Truth Magazine

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

By Phil Roberts

Throughout history man has sought to shift the blame for his sins onto someone else’s shoulders. The ancient Babylonians spoke of man being created out of the blood of a rebel god named Kingu. Naturally such a race could not help being rebellious itself. Even before the coming of Christ the Jews were speaking of the yetser ha ra, or “evil inclination” with which all men were born. It should not be surprising, therefore, to find that people professing Christianity have behaved pretty much like all other men in this respect. In the history of “Christian theology” this tendency has manifested itself in the development of the intertwined doctrines of original sin and hereditary total depravity. The doctrine of original sin affirms that all descendants of Adam inherit both the guilt and the consequences of his sin. The doctrine of hereditary total depravity follows with the declaration that all such descendants of Adam are so completely corrupted and depraved by it that they cannot, of their own free will, do any truly good work. They cannot, of their own free will, even turn to God.

Now this doctrine of total depravity is commonly thought of as a Calvinistic doctrine, and is especially associated with the Presbyterian Church here in this country. It is the purpose of this article to show that the doctrine in fact pervades most of the denominational world.

Augustine and Catholicism

The doctrine had its beginning among Christians in the early Patristic period. Tertullian, Cyprian, and Ambrose all taught the whole human race somehow participated not only in the consequences of Adam’s sin but in the sin itself. Ambrosiaster claimed biblical support for the doctrine by translating Romans 5:12 “in whom all sinned” in reference to Adam. But it was Augustine of Hippo (commonly St. Augustine) who integrated the doctrine into a fully developed system of theology. And the writings of Augustine have shaped and influenced the thinking of professing Christianity more than the works of any other man since the time of the New Testament itself.

Augustine taught that the whole human race was present in the first man Adam, and thus, in his sin, we sinned. Each descendant of Adam and Eve is born just as much a sinner as they were. Not only that, but the impairment of their nature which God inflicted on Adam and Eve in punishment for their sin “became a natural consequence in all their descendants” (City of God, xiii. 3). Moreover, it is not just a corrupted physical nature that we have inherited from Adam, but our “human nature was so changed and vitiated that it suffers from the recalcitrance of a rebellious concupiscence. . . ” (Ibid.).

Augustine was not exactly a Roman Catholic, but only because he lived around AD 400 and Catholicism was still in the formative stage. But Augustine was very much a part of that formation, and his theology soon became the dominant theology of Catholicism. The doctrines of original sin and hereditary depravity were, therefore, deeply entrenched in Catholicism from the very beginning. From the time of Augustine to the Protestant Reformation, Catholic theologians debated the exact nature of the original sin and its transmission and the degree of totality in the inherited depravity. But these debates produced only minor variations and left the basic doctrine more firmly established than ever. In the meantime the doctrine had begun to generate such secondary doctrines as infant baptism (to remove original sin) and the immaculate conception of Mary (to protect her from contamination with original sin). But these matters are discussed elsewhere in this issue.

Total Depravity Pervades.

That the doctrines still remain as part of the theological foundation of modem Catholicism can be seen by consulting any standard Catholic reference work. In -The Teachings of the Catholic Church (1948), George Smith devotes thirty pages to a defense of the doctrine in even more rigorous terms than Augustine would ever have stated the matter.

The Protestant Reformation

The council of Trent (1545-63) was convened as a Catholic response to the spreading Protestant Reformation, and it pronounced an anathema on any who denied the doctrine of original sin. But the doctrine was hardly a bone of contention for the reformers. They considered themselves just as much heirs of Augustine as the Catholics did.

Of course the most rigorous statements of the doctrines of original sin and total depravity were made by John Calvin in his Institutes of the Christian Religion (1560). Yet it is crucial to see that the doctrine was not limited to Calvin and his more direct spiritual heirs, but that it permeated the thinking of almost all the reformers and was enshrined in all the great creeds of the Protestant Reformation, and thus has been passed down in some form or other to almost every Protestant denomination in existence today.

Consider Martin Luther. Original Sin and Total Depravity are especially associated with Calvin while Luther is usually thought of as preaching about faith and grace. But one of the most influential works ever written by Luther was titled Bondage of the Will, the title reflecting the thesis of the book that man’s essential nature has been so depraved by sin that his will is entirely in bondage to sin and he is incapable of willing any good at all. Man is thus entirely dependent on a gracious gift of faith from God in order to be saved. Lutheranism no less than Presbyterianism is thus pervaded by the doctrine. Indeed, the Augsburg Confession (1530), subscribed to by virtually all Lutherans, declares that “all men begotten after the common course of nature were born with sin. . . “; that “man’s powers, without the Holy Spirit, are full of wicked affections, and are too weak to perform any good deed before God.”

Identical assertions are found in The Heidelberg Catechism (1563) of the German Reformed churches, the Belgic Confession (1561) of the Dutch Reformed churches, the Scotch Confession of Faith (1560) of the Church of Scotland, and the Canons of the Synod of Dort (1618-19) which are accepted by the Reformed (Dutch) Church in America.

Especially important are The Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England (1571 and 1801) which declare for the benefit of Anglicans and Episcopalians that “Original sin standeth not in the following of Adam (as the Pelagians so vainly talk); but it is the fault and corruption of the Nature of every man, that naturally is engendered of the offspring of Adam; whereby man is very far gone from original righteousness, and is of his own nature inclined to evil. . . . ” These words have found their way into several subsequent creedal statements including the Articles of Religion which are still being printed in the Discipline of the Methodist Church. Similar affirmations are found in the creeds of the Quakers and the Congregationalists.

But the most influential of all Protestant creeds, at least in the English language, has surely been the Westminster Confession. Concerning the sin of Adam and Eve, it declares that “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 we are utterly indisposed, disabled, and made wholly inclined to all evil, do proceed all actual transgressions. ” Now, anything with the name Westminster is generally associated with Presbyterianism today. And the Westminster Confession was actually produced by the Church of England, and comes about as close as any English-language creed can to being a universal Protestant Creed.

The universal nature of the Westminster Confession can be illustrated by the Baptists. Baptists often claim to have no creed but the Bible. But the Baptist Confession of 1688 is basically just another edition of the Westminister Confession, with significant changes made only in the areas of church organization and subjects of baptism. Of course Regular Baptists and Calvinistic Baptists accept the Westminster confession also.

That Baptists generally accept the doctrine of original sin is also illustrated by The New Hampshire Baptist Confession (1833), which has been printed in the Baptist Church Manual for American Baptists. It says that man was created in holiness, but sinned and fell, “in consequence of which all mankind are now sinners.” The wording of this confession is softer and more ambiguous than some creeds. But Baptist theologian A.H. Strong is not ambiguous at all: “The Scritpures represent every human nature as totally depraved” (Systematic Theology, 1896, p. 341). Indeed, though Baptists don’t advertise the doctrine of original sin all that much, the strength which the doctrine has in Baptist theology is clearly evidence by the very popular doctrines of Justification by Faith Only and Once Saved, Always Saved, which are derived from the doctrine of original sin.

Rumblings of Discontent

There have, of course, been periodic rumblings of discontent surrounding the doctrine of original sin and total depravity in Protestantism. The first major challenge came from the teachings of James Arminius (1560-1609), the critical points of which are summed up in The Five Arminian Articles prepared in 1610 as remonstrances to the various Dutch confessions mentioned above. But it must be noted that Arminius and his heirsnever denied ihe doctrine of inherited original sin itself.

The principle spiritual heirs of Arminius today are Wesleyan denominations such as Methodists, Nazarenes, and Pentecostals. Their discontent with Calvinism has centered around the exact extent of the consequences of original sin. Most especially, they are anxious to deny the related doctrines of absolute predestination and unconditional election. They affirm that man does have free will, and that saving grace can be resisted by the exercise of that free will. They likewise debate about the nature of the transmission of original sin. But the doctrine of original sin itself is never seriously challenged.

Methodist acceptance of the doctrine has been illustrated above by the fact that the statement on original sin and total depravity which is found in the Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England has been incorporated verbatim into the Articles of Religion published in the Discipline of the Methodist Church. Acceptance of the doctrine among Wesleyan groups is further illustrated by Nazarene theologian H. Orton Wiley who says, “Not only are all men born under the penalty of death, as a consequence of Adam’s sin, but they are born with a depraved nature also” (Christian Theology, Vol. 2, p. 98). A few other groups, such as the Cumberland Presbyterians and the Free-Will Baptists, have likewise rejected the predestinarian implications of Calvin. But like the Wesleyans, they retain the doctrine of original sin without question.

Likewise, it may fairly be said that Arminians; do not really believe in total hereditary depravity. They generally affirm that some truly good works can be performed by unregenerate man. But in the long run that turns out to be an inconsequential distinction because they continue to affirm that man was sufficiently depraved for it to be impossible for him to believe and respond to the gospel apart from the assistance of a direct operation of the Holy Spirit.

Moreover, the doctrine of original sin is intimately bound up in one of the most distinctive doctrines of Wesleyan churches – entire sanctification. According to their theology, the root of original sin remains in man even after he has been converted. It can only be removed by a second work of grace whereby man is thoroughly purged from every inclination to sin, and entirely sanctified – able from that point on to live without sin. But again, man can only achieve this state by a miraculous intervention of the Holy Spirit to overcome the last remnants of his depraved nature.

Several Protestant groups have sought other means of mollifying the consequences of the doctrines of original sin and total depravity. For example, both the Methodists and the Church of the Brethren deny that children are born in sin (though the Methodists used to affirm this). But they do so without actually letting go of either original sin or total depravity. They would say that every child conceived does in fact inherit the original sin and depraved nature of Adam. But, they say, that original sin is immediately forgiven by the atoning act of Christ’s sacrifice.

I do not know of any major Evangelical Protestant body which unequivocally denies either original sin or inherited depravity. Even neo-orthodox theologians such as Karl Barth cling tenaciously to the doctrines. They are as systemic to Protestantism as is the doctrine of salvation by faith only. Of course we must remember that many of the individual members of these denominations may not believe the doctrines.

Modernism And The Spirit Of The Age

There is, however, an element of Protestantism which has rejected both doctrines, but not for reasons that we would like to see. Modernism, which has deep inroads into many Protestant bodies, and virtually controls some denominations such as the United Methodist Church, the United Presbyterian Church, and the United Church of Christ, denies both original sin and inherited depravity. But this denial springs, not from a respect for Scripture, but from a total disregard for Scripture. They reject the biblical account of creation and they believe the story of Adam and Eve is just a myth. As theistic evolutionists they deny that there ever was an historical Adam. Thus they cannot believe in either original sin or inherited depravity.

Indeed, many such modernists deny, not just original sin, but virtually deny sin itself. They believe man is really good at heart, and needs only to be set free from oppressive and antiquated ideas of sin and guilt. And this affords me an opportunity to bring this article to a close with a warning. While it is surely good for us to probe the tragic errors of the doctrines of original sin and inherited depravity, let us not forget that the even more dangerous spirit of our age is to deny sin and depravity altogether. While denying that we inherit either the sin or the depraved nature of Adam, let us remember that we are, of our own will, sinners. And without blaming anything on Adam we must still confess that the heart of man is “deceitful above all things, and exceedingly corrupt” (Jer. 17:9).

Guardian of Truth XXXI: 1, pp. 1, 38-39
January 1, 1987

By Mike Willis

When one accepts a proposition, there are certain logical consequences which follow. That is true when one accepts the proposition “There is no god” or “Man is the product of evolutionary development.” There are certain logical consequences which result from such an affirmation.

Similarly, if one accepts the doctrine of inherited total depravity, or some watered-down version of it, there are certain logical and doctrinal consequences which follow. Not everyone who accepts inherited total depravity is consistent in his reasoning; hence, many who accept the premises reject the conclusions (without giving logical reasons for rejecting them). We do not charge that everyone who believes man has an inherited corrupt nature teaches these consequences; rather, they are the logical consequences drawn from the premise.

Logical Consequences of Inherited Total Depravity

1. It makes man totally unable to will or do good. The Philadelphia Confession of Faith describes man’s condition after the fall:

From this original corruption, whereby we are utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil, do proceed all actual transgressions . . . . Man, by his fall into a state of sin, hath wholly lost all ability to will any spiritual good accompanying salvation … The man who is born into the world cannot will or do any good.

2. It makes man without free will. Many who accept hereditary total depravity will deny that this conclusion follows from the premise. Aylett Raines summarized their teaching well when he wrote,

We know that the advocates for the confession tell us that man has a free will. They proceed on the presumption that man has a free will and acts freely, because, although he can do nothing but sin, and can will to do nothing else, yet he is free to do as he wills (A Refutation of Hereditary Total Depravity, p. 13).

Denial of free will stands in conflict with these passages which teach that man has the ability to choose between good and evil: John 5:40; 7:17; Revelation 22:17; Matthew 22:3; 23:37; Luke 7:30; Joshua 24:15; Psalm 119:130; Proverbs 1:29; Deuteronomy 30:11-14; Hosea 5:15; Genesis 4:7.

3. It releases man from moral responsibility. Each of us would admit that man is not responsible for doing what he cannot avoid doing (e.g., man is not morally reprehensible because he gets hungry or thirsty). According to hereditary total depravity, man cannot avoid sinning because of his corrupted nature. Man sins of necessity. How can man be held responsible for doing that which he could not avoid?

The doctrine of inherited total depravity provides for sinful man exactly what he wishes – an excuse for sinning. Why does man sin? Not because he willfully chooses to rebel against God, but because he cannot prevent sin in his life since he has inherited a sinful nature. Sinners like to hear that their sins are a result of a natural incapacity, rather than of any fault or neglect of their own. Then they can sin without remorse.

4. It makes God responsible for sin. According to the doctrine of inherited total depravity, God willed that Adam’s corrupted nature would be passed down to his descendants. Inheriting this corrupt nature, man can only will to do evil; from this corrupted nature all sins proceed. Hence, man sins because of God’s decree. Even Calvin was dismayed as he contemplated this decree of God. He wrote,

Again I ask: whence does it happen that Adam’s fall irremediably involved so many people, together with their infant offspring, in eternal death unless because it so pleased God? Here their tongues, otherwise so loquacious, must become mute. The decree is dreadful indeed, I confess (Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book III, Chap. XXIII, no. 7).

Those who teach that man has a sinful nature shift the blame for what he does from the sinner to the author of his nature!

Thus we see that this theory brings man into the world wholly defiled in all the faculties of soul and body, opposed to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil, not even able to will any spiritual good accompanying salvation, until God converts and translates him into the state of grace, so as to free him from his natural bondage, and enable him freely to will and to do that which is spiritually good, then, if God never converts him and he is finally lost, who is to blame for it? Surely, not man, for he could not even will or desire his own salvation, or prepare himself thereunto. Why did Christ command that the Gospel be preached among all nations, and to every creature, promising salvation to those who would believe and obey it, when He must have known, if this theory be true, that they could neither believe nor obey it? – nay, they could not even so much as will or desire their salvation, or any thing good connected therewith, to say nothing of doing anything to secure it. And why did He threaten them with damnation if they did not believe it, when, according to the theory, they would have no more power to believe it than they have to make a world? (The Gospel Plan of Salvation, p. 140)

6. It indicts the goodness of God. The theory teaches that God willed to pass a corrupted nature to Adam’s posterity with the result that man has no ability to obey the will of God; he can only will to do evil. Then, it teaches that God punishes man because he disobeys. The injustice in this would be comparable to a person punishing a newborn infant because he could not feed himself.

7. It makes the invitation to respond to the gospel ridiculous, if not altogether ugly. The gospel invitation is extended to every man (Matt. 11:28; Rev. 3:20; 22:17). The doctrine of inherited depravity states that man has wholly lost any ability to do any spiritual good; he has no ability to respond to the invitation until God sends His Spirit to enable Him to do so. Hence, preaching the gospel of Christ to a man who has an inherited sinful nature is merely tantalizing that man, like holding a cool cup of water in front of a man who is dying of thirst and who has no ability to obtain the water. We are cruelly deluded by the Lord, when He declares that His loving kindness depends upon our will, if the will is not able to respond to His offer of grace. The offer of grace is plain mockery of man.

8. It makes exhortations to righteous living and rebukes of sin meaningless. Why exhort a man to do what he cannot do – live righteously? Why condemn him for doing what he cannot avoid doing – sinning? Either God is mocking us when He enjoins holiness, piety, obedience, chastity, love, and gentleness and forbids uncleanness, idolatry, immodesty, anger, robbery, pride and the like or He requires only what is within our power to do. Inherited depravity would require us to believe that God is merely mocking us.

Doctrinal Consequences Of Inherited Depravity

Several false doctrines have derived from the doctrine that man is born totally depraved. We need to be reminded that these false doctrines are connected to inherited depravity.

1. The doctrine of unconditional election and unconditional reprobation. Jack W. Cottrell wrote,

Why does the Calvinist continue to insist on unconditional predestination, even when sovereignty and grace arc not at stake? What is the imperative which necessitates it? The answer is the doctrine of total depravity, which in its essence means that all persons as the result of Adam’s sin are from birth unable to respond in any positive way to the gospel call. There is a total inability to come to the decision to put one’s trust in Christ. This point is truly the keystone in the Calvinistic system. This is what makes unconditional election logically and doctrinally necessary (“Conditional Election,” Grace Unlimited, Clark H. Pinnock, editor, p. 68).

Hence, the doctrine that God, from all eternity, predestined who would be saved and who would be lost is the doctrinal and logical consequence of inherited total depravity. The doctrines of unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistible grace, and perseverance of the saints are logical sequences in the system.

2. Infant baptism. The modern practice of infant baptism is derived from inherited total depravity. John F. Rowe said,

Augustine is the originator of the doctrine of “original sin,” or “total hereditary depravity.” He flourished in the fourth century. His postulates from his reasoning process are these: The whole human family is totally depraved, by virtue of the first transgression. Infants are totally depraved because they are constituent parts of the human family. But, inasmuch as they can neither think, nor reason, nor believe, nor exercise any sort of freedom of will, something must be done to wipe out the stain of original sin. The act of baptism is the regenerating act, in his speculative theology, that removes from the soul of the infant the stain of original sin! (History of Reformatory Movements, p. 442)

3. Illumination. Those who believe that man has inherited a totally depraved nature also teach that the Holy Spirit must illumine the Scriptures in order for man to understand them. The Westminster Confession of Faith says,

Nevertheless we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the word. . . (Article I, No. 6).

4. Personal indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Those denominations which teach that man has inherited a totally depraved (sinful) nature from Adam are compelled to teach that the Holy Spirit must indwell the Christian in order for him to overcome his sinful nature. According to the Philadelphia Confession of Faith, this indwelling Spirit enables man to understand the Scriptures (Article 1, No. 6), to make him willing and able to believe (Article VII, Nos. 2-3), to strengthen him that he might resist sin’s temptation (Article XIII, Nos. 2-3), to make him conscious of his sin (Article XV, No. 3), and to enable him to do good works (Article XVI, No. 3). Without the assistance of the indwelling Spirit, man is unable to overcome his sinful nature.

5. Immaculate Conception. This doctrine teaches “that the Virgin Mary was conceived without the stain of original sin.” The doctrine was invented to prevent the conclusion that Jesus was born with the stain of original sin.

Practical Consequences of Inherited Total Depravity

Even as there are logical and doctrinal consequences of this false doctrine, there are also practical consequences. Here are a few of them:

1. A feeling of spiritual insecurity. If one holds the position that he has a sinful nature, he will have the concept that sin engulfs him like a cloud. Regardless of how devoted he is to God and to His service, he will always feel that there are sins in his life. If you were to ask such a person, “What sins have you committed?” he might not enumerate any. Nevertheless, he has a feeling of spiritual insecurity because he believes that he has a sinful nature.

Denominations which teach that man has inherited a sinful nature from Adam also teach a system whereby this defect in nature is overcome. The Calvinists teach that the perfect righteousness of Jesus is imputed to the believer so that God sees Jesus’ perfect obedience instead of the believer’s imperfections. The Wesleyans, teach that a second work of grace occurs whereby the believer is sanctified.

Those who accept that man has a sinful nature will continually be searching for a means to find security, whether it be in imputed righteousness, continuous cleansing, or some other means.

2. Passivity in obedience. Those who believe that man has a sinful nature sometimes reach the conclusion that man is passive in his salvation and sanctification (strict Calvinists take this position). After teaching such a person the way of salvation, he may reply, “I just do not feel like obeying the gospel yet.” He will await some mysterious working of the Holy Spirit before obeying the gospel. Until and unless he receives this miraculous operation of the Spirit, he will not obey the gospel. His condition is helpless and hopeless until the Spirit effects his salvation.

Conclusion

Some among us refer to their “sinfulness” in such a manner that the concept is practically equivalent to “sinful nature.” They do not mean by “sinfulness” a list of sins of which they are guilty. Rather, they mean their “tendency to sin.” I do not charge those who use this expression with believing the consequences enumerated in this article. However, if by “sinfulness” they mean “an innate sinful nature,” they have accepted the basic tenets of inherited total depravity, regardless of how watered-down and inconsistent their concept of it might be.

As one considers the consequences resulting from this false doctrine, he should understand why even the slightest indications that men believe in inherited depravity must be opposed. The doctrine of inherited total depravity undermines the power of the gospel to affect salvation in the life of man, destroys man’s ability to believe the gospel and live a sanctified life, and attacks the perfect purity of Jesus Christ or denies that He became like us. The doctrine of inherited depravity is not some unimportant theological doctrine without practical consequences. It is a doctrine which takes the heart out of the gospel message. As such, it must be resisted and opposed wherever it raises its ugly head.

Guardian of Truth XXXI: 1, pp. 2, 36-37
January 1, 1986