that is, simple “depravity.” In other words what Christian theologians (and creeds and confessions) from his own Reformed background consistently teach is that while only unbelievers are totally depraved, believers are still depraved, but it is incorrect to call believers totally depraved. Why is that? Because depravity is the opposite of sanctification. If someone is totally depraved they are in no sense sanctified. Progressive sanctification is the gradual removal of depravity. As believers increase in holiness they decrease in depravity. True, Christians will always be depraved before their final glorification, and this depravity means that every area of their immaterial being is affected by sin. But as believers are progressively sanctified, depravity diminishes. To be totally depraved is to be without any aspect of sanctification, which, of course, is not true of any believer. Believers are becoming holy (sanctified), and thus they are becoming less depraved.
Excellent. Thanks for this!
Well said, sir. I thank God for His enabling you to handle the Word of Truth accurately.
This sound a bit like the RCC teaching where individuals are progressively justified. The NT teaches that one who is in Christ is completely washed, forgiven, righteous, i.e. justified. (John 13:10 and others) It seems as if the two are being confused.
Sanctification is a reference to maturity as one grows in faith.
Josh, I would suggest that the conflation of justification and sanctification is exactly what Bill is trying to avoid. The Roman Catholic Church kills off the biblical doctrine of justification by making it dependent on the believer’s progressive sanctification. Tchividjian kills off practical holiness by subsuming it under justification.
If I could amend your comment, the NT teaches that the one who is in Christ is legally forgiven and declared righteous, i.e., justified, and also practically cleansed, made new, and enabled to become progressively more holy, i.e., regenerated/sanctified.
It’s not necessary to kill off the one in order to maintain the other.
I think your statement is better than the RCC and Tullian. 🙂 But I suggest that Scripture makes the distinctions more like this:
We are made completely clean (reconciled to God, forgiven, justified) through the sacrifice of Christ alone through faith alone. (Ephesians 2, Galatians 3, Hebrews, Romans, etc.)
We maintain that state of justification through faithful obedience to all that Christ has commanded. (Hebrews 10:35-39, 11 all Romans 6, James 2, and others)
Sanctification is the process of becoming more mature and better at resisting sin, essentially we get better at being faithful. (Hebrews 12)
Josh, It appears you may be confusing the two with your statement, “We maintain that state of justification through faithful obedience.” Justification is a one-time, unilateral act of God whereby He declares us righteous in Christ. Once justified, we are given a permanent right standing with God that needs no maintaining on our part. What we do participate in is our sanctification. Perhaps it would be better to say, “We maintain (grow in) progressive sanctification through faithful obedience.”
Jeff – two questions:
1. Where does Scripture define justification as a one-time, unilateral, forensic act?
2. Under your paradigm, how do you explain the following passages which certainly imply or outright teach that a person can be in a right relationship (justified state) with God, but at some point fall out of that justified state? Here are a few . . . an exhaustive list would be extremely long:
the parable of the soils – some receive the Word with gladness (justification via faith alone), but fall away
The wicked servant in Matthew 18:32-35 who was at first forgiven (justified), but then lost that forgiveness because of his unwillingness to forgive.
Galatians 5:4 – Paul makes it clear that it is possible to “fall from grace” and to be “severed from Christ”. A person who has received the grace of God and a person who is in union with Christ is justified, right? A person who is not connected to Christ cannot be “severed.”
John 15 – Branches that were once growing on the Vine (justified) can be removed and thrown into the fire.
In 1 Corinthians 6:11, Paul tells those believers that they were washed, sanctified and justified (in a right relationship with God). But in 2 Cor. 5:20 he tells the exact same group that they need to “be reconciled” to God (justified) and that “today is the day of salvation.”
Hebrews 6 – In order to make your statement work in this passage, you have to say that one who is “enlightened,” “has tasted the heavenly gift,” has “shared in the Holy Spirit,” has “tasted the goodness of the Word” is not actually justified. To say nothing of re-crucifying Christ . . . Clearly this person was justified and because of certain criteria (cannot be dissected in such a short convo), this person cannot be restored to their previous state of justification.
Clearly, the members of the churches in Revelation 2-3 are full of warnings directed at justified people . . . and the warnings are that these people can lose their justification.
If these passages are not speaking of a loss of justification, what are they speaking of?
Btw – salvation is not the same as justification – those that God has predestined to final salvation, will attain to that end.
Josh,
I think Rom 8:29-30 counters your idea that justification can be lost. If all those who are justified are glorified, there is no room for a justified person to no longer be justified.
I don’t have time to answer your question towards the end: “If these passages are not speaking of a loss of justification, what are they speaking of?” However, those passages have been addressed by many different people in many different venues. For example, you could check out Dr. Compton’s article on Hebrews 6. https://dbts.edu/journals/1996_1/HEB6.PDF
Ben
Ben, what I am saying is that one can be justified without being elected. If any of the “links” in the golden chain are removed . .. final salvation (glorification) will not occur.
Josh,
“what I am saying is that one can be justified without being elected.” Again, not according to Romans 8:29-30. Paul’s point in the passage is not that removing a link means glorification won’t happen. It is actually that having a link means glorification will happen. Otherwise his message does not fit the context. If it is possible to have justification but, because you lack election, not attain glorification then Paul is lying. He does not say “All those who are justified and elected will be glorified.” He just says “All those who are justified are glorified”. So, if you’ve been justified, then you are certainly going to be glorified.
Though I would love to have an extended back and forth on this topic, I’m not sure the comments of a blog post are the ideal setting. However, I would recommend you take a look at a couple of resources that counter your view of final justification.
D. A. Carson, “The Vindication of Imputation,” in Justification: What’s at Stake in the Current Debates, ed. Mark Husbands and Daniel J. Treier (Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varity Press, 2004)
Hywel R. Jones, “Justification by Faith Alone” in Covenant, Justification, and Pastoral Ministry, ed. R. Scott Clark (Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R Publishing, 2007)
Two quick comments on your passages.
First, much of the tension you note is due to the authors of Scripture employing a judgment of charity. They speak to all those in the visible church as though they were truly justified, based on their profession of faith. However, their failure to persevere reveals that their profession was false (cf. 1 Jn 2:19). They were part of the visible church but not part of the true church.
Second, a quick note on Jn 15. The passage does not talk about branches that were once growing on the vine but no longer are, but branches that bear fruit and those that do not bear fruit. Why do some branches not bear fruit? Because they are not receiving the fruit-bearing life-source that comes from connection to the vine. The contrast is not between branches that continue to bear fruit and those that stop, but between branches that are vitally connected to the vine (abiding in Christ and, thus, bearing fruit) and those that are not vitally connected to the vine–they only appear to be, but the connection is external only. In summary, Jn 15 does not talk about people who have been justified but later lose their justification. You’re reading that into the passage. So to answer your question “If these passages are not speaking of a loss of justification, what are they speaking of?” for this passage–it is speaking about the difference between those who are justified and those who are not.
Ben
Josh, I see from your website that you believe justification is not immutable and can be lost by a believer’s unfaithfulness. I still think you are confusing justification with perseverance in the faith. Many of the passages above address perseverance and the necessary fruit of a regenerate life. You argue what is happening in these passages is a loss of justification; I would argue that it shows a lack of justification and regeneration in the first place.
You asked for Scripture. In Rom. 5:1-2 Paul describes justification from a past perspective whereby a believer has been brought into a state of acceptance and peace with God and transferred into the realm of grace where he now stands. This perspective is possible because justification is an once-for-all act.
Let me ask you this: How do you define justification? If it is not a one-time act, does it happen over and over again? Are you saying a sinner can be justified multiple times? And what about the pardon and forgiveness for sins that justification provides – must sins be pardoned and forgiven again? Also, if it is not unilateral, are you saying a sinner (along with God) justifies himself? Is the basis of justification the sinner’s faith or the imputed righteousness of Christ?
If you believe in the loss of justification, what does it say about other aspects of salvation? When a sinner becomes “unjustified,” does he also lose his union with Christ and his adoption? It seems he would have to lose these also if he is no longer justified.
Your final statement above: “Btw – salvation is not the same as justification – those that God has predestined to final salvation, will attain to that end.” The golden chain in Rom. 8:29-30 shows that justification is an essential link between predestination and glorification: “Those whom he justified he also glorified.” Justification guarantees final salvation.
Jeff, your statements undermine sola fide. You seem to be saying that a person can express faith, become a part of the covenant community, and even have the Holy Spirit, but we are to think that something additional is needed for that person to be justified?
Let’s just take one small part of the passages that I quoted – none of which you addressed. But just taking Galatians 5:4 – the fact that Paul tells the Galatians that they have been “severed from Christ.” At minimum, they were once in union with Christ and are no longer in union with Christ. Are you saying that a person who is severed from Christ still has justification which remains intact?! Or that they were in union with Christ, but not justified?!
We are made clean through faith alone in Christ alone. I affirm sola fide. God will honor a person with faith as small as a grain of mustard . . .However, “For we have come to share in Christ, if indeed we hold our original confidence firm to the end.” Hebrews 3:14 Only those who walk in faithful obedience to the end will be saved in the end. Many will profess for a time – and God is not a liar, He justifies them, but if they are not elect, they fall away and one who falls away does not retain his justification.
Josh,
So, according to you, God justifies people He has not chosen because they make a profession of faith. Even though He knows He will not glorify them (because they will fall away), God still justifies them because they have some form of faith. Thus, according to you, there is another alternative to Rom. 8:29-30: Those He did not foreknow, did not predestine, did not call, He justified, but He will not glorify.
Where’s the biblical support for this?
Josh,
My statements don’t undermine sola fide at all. I am saying that person of which you speak has not expressed saving faith, has not been joined to the Body of Christ by Spirit baptism, and does not possess the indwelling Holy Spirit.
Profession of faith does not equal genuine, saving faith. Do you think there is such a thing as spurious faith (John 2:23-25)? Jesus did not entrust Himself to those with that kind of faith. Why would God justify the same?
What is the biblical difference between “faith” and “saving faith”?
And it would be helpful if you used the parable of the soils, Matthew 18, Galatians 4 or Hebrews 6 in your explanation.
“What is the biblical difference between “faith” and “saving faith”?”
John 2:23-25
Is it the number of really, really, really’s that come before “I really believe”?
Btw, John 2 says nothing about the people’ justification or lack thereof . . . I’m not sure how it pertains to this argument.
Well . . . other than the passages I have already quoted . . .
Judas was certainly justified and lost that justification – unless you happen think he is in heaven.
Also, Romans 9:22-23 – these are people who were once in covenant with God (justified): What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory.
Matthew 8:12 – the sons of the kingdom (at one point justified individuals) will be thrown into outer darkness.
The parable of the servant who was once forgiven (justified), but then loses his state of forgiveness (justification) because of his unwillingness to forgive another.
Check out these statements from Revelation – all said by Christ to churches filled with justified individuals. These justified people are threatened with:
The removal of a lampstand (Revelation 2:5)
Injury via the second death (Revelation 2:11)
That Christ might “war against” them (Revelation 2:16)
Church members being struck dead (Revelation 2:23)
That Christ might come at them like a thief (Revelation 3:3)
Soiled garments (Revelation 3:4)
Being blotted out of the Book of Life (Revelation 3:5)
One’s crown being seized (Revelation 3:11)
Being spewed out of the mouth of God (Revelation 3:16)
So . . . unless you think that Christ is speaking to people who have expressed faith, been baptized and are in the church yet somehow still unjustified or if you think that one can be blotted out of the book of life, but still retain his justification (Both biblical impossibilities),then you must believe that a person can lose his justification if he is not faithful to the covenant.
Josh,
How do you know Judas was “certainly justified?”
Why would it be impossible for someone to express a false profession of faith, be baptized and join a church?
You set up your arguments as either/or but do not allow other options. As to the many passages you refer, context and the author’s argument can lend to a different interpretation than you hold.
Judas performed miracles by the power of the Holy Spirit without being justified?
What exactly is a false profession of faith?
So, humor me. Tell me how a person can receive the Word with joy, start to grow, but not be justified? (parable of the soils)
How can a person be “severed from Christ”, but never have been justified in the first place? (Galatians 4)
How can a person taste of the Spirit, et al but cannot return because by doing so, Christ would have to be crucified on their behalf AGAIN? (Hebrews 6)Did that person somehow benefit from Christ’s sacrifice without being justified? How does that happen?
It is a marriage – we are married to Christ on the basis of a profession of faith (marriage ceremony), but our marriage to Christ will not continue, we will be divorced, if we are not faithful (just like an earthly marriage).
Josh
Paul is not speaking judicially in Galatians but practically. If we accept the principle that our salvation is secured and guaranteed by God’ s integrity, and we must, this informs us about the nature or context of Paul’s analogy. And after one is justified, to attempt to re-justify or add continued justification via performance is to lose sight, I.e. fall away from, the initial understanding one had when he believed and was justified. It is not to fall away from being saved but to fall from the correct understanding of justification, hence a practical severing.
To the response itself. I believe to state that the unregenerate man cannot please God without qualification opens the door to many problems. No man can please God with respect to meriting salvation but the unregenerate can please God in some ways and are commended so in Scripture, it simply is that it cannot rise to divine righteousness which is what God requires that a person may be saved.
Dr. Combs,
You wrote, “Charles Ryrie, for instance, argues that depravity can rightly be called “total” in that the corruption extends to “every facet of man’s nature and faculties” (e.g., heart, mind, emotions, etc.) and that depravity affects all people (Basic Theology, 219). In this sense even regenerate believers are still “totally depraved.” How is it that after regeneration there is no part of the believer that is not corrupt? How do verses like 2 Cor. 5:17 fit into the mix?
Judas performed miracles by the power of the Holy Spirit without being justified?
What exactly is a false profession of faith?
So, humor me. Tell me how a person can receive the Word with joy, start to grow, but not be justified? (parable of the soils)
How can a person be “severed from Christ”, but never have been justified in the first place? (Galatians 4)
How can a person taste of the Spirit, et al but cannot return because by doing so, Christ would have to be crucified on their behalf AGAIN? (Hebrews 6)Did that person somehow benefit from Christ’s sacrifice without being justified? How does that happen?
_____________
Josh,
A second note. These are good questions, very good ones which, while I do not support your view that one maintains justification by faithfulness, you correctly point out flaws in Reformed/Calvinistic theology to which, I, myself, once held but now reject from further study.
You press correctly, how can one be severed if they have never been attached to Christ? They can’t. Thus the answer that it was a false profession fails. It is a real profession and I have answered that above in my earlier post.
Per the parable of the soils, again correct. Only one is identified by our Lord as not believing and being saved, the first. The others are viewed identically as receiving the seed (the gospel) and coming (phuo or sumphuo) to life. Their distinction is their maturity level. In fact, one of them is said to have born fruit just immature fruit so how could that even happen if they were not really justified. If you are dead you cannot bear fruit, not even immature fruit.
As to Judas, the operation of the Holy Spirit empowering him does not necessarily assume salvation. That is, in the NT the believer’s body becomes the residence of God the Holy Spirit making a temple, individually and corporately with the church.
But the baptism by and indwelling of God the Holy Spirit for the church age believer which signifies our salvation is not synonymous with empowerment or the coming upon one by the Holy Spirit. Yes, it begs the question then, “You mean to say God the Holy Spirit would empower an unregenerate man”? There is nothing in Scripture which requires we view it as forbidden, incomprehensible or incompatible with God that he would come upon an unregenerate person via God the Holy Spirit to empower him for a certain task. A donkey spoke and it did not require the donkey to be justified for God’s Spirit to empower the donkey to speak. But that is a bit far afield per the article and I am a guest commenting so let me end here.
Chip said: “How is it that after regeneration there is no part of the believer that is not corrupt? How do verses like 2 Cor. 5:17 fit into the mix?”
I am not sure if I am grasping exactly what you are asking Chip, but let me try. After regeneration the believer is still corrupt in his immaterial part. Humans are made up of two parts: immaterial and material. The Bible uses different terms (e.g., heart, mind, will, soul, spirit, etc.) to describe different aspects or functions of the immaterial part. The believer’s immaterial part is still corrupt, still sinful after regeneration. But after regeneration the believer has a new aspect or new nature, if you please. Sanctification means that the corruption of the immaterial part is being diminished or gradually eradicated, to use Warfield’s terminology.
The believer is a new creation (2 Cor 5:17) in that he is no longer totally depraved; he is no longer a slave to sin (Rom 6:17, 22); he has a new nature. He is a “new man.” To use John Murray’s terminology, he is a new man in whom sin still dwells.
You might want to read a couple of articles I have written on this subject: “The Disjunction Between Justification and Sanctification in Contemporary Evangelical Theology” at https://dbts.edu/journals/2001/Combs.pdf
and “Does the Believer Have One Nature or Two?” at https://dbts.edu/journals/1997/Nature.pdf
Uh – well – I forgott what I believed 17+ years ago, so I looked up my m.div doc statement from those days. First, wow – that’s impressive – I knew much more in those days than I do today. Second, I actually had this one right. I had written a little cript note to myself that while non-believers were totally depraved – believers could not be totally depraved in the same way because they were partakers in the Divine nature. The way I said it both then and now is that the shadow of their former depravity still draps over them to the degree they yield to sin and the flesh. Great article Dr. Bill – fun wathing the various back and forth. God bless you guys!
Straight Ahead!
Joel Tetreau
M.Div class of 95′
PS – Don’t we believe that DBTS grads are even less influenced by their former depravity when compared to the grads of other postgraduate institutions? I’m very sure we all believed that – or where taught that. Oh – I can’t remember – been a long time! 🙂
Joel,
I think you are correct regarding your post script.
Allen Mickle
M.Div. class of 04′