Truth Magazine

By Weldon E. Warnock

“That the sin of Adam injured not himself only but also all descending from him by ordinary generation, is part of the faith of the whole Christian world. The nature and extent of the evil this entailed upon this race, and the ground or reason of the descendants of Adam having involved in the evil consequences of his transgression, have ever been matter of diversity and discussion.”(1)

Theologians speak of Adam’s sin as “original sin” and they usually define it to mean “that man has gone very far from original righteousness, and is of his own nature inclined to evil.” Consequently, they say that all men, as the descendants of Adam, have this original depravity, derived from continual descent from father to son. There are four (4) principal hypotheses, to one or the other of which all the various explanations offered on this subject may probably be reduced.

Theories

(1) The first theory is that the whole human race was literally in Adam as the oak is in the acorn, and thus participated in his transgression.(2) Augustine taught that “human nature in its totality was present seminally in the first man; not personally but a common act of mankind in their collective or undistributed form of existence.”

(2) The second theory is that Adam was the representative of the race; that as a king, or as an ambassador, or a congress represents the nation, and the entire nation is held responsible for the act of its representative, so Adam represented the human race, was chosen as the type to stand for humanity, and by his trial the whole race was tried, thus sinning in his sin and falling in his fall. Acting thus as representative for the race, his sin was imputed, i.e. charged, to the whole race.

Berkhof wrote: “When he (Adam) sinned in this representative capacity, the guilt of his sin was naturally imputed to all those whom he represented; and as the result of this they are all born in a corrupt state.”(3) This theory explains (in the proponents’ minds) why the descendants of Adam are only responsible for the one sin which he committed as head of the human race, and why Christ, who was not a human being, does not share in the guilt.

(3) The third theory holds that Adam fell, and in falling became a sinner. The universal law of nature is that like begets like. So all his descendants have inherited from him a nature like his own, a nature depraved and prone to sin. Those who maintain this theory add, usually, that man is not responsible for this depraved nature, and that he is not in any strict sense guilty before God for it. . . . In other words, this school distinguishes between sin and depravity, holding all sin to consist in voluntary action, and depravity to be simply that disordered state of the soul which renders it prone to commit sin. . . . According to this view, mankind are overwhelmed in ruin, which Adam brought upon the race, but are not guilty except as they become so by personal conduct.(4)

Tertullian thought the soul consists of human substance and it comes into existence with the body in and through generation as a transmission from the seed of Adam. This is “Truducianism,” a philosophy which means that the soul as well as the body is begotten by reproduction from the substance of the parents. It is the opposite of “Creationism,” which is the doctrine that God creates a new human soul for every human being that is born.

The Bible teaches that God “formeth the spirit of man within him” (Zech. 12:1) and that He is “the God of the spirits of all flesh” (Num. 16:22; 27:16). Hebrews 12:9 states, “Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live?”

J. Barmby stated: “Our earthly parents transmit to us our carnal existence; our spiritual part, in whatever mysterious way derived or inspired, is due to our Divine parentage; and it is in respect of this that we are God’s children and accountable to him” (Pulpit Commentary). Though Hebrews 12:9 does not teach Creationism. as opposed to Truducianism, it does teach, as Barmby said, our Divine parentage. Hence, we do not inherit a depraved and evil nature since God is the Father of our spirits and we are His offspring (Acts 17:29).

(4) The fourth theory, known in theological language . . . . as Pelagianism, denies that there is any connection between Adam and his posterity, or that the race is in any sense held responsible for, or on account of, Adam’s sin . . . . Each soul, for itself, chooses its own destiny by its voluntary choice of good or evil, right or wrong.(5)

Obviously, and very succinctly, the Bible teaches what is stated in #4. Jesus taught that the kingdom of heaven is as little children or infants (Matt. 19:13-15; Lk. 18:15-17). Certainly, Jesus was not saying the kingdom was like little depraved sinners! Man has free will to come to the Lord (Matt. 11:28-30; Rev. 22:17). Space does not allow an extensive study on this matter. Compare other articles in this special series.

Post-Apostolic Teachings

The views about “original sin” and “inherited depravity” arose after the days of the apostles. Tertullian (145-220) was the first to use the expression vitium orginis to describe the stain or blemish or defect from which man’s nature suffered since the Fall; so that while his true nature is good, evil has become a second nature to him. But this “original sin” he did not regard as involving guilt.(6) The moral powers might be enfeebled by the Fall, but with one voice, up to the time of Augustine, the teachers of the church declared they were not lost.(7) Athanasius (293-373), father of orthodoxy, maintained in the strongest terms that man has the ability of choosing good as well as evil, and even allowed exceptions to original sin, alleging that several individuals, who lived prior to the appearance of Christ, were free of it.(8)

Cyril of Jerusalem (died 386) assumed that life of man begins in a state of innocence, and that sin enters only with the use of free will. It is said that Chlysostom (345-407) passed a sincere censure upon those who endeavored to excuse their own defects by ascribing the origin of sin to the fall of Adam. Others, such as Hilary (died 367) and Ambrose of Milan (340-379) taught the defilement of sin by birth. However, neither excluded the liberty of man from the work of moral corruption.(9)

Inheritance from Adam

Interestingly, the Rabbis taught, as recorded by Edersheim, that Adam lost six things by his sin. They are: the shining splendour of his person, even his heels being like sun; his gigantic size, from east to west, from earth to heaven; the spontaneous splendid products of the ground, and of all fruittrees; an infinitely greater measure of light on the part of the heavenly bodies; and finally, endless duration of life. But even these are to be restored by the Messiah.(10)

What we inherit from Adam or what consequences we suffer as a result of his sin are set forth in Genesis 3 and other places. The modernists contend that the Genesis 3 account of the Fall and the consequences thereof, are nothing more than allegory or fable. But Horne wrote, “It has been the fashion with minute philosophers and philosophising divines to endeavor to explain away the reality of the fall, and to resolve it all into allegory, apologue, or moral fable; but the whole scheme of redemption by Christ is founded upon it, and must stand or fall with it; a figurative fall requiring only a figurative redemption.”(11)

Genesis 3 is a historical account of man’s fall and we observe the following things man inherits or receives as a consequence of Adam’s sin.

(1) The penalty of physical death. “In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return” (v. 19). God had said to Adam, “But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die” (Gen. 2:17). We see this sentence pronounced on Adam after he had eaten the forbidden fruit and fallen in 3:19. Indeed, dying, he died.

Paul wrote, “For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive” (1 Cor. 15:21-22).

(2) The continuous struggle between descendants of woman and serpent. The hostility commenced between the woman and her destroyer was to be continued by their descendants. . . . the seed of the serpent being those of Eve’s posterity who should imbibe the devil’s spirit and obey the devil’s rule. . . . and the seed of the woman signifying those whose character and life should be of an opposite description, and in particular the Lord Jesus Christ, who is styled by preeminence “the Seed” (Gal. 3:16-17), and who came to “destroy the works of the devil.”(12)

Thus Genesis 3:15 has been rightly called the “maternal promise,” the “protevangelium,” meaning the first proclamation of the gospel. We would not want to claim that this “maternal promise,” in its deeper application, refers exclusively to the Christ. It is obvious that in the first part of the verse the terms “the seed of the woman” and the “seed of the serpent” are collective nouns and they indicate an ongoing spiritual conflict between the seed of the woman will gain the ultimate victory, a victory not won by the collective seed of the woman, but by that one unique seed of the woman, the Lord Jesus Christ, and by Him alone.(13) However, through Him we can be conquerors (cf. Jn. 12:31; Col. 2:15; Heb. 2:14; 1 Jn. 3:8; Rom. 16:20; Rev. 17:14).

(3) Pregnancy and childbirth attended by pain. “Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee” (v. 16). For woman the bearing of children is to be a difficulty. The pains which will come to her will threaten her own life, she will go down to the very gate of death before her children come into the world. Too, she will be dependent on her husband and he will rule over her.(14)

(4) Physical hardship, painful toil, disappointing vexations and hard struggle. “And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the bread of the field; In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread. . . ” (vv. 17-19). So serious was man’s transgression that on account of him the ground is cursed. How is it possible for a curse to be placed upon the ground since it is inanimate and not responsible? What is meant is that the curse upon the ground is with respect to man, so that the one who will feel the effects of the curse is not the ground but man himself.

Instead of a friendly earth, a curse now spreads out over the ground and man stands as it were upon enemy soil. Adam is to eat of the ground. It will not deny him its produce, but his eating will be in sorrow. All labor will be difficult. Man will have to engage in severe struggle for his own existence. He will till the soil, but it will send forth thorns and thistles.(15)

(5) Environmental influences and conditions for temptations. “For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous” (Rom. 5:19). Paul does not say how these were made sinners by the disobedience of Adam, nor how they are to be made righteous by the obedience of Christ. It is pure assumption to argue that the disobedience of Adam is imputed to his offspring, or that the obedience of Christ is imputed to anybody. Neither guilt nor personal righteousness can be transferred from one person to another, but the consequences of either may, to some extent, fall upon others.

By his sin Adam brought about conditions that make every person subject to temptation. In this way he made sinners.(16) “It was through the conditions brought about by Adam’s sin that the temptations and environmental influences tended to cause man to sin, that by his disobedience many were made sinners. Actually they were made sinners by their own sins, and not his.”(17)

In the midst of this earthly life we toil, struggle and die. There is nothing we can do to earn the right to partake of the tree of life. There is only One, the second Adam, Jesus Christ, who makes it possible for us to obtain eternal life and gain access to the tree of life in the heavenly paradise of God. In this second Adam there is life, hope and peace. Only in Him who was dead and liveth for evermore, do we have life.

Endnotes

1. Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Vol. 2, Part 2, p. 192.

2. McClintock and Strong, Vol. 9, p. 765.

3.(NOTE: No corresponding number found in original document) Ibid.

3. L. Berkhof, Manual of Christian Doctrine, p. 144.

4. McClintock and Strong, op. cit.

5. Ibid., p. 766.

6. J.F. Bethune-Baker, An Introduction to the Early History of Christian Doctrine, p. 307.

7. Ibid.

8. K.R. Hagenbach, History of Doctrines, Vol. 1, p. 293.

9. Ibid., pp. 293-295.

10. Alfred Edersheim, The Life and Times of Jesus, Vol. 1, p. 166.

11. Thomas Horne, Introduction to the Scriptures, Vol. 1, pp. 143-144.

12. Pulpit Commentary, Vol. 1.

13. G. Charles Alders, Genesis, Vol. 1, p. 107.

14. Edward J. Young, Genesis 3, pp. 123-124.

15. Ibid., pp. 130-139.

16. R.L. Whiteside, Paul’s Letter to the Saints at Rome, pp. 125-126.

17. Bryan Vinson, Sr., Paul’s Letter to the Saints at Rome, p. 106.

Guardian of Truth XXXI: 1, pp. 19-21
January 1, 1987

By Bobby L. Graham

Near the end of the Southern Kingdom of Judah, during the reign of good King Hezekiah (ca. 724-695 B.C.), an effort to restore the ancient for order of religious practices was successfully undertaken with the full backing and leadership of this righteous ruler. The restoration had been made necessary, in part, by the apostasy of Hezekiah’s father Ahaz. According to 2 Chronicles 29:2, the expression “like father, like son” was not true in this case.

Restorations are often necessary and desirable, as in the case of Hezekiah’s restoration. The restoration of Colonial Williamsburg, Virginia, begun several decades you ago and still continued, as well as the more recent restoration of the Statue of Liberty, involves the determined and careful effort to learn the original condition of the object to be restored. After it has been ascertained, then the work of putting the object in its original condition must be scrupulously carried out. The meticulous and tedious search in the two cases just cited, while important, is comparably unimportant in relation to the kind of restoration project undertaken by Hezekiah, just as earthly matters are of little moment compared to heavenly things. If such a project be important and desirable, its completion still depends upon adequate information concerning the of the object being restored.

Importance of Restoring the Divine Order

Throughout the Old Testament and the New, the divine order is seen to have surpassing importance. God’s way has no equal or rival in the minds or lives of God-fearing people. Hear the testimony of God’s Word:

For because you did not do it the first time, the Lord our God broke out against us, because we did not consult Him about the proper order (1 Chron. 15:13).

Also the burnt offerings were in abundance, with the fat of the peace offerings and with the drink offerings for every burnt offering. So the service of the house of the Lord was set in order (2 Chron. 29:35).

But if anyone is hungry, let him eat at home, lest you come together for judgment. And the rest I will set in order when I come (1 Cor. 11:34).

Let all things be done decently and in order (1 Cor. 14:40).

For though I am absent in your flesh, yet am I with you in spirit, rejoicing to see your good order and the steadfastness of your faith in Christ (Col. 2: 5).

For this season I left you in Crete, that you should set in order the tings that are lacking, and appoint elders in every city as I commanded you . . .(Tit. 1:5).

If these clear statements fail to convince that God does have an order than man can discern, surly a consideration of the following examples of disapproved conduct and approved conduct would be persuasive. Study the details of Adam and Eve’s sin, Cain and Abel’s sacrifices, Noah’s constructing the ark, the details of the Mosaic law, Nadab and Abihu’s tragic deaths, Moses’ disobedience at the rock, and Uzzah’s disfavor with God in the matter of the unsteady ark of testimony. While the details in the several cases vary, the general lesson which they all unite to teach us is that when God reveals His way to man, man must accept the divine order if he would please God.

Breadth of Hezekiah’s Restoration

The restoration led by King Hezekiah was broad in its coverage. It included whatever parts or aspects of the divine order that had been disregarded by the people and their leaders. Our attempts to please God though efforts to restore the divine order must be complete, encompassing all of God’s way. Selective efforts in this field are not restorations but selfish exercises in self-gratification.

Cleansing the Temple: 2 Chronicles 29:3-19 presents the work of sanctifying the Temple so that it might be restored to divine use.

Temple Worship: In 2 Chronicles 29:20-36 the sin offering was again given its right place, Levites were stationed there for their duties, the burnt offering was reinstituted, the congregation of Israel worshiped, willing hearts were demonstrated, and in other ways the service was set in order.

Passover: Resuming the Passover is seen in 2 Chronicles 30:1-27. Late observance of the feast came in keeping with divine permission after information was sent to the whole nation. In this observance singleness of heart was manifested, as was the great joy unknown since the time of Solomon.

Other Reforms: Removing all vestiges of idolatry, appointing the various divisions of the priests and the Levites, reinstituting the tithe on a regular basis were actions in which the king led. He also gave some of his own possessions for the early offerings (2 Chron. 31:1-21).

Success of Hezekiah’s Restoration

The success of any effort is insured when it is carried out in adherence to God’s will and standard. That which is “good and right and true before the Lord” is always a prescription for spiritual success. Wholehearted acceptance and performance of it means that geunine love and faith have become the controlling factors in what one does, not stale ritual or external forms. The king’s prosperity consisted of divine blessing. What leadership the king exhibited in all these matters (2 Chron. 31:20,21).

The Present Benefit

From such accounts as that of Hezekiah’s restoration, certain lessons loudly proclaim themselves. Only when we accept them by acting in accord with them do we receive the benefit which God designed. Otherwise, inspired accounts are little more to you and me than spacefillers. What lessons can we learn?

1. We cannot improve on God’s way. He always has sanctified those items and elements that He wants men to accept. Only that which God has sanctified has a place in God’s scheme and in our lives of service to Him. May we learn the important lesson of contenting ourselves to practice His will.

2. A thing is not obsolete just because it is ancient. If it is still part of God’s plan, it still serves God’s purpose and meets man’s need. All that meets the test of God’s will must be restored to its place in our lives, while every item failing to meet such a test of antiquity must be removed from our spiritual endeavors.

3. Both forms and attitudes are important in God’s scheme. The thing practiced is important, but the spirit manifested in the practice is just as important. Apart from willing minds, singleminded efforts, and wholehearted service, it makes no difference that we are doing “the right things.”

4. God has established an inseparable link between daily life and public service or worship. Because both are rendered unto God, each must be compatible with the other. It is daily life that prepares us for worship and makes that worship acceptable, and it is worship and strengthens and equips us for life each day.

May we be encouraged to set about to restore whatever has fallen into disuse and disrepair through individual or collective neglect, that we might please God and direct others aright. Matters such as terms of admission into God’s family; the worship, work, and organization of the local church; individual consecration to Christ; purity of heart and life; the preeminence of the spiritual over the physical in life; and other things will then be given their proper place in our efforts.

Guardian of Truth XXX: 24, pp. 748-749
December 18, 1986

By Wayne Goforth

It has been argued by our institutional friends that “no one believed the things presently taught by the anti movement prior to the 1950’s.” Thomas B. Warren states this in his “Lectures on Church Cooperation” as well as did Bill Jackson in his lecture on “The Challenge of Anti-ism.” Unfortunately I have heard sound brethren claim, “No one believed or practiced the things the liberals now do before the ’50’s.” The truth, as it tends to be, is between these two claims. There were those who believe both sides of the issues from the earliest days of the restoration. While we realize that these men were not God, it is nonetheless interesting to notice how old and how serious the question of cooperation is.

As early as 1831 Walter Scott, Alexander Campbell and others met to discuss Cooperation. This would be a hot topic of discussion for another twenty years. Campbell believed that since the Bible is silent as to the cooperation of churches, that we are free to devise any means to so do and place it in the heavy laden basket of expediencies. Not all of the early restorationists were in agreement with Campbell. This belief of Campbell later led him to advocate the missionary societies using the same arguments. Campbell could see little or no difference between the church local and the church universal and thus he sought to engage all local congregations in single works and thus enact the church universal. He believed the church universal was made up of all the local congregations rather than all the saved, and most questions of the issues result from this misunderstanding to this day. By 1849 he called for a “more efficient” means of cooperating by having delegates from every congregation attend a general convention. This was soon to develop into the societies. It is to be realized that most who were against the use of the instrument at that time were for the society, and most who were anti society were for the instrument. Thus a battle soon ensued. T.M. Henley criticized the society and offered an alternative:

When any church wishes to send out an evangelist, and is unable to sustain him in the field, she may invite her sister congregations to cooperate with her.

He thus became the first to advocate the overseeing church arrangement of mission work. David Lipscomb was also against the type of cooperation advocated by Henley Lipscomb believed the sponsoring church was too big and resembled the society too much. This plan would be rejected for a while in favor of the society until 1866. Ben Franklin attacked the society in his American Christian Review, at which time the society temporarily condescended to the “Louisville Plan.” This form of sponsoring church cooperation would also be attacked by Franklin in another year. Those few, such as Franklin, who were against both the instrument and the society were also against the church using any human institution to carry out the work of the church. Those early opposed to institutionalism included Tolbert Fanning, Jacob Creath, Franklin as mentioned, and others. It was realized that the same arguments used on the behalf of those advocating the society were the same ones used for those advocating institutionalism, that is, the all-sufficiency of the church and the question of authority and silence of the Scriptures which has remained the real question over the years. The real question was not then nor is it now simply just to use societies or other human institutions, it is a much deeper question, that concerning our attitude of the authority of the Scriptures.

In 1855, Fanning established the Gospel Advocate to deal with both sides of the question of cooperation. Fanning wrote:

In establishing the Gospel Advocate, I determine to give the subject of cooperation a thorough examination. I do not pretend to say how it has been wrought about, but I have for years believed that a change must take place in our views of cooperation. . .

These early preachers placed much emphasis upon education. Many a liberal preacher has pointed this out to attempt to show that the church supported institutions even during those years of the restoration, and that this shows that the church in this period practiced the church support of human institutions, and thus cooperated in this manner. Even if this were the case, it would not prove the practice to be scriptural. Yes many schools and colleges were established during those years, but were viewed as an adjunct of the home and not the church. By 1831 P.S. Fall established a girls school. Campbell established Buffalo Seminary in 1818, and Bethany College opened its doors in 1841. Many well known preachers were on the board and taught in this enterprise. Robert Richardson and Jacob Creath were two examples of such. Remember that we have already stated that Jacob Creath was set against the church support of human institutions! Campbell himself had donated the land for the school, and individual contributions of endowments were promised along with the standard tuition fees. In fact, when Campbell opposed Burnet’s suggestion for a Bible society, Burnet reminded Campbell that he had already established one institution, Bethany College. Campbell told Burnet that the natures of the two institutions were altogether different. The college was a private institution, established with private funds, whereas the Bible society was a brotherhood work supported by a church treasury. Thus we cannot find the church in this period cooperating in the support of “Christian colleges.”

Conclusion

One wonders what possible arguments against the missionary societies our institutional friends have to offer, seeing the two arguments used in its behalf, it is doing the churches work and it is an expediency, are the same as the liberals use in the support of their institutions and overseeing method of mission work. Though these men were not inspired, the early leaders who stood against both the society and the instrument were also against the church support of any human institution. These brethren did at least seek to be consistent.

Guardian of Truth XXX: 24, p. 754
December 18, 1986

By Irvin Himmel

Wearing Out Our Welcome

Withdraw thy foot from thy neighbor’s house; lest he be weary of thee, and so hate thee (Prov. 25:17).

My first acquaintance with this proverb was during my freshman year in college. Some of the boys whose dormitory room was down the hall from mine had posted Solomon’s wise words on their door.

Value of Visiting

In this age when more and more people are making their lives TV-centered rather than Christ-centered, the disposition to visit is declining. Christians cannot afford to lose sight of the value of visiting.

(1) To get acquainted. In some congregations there are members who never visit in the homes of other members, consequently they know each other only in a casual way. A visitation committee sounds too formal and a bit artificial, but I confess that I had rather see somebody doing some visiting than nobody. We need to get acquainted with new members and prospective members.

(2) For social purposes. By nature we are social creatures. We need the association of other people. Individuals who isolate themselves from the company of others are missing out on friendships that enrich life.

(3) To teach or admonish. There are many who need instruction from the word of God. They are not getting it in church services because they are not attending those services. There are backsliders and negligent people who need to be admonished Calling on others to teach or admonish them is a noble work. Some can be reached through personal visits who will never be reached in other ways.

(4) To aid sick and shut-ins. Some elderly people need regular visits. They need help to do their shopping, house cleaning, etc. Some have prolonged illnesses that keep them confined. They appreciate visits to cheer them and encourage them. It is easy to forget the aged and shut-ins. This we must not do. Visits to people in the hospital should be brief and in strict accordance with hospital rules.

(5) To show personal interest. When someone has lost a loved one, a visit to express sympathy may be in order. When it is sensed that someone is despondent or having a serious problem, a visit from a friend can be helpful. A brief visit to welcome a newcomer may be long remembered. There are times when it means so much just to know that others care.

Visitation Without Vexation

Too frequent visiting of an acquaintance, or staying too long during a visit, can be annoying. People who appreciate another’s interest in them resent being smothered. A welcome visit can be turned into an unwelcome intrusion.

Blessed is the man who can visit his neighbor as a friend, not as a pest! it is better that one’s neighbor rejoice over his visit than over his termination of a visit!

Good manners, courtesy, and respect for the time and privacy of a friend should govern our visiting his home. “There should be a sacred reserve of a delicate mutual respect even in the most intimate relations of friendship” (E. Johnson).

The proverb under consideration is translated as follows in the New International Version: “Seldom set foot in your neighbor’s house – too much of you, and he will hate you.”

The principle of the proverb will apply to telephone calls. Some people like to visit by phone. They call a neighbor or a friend, not for anything important, but only to chat. An occasional call of this type may be appreciated, but too many such calls can be a nuisance.

He who is vigilant in his visiting avoids vexing his neighbor. If too much visiting makes a neighbor feel like a victim, the visitor may be viewed as a villain.

Guardian of Truth XXX: 24, p. 746
December 18, 1986