Truth Magazine

By Herschel E. Patton

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

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

Man Is A Dual Being

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

Spiritual

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

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

Carnal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Perfection

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

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

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

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

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

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

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