Truth Magazine

By Robert F. Turner

Does man need a personal indwelling of the Holy Spirit; (1) to overcome his inherited sinful nature; (2) in order to (a) understand the Scripture, (b) be converted, and (c) to live a sanctified life? I am especially thankful that this special issue is planned, for our generation is not well schooled in logical consequences of Total Hereditary Depravity. Also, sometimes our own brethren have accepted specific concepts that logically derive from depravity, and when they try to defend their careless statements they are drawn deeper into the fatal web. In order that you may know we are not “shooting in the dark” we will cite recognized sources for these doctrinal concepts.

Charles Hodge’s Systematic Theology, is a three volume set of books, making all the usual arguments. He advocates “the Augustinian doctrine of original sin,” and offers his proofs (?) as well as his answer to arguments made against it (Vol. 2, pp. 231-309). His first affirmative argument is based on the universality of sin. Since all men sin, he reasons they are inherently depraved (some brethren even say man “must” sin). He argues (2) from the entire sinfulness of men – seen by the dreadful fruits of sin and what he calls the “universal rejection of Christ,” and man’s inability to extricate himself. And (3) he argues from the early manifestation of sin in our lives. These things, says Hodge, make depravity a part of the “nature” of man. “Nature” can refer simply to the usual pattern of conduct (“according to the course of this world,” Eph. 2:2-3), and none of these arguments prove we inherited a sinful bent from Adam. But we are concerned with the relation of depravity to Spirit indwelling.

Philip Schaff, a recognized Reformed scholar, ties depravity to the indwelling Spirit as he tells us of Augustine (354430), the theological father of the doctrine under consideration. Augustine treated grace as an “enabling power,” and considered that power the results of the indwelling Holy Spirit. Schaff explains, “(Christ) does not merely influence believers from without, but lives and works in them through the Holy Ghost, as the principle of their spiritual life” (History of the Christian Church, Vol. 3, p. 814).

Does man need the Holy Spirit to overcome a depraved nature? Schaff says, “Augustine reaches his peculiar doctrine of redeeming grace (via H.S., rft) in two ways. First, he reasons upwards from below, by the law of contrasts; that is, from his view of the utter incompetency of the unregenerated man to do good. . . . In the second place he reasons downward from above; that is, from his conception of the all-working, all-penetrating presence of God in natural life, and more in the spiritual. . . . With him grace is, first of all, a creative power of God in Christ transforming men from within. It produces first the negative effect of forgiveness of sins, removing the hindrance to communion with God; than the positive communication of a new principle of life. . . . He stands on essentially Evangelical grounds. . . . Faith itself is an effective of grace; indeed, its first and fundamental effect, which provides for all others, and manifests itself in love.” He is reasoning man cannot, God must, and making “redeeming grace” something in addition to the message of the cross.

From the fact that all men sin it does not follow that none are competent to do anything good. It only proves man’s need for mercy, and Paul’s arguments are all aimed in that direction (Rom. 3:26; Gal. 3:24). Man can not be free of guilt by doing other good, but he can do other good, including trusting in Christ for mercy. The Scriptures treat man as a sinner, yes; but they also treat man as capable of responding to the faith producing word (Jn. 20:3 1). When Christ says, “Come unto me” we believe man can accept and obey that invitation (Matt. 11:28). When alien sinners are called upon to repent, we believe they are capable of repenting (Acts 17:30). Every conditional promise (Mk. 16:16; Acts 8:37) is further evidence that man’s sin is not sufficient reason to conclude he is incapable of responding to God’s call.

Anyone who can see that a Just God can be Merciful, should be able to see that a Sovereign God can treat man as a free agent, make him conditional promises, and offer him a way of mercy that awaits man’s response or acceptance. It is actually a limiting of God’s “all-working, all-penetrating” presence, to conclude He can not extend mercy on conditions – He can not be merciful and Just at the same time. God’s promise to punish the sinner is not contradicted by His mercy. He is “longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance” (2 Pet. 3:9). But the Calvinist concept of sovereignty limits God, forcing upon Him the election of individuals, thus denying His own claim to be “no respecter of persons” (1 Pet. 1:17; and many like passages).

Is the indwelling Spirit necessary for understanding the Spirit inspired word? Charles Hodge (Ibid. Vol. 1, pp. 187-8) says, “The Scriptures are to be interpreted under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. . . . The ground of this rule is twofold: First, the Spirit is promised as a guide and teacher. He was to come to lead the people of God into the knowledge of truth.” And secondly, the Scriptures teach, that “the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him; neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.” The “natural man” in his view is one who has not been given the indwelling Spirit of God. Of course the passages in John 14, 15, 16 are clearly made to the apostles, not to the public in general. “I have yet many things to say . . . but ye can not bear them now” (16:12) shows that, When compared with Luke 24:48f there can be no doubt in the mind of a fair scholar.

And the context of 1 Corinthians 2 contrasts the man who depends on human wisdom with one who accepts God’s word because of its source. Both of these men are descendants of Adam, yet they are two kinds of listerners: the believer and the man who tests the message with human wisdom, and calls it foolishness. Paul says he came not with human wisdom, but with demonstrations, that faith might be “in the power of God” (2:1-5). The “we” who have received, are the inspired speakers – “which things we speak” (2:12-13). Then v. 14: “but the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness. . . ” kept in context, refers to one who refuses information, perhaps even seeks to speak, on the basis of human wisdom rather than by revelation. This passage does not say the words of inspiration can be understood only by those who also have the indwelling Holy Spirit.

Inspired speakers intended their word to be understood (Eph. 3:3-4; 2 Pet. 1: 13-15; 3:1-2). If inspiration failed in the first instance, how can we expect it to succeed in the second? Of course, the Calvinist denies that God wanted all to understand – only the elect individuals. This limits the atonement, the “all the world” for preaching, and again, makes God a respecter of persons. According to Scriptures, the ones who will not understand are those who close their eyes to truth, being blinded by their capitulation to Satan (Acts 28:26-27; 2 Cor. 4:34).

Must man have the indwelling Spirit to live a sanctified life? In K.C. Moser’s book, The Way of Salvation, he says: “Man is even now unfit for Christianity until he is ‘born from above,’ until the crucifixion of the ‘law of sin”‘ (p. 2 1). Then on page 133, “The fundamental weakness of man is the ‘law of sin’ within him.” Page 134: “Under Christ this ‘law of sin’ called elsewhere by the same apostle the ‘old man,’ is overcome by a principle of life given by the Spirit. It then becomes the work of the indwelling Spirit to keep this ‘old man’under subjection so that the child of God can successfully serve Him” (Emphasis mine, rft). If Moser believes the Spirit can work through the word to convert an alien, can the Spirit not work through the word to “keep” him? Compare Moser’s statements with basic Evangelical ideas discussed earlier, and you can see why this concept is questioned.

The convicted alien crucifies the “old man” in repentance, as a preparation for baptism, where the guilt of the past is forgiven (Rom. 6:1-6; cf. “Killing the Old Man” in an earlier article). God calls on men to repent, implying they can do so. The Spirit’s work in all of this is to “convict the world . . . of sin, righteousness, judgment” which He does through the revealed and delivered truth (Jn. 16:8). The “law of sin” in man (Rom. 7:18f), his desire for satisfaction of fleshly desires, and it exists side by side with the “law of mind” or determination on man’s part to serve God instead. We are urged to “walk not after the flesh, but after the spirit” (mind, will; 8:4-8); which must, in turn, be filled with truth (cf. Eph. 5:18 with Col. 3:16). Much of our weakness in discussing these matters is in failing to appreciate the real meaning of the law “written on the heart” – a work of the Spirit but ministered by preaching, not by some mystical operation (2 Cor. 3:3; Eph. 4:20-24).

God’s Spirit works hard, but His tool is the word of God (Eph. 6:17). That word is powerful, in physical creation, and in spiritual creation. Powerful enough to shake a governor and a king; to convert pagans, and change lives. When it is used in faith, the Spirit works – as God would have it offering life through Christ to a who will accept and obey Him.

Guardian of Truth XXXI: 1, pp. 10-11
January 1, 1987

By James W. Adams

The general subject of this “Special Issue” is “Total Hereditary Depravity.” This doctrine constitutes one of the “five points” of Calvinistic theology which have long been identified by the T-U-L-I-P acrostic: T = total hereditary depravity; U = unconditional election and reprobation; L = limited atonement; I = irresistible grace; and P = perseverance (final and unconditional) of the saints. These doctrines may correctly be styled: “Theological Siamese Quintuplets.” They defy separation. They are logically interdependent and cumulative in thrust. Total hereditary depravity demands unconditional election and reprobation. They in turn make limited atonement inescapable. The three then combine to make irresistible grace inevitable. By irresistible grace, Calvinists mean that the totally depraved individual, unconditionally elected to eternal salvation, for whom alone Christ died, must of necessity have a miraculous, irresistible, direct operation of the Holy Spirit upon his totally depraved heart to provide for him a new, heaven-born, spiritual nature which cannot sin. In this operation, they believe man to be wholly passive and utterly incapable of resisting its power or purpose. These four concepts unite to make unavoidable the conclusion that a totally depraved individual thus elected by Divine decree, atoned for by the blood of Jesus, and miraculously regenerated can never so sin as to be eternally lost in hell – he must persevere, in spite of anything he may say or do, unto eternal salvation.

The subject assigned me in this series is designed to deal with one of the difficulties associated with the doctrine of “irresistible grace’ I and its corollary, the theory of the direct operation of the Holy Spirit in the conviction and conversion of the sinner and the perfection and unconditional preservation of the “once saved” to eternal life in heaven. Our brethren in Christ have uniformly contended that, in the conviction and conversion of the sinner and the perfection and preservation of the baptized believer, the saving power of God is brought to bear upon the human heart through the instrumentality of the revealed word of God. The great debaters among us since the early days of the “Restoration Movement” have stood firmly upon this ground and routed the Goliaths of the theological Philistines who have opposed them.

We have regarded it as axiomatic that “the gospel as God gave it is adapted to man as God made him. ” This axiom grows out of two basic propositions: (1) God made man; (2) God gave the gospel. We shall in this article simply assume the truth of both because the material of this “Special Issue” is of no interest or concern to any person who does not at least profess to believe both. Since God made man, we can assume that He has perfect knowledge of man’s nature, capacity, and needs. Since God also gave the gospel, being perfect in knowledge and limitless in power, we can also assume that the gospel which He conceived and gave to man is completely adequate for the accomplishment of whatever His purpose was in so doing. We have not erred, therefore, in regarding the statement, “The Gospel as God gave it is adapted to man as God made him,” as axiomatic.

The question of our title has been answered, but it is not enough simply to establish the truth of the basic assumption of our reasoning in reaching our conclusion relative to “irresistible grace” and the work of the Holy Spirit in the conviction and conversion of the sinner and the perfection and eternal preservation of the baptized believer. We must demonstrate its validity and thus validate our conclusion. We acknowledge this responsibility, and in the remaining portion of this article, we shall engage to discharge it.

With the term, “grace,” in Calvinism’s fourth point, I find no fault. I heartily endorse the concept that every step in the salvation of the sinner rests squarely upon and emanates from the all-sufficient grace of God and not the merit of the sinner. Furthermore, I find no fault with the view that the conviction and conversion of the sinner and the sanctification of the believer are begun, carried on, and consummated as a result of the work of the Holy Spirit upon the human heart. With the view that the Holy Spirit’s operation is a work of Divine grace, I heartily concur.

I part company with Calvinists and with any Bible student (even if he is a brother in Christ) whose teaching logically falls within the implications of the doctrine of irresistible grace. No influence upon the human heart which directly and essentially affects the salvation of the soul either in time or eternity is irresistible. It is forever true: “The Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And whosoever will, let him take of the water of life freely” (Rev. 22:17). Man was made by God a free, moral being, a creature of volition and will. The sin of Adam did not change man’s essential nature as created by God. It changed his relationship to God along with his environmental circumstances in which he lived and served God – mortality set in with its consequences of sickness, pain, and death; labor was intensified; and the sins of men and their corrupting effects J multiplied. These things, together with the “weakness of the flesh” (Rom. 8:14) which led the parents of the race to sin and which we inherit from and share with them, account for the observable proneness of human beings to sin. Bible students do greatly err when they erroneously infer from this propensity on the part of man to sin the possession by him of an inherently “sinful nature.” I am amazed and chagrined to note that some involved in current argumentation over so-called “continuous cleansing vs. perfectionism” are taking the position that man has an inherently sinful nature; i.e., that he “must sin.” To say with Paul men will and do sin (Rom. 3:23) is not the same as to say that men must sin. Some equate the two statements affecting to see no difference. If I should accept the view that men and women are sinful by reason of the irresistible power of inherited nature, I would be forced to accept the validity of the concept of “irresistible grace” – that in my regeneration, the Holy Spirit, as an act of pure grace, “takes away my heart of flesh and creates within me, by the direct exercise of Divine power upon my -heart, a new, spiritual heart.” If not, please tell me why not! To aver otherwise would be to impugn Divine justice.

There is absolutely no evidence in the Bible that God at any time or place or in reference to any person ever exercised direct Divine power upon his heart to effect a change in his character. There are numerous examples of God exercising direct power upon individuals, but in no case did it effect a change in the character of the person thus influenced. Furthermore, in every case, the power thus exercised was irresistible. Therefore, we conclude that direct, Divine power is irresistible. In addition, logic tells us, as it were intuitively, that if man could successfully resist direct, Divine power, he would be more powerful than God. Pertinent Bible examples which sustain our contention are: Pharaoh (Gen. 41); the enemies of Israel (Ex. 34:24); Baalam (Num. 22-24); King Saul (1 Sam. 19:18-24); Caiaphas (John 11:47-53). See: Sound Doctrine, C. R. Nichol and R.L. Whiteside, Vol. IV, pp. 102-104.

Man is a moral and spiritual being, a creature of intellect, emotions, and will. He is not a robot, nor is he like the lower animals, a slave to the !aw of his Creator with which he is instinctively endowed. He is a creature of choice, hence a responsible and accountable being. Sin is a deliberate act which emanates from his own intellect and emotions and is determined by the free and willing choice of his own will. On this basis only can he be justly regarded as responsible for his conduct and accountable to his Maker at the judgment of the last day. It is on this basis, as a sinner, that he is condemned to eternal death. The following Scriptures support this conclusion: “Sin is a transgression of the law” (1 John 3:4); “The soul that sinneth, it shall die” (Ezek. 18:20); “The wages of sin is death” (Rom. 6:23); “all have sinned” (Rom. 3:23); “Everyone of us shall give account of himself to God” (Rom. 14:12); “We must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad” (2 Cor. 5:10; et.al.).

Man, lost by reason of his own sins voluntarily committed, hence under just condemnation to eternal death, cannot save himself by a mere reformation of life. Such reformation might take care of the future, provided he sins no more, but it cannot undo the past nor set aside the just mandate of Heaven’s court. Hence it was that Paul averred salvation to be “not of works lest any man should boast,” and “not by works of righteousness which we have done” (Eph. 2:8-10; Tit. 3:4-10). God’s answer to man’s sin problem, born of Divine grace, mercy, and love, was what is commonly styled by Bible students, “The Scheme of Human Redemption.”

God eternally purposed to save man through the avenue of pardon. This is why all apostolic preaching held forth “the remission, or forgivenesss of sins” as the ultimate object of man’s response. It was necessary for the Son of God to be manifested and to die that God might justly pardon the sinner (note: Mt. 26:28; 1 John 3:5; Heb. 2:9; 9:11-28; Rom. 3:25, 26). God did not propose thus to pardon a race of sinners unconditionally (note: Heb. 5:8,9; Rom. 8:1618; John 3:16; Mk. 16:15,16). Therefore, involved in God’s plan for the forgiveness of the sinner, are three essential elements: (1) the grace, mercy, and love of God who devised the plan; (2) the sacrificial death of Christ who executed the plan; and-(3) the human conditions of the acceptance and enjoyment of its design.

The term, “gospel,” in our text is a translation of a word which means in the abstract simply “good news.” Any sort of good news would be gospel in this sense. The character of the good news in any usage is ascertained from the context. In the New Testament, the term generally refers to the totality of the scheme of human redmeption, both as to Divine provision and human responsibilities, revealed in the form of propositional truth by the Spirit-filled apostles of Jesus the Christ. Concerning the gospel in this sense, Paul wrote, “For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written: The just shall live by faith” (Rom. 1:16,17). This text declares unquestionably, to any unbiased mind, that the saving power of God is brought to bear upon the heart of the sinner through the instrumentality of the Spirit-given word of God. That this is completely harmonious with the nature of man as God made him and as sin has corrupted him, we shall engage to show.

Man being a moral and spiritual being – a creature of intellect, emotions, and free will, and being a sinner by the free exercise of his God-given nature in violating the will of God, his character before God and his relationship to God can be changed through the instruction of his intellect, the proper stimulation of his emotions, and the moving of his will to the acceptance of the provisions of Divine grace for his salvation by complying with Divinely stipulated conditions. All of which comes under the heading of moral persuasion, and can be and is accomplished through the instrumentality of the revealed word of God – the gospel. If God regenerates man through an immediate, irresistible operation of Divine grace and power, he subverts the nature of man as He made him. Furthermore, such a concept of regeneration repudiates the sufficiency of the gospel to save. This is tantamount to indicting the wisdom, power, and/or goodness of God. If God designed it to save, as Paul said, and it cannot save, God (1) was not wise enough to devise such an instrument; or (2) being wise enough, He did not possess the power to do so; or (3) being wise and powerful enough, He was not good enough to do so. Surely, seeing the consequences of the concept of irresistible grace, no Godfearing person would embrace it.

Another consideration which renders unacceptable the doctrine of irresistible grace and supports the truth that the gospel is the power of God to save is the means employed by Satan in seducing the first pair. Genesis 3 clearly indicates that he presented spoken propositions to their intellect, stirred their emotions with spoken half-truths, and moved their will by spoken assurances of future good. He thus led them to violate the law of their maker and to fall into a state of sin. If God cannot invest his Spirit-given word with the power to turn men from sin back to righteousness by spoken truth, Satan

is more powerful than God. Surely, the gospel as given by God to save (Rom. 1:16) is completely adequate to accomplish the salvation of man as He made him and as sin has corrupted him, therefore, is “adapted” to him!

Guardian of Truth XXXI: 1, pp. 6-7, 13
January 1, 1987

By Larry Ray Hafley

According to the creeds of men, Satan does not need to influence man. Man is “wholly defiled in all the faculties and parts of soul and body . . . . (and) we are utterly indisposed, disabled and made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil.” If that truly represents the condition of man (and Calvinism says it does), then the devil can sleep until the last trump sounds reveille on the morning of the resurrection. The devil may as well spend his time calling hogs to muck and mire as to seek to influence sinners to sin. The hog, according to his nature, need not be influenced or enticed to mud. He will go there because he is “wholly defiled in all faculties and parts of soul and body and is utterly indisposed, disabled and made opposite to all cleanliness and wholly inclined to all mud.” Likewise, man, according to “this corruption of nature,” will sin; he cannot avert or avoid it; he must sin, or so Calvinism says. He will go to sin as the hog goes to mud. So, why, according to Calvinism, should Satan seek to influence us? Keeping the creeds in mind, a Calvinist needs to answer that question.

The fact remains, however, that the devil does strive to influence man. (In so doing, he denies, logically and consistently, the substance of the tenets of Calvinism.) “But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through

his subtlety, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ” (2 Cor. 11:3). Note, “as . . . so.” “As” the serpent “deceived” Eve (1 Tim. 2:14), “so” your minds should be corrupted. How did the devil beguile Eve? He did so by using incentive, enticement, inducement, motive (Gen. 3:1-6). (1) “Hath God said . . . ?” This method arouses doubt, suspicion, i.e., “God really has not told you not to eat, has He?” (2) He did so by lying – “Ye shall not surely die.” The penalty is non-existent; rather, there is a blessing, “God doth know . . . your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods.” (3) He did so by utilizing the triplets of lust – lust of the flesh, lust of the eyes and the pride of life (1 Jn. 2:16; Matt. 4:1-11; Gen. 3:6). “And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food (lust of the flesh), and that it was pleasant to the eyes (lust of the eyes), and a tree to be desired to make one wise” (pride of life), she ate it.

In this manner does the devil operate today. Corruption “is in the world though lust” (2 Pet. 1:4). “But every man is tempted when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin” (Jas. 1:14,15), One’s mind is corrupted, not by birth, not by Adam’s sin, but by conceived lust. The devil deceives us. He causes us to doubt God’s word. He shows us pleasure rather than penalty (cf. Matt. 4:1-11; Gen. 3:5, 6). He lies to us and draws us away by lust. That is how Satan influenced Eve, and that is how he would influence us.

Negative Arguments

The gospel “is the power of God unto salvation” (Rom. 1:16). Is God’s power sufficient for the task? Is the sinner able to hear, believe and obey the gospel? If man cannot respond to the gospel and be saved by it, is it because: (1) God did not make the gospel powerful enough? If so, the fault lies with God, not with the sinner, for God could have made a stronger, more potent gospel, but He chose not to do so. That smacks against God’s love, kindness and mercy. (2) God could not make the gospel powerful enough? This slams against God’s power, His might. God was simply unable to produce a gospel sufficient to save man. Who can believe it?

But we are told by the creeds of Calvinsim that man is a spiritual corpse, unable to receive instruction, powerless to act. Until God’s “enabling grace” is imparted to the heart by the immediate working (direct operation) of the Holy Spirit, man is incapable of hearing, believing and obeying the gospel. So says Calvinism.

In reply, consider this parallel. Adam was as “dead to sin” as the sinner is “dead in sin” (cf. Eph. 2: 1; Col. 2:13; Rom. 6:2; 1 Pet. 2:24). (See September 4, 1986 issue of Guardian of Truth for more detailed discussion of this point.) Was Adam able to respond to the word of the devil? Remember, he was as “dead” as the sinner. Yet, dead Adam could hear, believe and obey the word of God. If not, the word of Satan is more potent than the word of God.

Calvinists counter by saying that trying to preach salvation “into” a dead sinner is like trying to preach life into a dead body. “First,” they say, “you must give physical life to a dead body, then it can hear and obey you; therefore, the Holy Spirit must impart spiritual life to the dead sinner, then he can hear and obey the gospel.” Again, note that even though Adam was dead to sin, the devil preached damnation “into” him. If the devil’s word could penetrate the heart of a man dead to sin, then God’s word can surely permeate the heart of a man dead in sin. Or, is the word of the devil more powerful than the word of God?

Can a spiritually dead man hear? “No,” says Calvinism. Jesus said, “the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live” (Jn. 5:25). Jesus said those dead in sin could hear and then (not before) live (cf. Rom. 6:16-18).

Influence Of Direct Divine Contact

The direct work of the Spirit has never transformed a man from sinner tosaint. Baalarn prophesied by the Spirit, but it did not alter his sinful ways (2 Pet. 2:15; Num. 31:16). Saul prophesied by the Spirit of God, but it did not deter his desire to kill David (1 Sam. 19).

In the New Testament, we read of incidents of direct, Divine contact with men. Keep in mind that Calvinism demands that a direct, Divine work of the Spirit must be applied to the heart of the sinner before he is able to act. In our observation of occasions of Divine contact, note that not once did the Holy Spirit directly impart spiritual life to the heart of the sinner in order to enable him to obey the gospel.

(1) Acts 2: The Pentecostians. The Spirit came upon the apostles, the speakers, not the audience, the sinners. This was

a perfect time, if Calvinism be true, for God to demonstrate the direct, Divine enabling power of the Holy Spirit, but, alas, the Spirit came upon the disciples, not the lost. The sinners were urged to “hearken to my words” (vv. 14, 22, 29). “Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their hearts” (v. 37). The preachers did not ask God to send His Spirit to convict the sinners; they did not seek an “outpouring of the Spirit on the hearts” of sinners. Rather, the Spirit spoke through the preachers (v. 4). In this way, the Spirit convicted the audience of sin (Jn. 16:8).

(2) Acts 8. The Eunuch. The angel spoke to the preacher and sent him to the sinner (v. 26). The Spirit spoke to the preacher and told him to “go near.” Neither the angel nor the Spirit spoke to the sinner’s heart.

(3) Acts 9: Saul. When the Lord appeared to Saul of Tarsus, He commanded him to go to Damascus, “and it shall be told thee what thou must do” (v. 6). There is no record of an “enabling power” or of “conviction by the Spirit’s touch.” The Lord directed Saul to the preacher and the preacher to Saul (vv. 6-15).

“But,” it is objected, “this vision was the Lord’s direct work on Saul’s heart; Saul could not resist; this was ‘irresistible grace.”‘ The text does not so state, but, if so, why did Paul later say, “I was not disobedient unto the heavenly vision” (Acts 26:19)? This implies that he could have been disobedient. Why say, “I was not disobedient,” if it could not have been otherwise?

(4) Acts 10: Cornelius. “The Holy Ghost fell on them which heard the word” (v. 44), but the result was not regeneration. Cornelius was not saved by the Spirit’s falling. The Spirit came in order to convince the Jews that the Gentiles were subjects of the gospel (Acts 10:47, 48; 11: 15-18; 15:7-11). Cornelius was saved by the words Peter spoke, not by the gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 11:14).

Jesus said, “The seed is the word of God. Those by the way side are they that hear; then cometh the devil and taketh away the word out of their hearts, lest they should believe and be saved” (Lk. 8:11, 12). The word of God is sown in the heart. The devil taketh away the word out of their hearts (Why?) “lest they should believe and be saved.” (1) Word in sinner’s heart; (2) Faith produced; (3) Salvation accomplished. Where is the Lord’s reference to the direct work of the Spirit? It is not there.

Divine Order Of Salvation

Review Paul’s chain-link argument in Romans 10:13-17. Salvation is the end of the chain. What are the links? In reverse order, from last to first, one must call on the name of the Lord, but how can one call if he has not believed? How can one believe if he has not heard? “And how shall they hear without a direct work of the Spirit on the sinner’s heart?” Is that what your Bible says? No! “How shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach except they be sent?” Conclusion: “So then faith cometh by the Spirit’s irresistible work on the sinner’s heart and hearing by the enabling power of irresistible grace.” Is that how it reads? What does the Bible say? “So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.”

The angel that visited Cornelius did not cleanse his heart (v. 3). His heart was purified by faith (Acts 15:9). The angel said, “Send for Peter: who shall tell thee words, whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved” (Acts 11:14; 15:7).

The Gospel: God’s Power Unto Salvation

The Holy Spirit does convict the sinner. Does He effect the conviction of sinners directly, without means or agency, or does He convict sinners through the instrumentality of the gospel? No argument ever devised can overthrow Paul’s words, “For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth” (Rom. 1:16). “The preaching of the cross . . . is the power of God . . . . it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe” (1 Cor. 1:18-21). What pleases God (to save men by preaching the gospel) does not please men nor the arguments of Calvinists, but it is true nonetheless.

The Bible order is: (1) preachers sent (v. 15); (2) preachers preach (v. 15); (3) sinner hears (v. 14); (4) sinner believes (v. 14); (5) believer calls on the name of the Lord (v. 14); (6) believer saved (v. 13). There is no reference to a separate work of the Holy Spirit on the sinner’s heart in Paul’s chain. It is a missing link.

General Summary And Conclusion The Spirit guided the apostles into all truth (Jn. 14:26; 15:26,27; 16:13). This word given to the apostles was to be employed to make believers (Jn. 8:32; 17:17,20). That is why the Lord Jesus sent them “into all the world” to “preach the gospel to every creature” (Matt. 28:19; Mk. 16:15,16; Lk. 24:47).

The things the apostles wrote are the commandments of the Lord (I Cor. 14:37). When we read what they wrote, we are reading the word of God (1 Thess. 2:13; 2 Thess. 2:15). Thus, the Spirit’s word given through the apostles is the agent or instrument the Spirit uses to convict the sinner. “The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life” (Jn. 6:63) “And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: But these are written, that ye might believe” (Jn. 20:30,31). “Many of them which heard the word believed” (Acts 4:4). “In Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel” (1 Cor. 4:15). “In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation” (Eph. 1:13). “Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth” (Jas. 1:18). “Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit . . . . Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God” (1 Pet. 1:22,23).

Guardian of Truth XXXI: 1, pp. 8-9
January 1, 1987

By Clinton D. Hamilton

Introduction

Ever since the doctrine of original sin or inherited depravity has been taught, there has been the troublesome question of whether Jesus was born with a sinful nature. One who holds to any theory of original sin faces a real problem in dealing with the issue of the nature of Christ. Because the Bible teaches that He was free of sin, and since He was born. of a woman, it is evident that according to the doctrine of original sin, He is a contradiction. How to deal with this contradiction becomes a central issue for those who hold his doctrine.

Catholic theology seeks to solve the problem by the dogma of the immaculate conception. By this is meant that when the egg and the sperm united in the womb of Mary’s mother she was preserved from original sin. Mary, therefore, was immaculately conceived and preserved from sin so as to be a fit vessel to bear the holy Jesus. Consequently, He was conceived by the Holy Spirit and was born of a woman who was free of original sin. He, therefore, was born free of original sin, according to the theory.

Did Jesus have a sinful nature? The Bible is clear in expressing the sinlessness of Jesus. Scripture is likewise clear about His having borne the nature of men. One can be enlightened about man’s nature and whether he is born a sinner by studying what God’s word says about Jesus and His nature. This study focuses on the issue of the nature of Jesus and its implication about the nature of man.

Jesus Had No Sin

That Jesus was sinless the New Testament is emphatic. Jesus was tempted in all points like as men are “yet without sin” (Heb. 4:15). No statement could be clearer. We are also told that “we have not a high priest that cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but one that hath been in all points tempted like as we are. . . ” (Heb. 4:15). But these statements also pose an issue to many about His nature. If He does not have a sinful nature, how could He be tempted like we are? This is a question some people raise. Does it follow that Jesus has a sinful nature? Let us study the matter.

Tempt (peirazo) in the New Testament has the sense of to try, to test, to prove, and to try by enticement to sin. Jesus partook of the nature to man (Heb. 2:16-17). He was “made like his brethren” and “took on him the seed of Abraham.” Being thus of the nature of man, He had the same basic desires. He was tested as to whether His will to satisfy them would be subjected to the will of God or be such as to satisfy them in violation of the word of God. His desires did not entice Him to violate the will of His Father. For had not His nature been the same as man’s, He could not have been tempted in all points such as he is. Many of these occasions when He yielded to God rather than to desire that would lead to rebellion against God brought to Him suffering (Heb. 2:18).

Informative in this context are James’ statements about temptations. God is not the origin of temptation nor is He tempted with evil. Man is tempted when he is drawn away and enticed by his own lusts (Jas. 1: 13-15). Epithumia is the word translated lust and it means desire or any synonym of it. The word itself does not indicate whether the desire is evil or good; simply it means desire. Context must provide the precise nature of the desire. Paul had a desire, epithumia, to depart and be with the Lord (Phil. 1:23). There was no evil in this wish of his. However, in James 1: 15 when desire or lust has conceived, it brings sin. Evidently, desire or lust in this passage refers to wanting to do what God prohibits. When such a desire is satisfied, sin is the result. Man is, therefore, enticed by this desire to do wrong.

It should be pointed out, however, that the occasion for the expression of lust comes to all men. If the will is subject to the will of God, there is no intention to satisfy the desire in violation of the will of God. All men do have tests that reveal what it is that their will is to do. Jesus had occasions that gave opportunity for Him to express His desires in harmony with or in violation of the will of God. He chose the latter and was as a result without sin. It is not that their natures are different; it is that their response to desire is different. The differences in response differentiate one as righteous and the other as a sinner.

Basic desires and drives belonging to the nature of man are in him by God’s creation. Every desire or drive has a satisfaction acceptable to God. For instance, hunger can be satisfied by eating within moderation. The sex drive can be satisfied in marriage in harmony with the will of God, and working for means (money or possessions) if these are used for meeting one’s own family needs and that of others whom he may have ability and opportunity to assist (1 Cor. 7:1-5; Eph. 4:28; 1 Jn. 3.17, etc.). But every desire can be satisfied in violation of the will of God. Man, as did Jesus, has the choice of obeying God or his own selfish interests and intentions. Jesus on these occasions in His life did not seek to satisfy His desires in violation of the will of God and was, therefore, sinless. Being of the same nature of men, it follows that men are not sinners by nature but by independent, intentional choices they make when the occasions arise to express how they want to satisfy their desires.

The Nature Of Man

That which is born of flesh is flesh Qn. 3:6). The body is alive when the spirit is in it (Jas. 2:26). The spirit comes from God (Eccl. 12:7). When man’s spirit and his body are united, he is a living being in the world. God formed man’s body from the dust of the earth (Gen.. 2:7). Since both flesh and spirit are the creation of God, there can be nothing inherently sinful or wicked about either. Being made in God’s image, man has a rational nature which can make choices. These choices may be either good or evil. For his choices man is held accountable and must stand before God and Christ in judgment (2 Cor. 5:10; Rom. 14:12; Eccl. 12:13-14; Acts 17:30-3 1). Since God does not tempt man with evil and since He made mart, it follows that man’s nature is not evil. This is clear from the fact of man’s accountability because God could not hold him accountable if he were inherently evil and incapable of doing good.

Sin made its entrance into the world when Adam and Eve violated the will of God (Gen. 3). It was through one man that sin entered the world and death by sin (Rom. 5:12). As men follow his example, they sin. Grace and righteousness came by one Jesus Christ (Rom. 5:15). Man’s condemnation is conditioned on his disobedience and so his righteousness is conditioned on his obedience (Rom. 5:19; 6:17). The sin of man is no more unconditional than is his righteousness. Jesus obeyed God and was sinless. Through obedience to Him, man can be righteous. Through disobedience in the likeness of Adam, man is a condemned sinner. Neither is unconditional.

As has been previously pointed out, Jesus partook of the nature of men (Heb. 2). It follows conclusively that His nature could not be sinful inherently. Since He did not sin, it follows that His nature was uncorrupt. If this is the case, it follows that neither is the nature of man corrupt.

Men must turn and become as little children to enter God’s kingdom (Matt. 18:3). Jesus said that the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as little children (Matt. 19:14). In children, there are characteristics such as are essential to please God. If they are inherently wicked and incapable of doing good, these statements are nonsense. Men become wicked by their own choices and are held accountable for these choices. Jesus chose to do right, obey the will of God, and was therefore sinless. It follows, that He had no other sin by inherent nature, even though He had a fleshly nature and partook of every part of the nature of man. From this fact, it follows that the nature of man is not inherently corrupt and incapable of doing good.

Presence Of Sin Among Men

The universal experience of men is that they sin and, in fact, all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God (Rom. 3:23). How shall one explain this universal experience if man is not inherently evil? God clearly gives the answer to this question. We need to listen to Him.

We must not be deceived (Jas. 1:16). Every good and every perfect gift comes from God above, who is the Father of lights, and with Him there is no variation, neither shadow that is cast by turning (Jas. 1:17). He is not fickle but rather is unchangeable (Mal. 3:6). That He did not cause us to yield to sin is evident because it was of His own will that He begat us and brought us forth by the word of truth (Jas. 1:18). He would not, therefore, seek to destroy what He had begotten. Otherwise, He would be fickle and variable.

If God is not the source of man’s evil, whence is it? James tells us. Men sin or do evil when they are drawn away and enticed by their own lust or desire. When that desire has led one to a decision to satisfy it in violation of the will of God, sin is the result (Jas. 1:13-15). The presence of sin among men is the result of occasions presented to them when they choose to satisfy desires in violation of the will of God. It is a deliberate choice that results in sin. It is not a nature that inevitably leads to sin because one is incapable of doing good.

Conclusion

The nature of man and the nature of Christ are inextricably bound together. As is man by nature, so is Jesus. As Jesus is in nature, so is man. This is the central problem to any theory of original sin or inherent depravity by nature. If one does not teach error on the inherent nature of man, he is not troubled by the implication that Jesus has a sinful nature. If one believes what God says about Jesus’ having the nature of man, there is not the problem of the sinful nature of man.

Jesus did not have a sinful nature.

Guardian of Truth XXXI: 1, pp. 12-13
January 1, 1987