Total Depravity: Extension

May 13th, 2010 § 0 comments

I consider myself, at best, to be an amateur theologian. But I think that is the calling of all of us, unless we are paid to be a theologian. But being an amateur does not mean that we are to do it poorly. Amateurs, being unpaid, engage in their hobbies for the sheer joy of it. Usually, there is no other motivation. I hope that can be our reason–and our only reason–for doing theology. Let us never forget that God is good clean fun. I do not mean that there is no pain or difficulty in getting to know God properly; I only mean that we should always remember the simple joy of knowing God. When we’ve forgotten that, we may have lost everything. Let us always be amateur theologians.

But any good amateur at anything wants to do it well. Any good thing (such as theology) is, by virtue of its being good, worthy of being done well. We may not be perfect, but we must do well. We must enjoy doing well, for doing well is good, and all good things are enjoyable. So any good amateur will find those who do better work and study from them. Even a budding artist planning to ignore all the rules and break out of all the forms goes humbly to whomever broached the last set of conventions so that she can learn all the methods for proper disrespect.

As an amateur theologian, I happen to be a staunch two-point Calvinist. I believe quite thoroughly in Total Depravity and Absolute Sovereignty. (The rest of the traditional five points flow directly from these.) These two points, then, are the two about which I’ve done the most reading (which isn’t saying much at all; after all, I have no pretensions to being more than an amateur.) And on the topic of Total Depravity, I have found myself much confused. Though I myself am more than sympathetic to the doctrine, I find no one able to satisfy my understanding of what the “total” means. Everyone seems quite close to having something worthwhile to say about it, but so many authors present such weak arguments for a strong view of the “total”, or else offer strong arguments for a weak view that ends up contradicting the rest of the Reformed Soteriology.

So I am here to take a stab at it, in all my amateurish glory, an attempt to draw pictures of what I think others fail to see in words. This is what an amateur thinks Total Depravity is.

First, let me clarify why this is even a problem. Despite the modifier “total,” we depraved folks do not not seem to be as wicked as we could possibly be. We are not all little Hitlers. Very few of us have participated in anything remotely resembling the Texas Chain Saw Massacre. Only a small minority of our population is currently engaged in human trafficking, terrorism, and child pornography. Believe it or not, I do not spend my off hours roving the countryside looking for small children to torture and kill. Instead, we live (at least in America) in a country where many people donate a bit to small causes, where the fireman still call around raising money because it still works–people will give them money. Some people actually donate time. And every 501c3 that exists is actually run by real people, some of whom may care about what they do. We may not be very good, but we seem to be at least a little good. Of course, those of us that are sane will recognize that we are a little depraved, too. But very? Or totally? No, we are not that. So what does the “Total” mean?

Theologians have tried to solve this problem using the distinction of extension & intension. They claim that depravity is total in extension but not in intension. These are set theoretic terms often used in discussions of semantics. The easiest way to explain the difference between extension and intension is to draw pictures. Now, though I cling to the title of Amateur Theologian Extraordinaire, I have no pretension to being a good artist. But here goes.

Let us suppose that the human being were able to broken apart into components. No doubt this is impossible on some level, but for the sake of the example, bear with me. Let us suppose that humans had 5 components: the volition (or will), emotion, desire, reason, and flesh. Though no doubt entangled, logic is different than the body, and emotion is different than volition. Thus, though our being is almost inconceivably different than the drawing below, let us pretend that this is a picture of me.

A Bad Picture of the Human Being

In this picture, extension is the X-axis and intension is the Y-axis. So the extension of my depravity would be the set of parts of me that are depraved. Intension is the completeness with which any part of me is depraved. Another way to put it: extension is the breadth of the depravity (or the set of the things that are corrupted) and intension is the depth of the depravity (or the quality and completeness of the corruption) The following is a picture of what I look like if my depravity is total in extension but not in intension.

This picture (where depravity is represented by the gray) shows that depravity has touched every piece of me, but only partially. According to this view of depravity, sin has corrupted my body: this is why I get illnesses, etc. Sin has corrupted my reason. This is why I am imperfect at math and why some people completely fail to believe in God. Sin has corrupted my desire: this is why I want wrong things, even things that are bad for me and will not bring happiness. Sin has corrupted my emotion. This is why I do not respond properly to beautiful things but often enjoy that which is crude or base. And sin has corrupted my volition, which is why I often make terrible choices against all that I believe is good.

We find this view in such works as “The Five Points of Calvinism: Defined, Defended & Documented” where we read, “When Calvinists speak of man as being totally depraved, they mean that man’s nature is corrupt, perverse, and sinful throughout. The adjective “total” does not mean that each sinner is as totally corrupt in his actions and thoughts as it is possible for him to be. Instead, the word “total” is used to indicate that the whole of man’s being has been affected by sin. The corruption extends to every part of man, his body and soul; sin has affected all (the totality) of man’s faculties–his mind, his will, etc.” (2nd Ed., p. 19)

Or as Philip Johnson puts it, “So the word total in “total depravity” refers to the extent of our sinfulness, not the degree to which we manifest it. It means evil has contaminated every aspect of our being—our wills, our intellect, our emotions, our conscience, our personality, and our desires.” (http://teampyro.blogspot.com/2008/01/in-what-sense-is-depravity-total.html)

Now, this makes good sense logically. I understand what is appealing about this view. To put it much more strongly seems to be overdoing it. We are not, after all as evil as we can possibly be.

Next time, I’ll attempt to explain why I disagree with this view. Stay tuned for some more amazing artwork.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Page optimized by WP Minify WordPress Plugin