The idea that babies are born depraved is not a very popular doctrine—even among those who attend Calvinistic churches. For those who may be unaware, Calvinism is the theology of Augustine (354–430) that Reformer John Calvin (1509–1564) reworked and popularized. The first tenet of Calvinism is that every child is born depraved, meaning that he comes into the world already corrupted, perverted, degenerate, and debased. He cannot have a single good or decent thought unless the Holy Spirit performs a work of grace upon him. Most parents look at their baby, pure and innocent, and say, “Nah!”
So, while their theology teaches total hereditary depravity, their personal experience tells them it is not so. Now if children came into the world as teenagers, the concept would be more credible. But the fact is that it takes time for children to become corrupt; they are not born that way.
However, the more an error is repeated, the more likely it is to be believed. Denominational authors, therefore, are constantly calling attention to this doctrine of depravity. For example, in Joe Dallas’ book, Speaking of Homosexuality, he makes the following statement: “Paul then listed twenty-three other behaviors springing from our fallen nature (1:29-31)…” (190). [For information on this book, listen to the sermon, “Did Jesus Teach Anything Concerning Homosexuality?” at our website, cocwp.org. This sermon is listed under Video (seen at the top of the page).]
Romans 1:29-31 does not say anything about 23 forms of bad behavior emanating from our “fallen nature.” These behaviors were the result of: 1) the people under discussion giving up God; and 2) God giving them up. Paul begins this passage by saying that no one can be excused for not knowing that God exists because the Creation declares His presence (Rom. 1:18-20).
In fact, the people who lived after the Flood knew God, but they did not glorify Him as God, nor were they thankful to Him for having given them a cleansed earth on which to live. They became futile in their thoughts. Now notice this next clause: “…and their foolish hearts were darkened.” The Greek word, skotos, is translated “darkness” all 32 times in the King James, including people being cast into the outer darkness (Matt. 8:12). As a verb, skotizomai is translated “be, shall be, was, or were darkened.” In other words, something is in the process of being darkened, whether the sun (Matt. 24:29) one’s eyes (Rom. 11:10), or one’s heart.
Question: If all are born depraved, they have no light in them; so how can their hearts grow darker? Can someone become depraveder than depraved? If, so, how is that possible? This one verse by itself demonstrates that people are not born depraved.
Dallas goes on to say just five lines later: “Paul called homosexuality the result of a fallen nature…” (190). The Apostle Paul said no such thing. What Paul said was that, since people changed the glory of the incorruptible God into idolatrous images, God gave them up to uncleanness (Rom. 1:21-24). At this point, they began practicing homosexuality (Rom. 1:24-27). However, if people are born depraved, as bad as they will ever be, then how do they get worse?
The point is that one cannot talk about our depraved sinful nature and at the same time find that man is becoming progressively worse after the introduction of idolatry. Dallas closes this paragraph by affirming “Man’s nature is hopelessly corrupt,” citing Romans 1:28-32. But when did it become so—when man sinned in the Garden of Eden or when, after the Flood, man chose to invent and worship idols? The answer is neither. Man cannot be totally depraved and also become totally depraved.
Free Will
In the last chapter of his book, Dallas makes suggestions as to the way we might approach the subject of homosexuality with practicing homosexuals. He first reminds the reader that the world is “in rebellion against God” (Eph. 2:2) and then says: “Add to this hostile environment the sin nature we’ve all inherited…” (226). He cites 1 Corinthians 2:24, Romans 3:10, and Romans 7:18.
According to Calvinism, we became totally depraved when Adam and Eve sinned; and we cannot make any right choices until the Holy Spirit cleanses us so that we can believe. Without this action (which they refer to as “irresistible grace”), we can neither think nor act properly. So then, why does Dallas tell us to reason with such depraved individuals? He actually says, “A heart that’s softened toward God receives the truth and conforms to it” (227). What? How does a totally depraved heart become softened? If the answer is that the Holy Spirit has changed it, then it would not just be softened but pliable and interested in truth.
He then says that homosexuals can become convicted to give up their sin. How? It is the result of “a combination of our biblical words, the hearer’s conscience, and the Spirit’s inner prodding” (231). Whoa! What conscience? Totally depraved individuals have a conscience? Why? What do they need one for? They have no power to choose what is right—if they are totally depraved. And why would Biblical words have any effect on them? A totally depraved heart cannot accept them. It must be that Dallas is a soft Calvinist, a modified Calvinist, or Arminian, which is difficult to understand. If a person is not born totally depraved, what is he—partially depraved? How does that work? How does he have both a sinful nature and a free will?
And what does Dallas mean when he refers to “the Spirit’s inner prodding.” Is he telling us that the Holy Spirit is living inside someone with a sinful nature? Really? This suggestion is simply too preposterous, and it is not the way Calvinism works. According to it, the Holy Spirit would need to do an operation on the sinner’s heart, thus allowing him to be converted and give up the sin of homosexuality. (If Dallas does not mean the Holy Spirit is prodding from within, what does he mean?)
Only those who believe in free will know that the Scriptures have the power to change men’s minds (Heb. 4:12) and that all people have consciences. Dallas believes in a sinful nature, but argues like those of us who believe in free will.
“Sinful Nature”
We are scarcely surprised to see Calvinism (in some form) expressed by denominational authors, but now we are seeing it in the Lord’s church. How did it get there? It probably results from two sources: 1) Brethren playing footsies with denominationalists (reading books by Calvinists); and 2) Brethren using the NIV. Some preachers use the NIV, and some congregations have NIVs as pew Bibles. It is almost as if no one had ever read Foy Wallace’s A Review of the New Versions or read numerous warnings from Brother Robert R. Taylor on the subject. Many brethren have cautioned against the translation—apparently to no avail. This writer penned a chapter on the NIV for A Handbook on Bible Translation edited by Terry M. Hightower in 1995. Part of that chapter provides one argument against such a translation, which is reprinted below from pages 757-58:
The Implications of a “Sinful Nature”
Why protest this unfortunate rendering of “sinful nature”? It has long been held a matter of logic that any teaching which implies a false doctrine is itself false. What ideas does “a sinful nature” suggest? If man has a “sinful nature,” where did he get it? The first choice is that God created us that way. If so, then He can hardly expect us to do anything other than sin. If we all possess an uncontrollable urge to sin, and God put it there, how can He accuse us of choosing wrongly? Does anyone condemn a crippled man for not walking or a blind man for not seeing? Likewise, if God put within us an unfailing desire to sin, how then can we be justly blamed and condemned?
The Bible teaches that when God finished the Creation (including man), it was very good (Gen. 1:31). Such could not be said if man were created with a “sinful nature.” In such a case, sin would have been waiting for a chance to express itself. Rather, we were created with free will, which allows sin to be an option, but not a necessity.
That we have free will is the reason we are encouraged to make the right decision. God calls for us to obey (Mat. 11:28-30; Rev. 22:17). We still have the choice to obey or disobey—even as God’s people. Joshua commanded the people to choose whom they would serve (Jos. 24:14-15). If we fail to please God, it will be our fault. Freedom of choice is that which allows God to hold us accountable. Animals won’t be judged; they cannot help being what they are; humans can.
The second way that man might have obtained a sinful nature is through the “fall.” Somehow, when man sinned, he became depraved and incapable of doing good. The nature of man changed at that moment, Calvinists say. But there are a few problems with this theory. The first is that hereditary total depravity is unnecessary to explain why people sin today. Ask a Calvinist for the reason, and he will answer: “Depravity.” Then ask: “Is that why Adam sinned?” “Oh, no; Adam was made in the image of God. Mankind only became depraved after the ‘fall.'” If Adam did not need depravity in order to sin, why do we? Free will explains both situations; depravity explains neither.
Also, the “fall” rationale carries with it the same basic problems the first theory has. How is mankind benefited if Adam was not created depraved, but we are? We still would not be able to help it; our sinfulness would not be our fault. God could still not hold us accountable. Besides, God told even Cain (after the “fall”) that he had a choice: he could do well or give in to sin (free will). Someone could perform a real service by polling the NIV translators. It would be interesting to find out how many of them believe in the tenets of Calvinism and how many of them think that man is born in a depraved condition. Where else would they get the idea of “sinful nature”? Their repeated use of this phrase disqualifies the NIV as a reliable, accurate, or unbiased translation.
One More Thought
If all human beings have “a sinful nature,” then why didn’t Jesus have one? “Oh, but He was fathered by the Holy Spirit.” Yes, but his mother was Mary, and Jesus would have received “a sinful nature” from her. Jesus called Himself the Son of God but also the Son of Man, meaning that He was fully human. If all human beings are tainted by the fall, then Jesus was tainted by it as well. The Word became flesh (John 1:14).
Oddly enough, the New International Version (NIV) does not translate the Greek word sarx as “sinful nature” when it pertains to Jesus. They use the word they should have used in all the passages—“flesh.” Jesus did not abolish the enmity between the Jews and the Gentiles in His “sinful nature” (Eph. 2:15). He did so in His flesh (to be continued).