Truth Magazine

By James R. Cope

“Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven” (Matt. 10:32). This is the language of Jesus. In it is couched the secret to eternal life. There are many ways in which one may confess Jesus Christ and because we do not here discuss all of these ways it is not to be understood that the importance of any confession the Bible reveals is to be underestimated. Our present study, however, deals with baptism. Perhaps baptism as taught by Christ and the apostles is seldom thought of as a confession, but such we believe it to be. In fact, there is no phase of baptism that is not a confession. In one instance may be seen the person who confesses. From another view is seen the object of the confession Jesus Christ.

1. Baptism is a confession of faith. He who is baptized confesses not only his personal conviction concerning the person and identity of his Lord but he acknowledges his faith in the system of faith revealed in and by Jesus. “Go – preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned” (Mk. 16:15,17). Confidence in the gospel as the means by which saving faith is validated is here set forth as a necessity for him who is subject to the gospel. Since baptism is a condition the gospel demands the sinner to meet in order to be saved by the gospel, when the sinner is baptized he thereby acknowledges his faith in the gospel and in Him who is its author.

2. Baptism is a confession of one’s faith in the death of Jesus. It is a declaration not only of a belief that Jesus actually lived upon this earth but that He died and that His death was for the purpose revealed in the Scriptures. It is a testimony to His dying “for our sins” (1 Cor. 15:3) and the apostle’s reference to it in Romans 6:3 so declares: “Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?” Since they had not been and could not be baptized into the literal death of Christ, the evident meaning is that they were baptized into the benefits procured by His literal death on the cross. Thus when they were baptized they recognized in the death of Jesus the payment for sin which was not possible by any other man or any animal. So does any sinner when he is baptized.

3. Baptism is a confession of faith in the burial of Jesus. It is a denial of any humanly devised plan for the faking of His resurrection. The proofs of His resurrection are made strong by the emphasis placed upon the nature and absolute certainty of His burial in a new tomb, hewn out of solid rock, sealed with a Roman seal, and secured by a Roman watch. From the human viewpoint the Lord’s absolute entombment was the climax of the schemes of the Jewish leaders to ascertain the certainty that His cause was forever doomed and His purposes forever thwarted. The baptism of the believer declares his faith in the fact of the Lord’s burial and witnesses to his confidence that his own old man of sin has been destroyed by the power exercised by Christ while His body was in the tomb and His spirit in Hades.

4. Baptism is a confession of the disciples faith in the resurrection of Jesus. His emergence from the watery grave bears witness to his confidence that the body of sin has been left in the tomb and that through the power by which Jesus rose from the dead he also is raised as a new creature in Christ. “Like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. . . For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God. Likewise reckon also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord” (Rom. 6:4-11). Apart from the resurrection of Jesus, baptism has no meaning whatever. The believer’s willingness to come forth from the waters of baptism is a living witness to his faith in the bodily resurrection of Jesus.

5. Baptism is a confession of the believer’s faith in the operation of God. “Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead” (Col. 2:12). He who understands the Bible’s teaching on what God does in baptism comprehends that a divine operation is performed in it. It is the circumcision of the heart. There is a “putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Jesus Christ” (Col. 2:11). Baptism is the act in which this operation is performed, and he who is scripturally baptized believes that God performs this operation in baptism; thus he confesses it when he is baptized.

6. Baptism is a confession of the authority of Jesus Christ. The deity of Jesus is declared by His resurrection from the dead (Rom. 1:4), and His authority grows out of His deity and is established by it. If Christ has been raised to die no more, there is more than humanity in Him for men by nature even raised from the dead again saw corruption. Not so with Jesus, and hence His resurrection declares Him to be of God in a sense different from any other man’s being of God. He was and is God. Being God, therefore, He possesses the right to all authority. It was in connection with His declaration concerning this authority in heaven and on earth that He commanded baptism (Matt. 28:18-20). Apart from the authority He has baptism is nonsense. A recognition of the authority of Jesus Christ makes sense out of baptism to the believer though it may appear foolishness to the unbeliever. Baptism, then, stands as an open avowal of one’s confidence in the authority of Jesus Christ.

7. Baptism is a confession of Christ as Savior. Instead of men looking to the water they look to Jesus when they are baptized. This is evidenced by the instruction Ananias gave Saul of Tarsus: “And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord” (Acts 22:16). If Saul followed the direction of Ananias he called on the name of the Lord. He looked to Jesus to save him, not to the water. Yet by virtue of the very authority which commanded him to be baptized he could not expect the washing away of sins without doing what the authority of Christ commanded. His calling upon the name of the Lord in baptism reveals his confession of faith in Christ to save him; hence baptism is a confession of Christ as Savior.

8. Baptism is a confession that man is a sinner. The design of baptism as stated by Jesus in Mark 16:16 and by Peter in Acts 2:38 forever settles this point. That apostle declared, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins.” As certainly as repentance in this passage declares man a sinner and in need of repentance so it declares man a sinner in need of baptism for the same reason. “Remission of sins” is an absurdity if there are no sins to be remitted. Both the apostles and the Jews on Pentecost understood the subjects of baptism to be sinners and therefore the inquiry “What shall we do?” was answered by Peter and his command was gladly received by the murderers of Jesus.

9. Baptism is a confession Of the sinner that he cannot save himself. In Galatians 3 the apostle shows the purpose of the law of Moses, i.e., to bring the Jews to Christ that they might be justified by the faith (gospel): “Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster. For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus” (Gal. 3:25-26). The faith in verse 26 evidently refers to the system of faith, the gospel, revealed in Christ. Then the Holy Spirit declares how this faith is made effectual to the sinner: “For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ” (Gal. 3:27). This passage not only locates salvation in Christ; it also shows the sinner’s helplessness without Him. Outside Christ the sinner was hopeless. Galatians 4:1-5 declares this with reference to the Jew, and Romans 1:16 shows the Gentile in the same condition. Only by being Abraham’s seed could either Jews or Gentiles be heirs according to the promise and this was possible only in Christ (Gal. 3:28,29). But since salvation is in Christ (2 Tim. 2: 10) and is by the grace of God without the works of man’s making (Eph. 2:8,9), and since the sinner is baptized into Christ and, therefore, into salvation, it follows that his submission to baptism denies his ability to save himself. Baptism then is a confession by the sinner of his own inability to save himself.

10. Baptism is a confession that the kingdom of God exists. To Nicodemus Jesus said, said, “Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God” (Jn. 3:5). As certain as the “water” of this passage refers to baptism, that certain it is that the kingdom exists for baptism puts one into the kingdom. It stands between the alien and the citizen. It is the last step in the “naturalization process.” Unless baptism is a reality, citizenship in the kingdom is a farce. But since it exists in fact and stands as the door into the kingdom, the kingdom exists and can be entered. Destroy baptism and the kingdom is removed for the kingdom is composed of citizens and citizens are those “born of water and of the Spirit.” Baptism then, is a confession that the kingdom of God exists.

11. Baptism is a confession that the church of Christ is the one body. “For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body” (1 Cor. 12:13). The one body is the church of which Christ is head (Eph. 1:23). To be baptized is to enter the one body, the church. Since there is “one body” (Eph. 4:4) and “but one body” (1 Cor. 12:20), there is one church of the Lord and but one church. But baptism puts one into the one body, therefore, it declares there is but one church belonging to Him who is the Head of the body, even Christ.

Guardian of Truth XXXI: 2, pp. 41, 50
January 15, 1987

By Ron Halbrook

Our love for others may cost us much pain. Do not confuse the pain of love with the pain of unbridled lust. Immorality is often glorified in our culture but the painful price of such living is also recounted in songs which tell of “the day after,” the loneliness, the emptiness of it all. One who commits fornication goes like an ox “to the slaughter” or a bird “to the snare” – “he that doeth it destroyeth his own soul” (Prov. 7:22-23; 6:32). Truly, “the way of transgressors is hard” (13:15). But, the wounds and sorrows we get from sinning is not the point of this study.

We should love others enough to make sacrifices and to suffer pain for their good. Such pain increases when a person whom we try to help does not realize what he needs and does not understand or appreciate what we are doing for him, As parents we see our children in tears at different stages of life because of decisions we make or our disciplinary action. Perhaps matches had to be taken away and little hands spanked. Maybe it was time for the child to give up the bottle or to quit sucking the thumb. Loving our children brings pain to both them and ourselves.

Genuine love is never cheap. “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life” (Jn. 3:16). Imagine God’s agony when He saw the way the world treated His beloved Son. “He came unto his own, and his own received him not” (Jn. 1:11). This means that after many centuries of preparing the Jews to receive His Son, many of them rejected Him. Loving us cost Jesus Christ the glories of heaven. As Deity He was originally “in the form of God,” but He willingly “took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: and being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross” (Phil. 2:6-8).

True love requires teaching men the truth, which can be painful. It must be done if we love the lost, no matter how much pain it brings. Jesus said, “Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free” (Jn. 8:32). But those He taught did not want to hear about their sins. It was not easy for Jesus to tell them, “Ye are of your father the devil,” and not easy for them to hear it (v. 44). Men must be convicted of sin before they can be saved. Jesus told His Apostles to preach the gospel, including this: “he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned” (Mk. 16:16). It is not easy for Christians to preach or for sinners to hear that all men are lost until they are immersed in water upon faith in Christ, but we must speak “the truth in love” (Eph. 4:15).

Paul regretted having to point out the sins of Christians in Corinth, but then he rejoiced to see them correct their lives (2 Cor. 7:8-11). It is never easy to deal with sin in the camp (Josh. 7). When Christians refuse to repent, the Holy Spirit commanded the church “that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly” (2 Thess. 3:6). The purpose is to cause him to repent that he may again be saved (1 Cor. 5:4-5).

Christian parents make hard decisions as their children approach teen-age. The family will miss ball games to attend worship rather than vice versa (Heb. 10:25). Young ladies are taught to quit wearing the shorts and other brief attire of childhood (I Pet. 3:4). While their worldly friends go to dances, proms, mixed swimming parties, and “beer busts,” teen-agers in Christian homes learn to ask, “What would Christ do?” He must be our example at all times and not our worldly friends (2:21). We are sad to see our children sad at times, but we endure the pain of love in order to “bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord” (Eph. 6:4).

Guardian of Truth XXXI: 2, pp. 43, 56
January 15, 1987

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