Basic HTML Version
234
word. This was the error of the Manichæans and of Flacius Illyricus in the days of the
Reformation. If the substance of the soul were sinful, it would have to be replaced by a new
substance in regeneration; but this does not take place. (3) That it is not merely a privation. In
his polemic with the Manichæans, Augustine not merely denied that sin was a substance, but
also asserted that it was merely a privation. He called it a privatio boni. But original sin is not
merely negative; it is also an inherent positive disposition toward sin. This original pollution
may be considered from more than one point of view, namely, as total depravity and as total
inability.
c. Total depravity.
In view of its pervasive character, inherited pollution is called total
depravity. This phrase is often misunderstood, and therefore calls for careful discrimination.
Negatively, it does not imply: (1) that every man is as thoroughly depraved as he can possibly
become; (2 that the sinner has no innate knowledge of the will of God, nor a conscience that
discriminates between good and evil; (3) that sinful man does not often admire virtuous
character and actions in others, or is incapable of disinterested affections and actions in his
relations with his fellow-men; nor (4) that every unregenerate man will, in virtue of his inherent
sinfulness, indulge in every form of sin; it often happens that one form excludes the other.
Positively, it does indicate: (1) that the inherent corruption extends to every part of man’s
nature, to all the faculties and powers of both soul and body; and (2) that there is no spiritual
good, that is, good in relation to God, in the sinner at all, but only perversion. This total
depravity is denied by Pelagians, Socinians, and seventeenth century Arminians, but is clearly
taught in Scripture, John 5:42; Rom. 7:18,23; 8:7; Eph. 4:18; II Tim. 3:2-4; Tit. 1:15; Heb. 3:12.
d. Total inability.
With respect to its effect on man’s spiritual powers, it is called total inability.
Here, again, it is necessary to distinguish. By ascribing total inability to the natural man we do
not mean to say that it is impossible for him to do good in any sense of the word. Reformed
theologians generally say that he is still able to perform: (1) natural good; (2) civil good or civil
righteousness; and (3) externally religious good. It is admitted that even the unrenewed possess
some virtue, revealing itself in the relations of social life, in many acts and sentiments that
deserve the sincere approval and gratitude of their fellow-men, and that even meet with the
approval of God to a certain extent. At the same time it is maintained that these same actions
and feelings, when considered in relation to God, are radically defective. Their fatal defect is
that they are not prompted by love to God, or by any regard for the will of God as requiring
them. When we speak of man’s corruption as total inability, we mean two things: (1) that the
unrenewed sinner cannot do any act, however insignificant, which fundamentally meets with
God’s approval and answers to the demands of God’s holy law; and (2) that he cannot change
his fundamental preference for sin and self to love for God, nor even make an approach to such
a change. In a word, he is unable to do any spiritual good. There is abundant Scriptural support