Depravity

            The view of mankind common in evangelicalism descends from Augustine of Hippo. His early efforts in philosophy centered on the problem of evil. Although he spent his earliest years under the influence of Catholic Christianity, he left that background to become an Auditor for nine years in a Gnostic-like sect that followed the teachings of Mani. At first, Manichaeism seemed to him to explain the problem by teaching that evil and good are two kinds of substances. They have become intermingled in mankind so that “salvation” consists of separating good from its mixture with evil. Because of internal inconsistencies that Augustine came to see in this dualistic philosophy, he eventually left it and returned to Christianity. The problem of evil stood at the beginning of his development as a philosopher-theologian; its solution stood near the center of the theological system he formulated.

Introduction

Prevenient grace and natural depravity

            Augustine’s treatment of the problem of evil falls short for two related reasons. (1) He did not properly distinguish natural and moral evil, suffering and sin, pain and guilt. In his thought, they amounted to the same problem. (2) He attempted to examine even moral evil primarily in reference to the category of nature. In so doing, he glossed over the distinction between impersonal and interpersonal reality.

Psalm 51 records David’s response to his sin with Bathsheba:  heading of the Psalm, “When Nathan the prophet came to him after he had gone into Bathsheba” (2 Samuel 11-12).

Exegetical Impasse

Overview of Natural Depravity

             In the late fourth century Augustine, bishop of Hippo in North Africa, gave classical expression to natural depravity as part of his understanding of the nature of evil. In his thought, evil is a lack (privation) in the form of substance relative to its original form. That relatively deformed condition produces evil action. The nature of evil is lack, the cause of evil is lack in form, and the criterion of evil is lack in form compared to pristine form

            When Paul speaks of sin resident within him (or indwelling sin), perhaps he means it phenomenologically; that is, the experience of sin feels like something inside him. His point is that sin is not just something outside us (environment, influence) trying to tempt us into misaction; it is something inside us as well. There is a subjective as well as objective component in the sin phenomenon. The implication is personal responsibility for subjective response to objective influence and stimulus.

            Since the nature of mankind is a central consideration in Christian theology, the doctrine of natural depravity in mankind affects a variety of issues and impacts them in significant ways. The following enumeration of consequences may not be necessary in every case, but historically this concept has triggered them.

            We have set aside the doctrine of natural depravity because (a) natural depravity lacks adequate primary biblical evidence for it. (b) Natural depravity creates contradictions. One set of propositions summarizes an argument against natural depravity. Since God is self-consistent, the variable that explains the Great Dilemma must lie outside God. Since only God and we figure in salvation, that variable must lie in us. We must be capable of responding to God; otherwise, God would be choosing who is saved by choosing whom he enables to respond to him unto salvation while saying that he does not want anyone to perish (2 Peter 3:9). As natural depravity in effect means divine self-contradiction, natural ability maintains divine self-consistency.

Explaining Non-Determinism

            The proposition counter to natural depravity is as follows: there is no (1) clear (2) biblical basis for saying that Adam’s ability in regard to (3) spiritual things after the fall was any different from what it was (4) before the fall in a (5) biologically inheritable sense.

            Romans 7:5-8:15 is one of several sections in Romans that have raised considerable controversy. In this study we attempt to work out Paul’s meaning in terms of legal imperfection in contrast to interpreting it in terms of humasn nature. Philosophically, the function and relationship categories replace the nature category. Theologically, ethics and salvation replace anthropology as the central concerns. We propose to show that natural depravity is a concept irrelevant to this text, if not false in itself.

            The proposition counter to natural depravity is as follows:

there is no (1) clear (2) biblical basis for saying that Adam’s ability in (3) spiritual matters after the Fall was different from what it was (4) before the Fall in a (5) biologically inheritable sense.

            The proposition counter to natural depravity is as follows: there is no (1) clear (2) biblical basis for saying that Adam’s ability regarding (3) spiritual things after the fall was different from what it was (4) before the fall in a (5) biologically inheritable sense.

The proposition counter to natural depravity is as follows:

            One distinctive of the Churches of Christ/Christian Churches has been their relatively high view of human nature. They have stood virtually alone in denying the traditional doctrine of natural depravity.

Introduction

A Contribution of “Restorationism”