Truth Magazine

By Ron Halbrook

The new unity movement of the last 15-20 years has been influenced by several denominational concepts, including inherited depravity. This is not surprising. Israel was influenced by the idolatries of the people around them – the Egyptians, the Canaanites, the Assyrians, and the Babylonians. During the early gospel age, Christians were buffeted and often influenced by the errors of Judaism, gnosticism, and dozens of other ideas outside the purview of the gospel of Christ. They were touched by such Greek philosophies as fatalism, Stoicism, and Epicureanism, and by the political and organizational skills of the Roman government. Any study of early church history must take into account these factors of time and place because they all had an impact on the thought and life of professed followers of Christ.

All of this gives meaning to the warning of Romans 12:1-2 that we be shaped by the Lord’s will and not by the mind of “this world. ” We can be taken captive “through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ” (Col. 2:8). The faith of the gospel in our hearts must be guarded against the influences and inroads of pseudo learning, pseudo science, and pseudo knowledge of all kinds (I Tim. 6:20-21). Constant study and review of the Word of God as the basis of our faith and of our relationship with God is imperative! The approach and appeal of Satan is so crafty and subtle that we may be snared before we realize it in ways we never would have suspected. Notice how many errors of the Gentile world cast a shadow over the Corinthian church, and how many flaws of traditional Judaism overshadowed the lives of Jewish converts addressed by the Epistle of James. No wonder Paul feared “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).

What shadows of this present world of darkness, evil and error are falling upon the history of God’s people today -perhaps failing over my own heart? It is not always possible to trace the course of such influences directly from one person and one movement to another. The factors which move a person toward error and evil may be so diverse and subtle that we cannot explain the origins of their cumulative impact. We can see the result and judge it in the light of Scripture (1 Jn. 4:1-6). We can also recognize some basic errors which are common to our time and place – errors deeply rooted in tradition, spread through many channels, often repeated, and often adapted. We must expect these common tenets to have an impact on our brethren from time to time, and even upon ourselves, unless such concepts are checked by constant review and resistance in the light of God’s Word (Acts 20:28-32; 2 Tim. 43-5; Jude 3). False and dangerous doctrines thrive in an atmosphere where all controversy is avoided, where “positive” themes such as God’s love are considered sufficient to solve every issue or sin which arises. Such an atmosphere may attract many followers and build large churches, but it does not produce strong faith or sound churches.

One of the most significant and widespread errors permeating so-called Christendom concerns the nature of man and therefore of God’s grace to man. The doctrine of Original Sin says that Adam’s sin corrupted every part of his nature, including the body, the soul, and every faculty of his being. This total depravity or inherent corruption of nature is the common inheritance of all his descendants. Exactly what is inherited may be interpreted as Adam’s sin, Adam’s sinful nature, Adam’s guilt, or only a tendency toward -sin. In any case, man’s free will is severely crippled or entirely lost so that we cannot seek or obey God unless His divine power acts upon our will. From the premise of total hereditary depravity eventually came many other false doctrines such as infant baptism, personal predestination, the limited atonement, unconditional salvation, irresistible grace, and the final perseverance of all the elect.

“Until the time of Augustine this idea of original sin was relatively undeveloped” (Baker’s Dictionary of Theology, p. 164). Because of his impact on such doctrines, Augustine (354-430) is called “the Second Founder of the Faith” next to Paul. Precursors to his doctrine of Original Sin and inherited depravity include the Greek idea of fate ruling man’s destiny and the gnostic notion that man’s flesh or body is evil and an enemy of his spirit.

As soon as the gospel of Christ broke in upon the Gentile world, it faced the fermenting speculations of gnosticism — a blend of Greek philosophies with esoteric Eastern philosophies and religions. Gnosticism’s basic concept was that God is pure, abstract spirit. Emanations from God descended by stages down toward matter, diluting their spirit nature more and more in approaching the lowest level which is matter. Matter or the material universe is the origin of all evil, therefore “sin is inherent in the material substance of the body” of man (International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, rev. ed., 11:487). Redemption is not pardon from sin but is the discovery of the secret of evil’s origin in matter. Deliverance from the flesh comes through extreme asceticism, or through the realization that the spirit can enjoy union and communion with God regardless of the deeds of the body. Colossians and 1-2 John attacked the premises of gnosticism, as did post-apostolic writers. Still, gnosticism’s “influence upon Christianity was profound and permanent” (McClintock and Strong, Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature 111:896). Some elements of this broad cultural influence were assimilated into the developing theology of an apostate church.

Augustine taught that qfter Adam fell, the body of man is evil and must sin. Because of his fallen nature, it is man’s fate to sin and he cannot help sinning. Anslem. (1033-1109) agreed and held that “in Adam, the person made nature sinful; in his posterity, the nature makes a person sinful.” A modem writer explains that “a man does not just commit sinful acts. Man qua man is a sinner; his nature is expressed in his sinning” (H.D. McDonald, The Christian View of Man, pp. 84, 27). As this concept has been handed down in time and tradition, it has become the common property of both Roman Catholics and Protestants to this day. All major wings of the Protestant Reformation embraced the idea – Lutherans, Calvinists, the Reformed tradition initiated by Zwingli, Arminians, and Anglicans. It has been maintained and at times modified by all the major denominations of modem America – Episcopal, Methodist, Presbyterian, and Baptist – and by many minor denominations, sects, and cults as well.

Every group which accepts this doctrine is burdened with explaining how or why man is accountable for his sins and also how the grace of God reaches this fallen man. Catholics and some Protestants respond by sprinkling babies to save them from their fallen and sinful nature. Also, sins are separated into “mortal” (most serious) and “venial” (less serious) sins. A Catholic theologian explains, “It is, moreover, certain, not only from the divine compassion, but from the nature of the thing, that there are venial sins, or such slight ones, as in just men may consist with a state of grace and friendship with God” (M. & S., Cycl. IX:767). It is assumed that Christians continue to practice venial sins because of man’s fallen nature.

Spokesmen For New Unity Movement

Spokesmen for the new unity movement have uniformly manifested a loss of confidence in the New Testament pattern of truth and a corresponding growth of confidence in denominational literature and concepts. Some are convinced that man must violate God’s pattern of truth because of a sinful nature and that the obedience or righteousness of Christ must be imputed to man to compensate for this depravity. Such a concept contributes to the ecumenical movement at large in denominationalism and to the new unity movement among the brethren. These facts converge in the pages of Present Truth and Verdict magazines. Edited by a dissident Seventh-Day Adventist turned ecumenicist (Robert D. Brinsmead), this paper mediated AugustinianReformation views on the nature of man, grace, and unity to a number of the new unity spokesmen. Men such as Edward Fudge, Michael Hall, Darwin Chandler, and Carl Ketcherside wrote letters of commendation to Brinsmead (P. T., Feb. 1974, p. 7; Feb. 1977, p. 4; June 1977, p. 4; & V., June 198 1, p. 5).

Consider Brinsmead’s views. Both as to faith and practice in the church and as to daily life, man retains his sinful nature and so constantly sins. This accounts for doctrinal diversity. Works of merit and non-meritorious conditions for receiving grace are constantly confused so that both are rejected. God always is constantly forgiving our sins because of the imputed righteousness of Christ. We are told that I John 1:8 means there is “some depravity . . . in the best saints” because even our obedience is “defiled by the corrupt channel of human nature” (P. T., Aug. 1976, pp. 24, 29). No work of obedience “under any . . . name whatever” is necessary for salvation (Ibid., July 1977, p. 12). Christians are “simultaneously righteous and sinful.” Man remains a sinner because of his “corrupt nature” whether committing a sinful act at any moment or not. On this account, “every good work is sin” and must be covered by Christ. This sinful condition and corruption remains in our body until the resurrection, although forgiven and not imputed to believers, according to Luther (Ibid., pp. 25-27). Luther said,

For original sin is a root and inborn evil, which only comes to an end when this body has been entirelymortified, purged by fire and reformed. Meanwhile, however, it is not imputed to the godly (V., Aug. 1979, p. 26).

Because sin constantly inheres in the flesh, even our worship is tainted: “Their most pious and devout deeds, including their prayers and praise, are defiled with the corrupt taint of the flesh” (V., Sept. 1978, p. 12).

Denominational and Ecumenical Thrust

Notice the denominational and ecumenical thrust of such theories. “Individual patterns of church life” are permissible because we are not bound to “the New Testament patterns” on such things as the “mode of baptism … .. worship,” and “organization.” To insist that the New Testament pattern is essential to constitute “the one true church” is a sectarian “denial of justification by faith alone.” Since “no one is without sin” and no church “without error” because of our “sinful limitations,” we all must be saved by “grace alone” (V., Mar. 1981, pp. 9-10, 16). Whether a person be “Lutheran, Calvinist or Catholic,” he shares in “justification through grace by faith alone.” All must “liberate the grace of God from the demands of dogmatic perfection” and “doctrinal purity” by extending “the hand of fellowship outside their own ‘denominational’ confines” (V., Sept. 1981, p. 18).

Now, compare the views disseminated by Edward Fudge and others. Just as some people overlook “the fact that God, by nature, hates and punishes sin, so legalism ignores and fails to reckon with the fact that man, by nature, is a sinner.” This is why man does not obey God perfectly “either before . . . or after” he becomes a Christian. Notice the references just quoted on God’s nature – indicating constitutional and inherent nature – and then man’s nature. Fudge continues, “It is an eternal principle that man, because he is man, sins. God does not make him sin. God did not create him so that he had to sin.” But “man is a sinner” and “even when he sincerely tries he does not do what God wants him to do” (The Grace of God, pp. 14, 17). Since God did not originally make man’s nature constitutionally and inherently sinful, when did it become so? Here lurks some theory of Original Sin with man inheriting sin, guilt, a sinful nature, or a tendency to sin. What is the solution to this sinful nature which causes man to sin “by nature”? Fudge teaches the imputation of Christ’s obedience as the answer. The Bible teaches none of it!

Fudge convinced Bruce Edwards that a Christian could “go through a lifetime believing that instrumental music was okay and still be a ‘man of faith”‘ – i.e. saved by faith (A Journey Toward Jesus, pp. 25, 35). He applies the same premise to institutionalism and any number of other sins. Since man is constitutionally a sinner, we are all in error and should extend the hand of fellowship in all directions.

Arnold Hardin has been on a crusade for years to convert everyone to similar views. He objects to “the notion that the nature of man did not change due to the fall of Adam” and to anyone saying man “could” avoid sin if he “would” (Persuader, I Jan. 1983, p. 3). This means that Adam could have avoided sin and was responsible to do so, until his nature changed with his first sin. If he could not avoid sin afterward, how and why should he be accountablefor any subsequent sin? Since we inherit Adam’s fallen nature, how and why should we ever be accountable for any sin? Like Fudge, Hardin resolves the problem of our corrupt nature by the imputation of Christ’s own righteousness to us. We may understand our position by comparing it to David’s, Hardin claims. David was not separated from God or in danger of hell when he sinned by adultery, deception, murder, or any other way (ibid., 5 May 1985, p. 3). Other writers have echoed this argument on David – and some have made the same application to Simon in Acts 8. R.L. Kilpatrick edits Ensign from Huntsville, Alabama, regards Robert Brinsmead as a modem Martin Luther and Alexander Campbell, and regularly pushes the ideas of sinful nature and imputed righteousness (Sept. 1981, pp. 3-5).

Passages Misused

Passages misused to teach hereditary total depravity include those which speak of -the universality of sin, such as Romans 1-23. All such passages refer to each person sinning on his own choice as Adam did, rather than to man’s constitutional and inherent nature. Psalm 51:11 (“cast me not away from thy presence”) is perverted as proof that David was in fellowship with God even as he sinned and afterward before repenting. A simple reading of the psalm along with Psalm 32 shows that David fully realized the pain and sorrow of his separation from God in sin. He pleads for pardon lest he be cast away with finality as a hardened impenitent (cf. Heb. 6:4-6; 12:17). Romans 5:12 does not say that Adam’s sin or corrupt nature is transmitted to all men, but simply that sin entered the world through Adam.

Romans 7:19 (“for the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do”) does not say that it was impossible for Paul to do right because of inherent depravity. It simply says he did not do right. Having made the choice of his own will to sin, he found the law of Moses made him painfully aware of his guilt but provided no final and perfect sacrifice. The “body” of sin and death and the “flesh” in this context refer not to inherent depravity but to the life of condemnation from which he was delivered by the gospel of Christ (6:6; 7:5-6, 24-25). The remission of his sins released him from this “body” and “flesh,” rather than leaving him to struggle with a supposed sinful nature of depravity and corruption.

Ephesians 2:3 (“by nature the children of wrath”) does not refer to a constitutionally depraved nature but to the repeated practices of those who “walked” after “the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience” (v. 2; cf. Col. 1:21, “by wicked works”). As in Romans 7, they had been delivered from this state, which confirms that one’s constitutional or inherited nature is not in view.

1 John ought to be the last book for anyone to use in trying to sustain the theory that man’s union with God is not broken by sin committed under the impulse of his falleri nature. “The spirit draws near to the light of God’s presence even as the body sins” is the gnostic error John refutes! Rather than argue that man must sin because of the inherent nature of his body, John says, “My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not” (2:1). John wrote to say that we must not sin – we are commanded not to sin – expected not to sin – responsible not to sin. If we do sin, it is not expected and accepted, not overlooked automatically and continuously. We are accountable. God will call upon us to confess our sin in order that the blood of Christ may remove the blot and stain of our evil deeds (1:5-2:2).

A Pies for Vigilance and Balance!

Brethren, strange and uncertain sounds among us bear watching. Open study is imperative. Remember too that someone may hold a tenet related to the false concept of man’s nature without embracing all the errors and implications of an apostate system of unity. His clear and firm convictions on other related matters may hold him in check. His willingness to speak out on matters of truth may tend to alienate him from the radical apostates who are charting a course into denominationalism. In a similar way, Alexander Campbell alienated himself from denominational people because he preached too much truth, before he had given up some denominational ideas. Remember also that controversy conducted in a proper spirit helps us all to review what we believe and teach. It is a bad sign when someone teaches a thing and then wants immunity from review and discussion, always responding with the cry, “Foul play!” rather than with Book, Chapter, and Verse. If all of us will make our appeal to “what saith the Scriptures,” rather than to sympathy because of real or imagined personal offenses, healthy progress will be made by all concerned. May God give us a balance of wisdom from above, courage for truth, hatred of error, and love for one another!

Guardian of Truth XXXI: 1, pp. 3-5, 11
January 1, 1987

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