Truth Magazine

By Mike Willis

Psalm 51 is generally admitted to have been written by David as an appeal to God for forgiveness of his sins associated with his immorality with Bathsheba. In a recent defense of the “continuous cleansing” position, Psalm 51 was used to defend the position that a Christian can sin, repent of his sins, and never be alienated from God. A careful study of this text demonstrates that sin brings one into a state of guilt and condemnation which is not removed until the sinner repents and confesses his sin to God.

Calvinist Arguments

Through the years, Baptist debaters who have defended the doctrine of “once in grace, always in grace” have appealed to Psalm 51 to justify their position. John R. Rice, former editor of Sword of the Lord (an independent Baptist publication), wrote,

David committed sins of murder and adultery. We must condemn his sins. They were bad. But David’s sins were under the blood of Christ, and in the fifty-first Psalm, the prayer of David shows that he had not lost his salvation, but the joy of salvation. Psalm 51:11,12 says:

“Cast me not away from thy presence; and take not thy holy spirit from me. Restore unto me the joy of thy salvation; and uphold me with thy free spirit. “

David does not ask for the restoration of salvation, but he does ask that God will restore the joy of salvation. He prays that God will not break the fellowship, will not cast him away from God’s presence, will not take away the communion of the Holy Spirit. A backslider like David ought to pray for the joy of salvation to be restored, but he should not believe that God has cast away His child. David sinned, but he did not become a lost sinner again. So David praised God, under divine inspiration: “Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered. Blessed is the man unto whom the Lord imputeth not iniquity” (Psa. 32:1,2). The Scripture shows why David did not lose his salvation and why a saved man cannot be lost (Can A Saved Person Ever Be Lost?, p. 16).

Commenting on Psalm 51:11, John Calvin wrote,

“Take not thy Holy Spirit from me. ” The words of this verse imply that the Spirit had not altogether been taken away from him, however much his gifts had been temporarily obscured . . . . Upon one point he had fallen into a deadly lethargy, but he was not “given over to a reprobate mind”; and it is scarcely conceivable that the rebuke of Nathan the prophet should have operated so easily and suddenly in arousing him had there been no latent spark of godliness remaining. . . . The truth on which we are now insisting is an important one, as many learned men have been inconsiderately drawn into the opinion that the elect, by falling into mortal sin, may lose the Spirit altogether, and be alienated from God. The contrary is clearly declared by Peter, who tells us that the word by which we are born again is an incorruptible seed (1 Pet. 1:23) (John Calvin as quoted in Treasury of David, Vol. II, p. 470).

In the Camp-Hafley Debate on “once saved, always saved,” the Baptist Wayne Camp argued as follows:

I’ll tell you David was one who had some experience with this matter we’re dealing with. You know he sinned, he committed adultery; he committed murder. Had it committed, ordered it committed. I think that my honorable opponent would agree that that was just as bad. One day he got under conviction about it. Old Nathan came to him and said, preached to him and said, “You are the man.” Without going into all the details, you know the situation. David prayed and David said, “Restore unto me the joy of thy salvation, and take not thy Holy Spirit from me.” Oh, my friend, listen. He had committed murder. He had committed adultery, But he prayed, “Take not thy Holy Spirit from me.” Why? It must have still been there. It must have still been there (pp. 147-148).

The well known Baptist debater, Ben M. Bogard argued 44once in grace, always in grace” in the same manner.

He asks, “Is it possible for a child of God to get drunk and commit murder?” Yes sir, David committed murder and he was a child of God, but he did not lose the Holy Spirit, either, for he said in his penitent prayer, “Take not Thy Spirit from me” (Porter-Bogard Debate, pp. 78-79).

W.E. Sherrill used Psalm 51:11-12 to defend “once in grace, always in grace” in his debate with brother A.C. Grider. He said,

In Psa. 51:12, David did some pretty bad things. What did David do? He lost the joy of his salvation. I will read it to you over here in Psa. 51:12, “Restore unto me the joy of my salvation.” He never asked God for salvation at all after he got it. He lost the joys of it and ask(ed) God to restore the joys of salvation, that he might teach the transgressor God’s ways and they would be converted. David did pretty bad. He had a man killed and took his wife. That’s what David did . . . (Grider-Sherrill Debate, p. 149).

In recent months, similar arguments have been made by those defending continous cleansing. Consequently, let us carefully examine Psalm 51.

The Historical Situation

Perhaps it will help us to be reminded of what the historical situation of Psalm 51 was. David coveted his neighbor’s wife and committed adultery with her. After some time passed, Bathsheba realized that she was with child. Instead of repenting of his sin and facing its consequences as a penitent sinner when Bathsheba announced that she was with child, with premeditation David sought to cover his sin by bringing Uriah home from the battle front, expecting that he would enjoy the pleasures of his wife and think the child was his own. When Uriah refused to go to his wife, David arranged a situation in which he became drunk, hoping that in his drunken state he would do what he refused to do when sober. When this failed, David committed premeditated murder, arranging to have Uriah killed in battle. Some months passed and the illegitimate child was born before Nathan rebuked David and he repented.

If one is disposed to argue that Psalm 51:11 indicates that David was yet in the presence of God and not separated from him by his sin, let him remember these facts are known about David:

(1) David violated three of the Ten Commandments: coveting his neighbor’s wife, adultery, and murder. Nathan said that David “despised the commandment of the Lord” in doing this evil (2 Sam. 12:9).

(2) He committed his murder premeditately. This was a high-handed act of rebellion, not of ignorance or weakness.

(3) He stayed in his impenitent state for a minimum period of nine months (the child was born).

Consequently, should one use this passage to prove that a child of God can sin and displease God, then repent of and forsake that sin without being cast from God’s presence, then the following conclusions are true:

(1) One is not separated from God by an act of willful sin. All of the comments about “kinds” of sin, to distinguish sins of weakness and ignorance from high-handed rebellion are worthless. David’s sin was premeditated and willful. Yet, we are assured, based on Psalm 51:11, that David was not separated from God thereby.

(2) One is still not separated from God months after his sin. David was in his sin and impenitent at least for nine months.

(3) The sins for which one has “continual cleansing” are moral as well as doctrinal and include everything from lust to fornication to murder.

(4) 1 John 3:15 is not true. John said, “Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him.” But Psalm 51:11 has been explained to mean that David still had the presence of the Holy Spirit and was not lost but only in the process of being lost. If so, 1 John 3:15 is not true!

An Examination of the Text

Any view that is taken of Psalm 5 1:11 must take into consideration the entire Psalm. Notice these observations from the text:

v. 1 – David’s transgressions needed to be blotted out

v. 2 – He needed to be washed from his iniquities and cleansed from his sin

v. 3 – His sins were ever before him

v. 4 – He had sinned against God

v. 7 – He needed to be purged and washed

v. 9 – He begged God not to hide His face and to blot out his sins

v. 11 – He asked God not to cast him away and not to take his Holy Spirit from him

v. 12 – He asked God to restore the joy of his salvation

v. 14 – He needed to be delivered from blood guiltiness

No one could read Psalm 51 without concluding that its author stands as a condemned sinner petitioning God for salvation through the forgiveness of sins. The author did not consider himself in a state of acceptance before God; he recognized that he was lost and sought God’s salvation through grace. This conclusion seems indisputable.

What did David mean when he wrote these lines?

Cast me not away from thy presence; and take not thy Holy Spirit from me.

Restore unto me the joy of thy salvation; and uphold me with thy free spirit (vv. 11-12).

The petition “cast me not away from thy presence” could be an allusion to Genesis 3, where Adam and Eve were driven from the Garden of Eden and the presence of God (also cf. Gen. 4:14 where Cain was driven out). Others have suggested that this refers to an exclusion from Temple worship as was the fate of the leper (cf. Lev. 13:46). The phrase is used in 2 Kings 13:23; 17:20; 24:20; Jeremiah 7:15 to refer to God’s rejection of Israel as a nation when He sent them into captivity. David is petitioning the Lord not to treat him as one who had totally rejected the appeals of God’s grace. In Romans 1, “God gave up” on men who refused to have God in their knowledge (1:24,26,28). The phrase does not indicate that David was saved at the moment but fearful that God would reject him at any moment of time. Instead, it is the recognition by a sinner that he has committed sin and been so wicked that God may quit working to bring him to repentance, and is an appeal for God not to quit.

The prayer “take not thy Holy Spirit from me” was interpreted in the quotations mentioned above to mean that David was yet in possession of the Holy Spirit and, therefore, not in a state of damnation. Granting for the sake of argument that David still had the Holy Spirit, his possession of the Holy Spirit is no more proof of his salvation in his impenitent condition than Cornelius’ having the Spirit in Acts 10 is proof of his salvation before and without water baptism.

The withdrawal of the Spirit of God is placed in synonymous parallelism with being cast away from God’s presence. The two phrases are expressing the same thought – that of being totally separated from the influence of God’s grace to bring one to repentance. David was vividly aware of what became of Saul when “the Spirit of the Lord departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the Lord troubled him” (I Sam. 16:14). He did not want that to befall him.

“Restore unto me the joy of thy salvation” has sometimes been given the meaning that “David had his salvation but did not have the joy of his salvation.” One cannot have his salvation without its attendant joy. David is not affirming that he maintained his salvation in spite of his sin; instead, he recognizes that he lost it as asks that it be restored to him (v. 12).

Conclusion

The “continuous cleansing” position cannot be defended on the basis of Psalm 5 1:11. Indeed, the very arguments used on this verse to defend the “continuous cleansing” position are used by Calvinists to defend “once in grace, always in grace.”

Any position which states that a man can lust after his neighbor’s wife, commit adultery, induce another to drunkenness, and commit premeditated murder without “being cast from God’s presence” contradicts the plain and simple teaching of God’s word. So does the claim that a man can commit these sins and linger in them a minimum of nine months and still be only “in the process of falling from God’s presence.” If one can maintain the fellowship of God for nearly a year, while committing these outrageous sins, surely we must concede that “once a man is in grace, he is always in grace.” For, if these sins do not separate a man from God, none will.

The truth is that some of our brethren are drifting into the denominational concept that it is not sin itself which separates man from God but some nebulous attitude factor which accompanies the sin. In other words, murder, homosexuality, or digression in worship can separate a man from God only if he has a bad attitude (insincerity, highhanded rebellion, etc.) but not if he has a good one (sincere, pious, etc.). Actually, all sin reveals some weakness or flaw in the attitude of our heart (Matt. 15:18-10). All sin is an affront to God and a blot upon man, separating him from God, and requires pardon upon the terms and conditions of the gospel. The Bible does not teach that one single sin puts a person into a state of hardened apostasy from which there is no hope of repentance or pardon. But the blot is removed only when we turn from sin, not while we continue in it.

To those who might have some sympathies toward the continuous cleansing position, I would like to make this appeal. Consider carefully where these arguments are headed. Who would have thought that a gospel preacher would have made the arguments on Psalm 51 which we have reviewed? Yet, they were and are being made by those who teach continuous cleansing.

Guardian of Truth XXXI: 2, pp. 42, 47-48
January 15, 1987

By Almon Williams

This study will limit itself to four New Testament texts commonly cited by Calvinists as proof of their doctrine of hereditary total depravity: Romans 7:18; 8:5-7; 1 Corinthians 2:14; and Ephesians 2:1-3. In examining these passages, I shall endeavor to illustrate the shortcomings of Calvinistic exegesis and the inconsistency of their claims. Throughout this study, I shall always try to keep in mind the following two guidelines of Whiteside when he cautions, “We must not arrive at conclusions that contradict other plain statements of the Scriptures, or give the sinner any excuse for continuing in sin” (Doctrinal Discourses, p. 108).

Romans 7:18

Calvinists like to use this passage to prove that since “no good thing” dwells in man, he must be totally in bondage to sin. The problem is that Calvinists, generally, apply Romans 7:14 (15)-25 to the regenerated who have had the total power of sin over them broken by the Spirit. Their dilemma is obvious: they cannot exegete the power of sin over the sinner out of the passage and then later find it there to prove his total depravity. In other words, since the regenerated have been redeemed from the power of original sin, they are no longer totally depraved, regardless of how great their depravity was before they were regenerated. The extent of this depravity would still have to be assumed, for the degree of the sinfulness of one’s former self is nowhere in Romans 7:18 either stated or necessarily implied. This proof text on the sinner’s total depravity is no proof text at all!

However, if any Calvinist wishes to apply this passage to the unregenerated sinner, the language of the text is decidedly against the idea of total sinfulness. The passage, as well as its context (7:14-25), recognizes goodness in the soul of man, for Paul says, “For to will is present with me (i.e. to do the good of the law, ALW); but how to perform that which is good I find not” (7:18). Weakness, no doubt; total wickedness, hardly!

Romans 8:5-7

In this passage, Calvinists see the utter corruption of the sinner because “the carnal mind” of the sinner, to them, seems to be wholly at “enmity against God” and thus not able to be “subject to the law of God,” and, because the minding of the flesh seems to be a total minding of the flesh. (For example, see Calvin on Rom. 7:5-7.) In making their case here, they assume two things essential to their doctrine, and then, read these into (eisegete) the text.

First, they have not dealt evenhandedly with the two clauses of 8:5. They do not believe that the minding of the Spirit is absolute whereas, at the same time, they assume that the minding of the flesh is absolute. Calvin, while asking in 8:5, “who in this world can be found adorned with so much angelic purity so as to be wholly freed from the flesh?” insists that the carnal are “those who wholly devote themselves to the world.” Now, my question is: If the language about minding the Spirit does not necessarily have to be taken in a total or absolute sense, why does the language about minding the flesh have to be taken in a total or absolute sense? Let the Calvinists answer themselves on this point. What would they say to an advocate of perfectionism who argued that “to mind the Spirit” means to do so perfectly? Would they not accuse such a one of both adding to this specific Scripture and of making it contradict other Scriptures expressing the sinfulness of Paul and other good Christians? Indeed, there is no more proof in this “proof text,, for Calvinistic total depravity than for Wesleyan perfectionism.

Second, they assume that no one having either of these minds can change his mind and adopt the opposite mind. (For a reply, see Moses Stuart’s comments on 8:7 in his commentary on Romans [3rd ed., p. 351], to the effect that this is reading into the text what the text does not say.) The Scriptures teach, however, that a voluntary conversion is possible. In Ezekiel 18 God insists that both the righteous and the wicked can turn from their respective pasts. And in Romans 6, Paul argues individual responsibility for any change anyone might ever make. “Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?’ I (v. 16) Again, the proof text proves what no one denies, namely: that, when men mind the flesh, they are sinners.

1 Corinthians 2:14

From this passage, the Calvinists get utter impotency not only of the sinner to believe the gospel but also of the gospel to impart faith to the sinner. For example, Calvin emphasizes “how great is this weakness . . . of the human understanding of the sinner (italics mine, ALW), that is not only “not willing to be wise” but also not “able” to be so. “Hence,” concludes he, “faith is not in one’s own power, but is divinely conferred,” and “the gospel,” thus he denies, “is offered to mankind in common in such a way that all indiscriminately are free to embrace salvation by faith.”

The issue, here, is: Can the natural man’s attitude about the things of God be changed from the presumption of “foolishness” to the conclusion that these things are, in fact, “the power of God, and the wisdom of God” (1:24)? Since this verse speaks only of the continuing attitude of the worldly man, what are the facts regarding the possibility of him changing his mind and becoming a believer without God’s directly enabling him to do this? What is the nature of the “can not” of the natural man? Is it an inborn ability or an inability born simply of his present antagonistic mindset? (For a perceptive analysis of the natural man’s inability due to his antagonistic mindset, see William Barclay’s The Letters to the Corinthians, p. 32.)

The proof that the natural man’s problem is an antagonistic mindset is found in Paul’s solution for the natural man. To change the natural man’s mind, Paul relied on two things: (1) the Spirit’s wisdom, i.e. the simple, non-philosophical preaching of Christ; and, (2) the Spirit’s power, i.e. the miracles or signs of God (1 Cor. 2:14). Such reliance was in order “that your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God” (2:5). And what were the results? See Acts 18:8 where “many” obeyed the gospel. Undoubtedly, some of them had the mindset which had pronounced as foolish the message of the Gospel; namely that an executed Jewish “criminal” was the Savior of the world. (To see how Paul handled the worldly mind of Christians, carefully study his argument in 1 Cor. 3.) In conclu sion, Paul’s natural man is simp ly the sinner who does not obey the gospel until he changes his views and becomes willing to do so.

Ephesians 2:1-3

Calvinists try to exploit the terms “dead” (v. 1), “nature” and “children of wrath” (v. 3c) to construct their doctrine of hereditary total depravity. They argue that the sinner by his innate nature is born dead in Adam’s sin and thus from birth is under the wrath of God.

Their first problem is that the terms they focus on are ambiguous in meaning, and that their clausal relationship of thought to the statement of 1-3b is, also, ambiguous. The questions, in the first case, are: Is “nature” inborn or acquired, and if inborn, is it neccessitarian nature or permissive nature? Is “wrath” God’s wrath or man’s wrath? And does children of wrath mean characterized by wrath on man’s part or liable to wrath from God’s side? In the second case: Does 3c give the cause for man’s actual sins (i.e. inherited sin) or the consequence of sinful deeds (i.e. “And so were by nature the children of wrath”)? Clearly, this passage cannot be used to prove anything until these ambiguities are cleared up.

Their second problem is that the context of Ephesians is against them regarding the nature of death and the reason for God’s wrath coming upon man.

The Calvinists are wrong both on the cause of death and its extent. Paul does not attribute death to original sin but to actual sins when he remembers that the Ephesians “were dead in (i.e. through, ASV) trespasses and sins” (2:1). Calvin himself confirms this when he states, “He (i.e. Paul, ALW) says that they were dead,- and states, at the same time, the cause of the death trespasses and sins. ” Here, Calvin’s exegesis is right; his theology is wrong. Further, Calvin answers himself on the necessity of the totality of death via his inconsistency on the totality of life, which is its opposite. On the one hand, he overstates theologically the extent of the fact of death, “Out of Christ we are altogether dead, because sin, the cause of death, reigns in us,” but, on the other hand, he admits that “regeneration only begins in this life; the relics of the flesh which remain, always follow their own corrupt propensities, and thus carry on a contest against the Spirit” (Rom. 7:14). In short, if the life is not total, why should the death, which is its opposite, be total?

The Calvinists are also wrong on the cause for God’s wrath coming on man and the time when it does so. In Ephesians, Paul has God’s wrath coming on man as the result of his actual sins and at the time when he sins (see 5:6). The issue is: Does it come upon sinners because (and thus after) they sin, or is it already upon man, even as a baby, because of inherited sin? If it does not come upon the person in 5:6, an unambiguous statement, until they are sinners, how could Paul say in 2:3c, an ambiguous statement, that it had already come upon them at birth because of original sin?

Conclusion

Due to limitations of space, I have not been able to show what each of these passages does teach; I have only been able to show that they do not teach what the Calvinists say they teach. Throughout this study, I believe it has been shown that Calvinists cannot prove their doctrine from the Scriptures. They try hard indeed, but their efforts are doomed to failure because they have to assume that the Scriptures teach that which they need to prove from the Scriptures. And if we were to grant, for argument’s sake, their assumptions, what would the result of their doctrine mean for man?

It would be very discouraging indeed, for as Whiteside says:

People who reach the stage of depravity are utterly beyond the hope of redemption. Such were the people before the flood, and such were the people of Sodom and Gomorrah. To be totally depraved means to be totally lost now and in the world to come (Romans, p. 162).

Guardian of Truth XXXI: 1, pp. 34-35
January 1, 1987

By Roy E. Stephens

When the joyful mother looks down at the infant cradled in her arms, and thinks, “never has there been anything more precious, beautiful or pure,” she is right, for that infant is made in the image of God (Gen. 1:26) which image is righteousness and true holiness (Eph. 4:24). “The Lord is righteous in all his ways and holy in all his works” (Psa. 145:17). When Jesus sought an illustration of the character and purity of those who make up the “kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 18:3), the church (those who submit to the rule of heaven), He could find no better than the little child, in its purity. Mankind is the “offspring of God” (Acts 17:29) who is the “father of spirits” (Heb. 12:9). Daddy and mother gave the infant its physical body, but God placed in it a spirit in His image: the soul, the inward man (2 Cor. 4:16). The little baby in mother’s arms was made “upright” (Eccl. 7:29). True, all mankind have sinned, and “sought out many inventions,” but all were made upright. Paul admonished Christians to be as children in malice (I Cor. 14:20). The little child does not hold malice toward another. In a gospel meeting one time I stayed with a family who had a boy about five. One day he came in crying with blood on his face. His playmate had hit him with something. Mother patched him up and he went back to play. In a little while he came in with a piece of mesquite stump in one hand and holding hands with his playmate. “Look mother, here is what he hit me with,” he commented. No malice. He has to grow older and get like “grown ups” with sins of the disposition, the spirit (2 Cor. 7:1), before he begins to hold malice.

But if the little mother was a member of some popular denomination, most likely her pastor, if he told her what he really believes, would tell her that her beautiful baby was not pure as she thought. In reality, according to the doctrine of Calvinism, it was totally depraved, and that by heredity; totally inclined to evil; had a sinful nature; guilty of Adamic sin; original sin; inborn sin; opposed to all good; and a sinner by inheritance. In fact if one set out to catalog the characteristics of the devil, he could do no better than the list of the characteristics of the little baby, according to the theologians. The Presbyterian Confession puts it like this, “Our first parents being the root of all mankind, the guilt of this sin was imputed, and the same death in sin and corrupted nature conveyed to their posterity, descending from them by ordinary generation.” John Wesley gives it, “Every man born in the world now bears the image of the devil in pride and self will, the image of the beast in sensual appetites and desires. We are condemned before we have done any good or evil, and under the curse ere we know what it is.”

If the Calvinist doctrine is true, God has spent the last six thousand years since Adam in nothing but bringing children of the devil into the world.

Origin Of The Doctrine

Inherited sin was taught first by Augustine in the fourth century; was made popular by Calvin (1509-1564); taught by Luther (1483-1564); is found in all Catholic writings; and is in the creeds of about every Protestant denomination. It is not to be found in the word of God at all. How true it is that a lie can compass the earth, before the truth gets its boots on! Did Adam become a sinner by inheriting sin? If so he inherited it from God. If Adam did not inherit sin, then sin is not inherited. Adam and Eve sinned when they ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, after God had said, “thou shalt not eat of it” (Gen. 2:9; 3:1-17).

The Scriptures which give us “all things that pertain to life and godliness” (2 Pet. 1:3) say that “sin is the transgression of the law” (1 Jn. 3:4) and that sin arises when man is drawn away of his own lust (desires, such as lust of the flesh, lust of eyes and pride of life, 1 Jn. 2:16) and enticed. When desire (lust) conceives, that is, when man gains the consent of his own mind to do the act, it brings forth sin (Jas. 1:14-15). In just a few words, the Scriptures tell us of the origin of sin, flatly contradicting the doctrine of the theologians.

To the Calvinist, sin is as much a part of the little child born into the world, as its lungs, liver, appendix, or its heart (by which he means the physical blood pump), and is inherited in the same way the child inherits the color of its hair, or eyes, of the shape of its nose. Once this error is believed, the next error is easy to believe, that the word of God is a dead letter, and obedience to the word in such things as believing and being baptized in order to be saved (Mk. 16:15-16) can no more remove sin than such obedience can remove the lungs, or appendix or the liver. That the word of God is a dead letter, that it is the mere word, is taught and believed by all with whom I have had any contact in the denominational world. “Mere” means nothing less than. To them, nothing is worth less, than God’s word. No wonder there is such ignorance of the Scriptures. Why go to any trouble to learn that which is the least in value of anything in this world? If the word of God is a dead letter, and powerless to save, we wonder why the devil goes to the trouble to take way the word out of the heart when the seed is sown? (Lk. 8:4-12)

The next error, quite naturally is that of irresistible grace; the direct operation of the Holy Spirit on the sinner, which they call regeneration. When the totally depraved sinner receives this operation, he is illuminated and the sin inherited from Adam is erased. Needless to say, all of these, (1) inherited sin, (2) God’s word a dead letter, and (3) irresistible grace, are foreign to the Scriptures.

Methodists Make A Chance

Hereditary total depravity, and direct operation of the Holy Spirit are Siamese twins; double monsters tied together and depending on one another. From 1729 to 1910 the Methodist discipline taught that the baby is born in sin, guilty of the sin of Adam. They got ashamed of the doctrine and revised the discipline in 1910 and had the baby born in Christ, but they retained the error of direct operation of the Holy Spirit, and left the Holy Spirit with nothing to operate on! I know of no creed written by men but that it contradicts the word of God, conflicts with its own teaching and is filled with such absurdities as the above. God’s word is perfect (Jas. 1:25). Why not be content with it? It is the creed that needs no revision. If the creed makers had been content with the word of God as authority in matters religious, and never begun their nefarious work, such doctrines as inherited sin, and irresistible grace would be unknown. Be content with the word of God. This will cut off everything that is human, and preserve everything that is divine, and ought to be pleasing to all whose hearts are right.

Are Acquired Characteristics Inherited?

Since a human being becomes a sinner by something that he does, how could he be a sinner by inheritance? And if sin is inherited, why, by the same token, could not righteousness be inherited? Suppose a man and wife, who have (as some of the denominational preachers admonish them) been to the mourners’ bench and “prayed through” and have (as they say) been regenerated and the sin of Adam erased, conceive a child. The child cannot inherit the sin of Adam from the parents for it has been erased. If character, or attributes or acquired characteristics can be inherited, why cannot righteousness be inherited as easily as sin? A sinless nature, ought to be inherited as easily as a sinful nature. And again; if one parent is a sinner and the other regenerated, the offspring ought to be half sinner and half saint. Those who think, ought to be able to see this logically demonstrates that acquired attributes are not inherited. A person is a sinner when he commits sin.

“Proof” That Does Not Prove

Many Bible passages are advanced to “prove” inherited sin, but all these passages, correctly viewed, prove the opposite. Once the doctrine is believed, some passages seem to prove it, but upon careful examination do not prove. If all would pay attention to what the Scriptures say and what they do not say there would be much less error taught. It is sad that the young people of almost the entire Protestant and Catholic world are taught this “tradition receivedfrom the” theologians which flatly contradicts the word of God. Let us note first some Old Testament passages.

Exodus 20.5. “. . . I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children. . . . ” This passage has been used as proof of inherited sin, but it does not prove. If God is here saying the guilt of Adam’s sin is passed along by ordinary generation to the descendants of Adam, you and I have nothing to worry about on this point, for whatever He meant, it went no further than the “fourth generation of them that hate me” which would be Mahalaleel. Inherited sin would have stopped with him, and Jared would have been born, as would all who were born after him, as pure as Adam was before he committed sin.

God’s people were not to bow down to idols, or even have an image of an idol before them as they worshipped (v. 4). If they did, they were said to “hate” God, that is, love him less than the idol, and God’s wrath was brought against them for such sins. The results of iniquity, but not the guilt, might reach down as far as the fourth generation. The innocent suffer for the guilty. This is a known truth. A man might drink, gamble and squander all the family has and the family be impoverished for years. I said the funeral service some time ago for an infant born without arms and legs. Mother and Daddy had been experimenting with drugs. We are told that the effects of drug use can be seen in deformed bodies, etc. as far down as five generations.

Suppose two parents go out one day for a picnic, taking their infant along in its basket. They put the basket down in the shade of a tree, and proceed to get drunk. Those who drink are “not grieved for the affliction of Joseph” (Amos 6:6), so the parents were not concerned for the welfare of the baby. God who causes the sun to rise on the evil and the good (Matt. 5:45) moved the shade of the tree and soon the baby was looking into the direct rays of the sun, and was blinded. The results of the sin of the parents were visited on the innocent child, but the guilt was theirs. The results of Adam’s sin reach down to all humanity, for we all die because of what he did. The guilt of his sin did not even reach down to Seth.

God does not tolerate worship of an idol or the image of an idol in our devotions. He will not be placed on a shelf along with man’s other idols and be worshiped according to man’s first love. He does not say, “seek ye second the kingdom of God. . . ” (Matt. 6:33). He does not tolerate corrupting the worship man offers to Him. When men love their own inventions, the doctrines and commandments of men and inject them into the worship of God, the worship becomes vain (Matt. 15:9) and the worshippers are said to hate God, that is, they love their invention more than they love God. Today preachers from the Independent Christian Churches are crying crocodile tears over the division between them and churches of Christ, and are mounting a campaign for what they call unity. Of course churches of Christ are supposed to ignore the unscriptural practices of the Christian Churches, such as instrumental music in the worship, if such unity comes about. Preachers of the ICC have already accepted the missionary society concept of the work of the church as seen in the Herald of Truth and the sponsoring church arrangement. There is good reason for the progress they have made with such congregations. The churches of Christ that have already gotten over one hurdle, the missionary society, should with very little trouble, be led to hurdle the next obstacle, instrumental music in the worship. The ICC preachers who are lamenting the division between them and us, ought to be weeping over their sin in introducing the missionary society concept in the work of the church, and instrumental music in the worship, in the first place.

Psalm 51:5. Another Scripture offered as proof of inherited sin, which does not prove reads, “. . . I was shaped in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.” Read all of Psalm 51 noting carefully that David speaks of my iniquity, my sin and I have done this evil. There is no reference to the sin of Adam visited on him by “ordinary generation.” From the depths of a penitent heart, David pours out his soul in sorrow for the sins of murder and adultery (2 Sam. 11 and 12), but as though he pleads extenuating circumstances in that he was born into a world where all were sinful; “everybody is doing it”; he declares “I was shopen in iniquity. ” David certainly did not exist before he was shaped (in the womb) but the iniquity existed and he was shaped in a world of iniquity. In Genesis 6:5 the world was so sinful that every imagination and thought of man was evil continually, but they were not born that way. Man had corrupted his own ways (v. 12). Nothing is affirmed of them about a corrupt nature. In Isaiah 59:2, “your” iniquities, “your” sins had separated men from God. How strange that theologians will ignore the Bible statement that sin is the transgression of the law (1 Jn. 3:4) and declare one guilty of original, inherited sin, or as one put it, “the guilt that came through the parent’s loins.” Like all babies, David was born pure, in the image of God. It is true David sinned, and sought out many inventions, but God made him upright (Eccl. 7:29).

“In sin did my mother conceive me.” Nothing is affirmed about David’s mother sinning when David was conceived, or about sin coming through the loins of the parents. In a world of sin David was conceived and shaped, but not a syllable in the word of God suggested anyone is guilty of inherited sin. You and I are also conceived and shaped in a world of sin, but we are guilty of sin only when we transgress the law; corrupt our own ways.

In Acts 2:6-8 we read of the “tongue (language) wherein we were born.” This does not mean babies were born speaking that language, but they were born where all spoke that language. David was shaped in a world where all were guilty of sin, but they were their own sins, not the sins of Adam.

Let us pay attention to what the Bible says and what it does not say. All the difficulties men think they see in the Bible are man made, and they all vanish when we let the Bible speak for itself.

Psalm 58:3. “The wicked are estranged from the womb; they go astray as soon as they are born, speaking lies.” A preacher is hard pressed for proof of inherited sin when he uses this passage as evidence. The inspired writer’s own definition of being estranged from the womb is “they go astray, ” so nothing is affirmed of inherited sin, but rather of actions on the part of the one born. This speaks of what one does after he is born. When after? When he is old enough to speak lies; to voluntarily sin. Lying is a sin. Any man can choose between telling truth and lying, but these with the power of free will, chose to lie. I have never heard a baby “from the womb” speak anything, much less lies. This passage, with all others, points out that sin is transgression of the law and we become sinners, like all mankind of times past, when we violate the law of God, when we corrupt our own ways (Gen. 6:12).

Conclusion

Teachers of “original sin” must turn from error to truth, or God’s plan of redemption is chaos to them. Clouds and darkness hover over their understanding from which they can never emerge, until they see that man is born into the world pure, sinless, upright, holy, and righteous, and he goes astray when he sins. If he is born totally depraved, as far from God as he can get, a child of the devil, the only way he could go would be toward God. They have the child, when born, going astray toward God.

Guardian of Truth XXXI: 1, pp. 31-33
January 1, 1987

By Herschel E. Patton

It seems that a Bible student, observing the many warnings and exhortations given to man about sinning, and the many examples of men being held accountable and punished for sin, would never entertain the idea that man has to sin, that he can not do anything other than sin. Why, then, do men believe and teach this? Its origin is with the theologians.

Viewing the power and grace of God, some men have concluded that any action or response being necessary to man’s salvation would negate the grace and power of God. Calvinism, beginning with Inherent Total Depravity and expanding to other consequent tenets, has as its underlying theme, “Man has no ability, therefore responsibility, whatever with regards to his sins or salvation.” The teaching that man’s sinful (carnal) nature, which Calvinism says is inherited from Adam, necessitates sin and furnishes man an excuse (“I couldn’t help it”) that soothes or eliminates a guilty conscience. Our grace-fellowship brethren contend that we are all sinners, and cannot help but be such; therefore we should be tolerant of, and fellowship, other sinners – people in error. The purpose of the whole idea is to excuse man for his transgressions: to declare him not responsible because of the way he was made, or what he inherited from Adam. The answer to the question of this article will, therefore, involve a study of man’s nature and the doctrine of Inherent Total Depravity.

Man Is A Dual Being

Man, as God created him, is both physical and spiritual. He was made from the dust of the ground and given a spirit that one day must return to God (Gen. 1:27; 2:7; Matt.26:41; 2 Cor. 4:16; 1 Cor.15:35-38; Eccl.12:7). These two natures, physical-spiritual, are opposites, contrary to one another (Gal. 5:17).

Spiritual

On the spiritual side, man was made a rational being. He has the power to reason. This is one way that man is in the image of God. God and man can reason together – “Come, now, and let us reason together” (Isa.1:18). This reasoning together would have to do with the canceling of the sin of the man who would reason with God. “Though your sins be like scarlet, they shall be white as snow; though they be red as crimson, they shall be as wool.” The reason of God is the highest there is, and is to be a guide for our reasoning. Men, acting reasonably do not act in opposition to God. When our mind has by revelation been illuminated with the reason of God and we (both spirit and body) are activated and-controlled by this divine reasoning, we are imitators of God. Obedience to this revelation is said to be “our reasonable service.” This is one of the ways man is different from lower animals.

Man has also been given the liberty to will, so that he can allow either the physical or spiritual nature to dominate his life. He may choose to live on a plane with animals or live on a plane with God. Man has the ability and responsibility to make choice (Josh.24:15). A part of this spiritual side of man is “conscience.” Both good and evil men have a conscience and can exercise it (1 Tim. 4:2; Rom. 2:15). From the very beginning, God has cherished within His creatures the principle of conscious accountability. Thus, the first man, Adam, was placed under law, and strict obedience was required of him. If man cannot do anything other than sin, isn’t it strange that God, all the prophets, John the Baptist, Jesus, and the Apostles all called for obedience to divine commandments, pretending that man has power to obey! Obviously, the doctrine of total depravity (man is wholly evil and cannot act toward his salvation) is false. The Bible does not teach that man was so made, inherited a sinful nature from Adam, or that he has to sin. It teaches, on the other hand, that man was made a dual being, body and spirit, and the spiritual man has the ability to reason, discern, choose; man is responsible for bringing the body in harmony with divine reason.

Carnal

But what about the body – physical man? Is it carnal nature? Is it so depraved by creation or inheritance that man must sin? Those who believe this often cite Ephesians 2:1-3-“And were by nature the children of wrath.” Doctor Adam Clark says that the word “nature,” in this passage, often means, in Classical use, ‘second nature’ – as when we say, ‘habit is a second nature.’ Thus, in this text, the apostle appears to speak of evil habits, as when we say ‘habit is a second nature.”‘

Dr. McKnight says on this text, “Nature is that second corrupt dead nature, which men form in themselves by habitually indulging vicious inclinations, for the apostle speaks of men being by nature children of wrath, as the effect of having their conversation in the lusts of the flesh.”

All our fleshly appetites, if continually indulged to excess and in unlawful channels, will become corrupt. This passage, rather than telling us men are children of wrath because of the way they were made or what they inherited, seems to be saying that men become children of wrath by permitting their animal (carnal) nature to gain supremacy over their intellectual and moral nature. These Gentiles had been “dead in trespasses and sin,” not because of the one sin of Adam, but “in trespasses and in sins” (plural), not one sin, but many – their own.

The fleshly (carnal) body given to man, with all its appetites and passions, is not evil or sinful in itself. Every one of these natural appetites is good, and when directed into proper channels, serves our best interest. Sin results when we allow our passions to run in improper channels, in failing to curb or restrain them. Here is the origin of all sin.

Adam and Eve possessed all fleshly appetites and passions before they sinned. Presumedly, Adam and Eve made love,

ate and drank, and were in possession of all the emotions common to the fleshly body, before they sinned. Satisfying these passions was not sin. The appetite for eating is not sinful, until it becomes guilty of gluttony: for drinking, until it becomes guilty of intemperance or for a forbidden thing: the passion of fear is good, as long as we fear the right thing: of hatred, when properly directed. All our passions, emotions, appetites, like fire and water, are good servants, but destructive as masters. Man i’s responsible for governing these natural appetites and passions according to the laws of God.

Possessing these passions (a natural physical body) is not depravity. Depravity does not come about until the seed of evil is planted in man’s mind (heart) and he then acts contrary to truth. Adam and Eve received truth from God, and acting according to it, the fruit was righteousness. Satan, however, gave them a lie and the result was rebellion – sin. Evidently, there was no predisposition, bias, or compulsion to sin on Eve’s part until Satan enticed her. The source of sin, therefore was not the way Adam and Eve were made, but the enticement of Satan’s lie. Satan lied to Eve and she listened, believed, and acted – sinned – died. This has been the way of sin in man ever since. Hence our sins are called “the works of the devil” and he is said “to work in the children of disobedience.” His “fiery darts” inflame the passions and “set on fire the tongue, the whole course of nature.” Before Judas betrayed his Master, Satan “filled him” or “entered him.” Before Ananias became a hypocrite and lied to the Holy Spirit, Satan “put it into his heart.” James tells us that before any sin can be born “lust must conceive.” There was no seed of sin by nature in Adam, nor is there any in his posterity. The general tendency to sin on the part of man is due to the quality of the untruths received in the heart rather than to some natural or inherited thing. The more sinful teaching, influences, and circumstances that surround one from birth to responsibility, the greater that one’s bias or tendency to sin. Depravity is the result of our natural passions being inflamed by lies and evil influences to act contrary to truth, and not of how we are made or what we inherited. Other lessons in this series will show this truth, as well as the perversions of Scripture in an effort to affirm total depravity, so I will not deal with it here.

Perfection

Some see in man’s inability to attain perfection a “born with” or “inherited” weakness that makes sinning a “must” in his life. This thinking has led our “grace-fellowship” brethren to suggest and recommend fellowship with sincere brethren in error, for “we, ourselves, are not perfect.” Some go so far as to suggest that the blood of Christ continually cleanses of such sins, “even while they are being committed.”

There is a difference in “must” sin and “will” sin. The Bible does not teach the former, but does teach the latter. “If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. . . . If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us” (1 Jn. 1:8,10). Here, John is talking about what man has done or will do, for the reasons pointed out in this article, and not what he “must” do and can’t help but do because of the way he was made or what he inherited.

Our Lord was “made flesh and dwelt among us,” being subjected to temptation (Matt.4:1-10) “in all points like as we are, yet without sin” (Heb.4:15; Jn.8:46), showing that the flesh can be restrained and controlled. Paul felt a responsibility to “keep under his body, and bring it into subjection” lest he should be lost (1 Cor.9:27). Yes, man has the potential and responsibility to live free from sin, but will he? The Bible teaches he has not and will not, therefore, God’s grace has provided a cleansing fountain.

I know of no passage of Scripture wherein God demands absolute perfection on the part of those who seek after Him. True, the word “Perfect” or “perfection” is frequently used in exhorting saints, but these terms, according to definition, suggest the idea of completing or making better that which is imperfect. According to 1 John 1:8 the Christian’s life is imperfect; therefore, he needs to be active in improving his character and having the guilt of sin removed. When Jesus told the rich young ruler to sell all, give to the poor, follow Him, and he would “be perfect,” He was simply teaching him a way of growth, of greater service and maturity. Exhortations to perfection (Col.1:28; 4:12) are exhortations to spiritual maturity. By faith, diligence, taking heed, and repentance we may reach a high degree of spiritual maturity: be perfect as Noah and Job (Gen.6:9; Job 1:1), yet be as Paul “not already perfect” (Phil.3:12). This absolute perfection is not imputed on the basis of perfect works by man on this earth, or apart from the blood of Christ. Faith, obedience, diligence, repentance, “faithfulness unto death” are the ingredients for reaching that state of spiritual maturity or perfection that God will regard in the day of judgment, as absolute perfection. Man is capable of, and responsible for, reaching such maturity.

The doctrine of Hereditary Total Depravity, and the belief that man has to sin, simply provides for the corrupt an excuse and apology for their sins. The corrupt like to hear their wickedness referred to as innate depravity, rather than something acquired or developed; their unholiness as the result of natural incapacity, rather than any fault or neglect of their own; that they can do nothing to procure their salvation, excusing them from seeking or doing anything to prepare for it. Man is still responsible, and will be held accountable, regardless of these false doctrines.

Guardian of Truth XXXI: 1, pp. 24-25
January 1, 1987