Theological Reflection Journal of week
What was your understanding of sin and the idea of total depravity before
taking this course, and what do you think shaped it? How has your study of the
theology of sin affected your understanding of this concept?
I studied the theology of humanity and sin in the third week of the course of
Introduction to Christian Theology. It helped me gain an overarching understanding
through the methodology to study sin, clarify the concept of total depravity, and provide
an alternative perspective on the imputation of original sin.
If I was asked to describe the character of sin in one term before taking this course,
I would say “Missing the Mark” (Romans 3:23). It turns out to be the most common
phrase to that stress the nature of the sin.1 Besides studying Bible, I first learned about sin
and the idea of total depravity in a systematic way from the four spiritual laws written by
Bill Bright, “Man was created to have fellowship with God; but, because of his own
stubborn self-will, he chose to go his own independent way and fellowship with God was
broken. This self-will, characterized by an attitude of active rebellion or passive
indifference, is an evidence of what the Bible calls sin.” 2 I have also been participating to
teach in the Gospel class in my home church, the material we use emphasizes three
aspects of sin, which are thinking or doing what God forbids, failing to do what God
requires, and the most important, rebellion against God. The content was edited by a
1 Erickson, M. J. (2013). Christian Theology (3rd ed., p. 519). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic.
2 www.4laws.com, No pages, Cited July 29, 2018. Online
http://www.4laws.com/laws/englishkgp/default.htm
brother who led the Gospel class of my church more than ten years ago. I have wondered
why the material was edited this way and if we should increase or decrease some parts.
There are other facets that shape my theological understanding. My church is nondenominational, but a lot of doctrine preached by the senior pastor is from the reformed
theology. And I have taken online courses from a multimedia seminary of Third
Millennium Ministries a few years ago. The Instructors were seminary professors and
theologically trained educators. The president of the ministries, Dr. Richard Pratt, taught
at Reformed Evangelical Seminary. Then, how was my understanding on the topic of sin
and total depravity affected by this week’s study?
First, it is about the specific methodology that the topic of sin is studied. The
approach in Erikson’s book begins by noting all of the biblical terminology for sin. These
concepts are examined together to discover the essential element of sin. This basic factor
may then be used as our focal point as we endeavor to study and understand the nature of
specific instances of sin. I found that as I put the book aside, I can enunciate the causes of
sin, character of sin, and results of sin, source of sin and the social dimension of sin. And
I began to think about the theology of sin through studying the terms for sin as set forth in
Scripture. I feel like this is a better way to present the concept of sin in the basic truth
class of our Sunday school for the new believers. On the other hand, it’s still better to use
the existing material for the Gospel class which is clear and concise for the seekers.
Second, I could gain an overview and a coherent understanding of the topic of
total depravity across the Scriptures. Erikson states that: sin is a matter of the entire
person; total depravity means that even the unregenerate person’s altruism always
contains an element of improper motive; and total depravity means that sinners are
completely unable to extricate themselves from their sinful condition. 3 This is related to
the question how we get saved. It invokes me for further reflection on the difference
between Arminianism and Calvinism. Arminianism holds that we receive from Adam a
corrupted nature. We begin life without righteousness. Thus, all humans are unable,
without special divine help, to fulfill God’s spiritual commands. This inability is physical
and intellectual, but not volitional. The Calvinist position is based upon a very serious
and quite literal understanding of Paul’s statements in Romans 5:12–19 that sin entered
the world through Adam and death through that sin, and so death passed to all people,
because all sinned. Through one person’s sin all became sinners. 4
As a Calvinist, I have debated with Arminians and presented my balanced view
on men’s total depravity and free will. But a lot of times, I found each side has been
fighting with either the hyper-Calvinism or extreme Arminianism. In my further study
and research on this topic, I found the following statement from an Arminian, “Mankind
is totally depraved, but God has extended His common grace to all so that every man or
woman can search and find God.” 5 Is the special work from God for people to seek Him
a common grace or special grace? I can’t wait to research on this topic again in the week
five of this course.
Third, I was provided an alternative perspective on the imputation of original sin
which is kind of new to me. This is for the topic about the nature of the connection or
relationship between Adam and us, and between Adam’s first sin and our sinfulness. I
3 Erickson, M. J. (2013). Christian Theology (3rd ed., p. 572). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic.
4 Erickson, M. J. (2013). Christian Theology (3rd ed., p. 572). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic.
5 www. crivoice.org, No pages, Cited July 29, 2018. Online
http://www.crivoice.org/arminianism.html
have learned and accepted the standpoint of federal headship that Adam was our
representative. But this other major approach sees Adam’s connection with us in terms of
a natural headship. It is related to the traducianist view of the origin of the soul, according
to which we receive our souls by transmission from our parents, just as we do our
physical natures. We were present in germinal or seminal form in our ancestors; in a very
real sense, we were there in Adam. His action was not merely that of one isolated
individual, but of the entire human race. Although we were not there individually, we
were nonetheless there. The human race sinned as a whole and became guilty. Thus, there
is nothing unfair or improper about our receiving a corrupted nature and guilt from Adam,
for we are receiving the just results of our sin. This is the view of Augustine. 6
The doctrine of tradutianism, that a child's soul is generated by the child's parents,
even involves a contemporary understanding of genetics. But I doubt human’s soul is
related to genetics. Mingling science and theology could end us up in the wrong positions
sometimes. On the other hand, I was reminded of the ethical and policy issues of human
cloning which is not only scientific, but also ethical, as well as theology. The second
question is how sin is passed on. It’s maintained that sin is passed on from generation to
generation, as well as instantly from Adam with this aspect. My further research on this
theme is to check the criticism on this natural headship view.7
The study of this week, mainly the content in the book of Erikson, invokes me to
think how to present the theology of sin and total depravity, including the natural
headship view to explain the imputation of original sin. It motivates me for further study
6 Erickson, M. J. (2013). Christian Theology (3rd ed., p. 578). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic.
7 sharperiron.org, No pages, Cited July 29, 2018. Online https://sharperiron.org/article/federaland-natural-headship
on the Arminianism and Calvinism, as well as the natural headship view and the doctrine
of tradutianism.