C. S. Lewis and Total Depravity

I have a very narrow focus for this blog: it is to show how C. S. Lewis describes "Total Depravity" in his writings does not match how Calvinists (Reformed Theologians) define "Total Depravity". This blog's purpose is not to argue whether C. S. Lewis is an Arminian or a Calvinist. I am not claiming anything about whether C. S. Lewis is saved or not. I am not trying to persuade the reader whether his idea of "Human Wickedness" as defined in the The Problem of Pain is actually close to the Reformed definition of "Total Depravity." I am just trying to show how Lewis understood "Total Depravity" is different from the Calvinists' definition.

Lewis wrote much about "Total Depravity." In all his arguments concerning "Reason", he touches on "Total Depravity" tangentially. In order to keep the blog short, I focused on the statements where he specified the doctrine by name. I used an index of his works and these are the quotes I could find.

The Problem of Pain

The doctrine of Total Depravity--when the consequence is drawn that, since we are totally depraved, our idea of good is worth simply nothing--may thus turn Christianity into a form of devil worship. (p. 29)

This chapter [Human Wickedness] will have been misunderstood if anyone describes it as a reinstatement of the doctrine of Total Depravity. I disbelieve that doctrine, partly on the logical ground that if our depravity were total we should not know ourselves to be depraved, and partly because expereince shows us much goodness in human nature.(p. 61) [brackets mine]

God in the Dock

C. S. Lewis commenting on the danger of cruelty being the result of self-loathing:

Even Christians, if they accept in certain forms the doctrine of total depravity, are not always free from the danger. (p. 194, "Two Ways With the Self")

Christian Reflections

C. S Lewis to the Editor of Theology, (It was a response to Mr Bethell's Letter to the Editor):

(2) That my position 'logically implies...total depravity' I deny simply. How any logician could derive the proposition 'Human nature is totally depraved' from the proposition 'Cultural activities do not in themselves improve our spiritual condition', I cannot undertstand. Even if I had said (which I did not), 'Man's aesthetic nature is totally depraved,' no one could infer 'Man's whole nature is totally depraved' without a glaring transference from secundum quid to simplicitir. I put it to Mr Bethell that he has used 'logically implies' to mean 'may without gross uncharity rouse the suspicion of'--and that he ought not to use words that way. (Christian Reflections, pp. 25-26)

The Reformed Doctrine of Total Depravity

Charles Ryrie
Negatively, the concept of total depravity does not mean a) that every person has exhibited his depravity as thoroughly as he or she could; (b) that sinners do not have a conscience or a "native induction" concerning God' (c) that sinners will indulge in every form of sin; or (d) that depraved people do not perform actions that are good in the sight of others and even in the sight of God.

Positively, total depravity means (a) that corruption extends to every facet of man's nature and faculties; and (b) that there is is nothing in anyone that commend him to a righteous God.

Total depravity must always be measured against God's holiness. Relative goodness exists in people. They can do good works, which are appreciated by others. But nothing that anyone can do will gain salvational merit or favor in the sight of a holy God. (p. 253, Basic Theology)

J. I. Packer
The phrase total depravity is commonly used to make explicit the implications of original sin. It signifies a corruption of our moral and spiritual nature that is total not in degree (for no one is as bad as he or she might be) but in extent. It declares that no part of us is untouched by sin, and therefore no action of ours is as good as it should be, and consequently nothing in us or about us ever appears meritorious in God's eyes. We cannot earn God's favor, no matter what we do; unless grace saves us, we are lost.

Total depravity entails total inability, that is, the state of not having it in oneself to respond to God and his Word in a sincere and wholehearted way (John 6:44; Rom. 8:7-8). Paul calls this unresponsiveness of the fallen heart a state of death (Eph. 2:1, 5; Col. 2:13), and the Westminster Confession says: "Man by his fall into a state of sin, hath wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation; so as a natural man, being altogether averse from that good, and dead in sin, is not able by his own strength to convert himself, or to prepare himself thereunto" (Concise Theology, IX. 3).

Conclusion

"Total Depravity" is a misnomer in a certain sense. Total depravity does not mean we all are bad and corrupted as we could be. It asserts we have consciences, although tainted by sin, that still recognize moral choices. Our consciences still convict us concerning our sin. Our reason, according to total depravity, is tainted by sin, but still exists in some form. Some people realize how corrupt they are. People still do incredible acts of love and kindness for one another. Men and women still build culture and the arts.

Packer and Lewis do agree in other areas. Lewis wrote in his response to Mr. Bethell, "Cultural activities do not in themselves improve our spiritual condition". Only repenting of our sin and placing our trust in Christ's work on the cross puts us in fellowship with God.