An Argument Against Total Depravity

The Calvinist doctrine of total depravity says that, since the Fall, man's nature is entirely corrupt and capable of nothing but sin. Here is a summary of the doctrine straight from the horse's mouth:

[T]he whole man, from the crown of the head to the sole of the foot, is so deluged, as it were, that no part remains exempt from sin, and, therefore, everything which proceeds from him is imputed as sin (Institutes of the Christian Religion, II, 1, 9).

We are all sinners by nature, therefore we are held under the yoke of sin. But if the whole man is subject to the dominion of sin, surely the will, which is its principal seat, must be bound with the closest chains (ibid., II, 2, 27).

[I]t is vain to look for anything good in our nature. I confess indeed, that all…iniquities do not break out in every individual. Still it cannot be denied that the hydra lurks in every breast. For as a body, while it contains and fosters the cause and matter of disease, cannot be called healthy, although pain is not actually felt; so a soul, while teeming with such seeds of vice, cannot be called sound. This similitude, however, does not apply throughout. In a body however morbid the functions of life are performed; but the soul, when plunged into that deadly abyss, not only labours under vice, but is altogether devoid of good (ibid., II, 3, 2).

For Calvin, original sin has completely destroyed any inclination toward good in us. Our nature is completely and entirely corrupted (cf. ibid., II, 3, 2), and our wills are utterly enslaved to sin (cf. ibid., II, 2, 1 & 27) and produce nothing but evil (cf. ibid., II, 2, 26-27; III, 3, 12). Consequently, we sin in everything that we do. For Calvin, this is true even after regeneration (cf. ibid., II, 2, 27). After regeneration, the only good we do is that which we are infallibly impelled by God's irresistible grace to do. Everything we do by our own efforts is sin, but the sins we commit after regeneration are no longer imputed to us (cf. ibid., III, 3, 11). The human will, even after regeneration, does not have an inclination of itself toward goodness. As Calvin writes:

[L]et us consider, in other respects, whether the will is so utterly vitiated and corrupted in every part as to produce nothing but evil, or whether it retains some portion uninjured, and productive of good desires. Those who ascribe our willing effectually, to the primary grace of God’s (supra, sect. 6), seem conversely to insinuate that the soul has in itself a power of aspiring to good, though a power too feeble to rise to solid affection or active endeavour (ibid., II, 2, 26-27).

And as the above quotations from Calvin show, he clearly rejects the idea that “the soul has in itself a power of aspiring to good,” and this is true, according to Calvin, even after regeneration if the will is considered in itself apart from the movements of God’s irresistible grace that leads the will of the regenerate believer in doing good. For Calvin, there is not a cooperation between divine grace and human free will in producing good works. It is entirely the work of divine grace in such a way that it is not also the work of man's will.

Having thus explicated the doctrine of total depravity, here is an argument against it:

1. All being other than God is caused by God (cf. John 1:3).
2. Hence, if evil has being, then it is caused by God (1).
3. Evil is not caused by God (cf. Deuteronomy 32:4, Job 34:12, Habakkuk 1:13, Matthew 5:48, 2 Timothy 2:13, James 1:13, 1 John 1:5).
4. Hence, evil does not have being (2, 3).
5. The corrupted nature of fallen man has being (self-evident).
6. Hence, to the extent that the corrupted nature of fallen man has being, it is caused by God (1, 5).
7. Everything that God causes is good (cf. Genesis 1:31, 1 Timothy 4:4).
8. Hence, to the extent that the corrupted nature of fallen man has being, it is not evil but is rather good (3, 6, 7).
9. Hence, the corrupted nature of fallen man has good in it (5, 8).
10. If the doctrine of total depravity is true, then the corrupted nature of fallen man “is altogether devoid of good” (Institutes, II, 3, 2).
11. Therefore, the doctrine of total depravity is false (9, 10).

A significant intermediate conclusion in the foregoing argument is the privation theory of evil (step 4). Evil does not have positive ontological status. It is the privation of good in the same way that coldness is the privation of heat. Although this step does not play a role in the derivation of the overall conclusion of the argument, I have included it anyway since it is noteworthy in its own right. As a kind of corollary to this, we can say that being and goodness are convertible. Any being insofar as it is being is good (cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, I, 5, 1; St. Augustine, On Christian Doctrine, I, 32). As a consequence of this, the above argument holds both before and after regeneration. Even in an unregenerate state of original sin, man’s nature still has at least some good in it. Hence, the doctrine of total depravity, insofar as it denies this, is false.

(Update on 12/4/2022): It is also interesting to note that the Reformed theologian and philosopher Cornelius Van Til acknowledged that if the privation theory of evil is true, then the doctrine of total depravity is false: "The scholastic idea is that all being is, as being, good. Hence if there were to be an absolutely evil will in man, he would have no more being at all. This virtually constitutes a denial of the Reformed doctrine of total depravity" (The Defense of the Faith, pg. 286).