Truth Magazine

By Melvin Curry

Hereditary total depravity is generally associated with Augustinian and Calvinistic doctrine. John Calvin, following in the footsteps of Augustine, taught that all men sinned in Adam, and, consequently, every human being, except Jesus Christ, possesses from birth a totally corrupt sinful nature. Calvinists are saddled with a grave inconsistency in their position on original sin. They believe, on the one hand, that the guilt and depravity of the human race are ordained of God, while they argue, on the other hand, that God must not be accused of making men corrupt, To put the matter another way, how can human beings who are hell-bound sinners because they inherit a corrupt Adamic nature be held responsible as willful transgressors for deeds they are automatically programmed from birth to perform?

Does the Bible teach hereditary total depravity? The burden of this article will be to consider some alleged Old Testament proofs that Calvinists use in support of the doctrine by examining several classical texts (Gen. 6:5; Psa. 51:5; 58:3-4; Isa. 1:5-6; Jer. 17:8-9). The evidence adduced from these passages, however, is not as overwhelmingly convincing as Calvinists insist. If the doctrine of hereditary total depravity is not presupposed when such passages are studied, they are subject to alternate explanations which fall short of the Calvinistic position.

If I may be permitted to switch to the New Testament evidence for a moment, this tendency to assume more than the evidence warrants is nowhere more apparent than in the interpretation of Romans 5:12. William F. Bruner says, “This is the locus classicus of the whole doctrine of the imputation of Adam’s sin to the race” (Children of the Devil, 22). And George Eldon Ladd affirms, “It is quite clear that Paul believed in ‘original sin’ in the sense that Adam’s sin constituted all men sin ners” (Theology of the New Testament 403-404). But listen to Ladd’s comments on Romans 5:12, “Grammatically, this can mean that men died because they have personally sinned, or it can mean that in Adam, all men sinned.” Ladd appeals to the surrounding context in order to support his intepretation of Romans 5:12, but, according to his own admission, his interpretation is far from conclusive. Moreover, what is true of the interpretation of Romans 5:12 is also true of the Old Testament texts. All of them together do not sustain the Calvinistic doctrine of hereditary total depravity.

Genesis 6.-5 – “And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.” There is no question that this passage teaches the depravity of man. The word “depravity” itself means “very crooked.” It is derived from two Latin terms: de, an intensive particle, and pravus, “crooked.” But Charles G. Finney observes that the depravity of man is not to be taken “in the sense of original or constitutional crookedness, but in the sense of having become crooked. The term does not imply original mal-conformation, but lapsed, fallen, departed from right or straight. It always implies deterioration, or fall from a former state or moral or physical perfection” (Systematic Theology 164). Sin is defined in the Bible as “transgression of the law” of God (I John 3:4). Adam and Eve lived in a state of perfection in the Garden of Eden, but, when they transgressed God’s law, they were driven out from God’s presence as well as from the tree of life. This constituted a fall and resulted in their depravity; indeed, this was the original sin. But sin does not necessarily imply a sinful nature. If it does, how does one account for the sin of Adam and Eve? Their sin may be explained on the basis of free will and temptation without implying that they had a sinful nature. And the same thing is true with respect to that of their posterity.

Adam and Eve did not sin because they had a natural appetite for sin; Eve craved to eat thefruit and to possess knowledge, Adam partook with her of his own free will. Finney’s description of their sin is entirely sufficient: “It was simply the correlation that existed between the fruit and their constitution, its presence exciting their desires for food and knowledge. This lead to prohibited indulgence. But all men sin in precisely the same way” (Systematic Theology 182). “The consent to make self-gratification an end,” continues Finney, “is the whole of sin” (182).

Thus Genesis 6:5 states that human sin was the result of deliberate choices within the human heart, which God clearly “saw,” and human depravity was of such magnitude that God’s judgment was completely just. But Calvinists go beyond the evidence when they argue hereditary total depravity from this context; indeed, the doctrine of inherited sin is not taught here.

Psalm 51:5 -“Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.”

“The Bible in this and other places,” writes John Calvin, “clearly asserts that we were born in sin, and that it exists within us as a disease fixed in our nature” (Commentary on Psalms 2:290). But he adds: “David does not charge it upon his parents, nor trace his crime to them, but sits himself before the Divine tribunal, confesses that he was formed in sin, and that he was a transgressor ere he saw the light of the world” (290). Calvin concludes that David’s depravity is total as well as hereditary: “his nature was entirely depraved” (290), “destitute of all spiritual good” (290), and “sin cleaved by nature to every part of him without exception” (291). This is true because David, like all men, sinned in Adam. When Adam “fell, we all forfeited along with him our original integrity” (291). Martin Luther goes even further: “Thus the true and proper meaning is this: ‘I am a sinner, not because I have committed adultery, nor because I have had Uriah murdered. But I have committed adultery and murder because I was born, indeed conceived and formed in the womb as a sinner.’ So we are not sinners because we commit this or that sin, but we commit them because we are sinners first” (Works 12:348).

But the clear intent of David in Psalm 51 is to assume the blame for his own sin: “Have mercy upon me” (v. 1); “blot out my transgressions” (v. 1); “wash me thoroughly from mine iniquity, and cleanse me from my sin” (v. 2); “I acknowledge my transgressions; and my sin is ever before me” (v. 3); “against thee, thee only, have I sinned” (v. 4). John T. Willis says: “It does not make sense to understand the king to mean that his mother sinned (by adultery or fornication) when she conceived David, or that she was a sinful woman when he was conceived. It is clearly David’s sin that is meant here. The best explanation is that the poet is using an Ancient Near Eastern idiom meaning that he, like all human beings, was prone or inclined to sin from his youth up because he was constantly surrounded by sin and temptation” (Insights from the Psalms 2:60). The fact that David was “surrounded by sin and temptation” from his birth made David painfully aware that he was not the only sinner. Nor was he the first sinner; that dishonor is reserved for Adam. Even if the passage teaches that David’s mother was, in some sense, a sinner at the time of his conception, there is nothing here that suggests that she possessed a corrupt nature, or that her corrupt nature was transmitted to her infant son. Such a doctrine must be assumed to be true on other grounds and forced into play in the interpretation of this text.

Psalm 58:3 – “The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies. “

If Psalm 58:3 is pressed literally, the simple but absurd conclusion is that new-born babies are liars. In the first place, however, David is speaking particularly about a special class of “wicked” men as distinct from the whole human race or from saints. And, secondly, these wicked men are described in highly figurative poetic language. The admission of Albert Barnes, a staunch Calvinist, is to the point: “Strictly speaking, therefore, it cannot be shown that the psalmist in this declaration had reference to the whole human race, or that he meant to make a universal declaration in regard to man as being early estranged or alienated from God; and the passage, therefore, cannot directly, and with exact propriety, be adduced to prove the doctrine that ‘original sin’ appertains to all the race, – whatever may be true on that point” (Psalms 2:138). Furthermore, he comments, “It is only, therefore, after it is proved that men are depraved or ‘wicked’ that this passage can be cited in favor of the doctrine of original sin” (138). A more honest appraisal of the passage could not be made. Even if one grants that the passage teaches that children lie as soon as they speak at all, “this would not prove,” writes Finney, “that their nature was in itself sinful, but might well consist with the theory that their physical depravity, together with their circumstances of temptation, led them into selfishness, from the very moment of their moral existence” (Systematic Theology 179).

Isaiah 1:5-6 – “Why should ye be stricken any more? ye will revolt more and more: the whole head is sick, and the whole heart is faint. From the sole of the foot even unto the head there is no soundness in it.

Although some expositors have adduced this passage in support of the doctrine of original sin, such an interpretation is wholly out of harmony with the context. Isaiah is speaking about the punishment which God has heaped upon the nation of Judah because it has rebelled against him: “Ali sinful nation, a people laden with iniquity” (v. 4). Nothing at all is intimated about how sin is transmitted by heredity. The “wounds and bruises” (v. 6) have been received because of willful transgressions. Even John Calvin recognized that the corruption of the nation was the result of “hardened impenitence” (Commentary on Isaiah 1:47).

Jeremiah 17.-9 – “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?”

This passage provides an opportunity to sum up my remarks. I affirm that men are depraved, in the sense that I defined this term above, and that the effect of sin leaves the human heart “deceitful above all things.” Thus I have no quarrel with Calvinists over the fact that depravity is total or pervasive in an individual, i.e., that “the whole of man’s being has been affected by sin” (Steele and Thomas, The Five Points of Calvinism 25). I deny, however, that man is totally depraved in the sense that he cannot exercise his free will in conversion and must be granted faith as a supernatural gift. My disagreement with them is over their position that man’s corruption is inborn, inherited at birth from Adam; and, therefore, that man “can do nothing pertaining to his salvation” (Five Points of Calvinism 25). Not one of the passages discussed in this article affirms anything about man’s inborn, corrupt nature or his spiritual inability. The doctrine of hereditary total depravity is not taught in these Old Testament texts.

Guardian of Truth XXXI: 1, pp. 29-30
January 1, 1987

By Irvin Himmel

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

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

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

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

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

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

Case of Haman

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

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

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

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

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

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

Avoid Wicked Schemes

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

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

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

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

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

By Luther W. Martin

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

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

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

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

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

Some Scriptures Which Illustrate Sin (Death)

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

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

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

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

Physical Death Is Inherited From Adam And Eve

Spiritual Death Is The Result Of One’s Own Sins

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

Pelagianism In The Early Fifth Century

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

Calvinism In The 16th Century

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

Arminianism: A Reaction To Calvinism (17th Century)

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

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

Summation From Holy Scripture

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

By Cecil Willis

Introduction:

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

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

Calvinism And History

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

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

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

Ashdodic Language

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

Imputed Righteousness

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

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

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

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

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

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

Definition of Sin

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hereditary Sin and God’s Nature

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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