Systematic Theology, by Louis Berkhof - New Leaven

human race fell away from God; but it belongs to the very nature of sin that we deny
this solidarity in sin. The result of this initial sin is that man is now a sinner; but the fact
that man is now a sinner should not be regarded as the cause of his individual sinful
actions. Such a causal connection cannot be admitted, for every sin which man commits
is a fresh decision against God. The statement that man is a sinner does not mean that
he is in a state or condition of sin, but that he is actually engaged in rebellion against
God. As Adam we turned away from God, and “he who commits this apostasy can do
no other than repeat it continually, not because it has become a habit, but because this is
the distinctive character of this act.” Man cannot reverse the course, but continues to sin
right along. The Bible never speaks of sin except as the act of turning away from God.
“But in the very concept of ‘being a sinner’ this act is conceived as one which
determines man’s whole existence.” There is much in this representation that reminds
one of the realistic representation of Thomas Aquinas.
5. OBJECTIONS TO THE DOCTRINE OF TOTAL DEPRAVITY AND TOTAL INABILITY.
a. It is inconsistent with moral obligation. The most obvious and the most plausible
objection to the doctrine of total depravity and total inability, is that it is inconsistent
with moral obligation. It is said that a man cannot be held justly responsible for
anything for which he has not the required ability. But the general implication of this
principle is a fallacy. It may hold in cases of disability resulting from a limitation which
God has imposed on man’s nature; but it certainly does not apply in the sphere of
morals and religion, as already pointed out in the preceding. We should not forget that
the inability under consideration is self-imposed, has a moral origin, and is not due to
any limitation which God has put upon man’s being. Man is unable as a result of the
perverted choice made in Adam.
b. It removes all motives for exertion. A second objection is that this doctrine removes
all motives for exertion and destroys all rational grounds for the use of the means of
grace. If we know that we cannot accomplish a given end, why should we use the
means recommended for its accomplishment? Now it is perfectly true that the sinner,
who is enlightened by the Holy Spirit and is truly conscious of his own natural inability,
ceases from work-righteousness. And this is exactly what is necessary. But it does not
hold with respect to the natural man, for he is thoroughly self-righteous. Moreover, it is
not true that the doctrine of inability naturally tends to foster neglect in the use of the
means of grace ordained by God. On this principle the farmer might also say, I cannot
produce a harvest; why should I cultivate my fields? But this would be utter folly. In
every department of human endeavor the result depends on the co-operation of causes
274