Truth Magazine

By Irvin Himmel

Whoso diggeth a pit shall fall therein: and he that rolleth a stone, it will return upon him (Prov. 26:27).

Long ago hunters made pits as traps for animals. This was a common method for capturing wild creatures. After the deep pit had been scooped out, branches and grass would be used to conceal the hole in the ground. But sometimes a careless hunter would forget the exact location of a trap and fall into it. Or, one might accidentally fall into the pit while attempting to approach it.

In preparation for warfare heavy stones were rolled up some height in order to hurl them down on the enemy. Caution had to be exercised in rolling the stone upward lest it roll down on the person trying to move it.

This proverb does more than acknowledge that one who digs a pit might fall into it, and one who rolls a stone might be crushed by the stone’s rolling back on him. It implies a principle that a person who devises an evil plot against another often becomes the victim of his own scheme. Many times someone experiences the harm which he designed for another. Maliciousness works like a boomerang.

“The thought that destruction prepared for others recoils upon its contriver, has found its expression everywhere among men in divers forms of proverbial sayings” (F. Delitzsch).

It is said of the wicked in Psalm 7:14-16, “Behold, he travaileth with iniquity, and hath conceived mischief, and brought forth falsehood. He made a pit, and digged it, and is fallen into the ditch which he made. His mischief shall return upon his own head, and his violent dealing shall come down upon his own pate.”

Case of Haman

A vivid illustration of the manner in which wicked schemes can backfire is found in the book of Esther. It is the case history of a man called Haman.

Esther was a lovely Jewish girl who was chosen to be the queen when Ahasuerus was king of Persia. The king promoted Haman the Agagite to be his prime minister. All the king’s servants and all in the king’s gate bowed and reverenced Haman. But Mordecai, a relative of Esther who had reared her, refused to bow before the arrogant Agagite.

Haman was full of wrath and resolved to destroy all the Jews throughout the kingdom, having learned that Mordecai was a Jew. It was kept secret that Esther was of the Jewish race. Haman convinced the king that there was a certain race of people dispersed in all the provinces who were rebellious toward the king’s laws, therefore should be destroyed. The king trusted Haman and authorized him to proceed. Official word went out that on a given date the Jews must be killed.

Mordecai sent word to Esther of this plot to exterminate the Jews. The courageous queen made plans to risk her life by approaching the king about this matter. In the meantime, Haman built gallows fifty cubits high, intending to ask the king’s permission to hang Mordecai. That night the king learned that long before a man named Mordecai had reported a plot against the king and had saved his life. When the king realized that Mordecai had never been honored for this noble deed, he spoke to Haman about how to honor a man who deserved high honor.

Haman supposed that he was the man to be honored, so he proposed a ride through the streets on the king’s horse, with the rider wearing the king’s crown and arrayed in royal apparel. How shocked and humiliated Haman was when he was ordered to bring Mordecai and have him honored in this manner.

Esther then disclosed to the king the wicked plot which Haman had devised to destroy her people. The king was full of wrath, and upon learning of the gallows which Haman had built for the hanging of Mordecai, ordered that Haman be hanged thereon. “So they hanged Haman on the gallows that he had prepared for Mordecai” (Esth. 7:10).

Avoid Wicked Schemes

Deceit, hate, and evil intent destroy the person possessed of such a wicked spirit. “While judgment for sin is, in the main, reserved for the hereafter, in many ways it begins even now” (W. Ralph Thompson).

The fact that evil plans so often backfire gives added reason for honesty and a spirit of holiness.

“A straightforward course is easy, and men are safe in it; but it requires more skill than most men are endowed with to manage a crooked and crafty policy safely, or so as to be safe themselves in pursuing such a course. A spider will weave a web for flies with no dangers to himself, for he is made for that, and acts as if he understood all the intricacies of his own web, and may move safely over it in every direction; but man was made to accomplish his purposes in an open and upright way, not by fraud and deceit; hence, when he undertakes a tortuous and crooked course – a plan of secret and scheming policy – in order to ruin others, it often becomes unmanageable by his own skill, or is suddenly sprung upon himself. No one can overvalue a straightforward course in its influence on our ultimate happiness; no one can overestimate the guilt and danger of a crooked and secret policy in devising plans of evil” (Albert Barnes).

Beware of wicked plans; they will boomerang sooner or later.

Guardian of Truth XXXI: 2, p. 44
January 15, 1987

By Luther W. Martin

This study is designed to answer the question that serves as its title! However, several definitions are in order, and will help in preventing misunderstanding and confusion.

(1) Original sin: Refers to the transgression of Adam and Eve, our first parents, in the Garden of Eden, at the behest of Satan. God had stipulated that the “tree which is in the midst of the garden,” was not to be touched, or its fruit eaten, “lest you die” (Gen. 3:3).

(2) Death: This word has one basic meaning, but it has two fundamental applications. The one basic meaning is separation. The two fundamental applications are physical death and spiritual death. Spiritual death is man’s separation from God, due to man’s transgressions. Physical death is the separation of the fleshly body and the, soul or spirit of man. When the spirit departs, the fleshly body is said to be dead, or to have died.

(3) In Genesis 3:3, the death spoken of by God, was both physical and spiritual! If Adam and Eve had not sinned, they could have continued to live eternally in the Garden of Eden. But, by sinning, they separated themselves from God, spiritually, and God’s penalty was physical death which they brought upon themselves, and which was the consequence to the descendants of Adam and Eve.

(4) Satan’s definition of the word death, in Genesis 3:4: “you will not surely die,” was the physical application. Adam and Eve did not die physically that day, when they sinned. However, later on in Genesis 3, the penalties are listed that would be visited upon mankind and womankind . . . as well as a penalty upon serpents, for Satan’s having used the serpent’s body in accomplishing his evil scheme.

Some Scriptures Which Illustrate Sin (Death)

“The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself” (Ezek. 18:20).

“For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Rom. 3:23).

“All we like sheep have gone astray; We have turned every one, to his own way; And the Lord has laid on Him the iniquity of us all” (Isa. 53:6).

The foregoing Scriptures establish that an individual is answerable for his own sins. That we “have gone astray,” indicates that prior to “our going astray” we were upright. As infants, before developing to a state of accountability, we were created by God, righteous! “Then God saw everything that He had made, and indeed it was very good” (Gen. 1:31).

Physical Death Is Inherited From Adam And Eve

Spiritual Death Is The Result Of One’s Own Sins

I suggest that the numerous false doctrines concerning original sin, are the direct result of failing to note the difference between physical death and spiritual death. This is well illustrated in 1 Timothy 5:6 – “But she who lives in pleasure is dead while she lives,” meaning that the person who gives himself over to carnality and sensual living, though yet alive, is spiritually dead. This misunderstanding and misapplication of spiritual versus fleshly death has a long history in the doctrines of men.

Pelagianism In The Early Fifth Century

Two men in the year 411 A.D., spread some teachings that caused controversy in the Greek and Latin churches. Pelagius and Caelestius held to six points: (1) Even if Adam had not sinned, he would have died. (2) Adam’s sin harmed only himself, not the human race. (3) Children just born are in the same state as Adam before his fall. (4) The whole human race neither dies through Adam’s sin or death, nor rises again through the resurrection of Christ. (5) The (Mosaic) Law is as good a guide to heaven as the Gospel. And (6) Even before the advent of Christ there were men who were without sin. The Latins emphasized the guilt rather than its punishment, as the chief characteristic of original sin. The Greeks on the other hand, stressed the punishment, rather than the guilt. I suggest that only (3) above, is scriptural in content. All the rest of the six points are unscriptural or anti-scriptural.

Calvinism In The 16th Century

John Calvin (1509-1564) introduced and defined the doctrine that bears his name. This false teaching holds: That God predestines some to everlasting fife, while others are consigned to damnation. Nor does their destination depend upon their foreseen virtue or wickedness. As a result of Adam’s sin (original sin), the entire nature of fallen man is totally corrupt. Any righteousness is imputed wholly from outside or exterior forces. Coupled closely with this doctrine of being “consigned to heaven or hell,” and one is helpless in changing one’s destiny, is the “eternal perseverance of the saints” or “once saved, always saved” (the inability of “falling from God’s grace”). Yet there is scarcely a single book of the New Testament but what teaches just the opposite of “once saved, always saved.”

Arminianism: A Reaction To Calvinism (17th Century)

Jacobus Arminius, was born in Holland in 1560. He was a professor at the University of Leyden. After his death, his followers now known as “the Remonstrants” published the following five points: They opposed (1) Predestination in its defined form; as if God by an eternal and irrevocable decision had destined men, some to eternal bliss, others to eternal damnation, without any other law than His own pleasure. On the contrary, they thought that God by the same resolution wished to make all believers in Christ who persisted in their belief to the end blessed in Christ, and for His sake would only condemn the unconverted and unbelieving. They opposed (2) The doctrine of election according to which the chosen were counted as necessarily and unavoidably blessed and the outcasts necessarily and unavoidably lost. They urged the milder doctrine that Christ died for all men. They opposed (3) The doctrine that Christ died for the elect alone to make them blessed and no one else, ordained as mediator; on the contrary, they urged the possibility of salvation for others not elect. They opposed (4) The doctrine that the grace of God affects the elect only, while the reprobates cannot participate in this through their conversion, but only through their own strength. And, they opposed (5) The doctrine that he who had once attained true saving grace can never lose it and be wholly debased. They held, on the contrary, that whoever had received Christ’s quickening spirit had thereby a strong weapon against Satan, sin, the world, and his own flesh.

From the foregoing, we can conclude that the followers of Arminius, reacted toward Calvinism with substantial truth from Scripture.

Summation From Holy Scripture

(1) All of God’s creation was upright and good (Gen. 1:31). Man subsequently chose to practice sin.

(2) Little children are blessed of God, and adults need to become like little children (Matt. 18:1-5).

(3) The son does not inherit the guilt of his father (Ezek. 18:20). A given individual answers for his or her own sin (Ibid.).

(4) Mankind went astray; departed from their former upright status (Rom. 3:23; Isa. 53:6).

(5) The first recorded sin in the church at Jerusalem involved a husband and wife who were Christians, but who then sinned, and died (Acts 5:1-11).

(6) Simon, a Christian, but formerly a sorcerer, sinned after becoming a child of God. He was said to be: “For I see that you are poisoned by bitterness and bound by iniquity” (Acts 8:9-25).

(7) The Apostle Paul was aware that he could so sin as to be eternally lost (1 Cor. 9:27).

(8) The Apostle Paul warned the Galatian Christians concerning the danger of falling from grace (Gal. 5:4).

(9) The Apostle Peter warned Christians about turning from the holy word and being overcome (2 Pet. 2:20-22).

(10) The church in Ephesus had left its first love and was told to “Remember therefore from where you have fallen . .” (Rev. 2:5).

Conclusion

Thus, to answer the question: “Does original sin damn?” Adam’s and Eve’s sin damned Adam and Eve. Their sin did not damn their posterity! Their sin did bring physical death upon the earth and to their descendants.

Guardian of Truth XXXI: 1, pp. 22-23
January 1, 1987

By Cecil Willis

Introduction:

Hereditary total depravity is the foundation-stone of all forms of Calvinism. From this premise, the whole Calvinistic theological system is fabricated. The classic statement of this doctrine is found in the Confession of Faith of the ultra-Calvinistic Presbyterian Church:

By this sin (eating of the forbidden fruit) they (our first parents) fell from their original righteousness and communion with God, and so became dead in sin, and wholly defiled in all the faculties and parts of soul and body. They being the root of all mankind, the guilt of this sin was imputed and the same death in sin and corrupted nature conveyed to all their posterity descending from them by ordinary generation. From this original corruption, whereby they are utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil, do proceed all actual transgressions.

Calvinism And History

Though the above is the classic statement of hereditary total depravity, the concept did not originate with John Calvin (born 1509). This doctrine had already been explicated by the Fifth Century monk known popularly as Augustine. But the doctrine had even been promulgated before Augustine, by the Third Century “Church Father” named Tertullian. Calvinism was the theological undergirding of main-line Protestant Denominationalism that arose shortly after the Middle Ages.

But today, various forms of Calvinism have seeped into the church of the Lord through the efforts of misguided and misinformed young preachers, many of whom have been nourished at the feet of Calvinistic teachers in denominational seminaries, and have imbibed the contents of commentaries and sermons compiled by Calvinistic writers. In fact, many of these preachers’ libraries are filled with virtually nothing but the books of Calvinistic writers. This partially is attributable to the fact that Calvinism has often virtually been equated with Fundamentalism. But the damage has been done none the less.

When I was just in my teens, the beloved Luther Blackmon took me aside one Lord’s Day evening and advised me: “When you go off to college, be careful that you do not learn too many things that are not so! ” What a timely warning that was. This precisely is what has happened to too many of our contemporary young preachers: They have learned too many things that are not so . . . and even worse, they now are teaching these denominational heresies to unsuspecting brethren. These misguided young instructors are precisely the reason why a series of articles such as are contained in this issue of Guardian of Truth are so timely and needed.

Ashdodic Language

It was said of the early Christians that their vocabulary, teachings, and practices were indicative of their having “been with Jesus” (Acts 4:13). Peter’s speech even betrayed him on one occasion; it evidenced that he had “been with Jesus.” During the Old Testament days of Nehemiah, it was said that some of God’s people spoke “half in the speech of Ashdod” (Neh. 13:24). In like manner, the vocabulary of many modern young preachers evidences that they have been drinking deeply at denominational founts. One would never conclude from their doctrinal speech that they “had been with Jesus.” They speak “half in the speech of Ashdod.” While these educated young men use the nomenclature of Calvinism, teach the doctrines of Calvinism, make the arguments of Calvinism, and even cite the “prooftexts” of Calvinism, they seem astounded when someone attaches the label of “Calvinism” to them! The fact is, many of them have not even explored Calvinism deeply enough to recognize that what they are so widely spouting is nothing more or less than the classic doctrines of deterministic Calvinism.

Imputed Righteousness

Be assured, brethren, the modern doctrine of “imputed righteousness” is nothing more than the flip-side of the Calvinistic doctrine of hereditary sin. One springs from the other. Calvinists teach that the sin of Adam is imputed to all mankind, but that the perfect righteousness of Christ is imputed to that portion of mankind whom they denominate as the “elect.”

Can sin, or righteousness, be transferred from one person to another? This is the question we seek to answer in this article. The transferral of sin, or imputed righteousness, precisely is what must happen if hereditary sin, or imputed righteousness, is to be accepted. One is as illogical and unscriptural as the other. The principle reason why we must now re-examine hereditary sin, as in this issue of Guardian of Truth, is because so many brethren are now teaching its flip-side: the imputation of the perfect righteousness of Christ.

Can one who has the perfect life of Christ credited to his account possibly be lost? The implication of this question is the reason why so many confused young preachers (and some others old enough to know better) sound so much like they are inching toward acceptance of the impossibility of apostasy doctrine. Calvinism is a doctrine that proceeds logically from its premises. That is why it is so difficult to imbibe just a little of Calvinism. Logic requires the acceptance of all of Calvinism, or none of it. Accept this doctrine of transferring sin, or righteousness, from one person to another, and one logically then must accept the doctrine of election and reprobation. If Adamic sin is transferred to one, then his salvation is dependent upon the imputation of the perfect life of Jesus, according to Calvinism.

If sin is inheritable, why is not righteousness also inheritable? The doctrines of election and of the final perseverance of the saints are logical concomitants inextricably connected to this concept of transferring sin or righteousness from one person’s account to the account of another.

About fifteen years ago, I was holding a meeting in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. Brother George Eldridge, who lived in Baton Rouge, showed me a letter which brother Edward Fudge had written to someone in the Baton Rouge church. Brother Fudge has since aligned himself with an ultra-liberal church in Houston, where he now serves as an Elder. In brother Fudge’s letter, he recommended that the brethren in the Baton Rouge church accept the proffered services of two liberal preachers in their work. In justifying his recommendation, Brother Fudge said something to this effect: “I do not have to live a perfect life, because Jesus lived a perfect life for me.” This statement tremendously shocked me, for I readily recognized that here was an educated preaching brother who did not even understand the plan of salvation! He did not even understand that our salvation was grounded in the sacrificial death of Christ, rather than in His imputed perfect life. Christ’s perfect life merely qualified Him to be our perfect and atoning sacrifice. Since this shocking experience in Baton Rouge fifteen years ago, a veritable host of other preachers among us, both young and old, have espoused the Calvinistic doctrine of the imputation of the perfect life of Christ to sinning Christians.

But Albert Barnes, himself an ardent Calvinist, exposed the fallacy of this imputation doctrine very succinctly. He said: “I have examined all the passages (the so-called “prooftexts” – CW). . . . There is not one in which the word (Greek logidzomai – impute – CW) is used in the sense of reckoning or imputing to a man that which does not strictly belong to him, or of charging on him that which ought not to be charged on him as a matter of personal right. . . . No doctrine of transferring, or setting over to a man what does not property belong to him, be it sin or holiness, can be derived, therefore from this word” (Commentary on Romans, p. 102). Do not ever forget this very true statement from Barnes. It says all that needs to be said about either inherited sin, or imputed righteousness.

Definition of Sin

The fact is those who talk about imputing sin, or righteousness, really do not understand the definition of sin and/or righteousness, or else they deliberately misuse the terms in their preaching and writing. Sin is not an object, like a bag of potatoes, that can be transferred from one person to another, nor is righteousness a transferrable object.

Sin by definition is an act! Consult any number of word study books or religious encyclopedias on the Bible, and you will find sin again and again referred to as an act. Note a few of the Bible words used to describe or define sin. Hebrew Words. asham (guilt); hattah (missing); pesha (transgression); awon (perversion); ra (evil in disposition); chata (err, miss the mark); chet (error, failure); avon (iniquity); resha (impiety). Now note these Greek Words. harmartia (missing the mark); parabasis (transgression); adika (unrighteousness); asebeia (impiety); anomia (contempt and violation of law); poneria (depravity); epithumia (lust); paraptoma (offense, trespass). A careful study of the hundreds of passages where these terms are used to describe and define sin will evidence it is always something an individual does.

Note in this connection the sins of Satan (Jn. 8:44). He is said to be a “murderer,” “standeth not in the truth,” and “speaketh a lie.” Sin is not some ethereal object that floats around in the air and lights upon this one or that one, and is therefore transferrable from one being to another. Note also that the angels who sinned “kept not their own principality, but left their proper habitation” (Jude 6). These angels did something which was wrong.

Merrell Tenny defined sin in these words: “an act of the free will in which the creature deliberately, responsibly and with adequate understanding of the issues, chose to corrupt the holy, godly character with which God originally endowed His creation” (Pictorial Bible Dictionary, p. 796). Tenny also said of the sins of Satan, angels, and men: “Their sin was an act of a group of individuals as individuals and does not involve the ‘federal’ or representative principle . . . their sin was . . . a deliberate act.”

The Westminster Shorter Catechism correctly defined sin in these words: “Sin is any want of conformity unto, or transgression of, the law of God” (cf. Lev. 19:2; Isa. 6:1-3; Rev. 4:7,8). Tenny also said sin is the “violation of the expression of God’s holy character. . . . Sin may be defined ultimately as anything in the creature which does not express, or which is contrary to, the holy character of the Creator.” W.E. Vine uses these terms in discussing sin: “concrete wrong doing,” “a course of sin characterized by continuous acts” (1 Thess. 2:16; 1 Jn. 5:16); “a sinful deed, an act of sin,” 64an act of disobedience to Divine law.”

The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible defines sin in these words: “Sin is an essentially historical phenomenon. It has a event-character. To become real, it must happen . . . sin . . . is historical: . . . a happening or event.” Now can one transfer an historical event from one person to another? Even the thought of it is preposterous. As previously said, sin is not like a bag of potatoes which can be shifted from one person to another. Instead, it is an event, an action of one individual, and cannot be transferred to another individual. It is true, however, that the sin of one person (such as Adolph Hitler’s) may affect other people. Other individuals may suffer as a consequence of another’s sinful act, but they do not bear the guilt of that person’s sin.

Hereditary Sin and God’s Nature

The Bible teaches that God is a Being of infinite justice and righteousness (Psa. 18:30; Tit, 1:2; 2 Tim. 2:13; Rom. 3:3,4). Scores of passages teach that judgment will be on an individual basis, in which each person shall answer for his own sins only, and for the sins of no others (see 2 Cor. 5: 10; Rom. 14:12; Mt. 12:36; Gal. 6:7-9; Col. 3:23-25; Rev. 3:4; 14:13; 20:12; Rom. 2:9, and a host of other passages which substantiate this same point).

Conclusion

The very concept of transferral of sin, or righteousness, directly contradicts God’s Word. The clearest and most explicit passage on this subject, at least in my estimation, is that of Ezekiel 18:14-20. Among Ezekiel’s statements is his affirmation that the person who “hath executed mine ordinances, hath walked in my statutes; he shall not die for the iniquity of his father, he shall surely live. As for his father, because he cruelly opposed, robbed his brother, and did that which is not good among his people, behold, he shall die in his iniquity. Yet ye say, Wherefore doth not the son bear the iniquity of the father? When the son hath done that which is lawful and right, and hath kept all my statutes, and hath done them, he shall surely live. The soul that sinneth, it shall die: the son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son; the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him. ” If God’s Word is to be accepted, this passage forever shows the fallacy of hereditary sin, or transferrable righteousness.

The very concept of transferrable sin is physically, logically, philosophically, biblically, and therefore, actually impossible. The concept of hereditary sin is therefore totally absurd. But look for much more discussion among brethren of hereditary sin in years to come, for too many preachers among us have drunk for too long from the polluted wells of Calvinism. As they talk more and more about “imputed righteousness,” and Jesus’ “doing and dying,” you are going to find their logic forcing them into an acceptance of an hereditary sinful nature for man. And when they accept this premise, they then are going to find it increasingly impossible to reject unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistible grace, and the final perseverance of the saints the other inextricably interwoven doctrines of Calvinism.

Some brethren, with their doctrine of unconditional forgiveness for the erring Christian, now are already on the doorstep of classical Calvinism, and seemingly do not even know it.

And if such brethren persist in the leaching of the tenets of Calvinism, in the very terminology of Calvinists, upheld by the usage of Calvinistic arguments, and even use the Calvinistic “proof-texts, ” they certainly should not be surprised if they are referred to as Calvinists, or Neo-Calvinists. Be advised, brethren, it is now going to be increasingly necessary for us to fight again the battle against Calvinism, even though some naively might think that the war against Calvinism was finished in the Nineteenth Century.

And while this battle is again being waged, some of these unusually wise young preachers will pontificate: “They are answering questions which no one is asking.” I guess they think theirs is a cute little saying that sounds so wise. But the false teaching of Calvinism necessitates the answering of such false teaching.

It very well may turn out that the major battle of the late Twentieth Century to be fought among brethren will center around various forms of classical Calvinism. The earliest tips of the fatal icebergs of Calvinism among us now are rising. Hence the need for a special series of articles on Calvinism, such as you find in this issue of Guardian of Truth.

Guardian of Truth XXXI: 1, pp. 17-18, 21
January 1, 1987

By Jack L. Holt

The eternal God had man in His mind before “the mountains were brought forth,” or “ever the earth was formed.” A. Campbell observed, “That which was first in contemplation was last in execution.” God formed the earth as a habitation for man (Isa. 45:18). On the sixth day of creation God created the spirit of man in His image. The spirit God created had vast intellectual and moral powers.

For that powerful intelligent spirit, God formed a body from the elements of the earth. That body was perfectly adapted to the world in which man was to live and over which he was to rule. When man was completely formed, spirit, body and life, God gave him the power of instant communication. Adam could hear, understand, and talk with his Creator.

God doesn’t conduct experiments. He had our marvelous body complete in His mind and He formed it by His infinite wisdom with all systems go. Man, the spirit already created, became a living soul. That doesn’t mean man is merely a soul, it means he was given life. What kind of life? Human life. Man is not to be classed with animals. It is not said of any animal that “God breathed into his nostrils the breath of life.” This giving life to man was a peculiar gift to man from God. To abort a baby is not to kill an animal, but to take the precious gift of human life that God gave to men. No man has the right to do that. Human life came from God and is under His control.

The nature of man was not complete as he stood alone before God. God made Adam aware of his incompleteness and then acted to fulfill the plan He had for man when He decided to create the world (Rev. 4:11). Man learned that his Creator alone knows how to satisfy his needs. God created the spirit of the woman and formed the female body from man’s side. The woman was made for man (1 Cor. 11:9). The male was first formed, then the female. This plainly shows priority in creation and a distinction in the sexes. Jesus said, “Male and female created He them.” The spirits were created for the male and female bodies which God formed.

The sexual relationship was created by God and it involves the whole of one’s being – body, spirit and life. Marriage is a holy, unique relationship, given by God that involves the whole of life and male and female do not reach this wholeness without that divine relationship. In the sexual relationship the two become one flesh, and in that relationship there is a spiritual knowing of each other and of God’s wonderful workings that can be known in no other way. “Adam knew Eve his wife” (Gen. 4:1) has a deeper meaning that mere sexual activity. The Blessed God who created the spirit and formed our bodies, with the perfect blending of them in human nature perfectly knows our needs and provides for them. “Every creation of God is good and is to be received with thanksgiving” (1 Tim. 4:4).

Adam and Eve were both naked before they sinned and had no sense of shame (Gen. 2:25). The word “naked” carries the idea of transparent and open. There was nothing in their nature that led them to hide anything from each other or to have secrets that gave them guilt. There was a perfect openness and sharing of every desire with a sense of joy for God’s creation.

In body, spirit and life, Adam and Eve were just like us. Their bodies were mortal, subject to death, just as our bodies are mortal. To sustain and invigorate the mortal body God gave the tree of life. The life was not in the tree, but in Him from whom all life comes. This tree served a unique function and through it could come the power to live forever (Gen. 3:22).

Adam and Eve lived in a perfect world and in glorious unbroken fellowship with God. God gave them great liberty. He said, “Of every tree in the garden thou mayest freely eat.” God gave liberty before He imposed a restriction. Then God said, “. . . but of the tree of knowledge of good and evil thou shalt not eat of it for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die” (Gen. 2:16-17).

As intelligent moral creatures, they were responsible to the word of God. They developed their moral powers by the choices they made. In choosing not to eat of the forbidden tree they followed God’s word, the good way of life. When they chose to rebel against God’s word they chose evil, the way of death. The word know or knowledge involves having the ability to discriminate between good and evil. As long as they lived within God’s restrictions they were happy and free.

The original sinner, with the power of speech came into that perfect world with the purpose of turning Adam and Eve from the word of God. The devil attacked the nature of man by trying to turn him from God’s word. He did this by lies. He asked Eve, “Yea, hath God said, ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?” He put a question mark where God put a period. He works the same way today, “Does God say you must be baptized to be saved?”

The devil’s purpose from Eden till the end of time is to murder souls by lying to them about the word of God. Neither the devil nor his preachers (2 Cor. 11:13-15) will tell you God’s truth. The devil opposed God’s truth and lied to Eve. He said, “Ye shall not surely die.” Eve believed the devil’s lie, turned from the will of God and ate of the forbidden fruit, gave it to Adam and he ate. They didn’t break God’s word for “Scripture cannot be broken” (John 10:35). God’s word stands immutable for “He cannot lie.” They broke fellowship with God by sin.

But why did they sin? Were they under the constraint of a sinful nature? Was there some flaw in their nature that forced them to sin? Absolutely not. If they sinned because they had a corrupt nature, where did they get it? All that they had and were came from God. They were absolutely pure in spirit, body and life; yet they sinned. Why did they sin?

They sinned because sin appealed to them with such power that they gave the consent of their minds to obey the lies of the devil rather than the truth of God. In this first sin lies the secret of all sin. Sin begins in the mind. Whoever controls your mind controls you. The greatest war raging on earth today is the war for the mind. Jesus said, “The things that come out of a man are the things that make him unclean. All these evil things begin inside a person, in his mind. . . ” (Mk. 7:20-21, New Century Version). A person may have a “religious mind,” but if that mind rejects God’s word at any point it is under the control and power of the devil. Unbelief and sin are not the products of a fallen nature but of one’s choices.

The devil gained the consent of Eve’s mind, deceived her (Adam was not deceived 1 Tim. 2:14) but, both she and Adam ate and sinned. Sin was committed by those whose nature was sinless for they gave the consent of their minds to it. As intelligent, moral and responsible creatures they consented to reject the guidance of God and follow the devil. We suffer the consequences of their personal acts, but not the guilt. Sinners are separated from God not because of Adam’s sin but for their own sins (Eph. 2:1 ASV). Sin is the transgression of the law (1 John 3:4). Sin is an act and an act can’t be transmitted.

People sin today in the same way Adam sinned. They don’t sin because they have a fallen, sinful or corrupt nature. They sin because they choose to satisfy the desires of theflesh that has been stimulated by appeals to the mind. Sin appeals to the mind, “But each person is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desire” (Jas. 1:14, Berkley Version). When temptation gains the consent of the mind, desire conceives and gives birth to sin. If the fact we sin proves we have a fallen nature, it would prove Adam had a fallen nature. If sin is caused by “inherent depravity,” ‘we have Adam sinning without a cause for he certainly was not depraved.

Adam and Eve were free moral agents with power to choose whom they would serve. Every responsible person has that power today. All are responsible for the choices they make. This truth is clearly set forth in the parable of the soils or sower (Lk. 8:6-15). One decides for himself the kind of soil he is. This parable exposes the errors of the “theological triplets” of the Calvinists. First, a sinner receives the word into an honest and good heart, so it is not “opposite of all good.” Second, faith is produced by the word, not by a direct operation of the Spirit. Third, in time of temptation some fall away, showing the possibility of apostasy. People are either willing or unwilling to receive the truth. If willing, no other power is needed. If unwilling, the use of additional power would be coercion not conversion.

One creed teaches that as a result of the original corruption brought into the world by Adam’s sin we are “utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite of all good; and wholly inclined to all evil.” According to this creed we are born with a sinful nature and “inclination to sin,” is proof of it. But we are not more inclined to sin than Adam was before he fell. If “inclination to sin,” proves depravity it proves Adam was depraved before he sinned.

We are sinners by our choices not because we are depraved “in all our parts.” Adam was a free agent and became a sinner by choice and so do we (Rom. 5:12). If Adam had to sin by decree or corruption was he free? The Scripture says, “God made man upright, but they sought out many inventions” (Eccl. 7:29). We are born pure in body and spirit, but in time, just as all who have gone before us, we sin. Sin comes to us by our own actions, not by inborn corruption.

Some Calvinists teach that when one is regenerated or born again, the real man, the spirit can never sin again; but that the body is still depraved and continues to sin till death. One Baptist writer declared, “In Adam all sinned. The fountain head was polluted and the whole stream became fowl and impure. This sinful nature we carry with us to the grave. God does not convert the flesh.” Ben M. Bogard, Baptist preacher said, “I am as perfect as God Himself as far as my soul is concerned. Then what about my body? It does sin” (Hardeman-Bogard Debate, p. 310). But sin involves the spirit (the mind) and the flesh (2 Cor. 7:1-2; Rom. 8:6-7). We sin, not because we have a sinful nature, but because we choose to sin. Did God create or make Adam with a sinful nature?

It is a sad fact of life that no one lives above sin. Some teach they receive a “second blessing,” or “sanctification,” and live above sin. Solomon said, “there is not a just man on earth that doeth good and sinneth not” (Eccl. 7:20). He also said, “When they sin against Thee, (for there is no man who does not sin). . . ” (1 Kgs. 8:46).

There are differences in circumstances between Adam’s sin and ours, but there is no difference in our natures. Adam sinned in a perfect world, we are conceived and born in a world of sin (Psa. 51:5). When David said he was brought forth in “iniquity,” he wasn’t saying iniquity was in him. Though he was “conceived in sin,” the sin was not in David. David was not born a sinner, but in a world where sin abounded. We must distinguish between one born and the conditions that surround his birth.

The conditions and circumstances in this sinful world make it more conducive to sin than in a sinless world, but that fact does not relieve us of any responsibility nor remove guilt. Further, the devil has had about seven thousand years to perfect his act, and we must guard our minds “lest by any means as the serpent” turned Eve’s mind from God’s word so your minds should be turned from your single hearted devotion to any part of God’s truth (2 Cor. 11:3).

God’s wonderful work in creation was threatened by the entrance of sin into the world. God intended for man to live and rule forever upon the earth and God made his nature to do just that. Did God create man with his mate, join them in marriage and give them rule over a condition He foreordained to destroy? Did God plan the character of the devil and eternally purpose that he deceive the woman?

God created the creature that fell and became the devil. This creature was permitted to test man’s loyalty to God’s word. Man rejected God’s word and sinned. Was God defeated by this? God’s wisdom was perfectly adequate to the situation. God is never hemmed in by circumstances. He always knows what He will do (John 6:6). He has the perfect solution for any crisis.

When sin entered the world there came into the mind of the eternal, infinite God the grand and glorious scheme of human redemption. This scheme involved the nature of man, his spirit, life and body. Before one word of it was spoken, ere one word was written the scheme of redemption was complete in the mind of God from its inception to its perfection in eternity. This is “God’s eternal purpose,” or “plan of the ages,” concerning the nature of man.

Before the “foundation of the ages,” Patriarchal and Jewish, the plan of salvation was complete in the mind of God. When sin entered, the cross was erected. The blessed spotless Lamb stood as already slain for our sins. Foreseeing the love that some of His creation would have for Him God planned “to make all things work together for good to those who love Him and who are called according to His purpose” (Rom. 8:28).

“All things are of God, who hath reconciled us unto Himself by Jesus Christ.” All things of Him! “Without Him was not anything made that was made.” The plan of salvation was made by Him and through Him (John 1:1-2, so v. 14).

These things were hidden under the types and shadows of the ages until the “due time” came for the Holy Spirit to 4 ‘uncover the deep things of God.” Jesus said, “I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because Thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent. . . ” (Matt. 11:27).

The Holy Spirit tells us that “all these things God planned for us work for our good,” not only in time, but in harmony with God’s eternal plans for “our nature and its glory,” in eternity. The Holy Spirit pictures God’s purposes for us in its completeness in Romans 8:28-30. Those who love Him answer His call made through the Gospel. They are “the called. ” The ones who love Him are the ones He before approved, and marked out to be conformed to the image of His Son. In our nature, spirit and body, we belong to the Lord. The nature of Christians is shaped as the spirit, under the influence of the truth presents the body as a living sacrifice to God. Those who answer God’s call through the word, and who live as the called, stand before Him justified at all times, “for who can lay anything to the charge of God’s elect?” The ones justified are glorified in God’s eternal purpose for them.

Thus the nature of man, created and formed by the eternal God in the beginning can, through His infinite wisdom, defeat the devil in this sinful world by allegiance to God’s word. God’s purpose for man will be fulfilled in a higher world that can’t be marred by sin. “I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared to the glory which shall be revealed to us.” And not the least of that glory will be the knowledge of God, not just as a wise, powerful Creator but as a loving, forgiving Father and Redeemer. With eternal spirits made perfect, with mortal bodies made immortal, in our glorified nature we can, with the redeemed of all the ages, forever praise Him round His throne.

Guardian of Truth XXXI: 1, pp. 14-16
January 1, 1987