Introduction
The condition of man[1] is first addressed in the first chapter of the book of Genesis when “God created man in his own image” (Gen 1:27a) but changes drastically just two chapters later in the narrative typically called the fall. In the fall, man, who has been created by God for a specific purpose and given specific tasks, takes it upon himself to decide what is best for his own life rather than listening to the instructions of the divine being that has just created him from the dirt of the Earth. Through an act of deliberate disobedience, and though he still bears the image of his creator God, man becomes tainted with sin[2] and his condition has changed. This new condition becomes the driving detail of the rest of the Bible, culminating with the victorious power of Christ who conquers sin and redeems man from his fallen condition. I would like to address some concerns and what I believe to be misunderstandings about man’s fallen condition and help explain these points in light of the consistent message of Scripture concerning the fall.
Total Inability
Total inability is, in my opinion, a more effective and modern terminology for the first of five Doctrines of Grace known acrostically as TULIP[3]. Classically, this doctrine has been called Total Depravity, but the word depravity, though understood by its original audiences in the 16th century, tends to miscommunicate the intention of the doctrine to contemporary audiences. The idea of total inability is this: man, through the original disobedience of Adam, has become radically corrupt and is now a slave to sin, wherein man now, rather than existing in a state of moral perfection in accordance with God’s moral standards, operates according to the evil, selfish impulses and desires of his own heart.
For clarification’s sake, allow me to address both total and inability in isolation.
When I use the word total, I am not intending to convey the idea that man is as evil as a person could possibly be. Even Adolf Hitler, though he was an incredibly evil man, surely had some affection for his mother. As evil as Hitler was, we are sure that he could have been even more wicked than he was. The idea in the word total, then, is not that humans are as evil as they possibly could be, but that the fall has affected the whole person, not just isolated parts of him.
When I use the word inability rather than the traditional depravity, I am not attempting to communicate the idea that man has somehow lost his place as the image of God. Rather, I believe that the Bible is clear in that it continues to communicate that man is God’s image on Earth even though he is corrupted with sin. What I intend to communicate with the word inability is this: that man is completely unable in his fallen condition to reconcile himself with his creator by his own will and merit.
I will continue to use the phrase total inability through this article as I attempt to communicate my perspective on the condition of man, but please refer back to this section in the event that confusion arises[4] as you continue reading.
No Man Can Come
I would like now to consult the Scriptures themselves when communicating my next point: that man is completely unable to reconcile to God by his own will and merit.
35 Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst. 36 But I said to you that you have seen me and yet do not believe. 37 All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out. 38 For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me. 39 And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day. 40 For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.”
41 So the Jews grumbled about him, because he said, “I am the bread that came down from heaven.” 42 They said, “Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How does he now say, ‘I have come down from heaven’?” 43 Jesus answered them, “Do not grumble among yourselves. 44 No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day. 45 It is written in the Prophets, ‘And they will all be taught by God.’ Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me— 46 not that anyone has seen the Father except he who is from God; he has seen the Father. 47 Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life. 48 I am the bread of life.
(John 6:35-48 ESV)
The context of this passage is that Jesus is addressing the people of Capernaum shortly after his miracle of walking upon the water of the sea as an expression of his divine power. Jesus begins by clearing up the misunderstanding of the Jewish people that Moses was responsible for the bread which came down from heaven to feed their ancestors in the wilderness (Exodus 16); instead of crediting Moses for the miracle of the bread, Jesus states that God the Father is who gives the true bread from heaven which gives life to the world (v 33-34). From there, Jesus continues with his teaching that he himself is the true bread from heaven.
Through this passage, we see Jesus addressing the truth of believing in the Son and that leading to eternal life, but that there are some conditions that may not sit well with fallen man. In verse 41, Jesus begins by making one of his I AM statements[5] and it immediately upsets the people around him. After their grumbling about him coming down from heaven, Jesus makes an assertion that no one can come to Christ unless the Father draws him (v44). This verse has maintained a place of debate for thousands of years, not just since the time of TULIP[6], but I believe that we are capable of understanding it correctly in light of the Bible’s consistent communication of man’s fallen condition.
The opening word of verse 44 is the Greek word οὐδείς (no one). By beginning a sentence with this term, Jesus is establishing what we call a universal negative. What this means is that what follows this term is all-inclusive, without exceptions, and universal. This is an absolute truth from the mouth of Jesus that it is impossible for anyone to come to Christ unless God first draws him, and we must understand that.
The next word in the sentence is the Greek word δύναμαι (to be able, to possess the ability or power). In English, we tend to translate it as can, but the Greek word δύναμαι is much more specific. As a high school teacher, I often have students ask if they can go to the restroom; my cliche response is always this: “I don’t know. Can you?” Though comical and a classic example of teachers attempting to distinguish between the English word can (to be able, to possess the ability or power) and the English word may (to be permitted), this rhetorical question given back to my students helps them understand that the English words can and may are not synonyms. And though we sometimes read the word can in John 6:44 with the perception that it means may, the Greek term δύναμαι demonstrates that such interpretation is incorrect and insufficiently represents the words of our Lord Jesus.
So what is Jesus stating that absolutely no man can do in verve 44? He is saying clearly that no man “can come to the Father unless the Father draws him.” That is, that it is a universal truth that man is completely unable – that he has the total inability – to come to Christ unless God first draws him. This is because man has been corrupted by sin and his condition has changed; God banished man from the Garden (Gen 3:23-24), from the presence of God, and now God is the sole party who can reconcile that separation.
The next significant words in the passage are the Greek words ἐάν μή (if not) and are usually translated as unless. The word unless indicates a necessary condition that has to be met before a desired consequence can possibly follow. There is something absolutely essential that must take place before man can come to Jesus, which will be stated in the coming clause of verse 44. This is known as a sufficient condition; a sufficient condition is that which guarantees a result – it suffices. The condition of verse 44 is that there is something that, when it happens, causes the universal condition of man to change from inability to ability: God must draw him.
But here we have yet another word that tends to find its way into the mouths of those who would raise objections to my conclusion that man cannot come to Christ by his own merit and will: draw. I grew up in the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) and heard hundreds of times that man absolutely has the ability to approach God – that is, to reconcile with God and close the gap created by sin – in contradiction to the words of Jesus in v44 all on the basis of an understanding of the word draw later in the verse. Typically, those who object to my claim here would say that the word draw here means something of the sorts of God enticing or wooing a person. But the problem with this understanding is again found within the particular meaning of the Greek word here for draw, which is ἑλκύω (to drag, to draw, to pull) and how it is used elsewhere in the New Testament[7]. The word very demonstrably intends to communicate the idea of forced submission rather than an enticing or wooing in these following passages.
“But when her owners saw that their hope of gain was gone, they seized Paul and Silas and dragged (ἑλκύω) them into the marketplace before the rulers.”
(Acts 16:19 ESV)“Then all the city was stirred up, and the people ran together. They seized Paul and dragged (ἑλκύω) him out of the temple, and at once the gates were shut.”
(Acts 21:30 ESV)“But you have dishonored the poor man. Are not the rich the ones who oppress you, and the ones who drag (ἑλκύω)you into court?”
(James 2:6 ESV)
Now for each of these usages, replace the word dragged with the word wooed or enticed. Can we possibly imagine that Paul and Silas were wooed into the courts? Or that Paul was enticed out of the temple? Or that the rich people may woo us into court? To translate this word in such a way would be to ignore the contextual evidence of the surrounding passages. But why do translators insist on translating it as draw in John 6:44 rather than drag? Most, from what I’ve read, argue that it seems too harsh for contemporary readers to see that man is completely unable to come to Christ unless God bends the will of the person first. For me, I find it more unsettling to read into the word what we, as carnal creatures, would like it to say.
R.C. Sproul was engaged in a debate years ago where he and his opponent were discussing the usage of this word in John 6:44. Sproul argued for the usage of drag while his opponent argued for it to mean attract or woo. His opponent argued that the usage of ἑλκύω in places such as Acts 16 and James 2 were acceptable as drag but not in John 6:44. When asked why, he claimed that we have an instance where Euripides used ἑλκύω in a classical Greek play to say that someone drew water from a well. Sproul responded by asking how one actually draws water from a well. Was it that you must stand at the top of the well and woo the water forth by saying, “Here, water water water,” or must you do something that will force the water to go against gravity and exit the well? Sproul demonstrated that whether we say draw or drag, the truth remains that water will sit at the bottom of the well until someone actively forces the water to come forth.
To conclude my thoughts on this passage as a demonstration of man’s total inability to come to Christ, I would argue that though these words are heavy and profound from the mouth of the Lord, we must not allow our own preferences to dictate our understanding. Christ’s intentional usage of the universal negative (of man being unable to come to him) paired with his appeal to the sufficient condition (of God’s dragging of man for man to come to God), I must then conclude that man has absolutely, universally, the total inability to bridge the gap of separation between creature and creator as first made by the sin of Adam in Genesis 3, and that without God first intervening, man is totally lost and without hope.
Man’s Will Is Enslaved
And here we are; we are finally at the point where I must bring up the free will. As you can see from the header of this section, I believe that the consistent testimony of Scripture is that man’s will is enslaved and is absolutely not free, as slavery is the anthethisis of freedom, and I aim to support this by the text of the New Testament.
Let me begin by stating up front that I believe that the doctrine of free will is completely unbiblical. However, I am not saying that man does not make conscious choices that he wants to make. I’m also not saying that we are robots. Rather, I am stating that the Bible clearly demonstrates that man and his subsequent decisions are directly influenced and dictated by his fallen condition. Most Armenians who argue for free will argue against the claim that God is determining every action of every person, but that idea is absolutely not what reformed individuals believe in regards to total depravity. Rather, we believe that in man’s fallen condition, man is dead spiritually and alienated from God, which then causes his will to operate on the basis of his fallen condition; what man wants to do will be consistent with what man’s condition is: fallen[8]. This is man’s natural condition – his nature. Man’s will, though he makes choices, is not free, but enslaved to sin.
Here’s a classical example of how it can be true that a being chooses something while not having a free will: consider you have an empty room and in that room there is a pile of carrots and a pile of meat. You let a vulture go into the room and you stand outside so as to not influence his choice. Which of these two piles will the vulture freely choose? Clearly, the vulture will choose the pile of meat rather than the carrots because the vulture is making a choice on the basis of his condition as a vulture – his nature. Now imagine that you allow a rabbit to enter the room instead. Which of these two piles will the rabbit freely choose? Clearly, the rabbit will choose the carrots rather than the meat because it is making a choice on the basis of his condition as a rabbit – his nature. Neither of these two creatures were influenced by anyone or anything in the room other than the existence of the two options yet both will always choose according to their nature.
Now imagine that we change the scenario and the room is now God’s world he has created and you put a fallen, hostile, carnal human into the room with nothing more than the Almighty God and a false god. The fallen man will make the same choice every single time according to his condition, his nature, to choose the false god over the true God. The Apostle Paul verifies this for us in his epistle to the Romans.
“18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.”
(Romans 1:18-23 ESV)
Man is enslaved by sin and has exchanged the glory of the true creator for that of the created. Verse 18 clearly states that man, by their unrighteousness – that is, their fallen nature – consciously and actively choose to suppress the truth, even though God’s existence is plain to them. Paul actually spends much more time on this issue through his epistle, going so far as to quote Psalm 14 in saying that no one – without exception – seeks for God, for it is God that drags man to Christ.
For we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin, as it is written:
“None is righteous, no, not one;
no one understands;
no one seeks for God.All have turned aside;
together they have become worthless;
no one does good,
not even one.”(Romans 3:9b-12 ESV)
Fallen man, when given the choice between the creator or the created, will always choose the created on the basis of his nature. And the only solution is this: that God must first change man – he must drag (ἑλκύω) him as the Lord Jesus says in John 6:44. Man’s condition cannot be overcome by his own will, for his own will cannot operate apart from his fallen nature; and his fallen nature prevents him, as the Apostle Paul demonstrates, from ever freely choosing God.
Conclusion
To conclude, I want you to consider one thing: who would you rather be in charge of your salvation? You? Or God? According to the consistent testimony of Scripture, man cannot and will not, in his fallen condition, choose the glory of the immortal God over that of the world. Think back to your life before you were born again; do you honestly believe that in your fallen condition as an enemy of God, who suppressed the truth of his existence, that you would make a choice contrary to your nature by choosing him? How could that which is contrary to God choose God?
Praise God that he did not leave my eternal fate in my own hands, but that he left the 99 and dragged me back into the flock.
[1] The use of this word is intended to convey the idea of humanity as a whole, not just male humans.
[2] Sin is not merely the breaking of a commandment; rather, sin is a lifestyle lived in opposition to the design and intention of God for man. For further reading, please consult my extended understanding of sin here.
[3] The acrostic TULIP was created by reformers in the 16th century to communicate five doctrinal positions: Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace, and Perseverance of the Saints.
[4] Here is a quick reminder that you can always email me with questions concerning my materials: joshuaensley.org@gmail.com.
[5] For further reading on the I AM statements of Jesus and how they assert his divinity, please consult this link: http://joshuaensley.org/2021/01/01/part-four-the-divinity-of-the-son/
[6] The doctrines of TULIP, though officially given an acrostic in the 16th century by early reformers, have been debated and discussed since the writing of the New Testament. Paul addresses a number of these issues in Romans 9 and many church fathers—namely Ignatius, Polycarp, & Augustine—wrote about and debated these doctrinal positions in their times. Nothing of what I am saying in this article is new or pulled by me from thin air and conjecture, but doctrinal discussions that have been happening throughout church history.
[7] For the eight usages of this word in the New Testament, please consult this link: https://biblehub.com/greek/strongs_1670.htm
[8] For further Old Testament passages on the testament of Scripture that man is fallen, please consult Genesis 2:16-17, Psalm 51:5, Jeremiah 13:23; 17:9, & Romans 1.
