The Affirmation and Unwinding of Total Depravity within Classical Arminianism

By Mark W. Christy, PhD

Despite popular misconceptions, classical Arminians (a group that may exclude many professed Arminians in the contemporary era) have always held tightly to the doctrine of total depravity, just as all faithful Calvinists do. Both believe that the human will was placed into bondage by the sin of Adam. The issue, therefore, between these two groups is not free will; rather, it arises from the Arminian understanding of the distribution of prevenient grace (coming before grace). This grace, which at times is called saving grace, is God’s grace which enables a fallen sinner to respond salvificly to the gospel through repentance and faith in Christ. It is the grace that frees the new believer from the restraints of sin that had been placed upon his/her freewill so that the believer could freely respond to the gospel and become saved. To better understand how the doctrine of total depravity ends up faltering among those adhering to classical Arminianism, this article will examine how Arminianism’s view concerning prevenient grace ends up leading it back to the ancient heresy known as Pelagianism.

Not unfrequently, many will charge Arminians with the ancient heresy known as Pelagianism which, in a nutshell, denied the doctrine of the original sin. This, at least on the surface, may not be wise given the firm stance of classical Arminians on the doctrine of total depravity. Even Arminius himself rejected the Pelagian position.[i] Nevertheless, as John MacArthur, who appears to equate Arminianism with Pelagianism,[ii] observes, the distribution of saving grace (that is, prevenient grace) to all humanity under the Arminian theological framework ends up subverting the doctrine of total depravity when it informs people that “there’s something in the sinner that can respond on the sinner’s own.”[iii] On the popular level and the level at which most popular ministers operate, this has led to teaching upon sin to be all but cast aside in favor of more pragmatic, self-help sermons that provide inspiration and instant emotional gratification. Indeed, this is understandable as one realizes that if it is indeed true that the human will has been released from its bondage due to sin, then one should be able, by their own effort and in their own strength, to help themselves as they give way to the instruction of those who uphold this theology before them.

After Pelagianism was defeated in 431 A. D. at the Council of Ephesus, a similar heresy arose known as semi-pelagianism. This view portrayed humanity as fallen sinners under Adam but unlike Pelagius, held that they still retain enough power of will to turn to God in and of themselves apart from any prevenient grace. Whereas semi-pelagians believe that humanity retained enough ability to respond to God, classical Arminians believe that God apportioned prevenient grace to fallen humanity via the work of Christ, thus enabling them to respond to the gospel freely. Acknowledging the fallen state of humanity, Arminius states, “But in his lapsed and sinful state, man is not capable, of and by himself, either to think, to will, or to do that which is really good; but it is necessary for him to be regenerated and renewed in his intellect, affections or will, and in all his powers, by God in Christ through the Holy Spirit, that he may be qualified rightly to understand, esteem, consider, will, and perform whatever is truly good.”[iv]

To these words, a Calvinist would heartily respond in the affirmative, but then the question that follows would instantly show the divide. That question could be rendered thusly: ‘Since all humanity has hopelessly fallen into sin and lacks the strength of will to make their escape, how can they be expected to respond to the gospel?’ To this, Arminius declares, “It is that perpetual assistance and continued aid of the Holy Spirit, according to which He acts upon and excites to good the man who has been already renewed, by infusing into him salutary cogitations, and by inspiring him with good desires, that he may thus actually will whatever is good; and according to which God may then will and work together with man, that man may perform whatever he wills.”[v] To put his contention succinctly (even though it has been previously noted), Armianius affirms total depravity resolutely, but then argues that God through His Holy Spirit has given humanity prevenient grace such that they can now respond to His offer of salvation freely.

Applying Arminius’ teaching, Tony Evans argues, “But I believe that Jesus Christ in his death covered original sin. But the thing that the death of Christ did was cover and overrule original sin so that no man is condemned because they are born in Adam, but men are condemned because they consciously reject salvation.”[vi] These words from Evans, upon close inspection, demonstrate the fissure within Christian orthodoxy that has been caused by classical Arminianism.

In order for Arminius to be correct, Jesus’ death, as Evans contends, would have had to somehow overrule the consequences of Adam’s sin upon humanity. In Romans 5:12-14, Paul teaches that the sin of Adam caused sin to enter into his being in such a way that the same occurs for all of his descendants. Given that all are born sinners, it is not surprising that Paul would say, “There is none righteous, not even one; There is none who understands, there is none who seeks for God; All have turned aside, together they have become useless; There is none who does good” (Rom 3:10-12).[vii]

Given the state of humanity, the Calvinists appear to have rightly stated that humanity remains utterly incapable of responding to the gospel apart from a regenerating work by God. Arminius, as has already been remarked upon, agrees, but then upholds the idea that a sort of regenerating work has already been done in the hearts of humanity. This prevenient grace did not address their sinfulness, but rather overstepped it and somehow overruled it within their being in such a way that Adam’s sin and its impact upon the beings of his progeny becomes negated. Hence, Tony Evans concludes, “Jesus Christ in his death covered original sin.”

By holding to this Arminian view of humanity, Evans needs not approach his audience as if they are sinners somehow permanently marred in their being as a result of Adam’s fall. Sin, therefore for him, loses its primacy in the gospel call to salvation because the only sin that continues to press against humanity is the sin of not accepting the gospel of Jesus Christ. While Evans would certainly affirm Arminian views on total depravity and the fallenness of humanity apart from prevenient grace, his words demonstrate a sort of back-door undoing of the Arminian position on this matter. By supplanting prevenient grace into the being of fallen humanity and thereby reversing the effect of sin upon the will of fallen beings, humanity inevitably gets placed back into a sort of Garden of Eden where they once again choose between life and death by responding to the gospel one way or the other.

To revisit Adam’s original decision with the same freedom to choose between two options, humanity by default must have their lost ability to respond to God positively reenabled either by the prevenient grace posited by Arminians or some other manner due to the effects of the fall upon humanity’s ability to understand truth. Affirming this, Paul notes that all people are in a sort spiritual stupor that disables their minds from perceiving the truth (Rom 1:18, 21-21, 31). Instead of arguing for prevenient grace as means to resolve this predicament, Jesus says, “unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God” (John 3:3). Jesus’s solution, not surprisingly, confused Nicodemus, and one would think that Jesus would have made an effort to expound with more depth on the topic of being born again (3:4-9). Instead, the more Jesus spoke of “heavenly things,” the more Nicodemus’ own understanding failed him (3:12-13). These heavenly things which undergird Christ’s instruction of being born again, it seems, were only accessible through Jesus in some other way than by reasoning and responding based on such reasoning. Jesus acknowledges this to be the case when He posits personal trust as the solution to Nicodemus’s difficulty: “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life” (3:16).

To recap, those who would be saved need more than simply the will to respond because their ultimate problem lies not in their sinfulness but in their being sinners. To overcome their dilemma, no amount of scholastic knowledge would be sufficient to help them arrive at a saving knowledge by freely acting upon it because their very being would prevent them from even understanding it, much less making a saving response. Instead of scholastic knowledge, they must somehow come to a personal knowledge that surpasses human understanding and is awakened only by trust in Him (cf. Prov 3:5-6). Since those who come to Christ must understand His words and actively respond, and that not all do so (Luke 6:47), it seems abundantly obvious that people lack such understanding by default. This being the case, no one should think that all people have been divinely enabled to respond the gospel freely as Arminius would have it. Instead, they should carefully reflect on Jesus’s own words: “No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him” (John 6:44).

To come to Christ and truly be free from the bondage of sin and its impact in one’s being, one must “know the truth” (John 8:32). When Jesus uttered these words, He was communicating with false confessors of the faith who had sidestepped the effect of Adam’s sin upon the human being much like Arminians currently do. In His reproach, Jesus spoke of the sinful condition that the Jews had inherited through Abraham, but in response the Jews completely overlooked this issue and focused only upon their physical connection to Abraham as his direct descendants (John 8:34-41). In their own words, they ardently demanded, “We were not born of fornication; we have one Father: God” (8:41). Shortly thereafter, Jesus makes clear that since they were not born of God, they could not understand His gospel (8:47).

Lacking the requisite understanding that only those born of God could possess, the decision power, or the will, of the Jews remained hopelessly trapped in futility just as Pauline theology (as discussed previously) demonstrates. Recognizing their conundrum, Jesus responded in the same manner in which He always does, by calling upon His hearers to believe in Him (John 8:46).  Paul, likewise, understood the fallenness of humanity and its affect upon their reasoning power, and echoed the words of Christ by addressing the vital necessity of saving faith for those who would be saved: “For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.” In his confirmation of faith as the critical component of the believer’s response to the gospel call, Paul credits God Himself with the believing response of His people. This, of course, lines up with Jesus’ teachings which have already been highlighted.

---

[i]James Arminius, The Works of James Arminius, Vol. 1 (Grand Rapids: Christian Classics Ethreal), 111, available at: http://faculty.umb.edu/gary_zabel/Courses/Spinoza/Texts/works1.pdf.

[ii]John MacArthur, “Bible Questions and Answers, Part 66” Grace to You (Aug 20, 2017), available at: https://www.gty.org/library/sermons-library/70-42/bible-questions-and-answers-part-66. “You probably have heard the word “Arminian,” but maybe didn’t know about Arminius. But you do know, perhaps, about Charles Finney. Perhaps the most notable early American evangelist. Finney was full-blown Arminian, or as we would say, a Pelagian, because Pelagius taught the same thing.”

[iii]Ibid., “Winning the Battle Against Sin, Part 4,” Grace to You (Feb 23, 2020), available at: https://www.gty.org/library/sermons-library/81-69/winning-the-battle-against-sin-part-4.

[iv]Arminius, The Works of James Arminius, Vol. 1, 129.

[v]Ibid., 130.

[vi]https://nickvoss.wordpress.com/2012/04/07/tony-evans-pelagian/

[vii]All Scripture references are taken from NASB1995.