To properly defend biblical apologetics and a Scriptural anthropology, it is necessary to fully repudiate and dismantle three of the central tenets often found in Reformed or Van Tilian theology: (1) total depravity as defined by spiritual incapacity, (2) suppression of truth as indicating an inability to understand or respond, and (3) the notion that grace must first create its own point of contact in man because none exists naturally. All three are thoroughly unbiblical and collapse under the weight of exegetical scrutiny and rational evaluation when measured by the literal, historical-grammatical method.
Refuting Total Depravity: Sin’s Influence Does Not Equal Total Incapacity
The Reformed definition of total depravity posits that mankind is so wholly corrupted by sin that he cannot, of his own volition or understanding, respond to the gospel message unless regenerated first by an irresistible act of grace. This doctrine contradicts the clear teaching of Scripture and wrongly imports a philosophical system that reduces human responsibility to fiction.
Nowhere in the Bible is the human will described as metaphysically “dead” in the Calvinistic sense—incapable of response. Ephesians 2:1 says man is “dead in trespasses and sins,” but the metaphor of death here refers to separation from God, not to non-functionality of volition or cognition. This is evident when Paul immediately continues in verse 2, “in which you formerly walked,” showing that this “deadness” was active rebellion, not passive inability.
Furthermore, the command in Isaiah 55:6–7—“Seek Jehovah while He may be found; call upon Him while He is near”—assumes ability to respond. Jesus Himself in John 5:40 says, “you are unwilling to come to Me so that you may have life,” not “you are unable.” The blame is placed on volitional unwillingness, not ontological incapacity.
Total depravity falsely attributes to man a state that Scripture never describes. It is sin’s pervasiveness, not its disabling power, that is affirmed. Man retains the faculties necessary to hear, understand, and respond to God’s message, which is precisely why he is held accountable.
Disproving Suppression as Inability: The Biblical Context of Romans 1
Calvinists often cite Romans 1:18–21 to argue that unregenerate humans “suppress the truth in unrighteousness” because they cannot grasp it. But Paul’s language plainly conveys that suppression is an act of the will, not an indication of inability. Verse 21 states, “For although they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks.” This is not ignorance; it is a knowing rejection. Paul attributes to fallen man knowledge, understanding, and moral awareness. They know, yet they refuse to glorify. The act of suppression presupposes comprehension.
The passage never suggests that man is mentally or spiritually paralyzed. It affirms the opposite. The unbeliever sees, understands, and consciously chooses to resist. This rejection confirms human guilt, not spiritual incapacity. If suppression entailed metaphysical inability, divine condemnation would be unjust, for it would punish people for failing to do what they were incapable of doing. Scripture uniformly teaches that divine judgment is based on what people could have done but refused to do.
Furthermore, Romans 2:4 underscores God’s appeal to the sinner: “Or do you think lightly of the riches of His kindness…not knowing that the kindness of God leads you to repentance?” The intention of God’s revealed truth is to lead, not to frustrate. There would be no point in such appeals if man were totally incapable of recognizing or acting upon them.
Dismantling the Notion that Grace Must Create Its Own Point of Contact
Barthian and Van Tilian systems both err in asserting that grace must either impose itself irrationally upon man (Barth), or that it must first regenerate man in order for him to recognize truth (Van Til). Both frameworks divorce divine grace from the rational, propositional Word of God and replace it with mystical or metaphysical transformations.
This is flatly contradicted by Scripture. Romans 10:14 asks, “How will they believe in Him whom they have not heard?” and verse 17 answers, “Faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ.” Belief follows understanding; understanding follows communication. No text suggests that a supernatural point of contact must be generated before man can understand divine truth. The Word itself is the means God uses to inform, convict, and draw man to repentance.
Moreover, Hebrews 4:12 asserts that “the word of God is living and active…able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart.” It is the Word—not an antecedent spiritual event—that accomplishes the work. The idea that grace must first secretly regenerate man before he can respond devalues the inherent power of the Word of God and misrepresents the biblical doctrine of revelation.
Scripture presents God’s Word as entirely sufficient to reach the unregenerate heart and call man to repentance. Jesus proclaimed, “The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life” (John 6:63). There is no suggestion that another layer of hidden grace is needed to create a point of contact. The Word is the point of contact, acting upon rational, morally accountable human beings.
Exposing the Practical Incoherence of Spiritual Inability
Aside from its exegetical failure, the doctrine of spiritual inability is functionally incoherent. If man cannot respond to God’s Word unless he is regenerated first, then the call to repent and believe becomes meaningless. Appeals made throughout Scripture—by prophets, Christ, and the apostles—would be futile and insincere. The entire mission of evangelism collapses if the hearer cannot, by hearing, be moved to conviction and faith.
Consider Acts 2:37, where after Peter’s sermon, the crowd was “pierced to the heart.” They asked, “Brethren, what shall we do?” Peter responded, “Repent and be baptized” (v. 38). The sermon itself—not a prior regeneration—moved them to seek repentance. This is consistent with every biblical example of conversion. The Word is preached, it is understood, conviction follows, and repentance is chosen. The Calvinist model of regeneration prior to faith is nowhere modeled in the text of Scripture.
Conclusion: Upholding Human Responsibility and the Power of God’s Word
The false doctrines of total depravity, suppression as inability, and the need for grace to fabricate a point of contact all crumble under the weight of Scripture. They undermine biblical anthropology, contradict the nature of divine justice, and misrepresent the function and sufficiency of God’s inspired Word.
The truth is that man retains the ability to hear, comprehend, and respond to God. The Word of God is sufficient to reach every human conscience. Suppression is not inability but rebellion. Grace is mediated through the proclamation of the Word, not imposed apart from it. Any apologetic model or theological framework that denies these realities must be firmly rejected in favor of the clear, consistent teaching of Scripture.
EDWARD D. ANDREWS (AS in Criminal Justice, BS in Religion, MA in Biblical Studies, and MDiv in Theology) is CEO and President of Christian Publishing House. He has authored over 220+ books. In addition, Andrews is the Chief Translator of the Updated American Standard Version (UASV).
SCROLL THROUGH THE DIFFERENT CATEGORIES BELOW
BIBLE TRANSLATION AND TEXTUAL CRITICISM
BIBLICAL STUDIES / BIBLE BACKGROUND / HISTORY OF THE BIBLE/ INTERPRETATION
