The historic Reformed position describing the inherited nature of man is known as total depravity. This simply means that man inherits the guilt of Adam (Rom 5:12) and is a child of wrath (Eph 2:3). The term ‘total’ might be misleading to some as it does not mean that man is as sinful as he could be. Rather, it means that sin has affected the body, mind and will, and as a result, man does not seek after God because he has no desire to do so. Because he is dead in his transgressions and sin God must first change his heart and give him the faith to believe.
In stark contrast to this doctrine is the Arminian position that teaches mankind is depraved to some extent but not so much that he is unable to choose God when given the grace to do so. Kangaroodort at Arminian Perspectives explains it this way:
Most Arminians see total depravity as the corruption that was passed down to us from Adam as a result of his disobedience in the garden. This means that we are bent towards sin from birth and will eventually actualize sin ourselves.
This is how Arminians understand total depravity. Our depravity makes sinning inevitable and makes it impossible for us to seek God without God’s gracious intervention. On this Calvinists and Arminians agree. Calvinists see this intervention as irresistible regeneration. Arminians see this intervention as resistible prevenient grace. Both affirm inability. The disagreement lies in how God enables the sinner to believe.
The Arminian position affirms that God equips man with the possibility of making a choice and it is up to each individual to chose for himself if he is to accept the free offer of the gospel. However, it is with this presupposition that the Arminian position fails in its compatibility with Scripture. If every man has an equal ability to choose or not to choose God what is it that makes some make the right choice while others choose to remain in their unregenerate state? The only consistent answer with which the Arminian can reply is that he is either more intellectual, more spiritual or more godly than his neighbor who refused to accept Christ. It then is no longer a matter of grace but of a superior and more Godly decision that resulted in the salvation of one and not the other. It is almost reminiscent of the Pharisee and the tax collector as recorded in Luke’s gospel:
"Two men went up into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee stood and was praying this to himself: 'God, I thank You that I am not like other people: swindlers, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. 'I fast twice a week; I pay tithes of all that I get.' "But the tax collector, standing some distance away, was even unwilling to lift up his eyes to heaven, but was beating his breast, saying, 'God, be merciful to me, the sinner!' "I tell you, this man went to his house justified rather than the other; for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but he who humbles himself will be exalted." (Luke 18:10-14)
The Arminian position would allow him to proclaim with the Pharisee, "God, I thank you that I am not like my neighbor. It was my righteous and morally superior decision that brought upon salvation." This of course would be a prayer that is rejected by any Arminian, but he would be inconsistent if he did so. He would have to affirm that his position, when carried to its logical conclusion, allows for such boasting.
Furthermore, just as the Pharisee was beguiled in his thinking, anyone who removes the sovereign choice of God and replaces it with a man-centered decision (no matter how much he might protests that it is of grace) is guilty of denying the sovereign choice of God who "raises the dead and gives them life…to whom He wishes" (John 5:21). It is only within the Reformed tradition that one can wholly say that salvation is all of God and removes all cause for boasting. Anyone who says that they made the correct choice resulting in his eternal salvation has every cause to boast in his perspicacious choice.
