Romans 3:23: Is the Christian Interpretation of It based on the Doctrine of Total Depravity?

[Wgw]

Audience: Christians in general.

For the humble, average Christian evangelist on the street today, Romans 3:23 is one of Christianity’s go-to Biblical verses for “winning souls for Christ”. Basically, it is cited under their interpretation that everyone, in all of human history, without qualification, has sinned and fallen short of YHVH’s (God’s) standards, especially the subject at hand, those who lived under the Torah’s Law (Romans 3:20). Thus, absolutely everyone needs a Savior and salvation, as provided by the New Covenant (Romans 3:23-24, cf. ref. Romans 3:25, cf. ref. 1 Peter 3:18-19, Ephesians 4:8-10).

But, in an interesting parallel, the higher Calvinist, when he is around, pops up, takes advantage of this interpretation of Romans 3:23, and logically extends it to Romans 3:9-12--the context of Romans 3:23--and asserts that Romans 3:9-12, 23 is straightforwardly teaching the doctrine of Total Depravity. And, in doing so, he asserts that Christianity is inseparable from Calvinism. "After all", the Calvinist reasons, "nothing demonstrates and guarantees that all men are sinners, except the reality of Total Depravity!"

In light of this, my question is as follows:

How can one affirm that Romans 3:23 is a universal statement about all of humanity over all of human history for the sake of Evangelism, without affirming that Romans 3:9-12 is also a universal statement about all of humanity over all of human history and, in doing so, unwittingly supporting the Calvinist doctrine of Total Depravity? In short, does Christianity in general unwittingly use and rely on the Calvinist doctrine of Total Depravity as a primary tool of Evangelism?​

I look forward to your thoughts!

BTW: If you give a direct answer to this question or set of questions, then please explain why you are giving the said answer that you are giving in order to make it edifying. Thanks.

The Orthodox reject Total Depravity but have no problems with these verses.

 

[Erose]

I see you are avoiding my request. Please quote a modern scholar who interprets Romans 5:12 like Augustine.

Else you are just perpetuating an error which everybody else has already abandoned.

This is important, because the meaning of the gospel depends on correct interpretation of Romans 5:12.

What modern scholar? A Protestant one? The Church interprets that passage the same as St. Augustine, that is what is important. I don't follow Protestant scholars. I don't really have the time.

In all honesty I don't think there is a modern scholar that can even compare to St. Augustine anyway.

 

[Wordkeeper]

What modern scholar? A Protestant one? The Church interprets that passage the same as St. Augustine, that is what is important. I don't follow Protestant scholars. I don't really have the time.

In all honesty I don't think there is a modern scholar that can even compare to St. Augustine anyway.

Maybe you can post your church's interpretation of Romans 5:12?

So that we can analyse it and point out the fault in the argument.

2 Corinthians 10:5We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ.

The standard interpretation has terrorized believers for generations, Catholic as well as Protestant. It's time for the doctrine to be put down.

Quote
Augustine’s association with Neoplatonic philosophers led him to introduce their outlook within the church. This had its effect in the development of doctrine. For example, Jesus was considered immaculately conceived—without sin in that His Father was God. But because His mother, Mary, had a human father, she suffered the effect of original sin. In order to present Jesus Christ as a perfect offspring without any inherited sin from either parent, the church had to find a way to label Mary as sinless. They did this by devising the doctrine of her immaculate conception, though this inevitably leads to further questions.

Other babies were not so fortunate. Some eight centuries later the Catholic theologian Anselm extended the implications of Augustine’s concept of original sin and claimed that babies who died, did so as sinners; as sinners, they had no access to eternal life but were condemned to eternal damnation.

http://www.vision.org/visionmedia/article.aspx?id=227

 

[hedrick]

Rom 3:23 teaches a kind of total depravity, though not necessarily the most radical version sometimes taught by Reformed. The context is still the question of what our status before God is based upon. So in the background is still the supposed contrast between Jews and “Gentile sinners.” So 3:23 is further asserting Paul’s claim that the Law can’t be the basis for our standing before God. Because the Law could justify only if we obeyed it completely. But the fact is, everyone sins. So Jews can’t claim the Law as their base any more than Gentiles can.

But this isn’t necessarily an assertion that no one can do anything good.

James Dunn (Word Commentary) sees the reference to “the glory of God” as a phrase that would have been understood as referring to what God intended for man before the fall. Thus our current state as all sinners is being connected with the fall. Again, that doesn’t necessarily include every possible idea that one might have about the consequences of the fall.

I would say that these arguments are not consistent with the view one sometimes runs into today that thinks Paul is criticizing only a reliance on “works of the Law,” meaning circumcision and other Jewish specifics, but is not talking about normal sin and obedience. Clearly Paul’s opponents do see these ceremonial signs as the basis for Jewish standing. And much of Paul’s argument is directed against those “works of the Law.” But Paul also seems in Rom 2 and 3 to be arguing against a view that Jews are morally superior to Gentiles, on the grounds that all, Jews and Gentiles alike, are sinners.

I am not convinced that the view of the Law he is criticizing is necessarily the OT or Jewish view. The Bible in general does not expect godly people to be perfect. It speaks of people as righteous if they try to follow the Law and repent when they fail. But Paul’s argument seems to be in Rom 2 that if you take this view, then Gentiles, with something like the Law in their hearts, who do good have as much claim as Jews to be in the right. The Law could only justify Jews preferentially if you take a much narrower view of what it means to obey the Law. But if you do that even Jews fail the test.

 

[Wordkeeper]

Rom 3:23 teaches a kind of total depravity, though not necessarily the most radical version sometimes taught by Reformed. The context is still the question of what our status before God is based upon. So in the background is still the supposed contrast between Jews and “Gentile sinners.” So 3:23 is further asserting Paul’s claim that the Law can’t be the basis for our standing before God. Because the Law could justify only if we obeyed it completely. But the fact is, everyone sins. So Jews can’t claim the Law as their base any more than Gentiles can.

But this isn’t necessarily an assertion that no one can do anything good.

James Dunn (Word Commentary) sees the reference to “the glory of God” as a phrase that would have been understood as referring to what God intended for man before the fall. Thus our current state as all sinners is being connected with the fall. Again, that doesn’t necessarily include every possible idea that one might have about the consequences of the fall.

I would say that these arguments are not consistent with the view one sometimes runs into today that thinks Paul is criticizing only a reliance on “works of the Law,” meaning circumcision and other Jewish specifics, but is not talking about normal sin and obedience. Clearly Paul’s opponents do see these ceremonial signs as the basis for Jewish standing. And much of Paul’s argument is directed against those “works of the Law.” But Paul also seems in Rom 2 and 3 to be arguing against a view that Jews are morally superior to Gentiles, on the grounds that all, Jews and Gentiles alike, are sinners.

I am not convinced that the view of the Law he is criticizing is necessarily the OT or Jewish view. The Bible in general does not expect godly people to be perfect. It speaks of people as righteous if they try to follow the Law and repent when they fail. But Paul’s argument seems to be in Rom 2 that if you take this view, then Gentiles, with something like the Law in their hearts, who do good have as much claim as Jews to be in the right. The Law could only justify Jews preferentially if you take a much narrower view of what it means to obey the Law. But if you do that even Jews fail the test.

Absolutely, the verse being used to support the doctrine of original sin by interpreting it to mean every human being is sinful is actually stating something else : that the Jew was not getting a get out of jail free card as far as being found righteous by God was concerned. We know that this is a view attacked by Jesus too:

Matthew 3:9And do not think you can say to yourselves, 'We have Abraham asour father.' I tell
you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham