In the first article of this brief series we examined Total Depravity, as a prerequisite to evaluating the following statement: “Those who believe in total depravity have more confidence in the possibility of humans having divine knowledge- detailed, down to the footnotes knowledge- than many who don’t call themselves Calvinists.” I indicated that I did not wish to debate Total Depravity at that time, but instead merely wanted to define it. After ninety eight posts (and counting) in the forums I have to conclude that Total Depravity is quite the hotly-debated topic and is one I will have to return to in more detail in a later series. I do not think it is a topic that can be covered sufficiently in only a few paragraphs. With the promise to return to Total Depravity at a later date, let’s move on through this series and examine the clarity of Scripture.

The clarity of Scripture (also known as the perspicuity of Scripture) is a critical doctrine and one that was hotly debated at the time of the Reformation. During the Reformation the Protestant leaders affirmed their belief that the Bible was not a book that had to be kept only in the hands of the religious authorities, for with the Spirit’s guidance any Christian could read and understand it. They pointed to passages in the Bible that seemed to affirm this doctrine, insisting that Scripture testifies that it is clear.

Perhaps the best-known affirmation is in Deuteronomy 6:6-7, a passage that was of utmost importance to the Israelites. “And these words that I command you today shall be on your heart. You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, and when you walk by the way, and when you lie down, and when you rise.” God expressly commanded that the Bible was to be taught to children and thus it was assumed that they could understand it. He expected that every person would know, discuss and understand His Word.

David, in Psalm 19, goes so far as to say that the Word of God will make the simple wise. “The testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple” (Psalm 19:7). He expresses this again in Psalm 119. “The unfolding of your words gives light; it imparts understanding to the simple” (Psalm 119:130). Surely David would not have suggested that the Scripture can make the simple wise if it was too difficult for them to understand!

Jesus never gave reason for us to believe that the Scriptures are too difficult to understand. He repeatedly expressed surprise and disgust that the religious authorities did not accept what was so obvious. He often chastised them with words similar to, “Have you not read…” The reason they did not understand the Scriptures was not due to any fault within the Word, but because of the hardness of their hearts which kept them from seeing what was so clear.

Before we proceed, let us clarify what we mean by the clarity of Scripture. Wayne Grudem defines it in this way: “The clarity of Scripture means that the Bible is written in such a way that its teachings are able to be understood by all who will read it seeking God’s help and being willing to follow it.”

As is often the case, it is also useful to examine what we do not mean by the clarity of Scripture. The clarity of Scripture does not mean to say that all parts of Scripture are equally clear. There are some parts that are clearly more difficult to understand than others. Even the apostle Peter had to admit that “There are some things … that are hard to understand” within Paul’s writings (2 Peter 3:16). Anyone who has sought to understand the books of prophecy can also attest to the abundance of difficult passages. However, the basic message of Scripture is crystal clear within the Bible and can be known and understood by even a person with no prior religious knowledge. The Bible is sufficient, with the Spirit’s help, to bring a person to an understanding of the basic message and thus a saving knowledge of Christ.

Last year I attended a conference in Toronto that featured James White. He spoke of a man he met who had previously lived in Afghanistan. At one time this man had never met another Christian in his life, nor did he have access to any books or commentaries, yet had found a Bible and by reading it had become a believer, not knowing if he was the only Christian in the world. Clearly the Scriptures were sufficiently clear for this man.

It is important to note that it is precisely because of the Bible’s clarity and simplicity that many people find it offensive. The Bible teaches with great clarity that we are sinners and stand condemned before God. With equal clarity it teaches that only through Jesus can we have a restored relationship with the Father. This, the very heart of the message of Scripture, is offensive to unregenerate human beings, particularly those who suffer from what R.C. Sproul calls “intellectual arrogance.” In Knowing Scripture he relates an encounter he had with a young man who told him that Christianity is “primitive and obscene”. What this man meant as an insult was absolutely correct! Sproul asks rhetorically, “What kind of a God would reveal his love and redemption in terms so technical and concepts so profound that only an elite corps of professional scholars could understand them? (page 16).” Certainly not the God of the Bible, who revealed his love and redemption with the utmost of clarity.

What we learn from examining Scripture is that the qualifications for understanding the Bible are not primarily intellectual, but moral and spiritual. Though written simply, only those who are humble spiritually and morally can understand the deep things of God. Any unbeliever who opens the pages of Scripture earnestly seeking salvation will find it and any Christian who goes to the Word, seeking God’s help, will understand it, for this is the ministry of the Holy Spirit. He illumines the Scripture.

This doctrine is one of great encouragement to the believer, for we can have confidence that if we approach the Scriptures, the very Words of God, asking the Spirit for His help, we will be able to know and understand them. God has given His Word so that all might have access to Him through them.

So what of the correlation of Total Depravity and the revelation of truth? We will examine this in our next article.

On Monday I announced “A Quick and Captivating Contest.” This was a short and silly contest to see who could correctly guess the number of movies mentioned in John and Stasi Eldredge’s new book Captivating. Eldredge’s love for movies and his reliance on them as a teaching tool is well-documented and is a critique often used against his books. Those who are troubled by his references to movies will find more grounds for concern in this book.

Many readers decided to take a guess at the number of movies referenced. Without actually doing the math, I would estimate the average guess was about 14. Oh ye of too-great-faith.

Let’s get to the results.

For this contest I was looking for the total number of movies mentioned, not the total number of references to movies. There were many times where a single movie was mentioned multiple times, but in such cases I counted the movie only once. There were several times where a book was mentioned that was later made into a movie (Sense and Sensibility, for example). In a couple of cases I was uncertain as to whether the authors were referring to the book or movie. In other cases still I knew it was a reference to a movie only because I recognized a name (ie Cruella DeVille was mentioned, but without explicitly referencing 101 Dalmations). So while it is was sometimes difficult to discern the exact number of movies, I believe this list is accurate. One quick note before we proceed: it is possible that the reference to Sarah, Plain and Tall refers to the book, but there is a movie of this story and it was mentioned in a list of other movies, so I will assume they were referring to the film.

It is important to realize that the authors did not explicitly recommend (or condemn) any of these films. Usually they were simply referred to like this one: “Isn’t something stirred in you when Edward, finally, returns at the end of Sense and Sensibility to proclaim his love for Elinor?” Here is another example. “Think of one of the most romantic scenes you can remember, scenes that made you sigh. Jack with Rose on the bow of the Titanic, his arms around her waist, their first kiss. Wallace speaking in French to Murron, then in Italian: “Not as beautiful as you.” Aragorn, standing with Arwen in the moonlight on the bridge in Rivendell, declaring his love for her. Edward returning for Elinor in Sense and Sensibility, and professor Behr returning for Jo at the end of Little Women. Now, put yourself in the scene as the Beauty, and Jesus as the Lover.”

So with no further blathering on my part, here are the movies referenced in Captivating. One person asked me to include the ratings with the movies, so I have provided that.

Sleeping Beauty - G
Snow White - G
101 Dalmations - G
The Little Mermaid - G
Beauty and the Beast - G
The Sound of Music - G
Gone With The Wind - G
Sense and Sensibility - PG
Little Women - PG
Top Gun - PG
Steel Magnolias - PG
Sarah, Plain and Tall - PG
The Terminal - PG
Rocky - PG
A Cinderella Story - PG
Enchanted April - PG
High Noon - PG
Ever After - PG
Strictly Ballroom - PG
Titanic - PG-13
Pearl Harbor - PG-13
Maid in Manhattan - PG-13
As Good As It Gets - PG-13
The Horse Whisperer - PG-13
Fried Green Tomatoes - PG-13
My Big Fat Greek Wedding - PG
Fellowship of the Ring - PG-13
The Last of the Mohicans - PG-13
The Two Towers - PG-13
Return of the King - PG-13
A Walk in the Clouds - PG-13
Beaches - PG-13
Anna and the King PG-13
Braveheart - R
Gladiator - R
Saving Private Ryan - R
Pretty Woman - R
Jerry Maguire - R

The total is 38. I was surprised at this and had made my own guess at 18. I suppose the average rating was PG-13. Our winner, then, who presumably had Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy on his mind, is Gerard. Gerard guessed 42 with the next closest guess being 30 (and every other guess being lower than that). I’ll be sending him something nice from my stack-o-books.

The Passion of Jesus Christ was rushed to press in time to be available for the release of Mel Gibson’s blockbuster The Passion of the Christ. The book sold some two million copies, though many of these were through a promotion that provided the book at cost when purchased in bulk. Many churches gave the book to those who expressed interest in learning more about Jesus in the aftermath of the movie. Those who are familiar with my book reviews will know that I have struggled with Piper’s books in the past - not on the basis of content, but on the basis of Piper’s writing style. These people may be glad to know that this is the first book by Piper that I have enjoyed from cover-to-cover.

Following the article I posted on Saturday, which you can read here, Michael Spencer posted a link to it on Boars Head Tavern and included the following comment, which I would like to address today: Those who believe in total depravity have more confidence in the possibility of humans having divine knowledge- detailed, down to the footnotes knowledge- than many who don’t call themselves Calvinists.

For some time I have been intending to write an article on the clarity of Scripture (also known as the “perspicuity of Scripture”) and I believe this affords an opportunity to include that topic. Since this could become a lengthy topic, and since most people cease reading shortly after the 1,000 word mark, I will divide this into a three-part series. In the first part I will define and examine Total Depravity, in the second I will define and examine the clarity of Scripture, and in the third I will put it together to respond to Spencer's comment.

We would be remiss to discuss this topic without first adequately defining “total depravity” so we will begin with that today. But first, I would like to indicate that this article is not meant as an opportunity to debate whether Total Depravity is a biblical doctrine. We will define it and move forward with the assumption that it is true, since it forms the basis for Spencer's comments.

Total Depravity is the first of the points of doctrine that have come to be known as the Five Points of Calvinism or The Doctrines of Grace. These doctrines were defined in response to the teachings of Jacobus Arminius, who denied Calvin's understanding of Divine sovereignty and human depravity. The Doctrines of Grace are built upon Calvin's understanding of God's complete and overwhelming sovereignty in everything, including saving a people for Himself. Directly related to God's sovereignty is human inability, for when man fell into sin, his very nature became corrupt to the greatest extent.

The term “total depravity” has fallen out of favor in recent days, in large part because “total” seems to be a word that confuses, rather than clarifies the doctrine. James Boice and Philip Ryken suggest “Radical Depravity,” R.C. Sproul suggests “Radical Corruption” and Michael Horton goes with “Rebels Without A Cause.” Regardless of the terms used, the doctrine reads something like this:

“Total Depravity is a theological term primarily associated with Calvinism, which interprets the Bible to teach that, as a consequence of the Fall of man, every person born into the world is enslaved to the service of sin. In other words, a person is not by nature inclined to love God with his heart or mind or strength, rather all are inclined to serve their own interests over those of their neighbor. Put another way, even with all circumstances in his favor a man without God can do nothing but work for his own destruction; and even his religion and philanthropy are destructive, to the extent that these originate from his own imagination, passions and will” (Wikipedia).

There is a sense in which Total Depravity undergirds the doctrines which follow it (Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace, Perseverance of the Saints). Without Total Depravity, for example, it is possible for God to base election on the condition of a free will choice, thus rendering Unconditional Election invalid.

There is a bounty of biblical support for this doctrine. Genesis 6:5 tells us that “God saw that the intent of every heart was only continual evil.” Just two chapters later we read of man that “The intent of every heart is evil from its youth” (Genesis 8:21). Romans 3:10-18 tells us that there is none righteous. There is none who seeks after God. They have all turned aside. Other passages include 1 Corinthians 2:14, Ephesians 2:1-3 and 2 Timothy 2:25 and 26.

In any discussion of Total Depravity, it is crucial that we carefully define the difference between extend and degree. To affirm that fallen human beings are totally depraved in extent is to say that the fallenness of man extends to every part of his being. There is no part of man that has escaped the Fall, for mind, body and spirit all fell with our first parents. Thus we are all totally corrupt in extent.

Total Depravity in Degree refers to something being exactly as depraved as it could possibly be. This is an effective illustration of the differences between extent and degree:

Consider the illustration of three glasses of water. The first glass contains clean, pure water and represents Adam in his perfect state before the Fall. Now consider a second glass which contains this same clean, pure water. We can put one drop of deadly poison in that glass and it renders that entire glass poisonous so that if you were to drink it, you would quickly drop dead. That one drop extended to every part of the glass even though the entire vessel is not filled with poison. This represents humans after the Fall. While they are not wholly corrupt, the corruption they do have extends to every part. And finally consider a third glass which is filled entirely with poison. From top to bottom there is nothing but deadly poison. This represents Satan, who the Bible portrays as being absolutely corrupt so there is no good left whatsoever, but this does not represent humans here on earth. Humans are not as depraved as they could possibly be. We must note that sinful men who have been cast into hell will also be in this state where they are wholly depraved. What a terrifying thought this ought to be!

Thankfully God gives His grace to all men so that while we are all totally depraved in extent, none are totally depraved in degree. But for His grace and His restraining hand, the world would be uninhabitable due to the degree of man's corruption.

In an article I wrote a few months ago, I provided a reflection on Total Depravity and indicated that it is the great equalizer, for it shows that the best and worst of men are all equally corrupt in light of God’s perfect standard. “The man who looks intently into the perfect law that gives freedom, and continues to do this, not forgetting what he has heard, but doing it-he will be blessed in what he does.” (James 1:23) The extent of our depravity is what condemns even the best of men to hell - not the degree. Allow me to quote Rebecca Stark who wrote, “Total depravity is both the nastiest and loveliest of truths, because it’s only by seeing exactly what I was that I can understand what has been done for me. Knowing the depth of God’s love comes only as I fathom how far he had to stoop to grasp me.” God had to stoop just as far for the least of sinners as for the greatest.

In summary, then, we can say that man’s will is in complete bondage to his nature. Man is free to choose for or against God according to the way his nature dictates, but his nature is so wholly corrupt that he could never choose for good. He is free to choose, but he cannot contradict his nature. With a sinful nature it is impossible to take an action that would be anything other than sinful and rebellious. It is impossible to choose a righteous or pleasing work capable of pleasing a holy God. Similarly God is able to choose according to His free will, but cannot contradict his nature, which is perfect. Therefore God could never take an action that was anything but perfect and holy.

In the next article we will turn to the clarity of Scripture.