Unforgettable stories are built on a powerful foundation: a seemingly insurmountable obstacle and a hero bold enough to face it. By overcoming the problem, the true character of the hero is revealed and the actions are viewed as exemplary. Smaller problems require smaller heroes. In the Christian faith, redemption is viewed as great and glorious because Jesus Christ vanquished an enemy no other human could. Sin left humanity in such a condition that no one but the Son of God could conquer it. As Augustine of Hippo powerfully articulated, and as affirmed by the Councils of Carthage and Ephesus alongside numerous historic confessions, humanity is born into sin and spiritual ruin. Adam’s sin was not isolated to him alone, as all his descendants inherit a fallen nature. This dark backdrop sets the stage for humanity’s rescue, commonly summarized by the doctrines of grace and referred to by the T. U. L. I. P. acronym. Because sin renders humanity incapable of earning God’s favor, divine election must be unconditional. Because sin brings forth God’s wrath, the atonement must be both particular and effective. Because human hearts are naturally hostile to God, grace must be effectual and overcoming. Every aspect of salvation is anchored in the reality of humanity’s total depravity, their utter inability and unworthiness before God. Without it, there would be no need for sovereign grace, and the gospel story would fade into obscurity.

Recently, a group of pastors and scholars have argued that much of the Christian church’s understanding and teaching on depravity is fundamentally flawed and insufficient. Led by Adam Harwood, who holds the McFarland Chair of Theology at New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary, and supported by proponents of the so-called “Traditional” view (which claims to represent the historic majority within the Southern Baptist Convention), this movement contends that Augustine’s doctrine of original sin, emphasizing inherited guilt and corruption, rests on a misreading of Romans 5 and warped anthropology. As critics of Calvinism, this movement seeks to critique and potentially dismantle the Reformed understanding of total depravity, thereby deconstructing the Reformed doctrines of grace.

The idea that modern Reformed theology is based upon faults from Augustine’s doctrine of original sin can be traced back at least as early as 1929 when Norman Powell Williams, Lady Margaret Professor of Divinity at Oxford University, gave that year’s Bampton Lectures.¹Norman Powell Williams, The Ideas of the Fall and of Original Sin (Longmans, Green and Co: 1929), xxv–xxvi, 321–22, 425, 430–37. See Zi Wang, “The Transformation of Hamartiology in Early Christianity: On Augustine’s Interpretation of Romans 5:12,” Religions 15.1 (2024): 100. Other scholars, since that time, have argued that Augustine’s doctrine of original sin has been read into, not out of, Paul, particularly in Romans 5:12.²Joseph A. Fitzmyer, Romans,AYB 33 (Yale University Press, 1993), 407–11. Ken Wilson, “A Theological and Historical Investigation,” in A Defense of Free Grace Theology, ed. Fred Chay (Grace Theology, 2017), 33–65. In recent years, a growing number of Southern Baptists, led by Harwood, have revived this argument, alarmed by what they describe as the growing influence of “New Calvinism” within their denomination and broader evangelical communities. This group of pastors and theologians issued A Statement of the Traditional Southern Baptist Understanding of God’s Plan of Salvation in May 2012, authored by Eric Hankins (now pastor of First Baptist Church in Fairhope, Alabama).³The Traditional Statement was originally posted on the now defunct SBC Today website. However, a copy of the Statement may be found in Adam Harwood, Born Guilty? A Southern Baptist View of Original Sin (Free Church, 2013), 33–35. The statement, commonly known as the Traditional Statement, explicitly denies that Adam’s sin rendered humanity guilty or incapacitated in the will prior to personal sin.⁴Traditional Statement, Article 2. The statement also says, in Article 8: The Free Will of Man, “We deny that the decision of faith is an act of God rather than a response of the person. We deny that there is an ‘effectual call’ for certain people that is different from a ‘general call’ to any person who hears and understands the Gospel.” The document sparked widespread debate, drawing criticism from both Calvinists like Albert Mohler and Arminians like Roger Olson, who saw in it shades of Semi-Pelagianism.⁵R. Albert Mohler, Jr., “Southern Baptists and Salvation: It’s Time to Talk,” 6 June 2012, https://tinyurl.com/mrypvap8; Roger E. Olson, “Thoughts About ‘A Statement of the Traditional Southern Baptist Understanding of God’s Plan of Salvation,” 4 June 2012, https://tinyurl.com/46mdyb6f.

Although debates surrounding the Traditional Statement have largely subsided, advocates of this viewpoint continue to critique the Reformed doctrine of original sin on these grounds. Since his 2007 doctoral dissertation on the spiritual condition of infants and continuing through his 2024 lectures at the South African Theological Seminary Symposia, Harwood has consistently argued that contemporary Reformed theology misrepresents both the meaning and implications of original sin. He maintains that humans do not inherit guilt from Adam, all sinners are capable of repentance and faith apart from any preceding act of regenerating grace, and the Reformed (or Calvinist) position, though an orthodox option, is misguided. Most recently, Harwood has moved away from saying humanity inherits a sinful nature and instead prefers to say they inherit consequences (like sinful inclinations, mortality, and a fallen world) from Adam. This article contends that Harwood’s critique of total depravity is fundamentally flawed, that his biblical and logical argumentation is insufficient, and that the Reformed understanding of total depravity remains the more coherent and biblically grounded position.

1. Harwood on Original Sin

Harwood’s view on original sin, which he claims to be “traditional,” has undergone significant modifications in recent years. While some aspects of his views remain unchanged, there has been a softening of what he states original sin does to a person.

1.1. Earlier Views

While all of Harwood’s writings deny that human beings inherit Adam’s guilt, his earliest writings affirmed humans inherit a sinful nature.⁶Harwood’s views on inherited sinful nature seem to have changed between 2017, with the publication of Adam Harwood and Kevin Lawson, eds., Infants and Children in the Church: Five Views on Theology and Ministry (B&H Academic, 2017), and 2022, with the publication of Harwood, Christian Theology: Biblical, Historical, and Systematic (Lexham Academic), 2022. From the decade of 2007 (with the publication of his doctoral dissertation) to 2017, he affirmed inherited sinful natures. Infants, he claimed, “are not innocent because they have inherited a sinful nature,”⁷Harwood, The Spiritual Condition of Infants: A Biblical-Historical Survey and Systematic Proposal (Wipf & Stock, 2011), 156, emphasis original. This work is a revision of his doctoral thesis. and “the option of infant sinlessness must be rejected and consideration must be given to how sin affects infants.”⁸Harwood, “The Spiritual Condition of Infants: A Biblical-Historical Survey and Systematic Proposal” (PhD diss., Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2007), 199, emphasis original; cf. xv. While it is unclear how infants can be “not innocent” while also not guilty, Harwood’s position, at the time, was to affirm that infants (all people) inherit effects from Adam’s sin which include a sinful nature without a transmission of his guilt. The reason people do not inherit guilt is because infants lack the moral knowledge to distinguish between good and evil, and God only judges people for sinful actions, not sinful natures.⁹Harwood, The Spiritual Condition of Infants, 156–57. He states elsewhere that infants may be sin-stained in their nature by Adam, but people only become guilty when they transgress God’s law.¹⁰Harwood, Born Guilty? 11, 17.

What did Harwood believe an inherited sinful nature was when he argued for that view? Readers of his work are left scouring for an answer. In all his writings on the matter prior to 2022, Harwood merely reiterates that humans inherit a sinful nature without inheriting guilt; however, he never fully develops what an inherited sinful nature means or does to humanity.¹¹Harwood, The Spiritual Condition of Infants, 37–40; Born Guilty? 7–11; “A Baptist View,” in Infants and Children in the Church, 162–66; “Commentary on Article 2: The Sinfulness of Man,” in Anyone Can Be Saved: A Defense of ‘Traditional’ Southern Baptist Soteriology, ed. David L. Allen, Eric Hankins, and Adam Harwood (Wipf & Stock, 2016), 40–43; “The Spiritual Condition of Infants,” xii–xiii, 46, 54, 63, 84, 100, 200, 203–7.

A few glimpses of his understanding can be gleaned, however. First, infants are not sinless in his view, and they inherit a sinful nature while later acquiring their own guilt after they are cognizant of their own willful sin.¹²Harwood, The Spiritual Condition of Infants, 9. Elsewhere, he says: “Infants have inherited a seed or stain or corruption of sin from Adam. However, the present thesis argues that there is a difference between inheriting sin,or a sinful nature, and inheriting guilt.”¹³Harwood, “The Spiritual Condition of Infants,” 203, emphasis added. Thus, it appears that Harwood’s view of an inherited sinful nature is that humans inherit sin itself but are not culpable for it. Second, Harwood states, “This view that people inherit from Adam a sinful nature only (or inclination to sin) appears to be more consistent with the plain reading of the Bible than the view that people inherit Adam’s guilt.”¹⁴Harwood, “Commentary on Article 2,” 40, parenthesis original, emphasis added. Here, Harwood seems to equate a sinful nature with inclination to sin, which seems to correlate with his view of the inevitability of people sinning.¹⁵Harwood, “The Spiritual Condition of Infants,” 207. See also “A Baptist View,” 164–65. Third, a person with an inherited sinful nature can still resist God’s saving grace or freely respond to God’s invitation to be saved in Christ without being regenerated first by God.¹⁶Harwood, “Commentary on Article 2,” 38, 51. While this is not a definition of what an inherited sinful nature is, it does helpfully explain his view of what an inherited sinful nature does. Regardless of whatever an inherited sinful nature means to Harwood, it does not compel someone to resist God’s saving grace or prohibit someone from freely responding to the gospel invitation in his view. In summary, for Harwood, an inherited sinful nature means people are born with sin from Adam and are inclined to sin themselves, but they do not inherit guilt or an inability to embrace Christ by faith for their salvation.

1.2. Latter Views

Recently, however, Harwood has changed his stance on inherited sinful nature, as reflected by the 2022 publication of his Christian Theology and his chapter on Calvinism: A Biblical and Theological Critique. Despite being two distinct works, his chapters dealing with original sin and total depravity are virtually identical with only minor differences between the two. In both books, he provides this quote:

In previous writings, I argued for an ‘inherited sinful nature,’ the view that all people inherit from Adam a sinful nature, not his guilt. Though I am in general agreement with the method and finding of those studies, I no longer refer to inheriting a sinful nature and prefer instead to refer to inherited consequences.¹⁷Harwood, “A Critique of Total Depravity,” 38, and Christian Theology, 382, italics original.

Harwood’s preferred terminology is now inherited consequences, “the view that all people inherit from Adam sinful inclinations and mortality, not the guilt of his sin.”¹⁸Harwood, “A Critique of Total Depravity,” 17. Said another way, the view affirms people inherit sinful inclinations, mortality, and a corrupt environment in which to live, but it denies inherited guilt. Harwood explains his view through historical survey, highlighting early church fathers such as Tertullian, Gregory of Nyssa, and John Chrysostom as examples who would reject Augustine’s view of inherited guilt. He shows, further, that Anselm, Ulrich Zwingli, John Miley, and many Baptists have rejected inherited guilt. He concludes his case for inherited consequences by saying one can affirm imputed righteousness while denying imputed guilt because there is a unique condition to be met for justification, namely faith. Thus, he rejects inherited and imputed guilt while affirming imputed righteousness by faith.¹⁹Harwood, Christian Theology, 374–84. His approach is the same in his video lecture on “South African Theological Seminary Symposia: The Doctrine of Sin: Inherited Guilt?” Youtube, 18 July 2024, 52:51, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Qw_Z7-zyEo.

Before critiquing Harwood’s views, it is worth noting that Harwood’s positions are not isolated to himself but are reflective of prominent Christian pastors and scholars and, it is claimed, the majority of Southern Baptists. Eric Hankins continually refers to the Traditional Statement he authored (with its emphasis that Adam’s sin does not incapacitate a person’s free will or render anyone guilty before God) as the traditional, standard, and even majority view of Southern Baptists, the largest Protestant denomination in the world.²⁰Michael Foust, “Statement on Calvinism Draws Approval, Criticism,” Baptist Press, 31 May 2012, https://tinyurl.com/4upvkzjh.. While Hankins’s claims of majority have been questioned,²¹See Daniel Kirkpatrick, review of Anyone Can Be Saved, by Adam Harwood, Journal for Baptist Theology and Ministry 14.1 (2017): 80–81. it is unquestionable that many influential Southern Baptists (including, at the time, two seminary presidents, five state executive directors, six former Southern Baptist presidents, university and seminary professors, and a considerable number of pastors and lay-leaders) embrace the view.²²Foust, “Statement on Calvinism Draws Approval, Criticism.” Article III of the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 states that humanity fell from original innocence and inherits “a nature and environment inclined toward sin.” See SBC, “Baptist Faith and Message 2000,” https://bfm.sbc.net/bfm2000/#iii. This statement is agreeable to all Southern Baptists. It does not, however, develop the effects of the fall upon human nature. As such, the Traditionalists stay aligned with their statement of faith yet use the lack of clarity in the Baptist Faith and Message to articulate the view expressed and critiqued here. Thus, Harwood articulates a theological position widely held by an influential body. Additionally, Harwood has co-authored works and received endorsements by notable scholars both inside and outside the Southern Baptist Convention. The views continue to be circulated as evidenced by the publications cited here. Clearly, the Reformed doctrine on total depravity is under significant scrutiny with no signs of stopping soon, and a response from the Reformed tradition is warranted.

2. A Critical Evaluation

With Harwood’s view of original sin defined, it may now be evaluated in light of a Reformed perspective. This essay finds four primary faults in the view, namely: it does not reflect the biblical portrayal of a sinful human condition, it neglects the biblical teaching of overcoming grace, it lacks adequate biblical exegesis, and it is based upon faulty logic.

2.1. Faulty View on the Human Condition

The context for some, not all, of Harwood’s writings (both in his earlier and latter views on inherited sin) is in response to a concern over the rise of Calvinism.²³His article on original sin in Anyone Can Be Saved is a defense of the Traditional Statement, which is a reaction against New Calvinism in the Southern Baptist Convention. His latest contribution, “A Critique of Total Depravity,” is in a book whose focus is on their “concerns about some doctrines of Calvinism, particularly those related to soteriology,” in Calvinism: A Biblical and Theological Critique, ed. David L. Allen and Steve W. Lemke (B&H Academic, 2022), 9. Viewing the “New Calvinism” movement as problematic, Harwood and others who co-author writings alongside him seek to criticize and dismantle the Reformed system of soteriology. Readers familiar with the doctrine of original sin and total depravity will immediately observe, however, that there is nothing uniquely Calvinistic about inheriting sin and guilt from Adam. Even Jacobus Arminius held both to inherited sin and guilt from Adam.²⁴Harwood claims otherwise, saying Arminius’s view was consistent with inherited corruption, not inherited guilt, in “A Critique of Total Depravity,” 33. He provides one sentence to this effect with no citation from Arminius on this point. The evidence supplied here proves otherwise. In Arminius’s Nine Questions, Question 3 asks if original sin makes mankind obnoxious to eternal death or if the guilt of original sin is taken away by Christ. Arminius’s answer is both. He states: “For original sin can render man obnoxious to eternal death, and its guilt can be taken away from all men by Christ. Indeed, in order that guilt may be removed, it is necessary that men be previously rendered guilty.”²⁵James Arminius, The Works of James Arminius, trans. James Nichols and W. R. Bangle (Lamp Post, 2009), 1:288. J. Matthew Pinson, an Arminian scholar, observes Arminius held to the Heidelberg Catechism and Belgic Confession of Faith concerning original sin and (though disagreeing with Augustine’s view on infant damnation) was fully Augustinian on affirming the transmission of Adam’s sin and guilt to infants.²⁶J. Matthew Pinson, “Jacobus Arminius: Reformed and Always Reforming,” in Grace for All: The Arminian Dynamics of Salvation, ed. Clark H. Pinnock and John D. Wagner (Resource, 2015), 165–66. Pinson also contributes “Dissent from Calvinism in the Baptist Tradition,” ch. 7 in Calvinism: A Biblical and Theological Critique. Another noted Arminian scholar, Roger Olson, affirms Calvinistic total depravity, emphasizing a corrupt nature bound to sin and citing Arminius’s own views that the human will is not only wounded, maimed, and weakened but imprisoned, destroyed, and lost.²⁷Roger Olson, Arminian Theology (IVP Academic, 2006), 55–56. He cites Arminius, “Public Disputations,” in Works, 2:192. Olson contributed with Harwood to Calvinism: A Biblical and Theological Critique (“The Character of God in Calvinism,” ch. 11). If the problem of total depravity, inherited sin and guilt, and natural inability of the will is a problem for Calvinists, it is as much of one for Arminians, yet none of the critiques from advocates of the Traditional Statement are directed at them.

Scripture is not silent as to the state of humanity’s condition after the fall of Adam.²⁸Harwood rejects the Federal Headship view, where Adam represented all of humanity’s will and response to God through his sin. Arguing for humanity’s total depravity from that perspective would only be dismissed by advocates of Harwood’s position, so this section will focus on additional scriptural references about human nature. However, for an excellent defense of the Federal Headship view from a Reformed perspective which affirms total depravity, see Matthew Barrett, 40 Questions About Salvation (Kregel Academic, 2018), 23–37. Genesis 6:5 (cf. Gen 8:21) states, “The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.” This verse shows not only the quantity of humanity’s sin (being “great in the earth”) but the very condition of the heart (every intention of all thought was continually evil). While Genesis 6 serves as a backdrop for God’s judgment on the earth through the flood, it also clarifies why humanity immediately resorted to idolatry at Babel (Gen 11) and perversion at Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen 18–19) despite almost all of them being destroyed by the deluge. Sin persisted because sin is pervasive in all humanity. Sin is the universal human problem (1 Kgs 8:46; Job 14:4; Ps 143:2; Prov 20:9; Rom 3:23). Jesus affirmed that all sin comes from the heart (Mark 7:21–23), and Paul was clear that sin and corruption were not isolated to Adam alone but are the central problems for all humanity (Rom 1:21–32; 3:9–20; 5:12–21; 8:5–7).²⁹For a thorough treatment on sin’s pervasiveness and effects, see Anthony A. Hoekema, Created in God’s Image (Eerdmans, 1994), 133–86.

It is not necessary to provide an exhaustive biblical survey of humanity’s sin for the sake of this argument, for Harwood and his constituents agree with sin’s pervasiveness. Disagreement lay not in the existence of sin but the effects of sin. Harwood remains vague about what humans actually inherit in their nature from Adam (if anything), which is particularly concerning given his softened language on inherited consequences. He is abundantly clear that he rejects the inherited guilt view of Augustine alongside many other notable theologians; however, he provides no thorough description of how the fall affects humans (a deficiency needing utmost clarity). Harwood does cite Ulrich Zwingli in support of his denial of inherited guilt while also mentioning Zwingli’s denial that humans inherited sin at all from Adam, seemingly a departure from the earlier view of inherited sinful nature.³⁰Harwood, “A Critique of Total Depravity,” 32–33, Christian Theology, 377. He compares his view to the hereditary decline view of Pier Franco Beatrice, who affirms that people suffer consequences of Adam’s sin (like physical death), but sin itself is not passed to Adam’s posterity.³¹Harwood, “A Critique of Total Depravity,” 18. He is critical of Augustine’s interpretation of Romans 5:12 and supposed misreading of “because all sinned,” clearly arguing against inherited guilt, but his arguments are destructive, not constructive, in nature, suggesting that humans do not inherit sin at all.³²Harwood, Christian Theology, 364–66. With his emphasis that humans are only guilty for the sin they commit and that humans inherit negative effects of the fall (like mortality, a sinful environment, and desires to sin), readers are justified in believing Harwood’s view of inherited consequences means exactly that—in Adam, people are sinned against, not sinners.

Notice the language of Article 2 of the Traditional Statement, which Harwood endorses:

We affirm that, because of the fall of Adam, every person inherits a nature and environment inclined toward sin and that every person who is capable of moral action will sin. Each person’s sin alone brings the wrath of a holy God, broken fellowship with Him…. We deny that Adam’s sin resulted in the incapacitation of any person’s free will or rendered any person guilty before he has personally sinned…”³³Traditional Statement in Harwood, Born Guilty? 33.

According to this statement, what every person inherits is a nature inclined towards sin, not a sinful (wicked, depraved) nature. In other words, the Traditional Statement claims that Adam’s sin affects human nature, whereby people will want to sin in the sinful environment they inherit, but it does not make them sinners.

In response, no one seriously disagrees that the fall left people inclined towards sin and in an environment sullied by sin. The issue is in the condition of the human will. Both The Traditional Statement and Harwood’s writings state that total depravity does not mean total inability to repent of sin and call on the Lord to save (defined often by the Reformed tradition as spiritual deadness).³⁴Harwood, “A Critique of Total Depravity,” 45–46. In his view, if God calls everyone to repent and believe in the gospel, and if he wants salvation for every person, that must mean they have the ability to do so.³⁵Harwood, “A Critique of Total Depravity,” 45–47. Here, readers find why total depravity (whatever it means in their view) cannot mean total inability. If total depravity means total inability to come to faith in Christ apart from God’s effectual calling and regenerating grace (the Reformed view), then that would mean doctrines like unconditional election and irresistible grace would have to be true (which cannot be for these non-Calvinists).

Assuming for the sake of argument spiritual death does not mean spiritual inability, Scripture is replete with other images demonstrating complete human inability to approach God for salvation because of sinful depravity. Paul, in Romans 6, contrasted slaves of righteousness with slaves of sin (Rom 6:16; cf. 6:22). It would require extraordinary exegesis, something advocates of this inherited consequence view do not supply, to make a case for human ability and freedom from these texts. The thought of a slave willfully changing masters out of self-driven will is a notion entirely foreign to the biblical audience. As slaves were controlled by their earthly masters, so sinners are enslaved by their sin and unable to receive Christ as their Lord apart from God’s work in redemption.³⁶For support on inherited sin leading to spiritual enslavement and the necessity of redemption, see Daniel Kirkpatrick, “What Is Redeemed in Redemption? An Argument for Unconditional Redemption,” Evangelical Review of Theology 47.2 (2023): 175–86. Scripture also speaks of humanity as dwelling in darkness (John 3:19–20, John 12:39–40). No amount of human will or effort can remove darkness; only Light can do that (John 8:12, 9:5).³⁷Thomas J. Nettles, By His Grace and for His Glory (Baker Books, 1986), 292–93. Romans 7:18 and Titus 1:15 are just some of the verses that show humans lack the spiritual capacity to do good before God. If believing in Christ unto salvation is a spiritually good thing, something which all traditions agree, then there is no way, biblically, someone can do such a thing in their fallen nature. Additionally, Romans 8:8 affirms that people in the flesh (their natural state) cannot please God. Believing in Christ for salvation would please God, but such a thing is not possible in people’s natural (sinful) state. Human righteousness is also polluted before God (Isa 64:6; cf. Rom 3:9–20), so there is nothing of spiritual worth that people can bring to God apart from God’s miraculous overcoming grace. These texts support the Reformed tradition that total depravity means spiritual deadness and inability to receive salvation in Christ.³⁸See Carl R. Trueman, Grace Alone: Salvation as a Gift, Five Solas (Zondervan Academic, 2017), 40–41. For Harwood and adherents to the Traditional Statement, people only inherit an inclination to sin in a sinful environment. Being inclined to sin, though, is not the same thing as being a sinner. These views do not reflect the biblical portrayal of human depravity.

2.2. Lack of Overcoming Grace

This observation leads to the second critique—a lack of overcoming grace. Augustine was the pioneer in championing original sin and overcoming grace against the Pelagians and Massilians, leading to their subsequent condemnation at Carthage, Ephesus, and Orange respectively. Harwood, however, claims Augustine misinterpreted two Old Testament texts (Job 14:4 and Ps 51:5) along with three New Testament texts (Eph 2:3, Heb 7:4–10, and Rom 5:12). Additionally, Harwood claims Augustine’s views were based upon distorted perspectives on humanity, sexuality, and marriage, and he departed from Paul’s meaning on original sin when he read from the Latin, not Greek, texts.³⁹Harwood, “A Critique of Total Depravity,” 25–32. Harwood finds that Augustine’s erroneous views on inherited sin and guilt have so shaped Roman Catholics and Protestants alike that they, consciously or not, read Augustine’s errors into the text, including the notion that total depravity means people are unable to repent and believe the gospel.⁴⁰Harwood, “A Critique of Total Depravity,” 25, 40–43; Spiritual Condition of Infants, 105, 112.

No attempt will be made here to respond to Harwood’s criticism of Augustine. Instead, the broader issue of the church’s supposed longstanding error of believing in inherited sin and guilt and the matter of overcoming grace will take the focus. Are Christians, of virtually any stripe, to believe that they have been so blinded by Augustine’s supposed bad translation and warped views on marriage and sexuality that they have misunderstood original sin and human nature for some 1,500 years? Although a possibility, it is very unlikely and historically naïve.

A more likely explanation is that Christians have had to interpret Romans 5:12 and 19 with recognition that, somehow, Adam’s sin is reckoned to belong to all humanity. Original sin, as Harwood agrees, refers to the state or condition humanity is born into, which contrasts actual sins that a person willfully commits. Corruption is owed to original sin, biblically speaking, and it is inherited from Adam. As mentioned above, Harwood holds to inherited consequences, but the question is: To what extent does Adam’s sin affect human nature? Harwood never answers this question in detail.⁴¹He does say inherited consequences is “the view that all people inherit from Adam sinful inclinations and mortality, not the guilt of his sin.” Harwood, “A Critique of Total Depravity,” 17. Notice, however, there is no mention of corruption and depraving effects of the fall. Harwood, as reflected by the Traditional Statement, denies the incapacitation of human free will, denies regeneration prior to hearing and responding by faith to the gospel, denies that faith is an act of God rather than a response of a person, and denies that there is an effectual call for people that is different from the general call for all people to hear and respond to the gospel.⁴²Articles 1, 5, and 8 of the Traditional Statement, in Harwood, Born Guilty? 33–35. Thus, there is no need for effectual calling, or overcoming grace, for people to hear and respond to the gospel, because the human will is not incapacitated by sin to believe in Christ for salvation.⁴³The statements of the Traditional Statement appear to confuse the meaning of irresistible grace, which appears to be understood as meaning that God saves people apart from a willing response to the gospel. This caricature is not accurate. See Michael Horton, For Calvinism (Zondervan, 2011), 105–10. Horton prefers calling this work of salvation effectual calling as opposed to irresistible grace.

Scripture states otherwise. The general call comes from evangelists; the effective call comes from God. Acts 16:14 says, “The Lord opened her (Lydia’s) heart to pay attention to what was said by Paul.” 2 Thessalonians 2:14 states, “To this he called you through our gospel, so that you may obtain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.” In both verses, there is the call to salvation that comes from the preachers and another which comes from the Lord. While the Great Commission calls all disciples to proclaim the gospel to the ends of the earth, there is a distinct (but not separated) calling which comes from the Lord through the gospel preached. This calling, known as effectual calling, calls people out of darkness and into light (1 Pet 2:9), from having darkened eyes to enlightened eyes of the heart (Eph 1:18), from impurity to holiness (1 Thess 4:7).⁴⁴For a robust treatment on the Reformed perspective on effectual calling, see Anthony A. Hoekema, Saved by Grace (Eerdmans, 1994), 81–89. See also Bruce A. Ware, “Effectual Calling and Grace” in Still Sovereign, ed. Thomas R. Schreiner and Bruce A. Ware (Baker Academic, 2004), 211–26. As the Lord summons people to himself, he brings the transformation needed for a person to respond to that call with faith.⁴⁵Jonathan Hoglund, Called by Triune Grace, Studies in Christian Doctrine and Scripture (IL: IVP Academic, 2016), 4, 79–91.

Scripture used to support faith preceding regeneration is weak and insufficient and much better supports the Reformed view of overcoming grace leading to faith.⁴⁶See Daniel Kirkpatrick, “An Exegetical and Theological Argument for the Priority of Regeneration in Conversion” in Mid-America Journal of Theology 31 (2020): 89–101 which analyzes proof texts from non-Calvinists and contrasts them with the Reformed perspective of regeneration preceding faith. John 3:5 states, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter the kingdom of God.” Ephesians 2:4–5 says, “But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved.” Colossians 2:13 states: “And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses.” Finally, Titus 3:5 says, “He saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit.” These texts show God’s regenerating grace is absolutely essential to overcome one’s depravity leading to the exercise of faith.⁴⁷Bruce Demarest, The Cross and Salvation, Foundations of Evangelical Theology (Crossway, 2006), 291–95. The verbs used for regeneration here are all active verbs with God as the subject. There is no human activity or synergism mentioned or implied.⁴⁸Hoekema, Saved by Grace, 94–105. God must take the initiative in salvation by overcoming sinner’s hostile nature because (contrary to Harwood’s position) spiritual deadness means complete natural inability to approach God for salvation.

As mentioned above, the Traditional Statement and Harwood’s views have been accused of Semi-Pelagianism.⁴⁹In addition to the Mohler and Olson citations provided above, Harwood addressed accusations of Semi-Pelagianism in “Is the Traditional Statement Semi-Pelagian,” in Anyone Can Be Saved, 157–68. There is an anonymous appendix in Calvinism: A Biblical and Theological Critique entitled “Semi-Pelagianism: The Theological Catchall,” 505–7. In response, Harwood says their emphasis upon the Holy Spirit’s drawing of sinners is sufficient enough to dispel accusations of this heresy along with their affirmation that no one is capable of achieving salvation or making the first steps towards their salvation.⁵⁰See Article 2 of the Traditional Statement and Harwood, “Is the Traditional Statement Semi-Pelagian?” 158–59. What does Harwood and adherents to the Traditional Statement mean by the Holy Spirit drawing? They never develop an answer, nor do they mention overcoming grace. However, they seemingly have in mind John 6:44: “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him,” a verse that affirms complete human inability to come to Christ apart from God’s sovereign and preceding activity. Their position is further complicated by Jesus’s subsequent statement, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father” (v. 65). No one will come to faith in Christ Jesus unless God sovereignly wills it, and if he wills their salvation, they will be regenerated (John 3:3, 8) and believe, leading to eternal life (John 3:15).⁵¹Peter van Mastricht, A Treatise on Regeneration, ed. Brandon Withrow(Soli Deo Gloria, 2002), 9–31. Michael Horton, The Christian Faith (Zondervan Academic, 2011), 564–65.

If Harwood’s concern is to ensure that infants are not held guilty for Adam’s sin, he is better off suggesting that the grace of God provided in Christ is sufficient remedy rather than to deny its transmission (and the transmission of other devastating consequences like inability to believe in Christ apart from regenerating grace). While Baptists like Harwood would understandably reject Augustine’s modality of pedobaptism, they could still agree with the African bishop that God’s grace is fully adequate to remedy the effects of inherited sin in infants. For Arminians, the means by which God overcomes the depraving effects of the fall is through prevenient grace, an act of love towards humanity whereby God overcomes original sin in people’s lives, allowing them the freedom to accept or reject the gospel.⁵²Olson, Arminian Theology, 35–36. When Arminius was asked if original sin leaves sinners guilty, his response was not to deny guilt but to say Christ’s benefits are sufficient for it. See Arminius, The Works of James Arminius, 1:288. Reformed confessions, on the other hand, appeal to God’s grace in election.⁵³Westminster Confession of Faith 10.3 and London Baptist Confession of 1689 10.3. See Kirkpatrick, 40 Questions About Divine Election (Kregel Academic, 2025), 211–16. Granted, Calvinists debate Arminians tirelessly over the inadequacies of prevenient grace while Arminians constantly argue that Calvinists are wrong about effectual calling/irresistible grace, yet both traditions are unified in that some supernatural grace is needed to overcome the effects of the fall. Neither tradition takes the approach of denying the depraving, condemning, and incapacitating effects of Adam’s sin. The pastoral challenge of inherited sin and guilt in infants is best met by emphasizing the sufficiency of God’s grace in Christ, not by rejecting its transmission.

Harwood and those who follow him do not do justice to the biblical teaching of effectual calling and regeneration, with the result of them having too high a view of human ability and too low a view on overcoming grace. Either humanity does not inherit corruption and total depravity, making them free to approach God for grace, or they do. If Harwood takes the former view, it goes against his rejection of Pelagianism. If he takes the latter view, he must affirm the Reformed position and appeal to divine grace.

2.3. Lack of Biblical Exegesis

A third concern with Harwood’s view of original sin is his exegesis regarding the phrases, “all sinned” in Romans 5:12, “condemnation for all men” in Romans 5:18, and “the many were made sinners” in Romans 5:19. Romans 5:12, in the ESV version which Harwood cites, states: “Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned…” When Harwood comes to the point of explaining the phrase, “because all sinned,” his argument goes as follows: the text does not say “in whom all sinned” (reflective of Augustine’s Federal Headship view) or “because all sinned in Adam” (the Covenant Theology / Natural Transmission view) but “because all sinned.” He then refers to the United Bible Societies’ notes that Adam’s guilt is not transmitted, then describes how Augustine misread Romans 5:12 from the Old Latin and Vulgate translations rather than the Greek, and then argues that the Covenant Theology view erroneously reads “all sinned in Adam” into the text, which is simply not there. He wraps up his argument by denying inherited guilt.⁵⁴Harwood, Born Guilty? 8–11.

There is not much engagement with Romans 5:12 itself, particularly on the phrase, “because all sinned.” Somehow, for Harwood, there is a complete disconnect from the first part of the verse that says, “sin came into the world through one man (Adam), and death through sin,” and “so death spread to all men because all sinned.” His central argument to refute centuries worth of interpretation that each and every person who has ever lived, other than Christ, has inherited sin and guilt from Adam is, “the Bible never says ‘all sinned in Adam.’”⁵⁵Harwood, Born Guilty? 10. For Harwood, reading “in whom all sinned” in Romans 5:12 is a holdover from Augustine’s faulty reading of the Latin text and not what Paul meant.⁵⁶Harwood, Born Guilty? 9; “A Critique of Total Depravity,” 30, and Christian Theology, 364–66. George Eldon Ladd rightly observes that Romans 5:12 can grammatically mean that all people died because they all have sinned personally, just like it can mean that in Adam all sinned. However, verse 19 suggests to Ladd that the clear intention of Paul is that all people sinned in Adam, making Adam’s sin their sin and his death their death. He states, “In this context people are not righteous because they do righteous deeds; they are righteous in Christ. So in this context people are not sinners merely because they do sinful acts; they are sinners in Adam.” See George Eldon Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament, revised ed. (Eerdmans, 1993), 443.

Harwood’s argumentation is weak and seems predicated upon a commitment to ensure that human beings do not inherit the guilt of Adam. Scripture states, though, that all human beings are sinners, as Harwood acknowledges. Further, it states that Adam’s sin brought condemnation to all men. Commenting on Romans 5:18, Harwood says that Adam’s condemnation can only belong to a person once they voluntarily ratify it through their own sin later on in life.⁵⁷Harwood, “Commentary on Article 2,” 47. The text never says that, however. Adam sinned on behalf of humanity as their representative according to Romans 5:12 and 19.⁵⁸Hoekema, Created in God’s Image, 149, 161; Barrett, 40 Questions About Salvation, 32–36. That sin brought with it death (and guilt, according to many views). The biblical testimony on this matter is that people are either in the first Adam or the second Adam (Rom 5:12–21 and 1 Cor 15:45–49). There is no middle, or in-between, Adam that people are in until they voluntarily and consciously ratify their sin to the first Adam. People are born into the first Adam and his sin by nature then later born into the second Adam and his righteousness by grace.

There is, therefore, no strong biblical exegesis provided by Harwood to reject historic interpretations of inherited sin like the Federal Headship or Natural Transmission views.⁵⁹As the focus of this article is to defend total depravity against the alternative views expressed here, for the sake of focus, no attempt will be made to defend any specific view on inherited sin. The historical views of inherited sin articulated by the Reformed tradition which influence the doctrine of total depravity stand.

2.4. Lack of Solid Reasoning

A fourth critique relates to the rationale for changing from inherited sinful natures to inherited consequences. As mentioned before, Harwood originally claimed humans (even infants) are sinners and not innocent because of their association with Adam. His view, now, is inherited consequences where people merely inherit sinful inclinations and mortality. This quote, used above, warrants repeating and elaboration:

In previous writings, I argued for an “inherited sinful nature,” the view that all people inherit from Adam a sinful nature, not his guilt. Though I am in general agreement with the method and finding of those studies, I no longer refer to inheriting a sinful nature and prefer instead to refer to inherited consequences. The problem with affirming that all people inherit a sinful nature is that if human nature is essentially inherently sinful, then Jesus (who was truly human and divine) would have been a person whose human nature was sinful.⁶⁰Harwood, Christian Theology, 382, and Harwood, “A Critique of Total Depravity,” 38–39, emphasis original.

Notice the fallacy in Harwood’s language. He no longer argues for an inherited sinful nature because that would affirm human nature is inherently sinful. Harwood confuses the meaning of these two words. To inherit (a verb) is to receive something passed from someone else. Inherent (an adjective) refers to something being essential, natural, or an intrinsic part of something. Neither Calvinists nor Arminians argue that being sinful is inherent to what it means to be a human being. These traditions, instead, argue for inheriting a sinful nature from Adam. There is no logical rationale for denying inherited sin (or an inherited sinful nature) based upon Christ’s inherent sinlessness.

Hebrews 4:15 (ESV) says, “For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin.” Jesus can sympathize with human beings because he fully experienced human life, though without sin. The author of Hebrews does not suggest that Jesus’s sinlessness makes him any less human than everyone else, as being human is not inherently sinful. Christ shares in full humanity with all people but stands apart in his sinlessness. Saying humanity inherits sin from Adam does not mean that human nature itself is sinful, for Adam was fully human both before and after his fall.

In summary, Harwood does not ascribe either to the Federal Headship view or Natural Transmission view, for either view would mean that human beings sinned in Adam and incur depraving effects like guilt and inability. As such, for Harwood, the virgin birth, though historical fact, is not essential to preserve Christ’s sinlessness.⁶¹Harwood, Christian Theology, 354-358, 422-424. See also Millard Erickson, Introduction to Christian Theology, 3rd ed. (Baker Academic, 2015), 252–55. Instead, his view is that all people inherit consequences from Adam, not inherited sin, because an inherited sinful nature means an inherent sinful nature. This is a non-sequitur, meaning that both the Federal Headship and Natural Transmission views can withstand this reasoning. Furthermore, there is no rationale for abandoning language of inherited sin and inherited sinful nature. Both Reformed and Arminian traditions affirm inherited sin and depravity along with authentic humanity. One need not reject one for the other, especially along these lines of reasoning.

3. Conclusion

The doctrines of grace, which outline a Reformed view of salvation, are intricately connected. The reason why God must unconditionally elect a person is because sin has left a person with no merit by which to please God. The atonement must be limited in scope to save persons God intends to save whereby the rest of people are left in their inherited yet willful sin. Grace must be irresistible, or overcoming, because of the depraving effects of sin on rebellious human wills. God must also preserve his grace in the lives of people, for the natural human heart will resort to its former ways. All doctrines of grace are related to and predicated upon original sin and total depravity.

This article has sought to defend the traditional Reformed view of original sin and total depravity against the critiques of Adam Harwood and adherents of the Traditional Statement. It found that their positions do not biblically portray human nature and ability, nullify overcoming grace, lack biblical exegesis, and are based upon faulty reasoning.

---