Total Depravity Verse List by Travis Carden

"The doctrine of total depravity (or total inability) says that all men, as a consequence of the Fall, are born morally corrupt, enslaved to sin, at enmity with God, and unable to please Him or even of themselves to turn to Christ for salvation. (Thus the necessity of a gracious, unconditional election.) Here is a sweeping survey of the biblical support for the doctrine."  See Travis' site for a generous list of passages that forcefully teach this crucial doctrine. 

J. C. Ryle on the Doctrine of Election

Those men and women whom God has been pleased to choose from all eternity, He calls in time, by His Spirit working in due season. He convinces them of sin. He leads them to Christ. He works in them repentance and faith. He converts, renews, and sanctifies them. He keeps them by His grace from falling away entirely, and finally brings them safe to glory. In short God’s eternal Election is the first link in that chain of a sinner’s salvation of which heavenly glory is the end. None ever repent, believe, and are born again, except the Elect. The primary and original cause of a saint’s being what he is, is eternal God’s election.

The doctrine here stated, no doubt, is peculiarly deep, mysterious, and hard to understand. We have no eyes to see it fully. We have no line to fathom it thoroughly. No part of the Christian religion has been so much disputed, rejected, and reviled as this. None has called forth so much of that enmity against God which is the grand mark of the carnal mind. Thousands of so-called Christians profess to believe the Atonement, salvation by grace, and justification by faith, and yet refuse to look at the doctrine of Election. The very mention of the word to some persons is enough to call forth expressions of anger, ill-temper, and passion. But, after all, is the doctrine of Election plainly stated?...

I place these eleven texts[1] before my readers, and I ask them to consider them well. If words have any meaning at all, they appear to me to teach most plainly the doctrine of personal Election. In the face of such texts I dare not refuse to believe that it is a Scriptural doctrine. I dare not, as an honest man, shut my eyes against the plain, obvious sense of Bible language. If I once began to do so, I should have no ground to stand on in pressing the Gospel on an unconverted man. I could not expect him to believe one set of texts to be true, if I did not believe another set. The eleven texts above quoted seem to my mind to prove conclusively that personal Election is a doctrine of Scripture. As such I must receive it, and I must believe it, however difficult it may be. As such I ask my readers this day to look at it calmly, weigh it seriously, and receive it as God’s truth.

From Old Paths, 264.

---

[1] Matt. 24:22, 31; Mk. 13:22; Lk. 18:7; Rom. 8:29—30, 33; Eph. 1:4; 2 Thess. 2:13; 2 Tim. 1:9; 1 Pet. 1:2; 2 Pet. 1:10.   

What Does John 6:44 Really Mean?

The verse begins, “No man…” (Gk. οὐδείς).  This is what is called a universal negative, which means that every member of the class is excluded.  What, then, is negated with reference to all humanity?  Well, it is “can” (δύναμαι).  This term denotes ability.  Consider the BDAG definition, the standard of Greek lexicons: “to possess the capability (whether because of personal or external factors) for experiencing or doing something.”  So, what do we have thus far?  You could say it many ways.  But simply put it means that no person has the ability or capability to experience or do something, namely what follows in the verse—“come.”

Therefore, as it is, John 6:44—so far—means that no person (universally) has the capability to come to Jesus.  This seems to lead to a dire circumstance.  Thankfully, there is an exception.

That exception is “except” or “unless” (ἐὰν μή).  This conjunctive particle prepares the way for a condition.  Hence, no person has the capability of coming to Christ, unless...something.  That something is, if and only if the “Father who sent me draws him.”  So, the Father’s drawing is the only condition that excepts humanity’s universal inability to come to Christ. 

The term “draw” (ἕλκω) cannot be reduced, as is often done by Arminians, to mean “woo” or charm or some such thing.  It connotes an external force of power with the passivity of the object.  For example, “Simon Peter went up, and drew (ἕλκω) the net to land full of great fishes” (Jn. 21:11). “Do not rich men oppress you, and draw (ἕλκω) you before the judgment seats?” (Jas. 2:6).  “They caught Paul and Silas, and drew (ἕλκω) them into the marketplace unto the rulers” (Acts 16:19).  “And all the city was moved…and they took Paul, and drew (ἕλκω) him out of the temple” (21:30).  You see, then, it is not by the power of the object of ἕλκω that is intended but its subject, according to biblical usage. 

Therefore, John 6:44 means that no person has the capability of coming to Christ, except or unless the condition of the Father’s drawing occurs.  Who, though, does the Father draw?  According to Jesus in John 6:37, “All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.”  “All” indicates another universal.  In this case, it is a universal affirmative rather than negative, as in v. 44.  All of those given by the Father to the Son will come.  Therefore, to state it negatively, none of those who do not come were given of or drawn by the Father to the Son.  Therefore, all and only those given to the Son by the Father (i.e., the elect) will come to Christ, which God makes possible by doing that which is humanly impossible, giving them the ability to come, thus drawing them.  That is what John 6:44 means, which is exactly what many claim, “No, it does not.” 

Some respond by invoking John 6:45, “It is written in the prophets, 'And they shall be all taught of God.' Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.”  In so doing, they want the word “all” to ring in the ear.  This is a citation of Isaiah 53:14, however, which was originally and exclusively spoken to Israel, the elect, which confounds their case.  Moreover, it is begging the question.  What is the antecedent for “they” in v. 45?  It is the “given” ones of v. 37, the “drawn” ones of v. 44.  Therefore, it is fallacious in the highest degree to appeal to v. 45 to tell us who those are in v. 44, since v. 44, according to the most basic principles of grammar and hermeneutics, tells us who those in v. 45 are—the elect.  

LIMITED ATONEMENT FROM JOHN 10

(A) Jesus laid his life down for the sheep (vv 11, 15, 18).
   (A. 1) If, Jesus' death was intended to atone only for those who believe;[i]
   (A. 2) and, being a sheep is a necessary precondition for belief (v 26),[ii]
   (A. 3) then, Jesus' death was intended to atone only for sheep.
(B) Certain ones, however, are not sheep (v 26).
(C) Therefore, Jesus' death was not intended to atone for non-sheep.

(D) The intent of the atonement was, therefore, limited.

---

[i] E.g., Jn 6:37—40 plainly states that all whom the Father gives the Son will come (ἤξει, the future, active indicative of ἥκω) to the Son; of those who come, the Son will never, never cast out (note double negative in the Greek); Jesus came to do only the will of the Father, which was to raise up on the last day all those given him, losing nothing.  The Father’s will, finally, is that every believing-one on Jesus should have eternal life (see also Jn 3:16 below).  Therefore, it is God’s will that only believers gain eternal life.  For these, and these only, did Jesus’ death atone. 

The same is demonstrable from Jn 3:16.

JOHN 3:14b—16 (trans. mine)

14b.   οὕτως ὑψωθῆναι δεῖ τὸν Υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου, 15a.   ἵνα πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων εἰς αὐτὸν μὴ ἀπόληται,            b.   ἀλλ᾿ ἔχῃ ζωὴν αἰώνιον. 16a.   οὕτω γὰρ ἡγάπησεν ὁ Θεὸς τὸν κόσμον,         b.   ὥστε τὸν υἱὸν τὸν μονογενῆ ἔδωκεν,         c.    ἵνα πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων εἰς αὐτὸν μὴ ἀπόληται,             d.    ἀλλ᾿ ἔχῃ ζωὴν αἰώνιον.

14b.   In this manner, [also], the Son of Man [must be lifted up, supplied from 14a], 15a.    in order that [or, for the purpose of] every believing-one into Him may not perish,         b.    but may have life eternal. 16a.   [This is so] because, in this manner did God love the cosmos,     b.   that He gave His only Son [to be lifted up on the cross],     c.    in order that [or, for the purpose of] every believing-one into Him may not perish,         d.    but have life eternal.

Granting the hina (Gk. ἵνα) clauses of v 15a and 16c, it is clear that the divine intention of the Father’s giving of the Son unto his cross-work was hina, that is, for the purpose of, or having the result of, eternal life for every believing-one in Christ.  The divine intention of Jesus’ cross-work and death was for those who would believe, regardless of how one may think that one comes to believe (see also 1 Jn 4:10). 

Romans 3:21—26, the heart of Paul’s gospel, which bears out similar evidence.  God’s saving righteousness, through the setting forth of Jesus was “for all who believe” (v 22).  “Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith” (vv 24c—25a ESV).  God put forward the propitiatory, wrath-satisfying, life-giving blood of Jesus “to be received by faith.”  This way, God might be both just and the justifier of the “one who has faith in Jesus” (v 26b).  The divine intention behind putting Jesus forth as Propitiator was only for those who believe, who have faith in Jesus.  Gal 2:16—21 also bear the same witness. 

[ii] Careful attention to the Greek is paramount for a correct understanding of the force of this premise (actually, it is prima facie clear in the English, but the Greek nuances only strengthen the plain English reading). John 10:26 reads, ἀλλ᾿ ὑμεῖς οὐ πιστεύετε· / οὐ γὰρ ἐστὲ ἐκ τῶν προβάτων τῶν ἐμῶν, / καθώς εἶπον ὑμῖν.  The γὰρ signals the grounds clause, which is “because (gar) you are not my sheep.”  The common conception of the principle that Jesus here expresses is that, certain people are not Jesus’ sheep, because they do not believe; or, similarly, one becomes a sheep of Jesus’ fold by believing.  Of course this latter expression is true, as far as it goes.  However, what is explicit in this verse is that one comes to believe by being a sheep; or, similarly, as Jesus puts it, certain people do not believe, because he or she is not one of his sheep.  Therefore, being a sheep is a necessary precondition for belief (see similarly, Jn 8:47).

Also to be noted, with reference to premise (B) above, is the hyperbatonic positioning of the οὐ in the second clause.  In this, Jesus emphatically stresses the fact that some of those to whom he is speaking are NOT (οὐ) his sheep.  

The Trilemma of the Atonement: An Argument for Particular Redemption

Few theological questions can ignite a firestorm of controversy as easily as the question concerning the divine intent of Christ’s cross-work.  At the center of this issue is the query, for whose sins did Christ die?  This question creates a trilemma; only three answers are possible.  Christ’s death propitiated and satisfied for either (1) some of the sins of all people, (2) all of the sins of some people, or (3) all of the sins of all people.  The Reformed perspective of the intent of Christ’s death, that his death atoned for all of the sins of only some people, is the correct view of the atonement.

Option one (1), which states that Christ died for some of the sins of all people, is essentially the Roman Catholic position.  On this view, Christ’s death propitiated the wrath of God against humanity’s guilt of original sin.  Postbaptismal sins, however, must be atoned for through the efforts of the believer by means of good works.  This truncated view is utterly foreign to a biblical theology of what Christ’s death accomplished.  If option (1) is the case, then all people have innumerable sins for which Christ did not die. Consequently, one is not actually saved by Christ’s death, if option one is the case. 

            Option two (2),the historic Reformed understanding of the atonement, holds that Christ died for all of the sins of some people.  These beneficiaries are variously related to Christ as “his people” (Matt. 1:21), his “friends” (Jn. 15:13), his “body” (Eph. 5:23—26), his “Bride” (Rev. 19:7), his “church” (Acts 20:28), and his “sheep” for whom he lays down his life (Jn. 10:11, 15).  In theological parlance, the term of choice is the “elect” (Rom. 8:32—34).  On this view, option two, Christ’s death efficaciously accomplished the full redemption of  some people, namely the elect. 

            Option three (3) is that Christ died for all of the sins of all people without exception.  This view is held by Arminians and Amyraldians.  However, if Christ’s death was substitutionary and efficacious, and he died for all people, then it follows that all people are redeemed and thus saved.  The teaching that all are saved is called universalism.  Historic Christian orthodoxy precludes universalism as a biblically faithful conclusion.  The attempt to avoid the charge of universalism is often made by maintaining that while Christ died for all the sins of all men, a person’s unbelief is what ultimately condemns him or her.  It may be asked, however, is not unbelief also a sin?  If unbelief is a sin, then Christ also died for that sin, since he died for all sins, as presented by option three.  If, on the contrary, unbelief is not a sin, then it may be rightly asked why God condemns a person for it?  Hence, if option three is maintained, and Christ’s death was efficacious, then universalism is unavoidable. 

The foregoing has demonstrated that, despite the heated controversy that is often invoked by the question of the intent of the atonement, two of the three horns of this logical trilemma are pointedly unbiblical.  If the choice is option one (1), then all are condemned, which is unbiblical.  If the choice is option three (3), then unbelief would be included as a sin for which Christ died, and thus universalism is the unavoidable conclusion.  This is likewise unbiblical. Therefore, it has been proved that only option two (2), which posits that Christ died for all of the sins of only some people, the historic Reformed view, is the correct view of the atonement.  Hence, only option two, the historic Reformed view of the atonement, offers theologically self-conscious, critical-minded Christians a logically consistent perspective of Christ’s atonement, one which also couches coherently within the broader edifice of orthodox Christian theology.

My gratitude and indebtedness goes out to the brilliant Puritan divine John Owen for the crux of this argument.

---

What is the significance of Jesus’ resurrection for Christians?

Apart from the physical resurrection of Jesus, Christians would be the most pathetic lot of folks, whose lives would be no more significant than if Jesus never came (1 Cor 15:18—19). This question has a three-fold positive answer: (1) eschatological considerations, (2) missional impetus, and (3) soteriological consequence.

Eschatologically, and for the people of God collectively, Jesus’ resurrection is the fulfillment of the Abrahamic and Davidic promises (Acts 13:32—33). His resurrection was, in part, the terminus of hope for salvation history past, as anticipated in “the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms” (Lk 24:44; cf. vv 25—27; i.e., the traditional tripartite division of the entire OT). Jesus’ resurrection is the dawning of the long yearned-for new age (or “age to come,” not to be confused with the eastern mystical aspirations, much less those of the western New Age Movements). The new creation (e.g., Rev 21 – 22) was inaugurated in Jesus’ resurrection, thus making him the “last Adam” (1 Cor 15:45). It is the veritable proof that the Day is coming when God will judge the world in righteousness (Acts 17:31). Jesus’ resurrection also has cosmic implications, pointing to the “regeneration” of all things (Matt 19:28), something the whole cosmos eagerly awaits—the time when the curse is no more (Rom 8:18—25; cf. Rev 22:3), and when God is finally “all in all” (1 Cor 15:28). Therefore, all redemptive history past looked forward to Jesus’ resurrection for the confirmation of all the OT promises; and all redemptive history future flows from the resurrection of the Son of God.

Missionally, Jesus’ resurrection was the central feature of the apostolic preaching as recorded by Dr. Luke in the book of Acts (see 1:22; 2:24, 31, 32; 3:15, 26; 4:2, 10, 33; 5:30; 10:40; 13:30, 34, 37; 17:18, 32, Rom 1:3, etc.). This should stand as an indictment for the modern church. Proportionate to the record of Acts, the resurrection of Jesus is all but vanished from our preaching and evangelism today, yet it is the center of the redemption we are proclaiming.

Soteriologically, in his resurrection, Jesus was the “firstfruits,” the anticipation of a full harvest of believers at the end of the age (1 Cor 15:40). And because of his resurrection, by faith we become and participate in the new creation (Rom 6:4—5; 2 Cor 4:6; 5:17). Jesus’ resurrection resulted in the outpouring of Holy Spirit (Acts 1:8 – 2), who, dwelling in our hearts, is the guarantee of our own resurrection. Our rebirth is bound-up in his resurrection (1 Pet 1:3), and it is the grounds for our justification, our being put to rights before God’s holiness (Rom 4:25).