Parental Responsibilities in Light of Original Sin

“And, first, the urgency of parental responsibility appears in a solemn, and even an awful manner, from the nature of the parental relation itself. Perhaps we fail to appreciate its momentous nature by reason of its very commonness and of our familiarity with it. Wherever human society is, there the parent is. Every man was once a child; every human existence begins in a parental relation. Our perpetual familiarity with the light of the sun disqualifies to appreciate its glory and beauty as we would, were we to behold it but once before entering on a life of blindness. Thus, we are so accustomed to see the child proceeding from the parent, that we are incompetent to perceive the solemn nature of the relation. Let us seek to gain a juster view by comparing the human race with that order of angels than which man was made a little lower. It is every way probable that to the angels the power of reproduction, bestowed on Adam and Eve in paradise, appeared the most marvellous and splendid part of this new creation of the Almighty. For the bliss and glory of the elect angels there is no multiplication. The only increase within their reach is that arithmetical addition which may arise out of their individual progress in knowledge, love and happiness. The eternal adoption of Gabriel is assured against all the powers of hell and accidents of time. But Gabriel cannot multiply his happiness and transmit it to beloved offspring of his own likeness. Except as he has communion with his fellow-angels who began their career with him, he remains solitary in his blessedness. But the glory of the Divine beneficence towards the human race appears in this, that the parents, without alienating anything of their own immortality, are able to multiply immortalities in ever-widening and progressive numbers. Thus, by the multiplications of the generations of men, the field of the Divine love and benevolence is widened as time flows on, until the subjects of the Divine bene factions and instruments of the Divine glory on earth unspeakably surpass in number the heavenly hosts. It may be beyond our skill, as it is unnecessary to this argument, to distinguish and allot the several parts of the agency which belong to God and to the human instruments in the origin of a new human soul. It is enough for us to know that God, by his mysterious works of creation and providence, does empower human parents for this amazing result — the origination, out of nothing, of a new being — and that a rational, immortal spirit. How solemn, how high, this prerogative! It raises man nearer the almighty Creator, in his supreme prerogative as Master of all things, than any thing else that is done by creatures on earth or in heaven. Angels are not thus endued. The responsibility of this relation is not fully seen by merely regarding the infant as a beautiful animal, organized, in miniature, after the kind of the parents. It is the mysterious propagation of a rational soul that fills the reflecting mind with awe. The parent looks upon the tender face which answers to his caress with an infantile smile; he should see beneath that smile an immortal spark which he has kindled, but can never quench. It must grow, for weal or for woe; it cannot be arrested. Just now it was not. The parents have mysteriously brought it from darkness and nothing. There is no power beneath God's throne that can remand it back to nothing, should existence prove a curse. Yes; the parents have lighted there an everlasting lamp, which must burn on when the sun shall have been turned into darkness and the moon into blood, either with the glory of heaven or the lurid flame of despair.

“The command to the first pair to be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth was given as a blessing of paradise, and while man was unfallen. To understand it, we must remember that covenant which was made with Adam as the representative of the race. God gave him an easy law to keep, with the implied promise that, by keeping this command, he should 'enter into life.' Had Adam stood his probation successfully, he would have been lifted from his mutable position into a permanent adoption of life, making both his holiness and his happiness indefectible. And we have every reason for believing that he would have raised all his posterity to that state along with himself. He stood as their representative. When he transgressed, 'they sinned in him, and fell with him.' It is hard to believe that God would have broken that representative union when about to result in the glorification of the race which he had established, and which he inexorably maintains when it issues in universal ruin and condemnation. Neither his goodness nor equity would prompt such unequal dealing. Had Adam been confirmed in glory, the law would doubtless have held by which 'he begat Seth in his own likeness after his image.' All his posterity would have been holy and happy. Cain would have lived a saint, innocent of his brother's blood, and Abel would never have felt the murderer's blow. As the successive generations of men extended, parentage would have extended and multiplied immortal happiness until earth surpassed heaven. Such is the magnificence of that plan which the Creator proposed to execute through man's parental relation.

“But the amazing plan was marred. The malice of Satan saw in this feature also his opportunity to execiate a mischief as much more gigantic than the seduction of his brother-angels, as the aggregate of the whole series of human generations is greater than the number of the devils. It was, indeed, the infinite refinement of malice which he taught one of his heathen servants to cherish, when he inspired the Roman despot to wish that all the people of Rome had but one neck, that he might decapitate all at one stroke. Thus Satan saw that humanity had then but one head. By poisoning this, he would taint all the vast future body with spiritual death. Thus he vainly hoped he would usurp that very power, the power of parentage, which God had bestowed to be the instrument of multiplying blessedness, and he would turn it into an inlet of spreading and boundless sin and misery. By poisoning the spring-head, he would at once poison the whole stream in all its widening course, until it disembogued its innumerable drops — each drop in the flood a lost soul — into the ocean of eternity. Thus it is that we owe to this malignant perversion of God's plan of benevolence, that every parent now transmits to the child he loves, along with the gift of existence, the deadly disease of sin.

“These, then, are the two facts which give so unspeakable a solemnity to the parent's relation to his children. He has conferred on them, unasked, the endowment of an endless, responsible existence. He has also been the instrument— if the unwilling, yet the sole instrument — of conveying to this new existence the taint of original sin and guilt. Can the human mind conceive a motive more tender, more dreadful, more urgent, prompting a parent to seek, for the beloved souls he has poisoned, the aid of the great Physician? And if this parent professes to have felt his blessed skill in his own soul, to be rejoicing in the Divine cure, and is yet callous to the ruin he has transmitted to his own child, he is a monster, with a heart harder than a wild beast's. There are hereditary diseases of the body. Their indications pierce the parent's heart like barbed arrows, even when suspected in the beloved child. To see, beneath the hectic glow of the cheek, else so beautiful, the fatal sign of the worm at the root of life; to remember that it was from your own blood the sufferer drew the poison — this awakens the pity and love of the father to all its depths. There is an authentic illustration in the last days of the first Napoleon. As his life was consumed upon the gloomy rock of St. Helena by that fearful malady, cancer of the stomach, one of the few alleviations allowed him by his jailers was the presence of a skillful Italian physician, Dr. Automarchi. The French officers near him relate that, when death was recognized as certain, the emperor laid his dying commands on his compatriot to return to Italy, visit his only son, watch over his health, and endeavor by every resource of his art to ward off the dire inheritance of his father's disease. Thus spoke the parent's heart in this man so ruthless and hard, who had reared his throne upon a pyramid of human skulls, and ground the nations of Europe under the chariot-wheels of his ambition! How could it speak otherwise, cruel though that heart was to others? How can you, O Christian! fail to bring your child to the great Physician of souls, to be healed of the deadly contagion you have conveyed into him?” - R.L. Dabney, Parental Responsibilities, Discussions: Volume 1

Unconverted Men Hate God

UNCONVERTED MEN HATE GOD.

A Sermon by William S. Plumer

The carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. — Rom. viii. 7.

Sin is no trifle. It is not an honest mistake. It is wickedness. It is wholly contrary to all that is lovely in the character of God. If it breaks not forth in crimes to be punished by the judges, yet the carnal mind, the unregenerate heart of man, is enmity against God. "The friendship of the world is enmity with God." All that is of the flesh and of the world is opposed to God. The words of the text are very strong. They do not say that the natural heart of man has some shyness towards God; but that it is a foe to God, it hates God, his will, his law, his nature. Nothing is more contrary to any other thing than is the carnal heart to the Most High. It is not subject to the law of God. It does not consent to the law that it is good; it does not serve the law; it does not delight in the law; it does not submit to the law. The will of the carnal mind is hostile to the will of God. It is not subject to his law, neither indeed can be. Sin cannot be pleased with holiness. A vile heart perverts or opposes all that is pure. Love obeys God. Hatred denies him, and resists him, and rejects him.

Let us think of these things.

I. Men prove their hatred to God by their dislike of sound knowledge concerning him. At two periods in the history of this world, once in the family of Adam and once in the family of Noah, every man on earth had the true knowledge of the true God. But men did not like to retain God in their knowledge. When they knew God they glorified him not as God. For thousands of years God has raised up great numbers of able and faithful men, who have with zeal told the truth, and made known God's word and will. Yet many, even in Christian lands, have not the saving knowledge of God. This great fact cannot be explained, if men do not hate God. 

II. Men show their hatred to God by the way in which they treat his name. They often take it in vain. They mingle it up with profane oaths and horrid curses, with their ribaldry, their prejudices, and their religious errors. They use it in jests, and in vile songs, and in mockery. The name of no pest of society is so often lightly spoken of, as is the name of God. No scourge of his race, who involved his native land in civil war, or led his people into ruinous foreign war, is ever named with such hatred as the wicked express toward God. In every city and town and land more slanders are spoken against God than against all others. I have often been struck, on entering a strange place, with the fact that the very first word I heard uttered was something expressive of contempt towards God. I have sometimes remained an hour or a day in such a place, and heard not one word uttered against any but the name of God only. 

III. Men prove their hatred to God, because they are unwilling to see his glory advanced. When Joseph's brethren saw that their father tenderly loved him, they hated him and could not speak peaceably to him, Gen. xxxvii. 4. And when his prophetic dreams told of his coming greatness, they hated him yet the more for his dreams and for his words ; and they envied him, Gen. xxxvii. 8, 11. The higher he rose, the higher rose their malice. So sinners are grieved when God is honoured. "When the chief priests and scribes saw the wonderful things that Jesus did, and the children crying in the temple, and saying, Hosanna to the Son of David, they were sore displeased," Matt. xxi. 15. Why was this? Not because he had taught any error, nor slandered any one, nor wronged any one; but because they hated him with a cruel hatred. Had they loved him, they would have been glad to see others honour him. 

IV. Men show their enmity to God by their hatred to his law and his government. They will not have him to reign over them. Every man on earth, if he is without the grace of God, does daily, willingly, and allowedly break the spirit of the moral law and every precept thereof. Where is the unrenewed man that loves the Sabbath, as a day of sacred rest holy unto the Lord? Where is the carnal mind that does not covet whatever it fancies? Not one in a thousand of wicked men do seriously profess any love to the law of God, or declare that they daily aim to meet its demands, or express sorrow when they fail to obey it. Men, not under grace, do cast away from them the cords of divine restraint. 

V. If men did not hate God, they would not hate his people as they do. A child of God knows that he has passed from death unto life, because he loves the brethren. But from the days of Cain to this hour, the people of God have been hated, hunted, hounded, slandered, reviled, misjudged, and murdered, till the earth almost everywhere is ready to disclose their blood. The path of every saint has been soaked with his tears for the wickedness of the wicked. Since Christ went up to heaven, more than fifty millions of human beings have suffered violent deaths for their professed subjection to the Saviour. If men loved God, they would not hate his people. 

VI. Men prove that they hate God by hating his character, and especially the mild and merciful at tributes of his nature. Everywhere the pious exult in God's almightiness, omniscience, and omnipresence. But the wicked have no hallelujahs for such perfections. The cry of the carnal heart is, "Cause the Holy One of Israel to cease from before us," Isa. .xiii. 1 1 . And when God displays his rich mercy and saving grace in rescuing many sinners and bringing them to hope in his Son, the fleshly mind (unless divinely restrained) rises up in great wrath. How vile must be the heart, that hates a pure revival of gospel holiness. Yet even one sound conversion sometimes stirs up frightful malice. I have known a minister well received by a family when he went to preach a sermon at the death of a godless youth ; but coldly repulsed when he went to tell his conscience-stricken sister what she must do to be saved. VII. The ingratitude of men for God's great and numerous mercies shows their hatred of him. These mercies are both temporal and spiritual. They relate to soul and body, to mind and heart, to health and friends, to life and all things. They cannot be counted up. The best of them cost the life of the Saviour. All of them are the fruits of his bounty. Yet many daily sit down to a table loaded with comforts and never even in words give thanks to God; and many more give thanks in words, but by their wicked lives clearly show that they have no real love to God. VIII. But on this solemn matter God's word is full and clear. Nathan, Asaph, David, and Paul speak of the haters of the Lord, Ps. lxxxi. 15; of the haters of God, Rom. i. 30; of the enemies of the Lord, 2 Sam. xii. 14; and of the enemies of the King, Ps. xlv. 5. There are many other texts that teach the same thing. "He that sinneth against me wrongeth his own soul: all they that hate me love death," Ps. viii. 36. Again, " Whosoever will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God," Jas. iv. 4. Paul states it as beyond dispute that before their conversion Jews and Gentiles were enemies, Rom. v. 10. Our Lord himself charged the unconverted of his day with the same enmity: " They have both seen and hated both me and my Father. He that hateth me, hateth my Father also," John xv. 23, 24. This enmity against God is very stout, untiring, pure, and unmixed. It is mortal. It had rather die than love God. If it could, it would dethrone the Almighty. 

REMARKS. 

1. We see the nature of sin. It is war with God. It is dreadful wickedness. 

2. It will be just in God to punish those who thus hate him. Not a curse does he denounce against the ungodly beyond what equity demands. 

3. It is evident that men must be born again or perish. They are in their minds and by wicked works enemies to God. They never can see his face in peace unless they are renewed in the temper of their minds, their enmity slain and love planted in their hearts. How could God's foes assure their hearts before him if they could not submit to him on earth? Could they delight in him in heaven? Baptism, seeing sights and visions, hearing sounds and voices, shouting and professing flaming love, will save no soul. No thing short of a real, great, inward, mighty, thorough, spiritual change will meet the case of any man. That change must take place soon. Ere long it will be said: "He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still," Rev. xxii. 11. 

4. We are not saved by finite power. Sinners "are like the deaf adder, that stoppeth her ear;  which will nor hearken to the voice of charmers, charming never so wisely," Ps. lviii. 4, 5. It requires more than sweet music to raise the dead. An arm of flesh is not strong enough to save a soul. God must do the whole work, or it will not be done. 

5. Truly God is love. No king ever had so bitter enemies. Yet no king ever made to his best friends such gracious offers as God is making to his worst enemies on earth. He actually gives us food, raiment, shelter, and friends as if we were not wholly undeserving. In providing a Saviour, his goodness surpasses all names of love. "For a good man some would even dare to die; but God commendeth his love to us in that while we were yet enemies, Christ died for the ungodly." And how long he continues his offers of pardon and mercy. Verily, he endures with much long-suffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction. O sinner, sinner, turn and live.

Sermon 6 from Short Sermons For The People, London, 1872

The Doctrine of Sin, Part 2

In the previous post, we discussed what Scripture says about the Nature of Sin, and our being in a state of sin.  

Having said all of this, we come to the burning question: From whence do we derive our knowledge of sin? How do we know how sin is defined, and, more importantly, how do we know that we are sinful? These are questions of unfathomable importance, and being some of the most important questions we could ever ask, we are quite likely to undervalue both the question and the answer – a result of our sinful nature.

The first way most of us have ever had any knowledge, or at least, sense of sin, is by our conscience. Scripture certainly acknowledges the conscience as a feature of our constitution as humans. But we cannot stress enough that because of sin, our consciences are anything but reliable. Moreover, we can quite simply kill our conscience by ignoring its warnings through repeated exposure to sin, or by creating a rationalization which justifies to our corrupt minds, the act we wish to commit. This explains the horrors of the Holocaust, as well as the societal evils of abortion and sodomy. Our natures are so sinful, that the least justification will do. In fact, in most cases, we don’t even need a justification, per se. We simply need to be distracted with shiny objects. I inadvertently caught a few moments of a home renovation show the other day. The “couple” who wanted work done on their house was homosexual. There is no question, but that there is an agenda represented in that fact. There is no doubt in my mind that someone wishes to promote the homosexual agenda by making them seem as normal as possible: They have the same frustrations we have with small kitchens and not enough storage space. Normalizing that which God has defined as sin only changes its intrinsic sinfulness in the minds of those who wish to live in rebellion against God. But this shows us the inherent weakness of the conscience. I can ignore it, or reprogram it and it will eventually shut up.

The ultimate and only reliable way to gain a knowledge of sin is by the Law of God. I have listed here what are commonly referred to as the “Three Uses of the Law.”

• First, there is the ‘pedagogical use’ of the Law. Scripture speaks of God’s Law as a schoolmaster leading us to Christ. Anyone who looks at the Law and says, “I can do this,” either has no concept of his own sinfulness, or is, in the words of Buddy Guy, “stone crazy.” The purpose for which God gave His law was to show us our absolute inability to conform to His holy will, thus driving us to seek the provisions for mercy and righteousness which He has supplied in the mediatorial work of His Son.

• Secondly, there is the ‘civil use’ of the Law wherein we acknowledge that only in conformity to God’s holy law can evil be restrained. Now, we must not confuse ourselves and imagine that an enforcement of “Christian values” somehow saves society and makes people Christian, but it does make the world a safer place to live than it would be it we jettisoned every restraint God’s word puts on human evil.

• Thirdly, there is what we might call the ‘moral use’ or ‘normative use.’ By this we mean that we view God’s law as the standard of living to which He calls us as those who are in covenant with Him. This is the standard for what can be defined as “holy living.” Again, we must be careful not to run into self-righteousness. The only safeguard against self-righteousness is an adequate view of our own, personal sinfulness. You will never be grateful for the gracious provisions of the Atonement if you don’t see or you lose sight of what you needed atoning for. Let the fact that Scripture (God’s word to His people) contains warnings against the grossest iniquity imaginable be a reminder to you that God is aware that that you are personally capable of those sins: That’s why you needed the warning.

We now need to ask a question: How does the Law work? As Romans 7 describes it, it does three things: It tells us what Sin is. It says, “Don’t do that,” which only makes us want to do what it forbade, and then it condemns us for having done it.

This leads to a consideration of the Deceitfulness of Sin.

One of the reasons why we minimize sin is because so much of the sin which we individually commit is perfectly suited to our own temperament. James 1:14 points this out. No one is going to be tempted by something he/she finds repulsive.

Another reason that sin is so deceptive is its noetic effects. By “noetic” I mean ‘of or relating to mental activity or the intellect.’ Sin has corrupted our minds to such a degree that they are utterly unable to form a correct view of anything apart from the direction of God’s Word. This has huge implications for us as Christians when it comes to our assessments of disciplines such as science, politics, justice, morality, and indeed, any and all fields of human knowledge. We must always take into account the noetic effects of sin. No study of human nature can be theologically accurate if it fails to take sin and its effects into account.

Furthermore, we must constantly remind ourselves that “objectivity” is a myth. There is no such thing as a completely objective observer. We approach everything we do with presuppositions and these presuppositions are sinful in their very core because we are sinful in our very core. This has profound effects on how we think about everything, or at least it should.

Let me illustrate: There is a qualitative difference between someone who was born blind and someone who lost their sight, at say, the age of 10. The person who lost their sight of the age of 10 will still retain many visual memories. Although they will no longer be able to see a sunset, a forest or a prairie, they will still be able to remember or imagine what one looks like – provided they had seen one before. The person who was born blind however, will not only have no visual memories of anything, they will not be able to form any visual mental images of anything. You will not be able to explain color, shade, proportion, or any other visual data which must be seen to be understood, because this person possesses neither the organ of sight, nor the capacity to process this data. This hypothetical person who was born blind may be able to amass a great deal of theoretical knowledge about the world around him through assiduous study. Notwithstanding, he will still have not seen the world in which he lives and will not be the best source of information – for that reason.

This is an accurate, albeit grossly inadequate description of the case of mankind due to sin. Because of sin’s damaging effects on the mind, the unregenerate, being as Scripture says “blind,” “having their understanding darkened,” “alienated from the life of God,” they have never rightly seen the world in which they live. And this is where the analogy of the person who was born blind falls short. The one fact which gives meaning to everything, which explains the existence of everything, and against which everything must be understood, i.e., the existence of God – this is the one thing our sinful nature obscures. And therefore it is not an overstatement to say that the unregenerate person has never seen the world rightly. He will never be capable or desirous of doing so. This is why I said earlier that this should have a profound effect on the way we think.

“Grant, Almighty God, that as the corruption of our flesh ever leads us to pride and vain confidence, we may be illuminated by thy word, so as to understand how great and how grievous is our poverty, and be thus taught wholly to deny ourselves, and so to present ourselves naked before thee, that we may not hope for righteousness or for salvation from any other source than from thy mercy alone, nor seek any rest but only in Christ; and may we cleave to  thee by the sacred and inviolable bond of faith, that we may boldly despise all those empty boastings by which the ungodly exult over us, and that we may also so cast ourselves down in true humility, that thereby we may be carried upward above all heavens, and become partakers of that eternal life which thine only begotten Son has purchased for us by his own blood. Amen.”  – John Calvin, Prayer on Habakkuk 2:4

With Man It Is Impossible

“Who then can be saved?” But Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible…”

This passage, if read honestly, proves to be the bullet in the brain of Arminianism. The context, of course, is the story of the rich young ruler in Matthew 19:16-30. Much ridiculous speculation has been done about the ‘eye of the needle.” One such attempt to soften the blow of Christ’s words is to render it “cable” instead of “camel,” as if threading a needle with a cable were easier than running a camel through it! Others have emasculated the text by proposing some imaginary gateway into Jerusalem to be the “eye of the needle.” These ideas are clearly wrong because the miss the absoluteness of the impossibility. The disciples’ response gives us the clue that this is how the impossibility is to be understood. They cry out in astonishment: “Who then can be saved?”

Surely this is beside the point. The point Jesus makes, as evidenced by the Disciples’ response, is not how much money one can have before it becomes a hindrance to entering heaven. The point is that “salvation is of the Lord” (Jonah 2:9). Unless God does what is impossible for men, it doesn’t get done. End of story.

Notice that Jesus does not say, “With men it is difficult;” or, “With men it requires a sincere effort;” or “With men it hinges upon their decision.” No, friend. It is as blunt, succinct and as concise as language can express it: It is impossible.

“Impossibility is the sphere of God’s activity,” says Warfield. Which means only one thing: If God doesn’t save you, you don’t get saved. One of the most widely quoted sayings also happens to one of the stupidest: God helps those who help themselves. Wrong! This assumes that anyone can actually help himself. This Scripture bluntly denies. Moreover, the common understanding of the saying that we have to act to show God that we’re serious so that He will help us is a misunderstanding of the saying’s original meaning. It was coined by a Cynic philosopher who meant by it to say that people do things for themselves, then give an imaginary god the credit for that which they have actually done for themselves. This reminds me of Robert Kennedy’s quote, “There are those that look at things the way they are, and ask why? I dream of things that never were, and ask why not?” The source of this statement is actually George Bernard Shaw’s play “Back to Methuselah,” and the speaker is Satan! Talk about ‘out of context!’

Look again at something in the passage. Note the expressions used regarding salvation: “inherit the kingdom of heaven,” “enter the kingdom of God,” and “be saved.” We have here in this passage what appears to me to be the strongest Scriptural statement of the doctrine of inability. Any way you choose to phrase, whether it be inheriting the kingdom of heaven, whether it be entering the kingdom of God, or if it be being saved, Christ has one response: “With men it is impossible.” And because it is impossible for man to do, it is not to be done by man at all. The doctrine of inability leads us smack-dab into the doctrine of imputed righteousness. It is impossible for man to do anything tending to his own salvation, therefore God, with Whom all things are possible, must do it. The good news is that in Christ, God has done all righteousness for the elect. Their salvation hinges on nothing that they have, will or can do.

Natural vs. Spiritual

But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. 1 Cor. 2:14

Since his fall in Adam, man in his natural state is incapable of anything spiritual. That is the gist of the preceding verse. This flies in the face of much that our contemporary secular culture believes. At virtually every turn, one hears someone rambling about being “spiritual” without ever defining what that term is supposed to mean.

We should not be surprised, though that secular culture holds to beliefs at odds with Scripture. We should expect it. But the statement of 1 Corinthians 2:14 also flies in the face of much that passes for Evangelicalism as well.

From every Arminian pulpit in the world, the exact opposite of this verse is preached, week after week. It is repeatedly asserted that carnal men (men who are DEAD is sin, who have not the Spirit – Eph 2:1; Jude 19) can do the spiritual act of believing savingly on Christ if they want to. Charles Finney, the poster-boy for much contemporary evangelism used to unashamedly proclaim, “The only reason you are not a Christian is because you do not want to be one.” Damnable heresy by any other name is still damnable heresy.

The testimony of the true Church has always been in accord with the teaching of the Apostle. Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp’s fellow disciple of the Apostle John procalaimed: “They who are carnal cannot do spiritual things. Unbelief (is incapable of) the deeds of faith.” 1 Those in the state of unbelief cannot repent and believe unless it be granted from above because faith and repentance are spiritual acts. Those who are in the flesh cannot perform spiritual acts.

(1)To the Ephesians VIII

More on Total Depravity

First things first: What do we mean by these words, Total Inability? Or rather, what do we, by this term, mean to assert that the Scripture affirms? With this term we aver that man, in his natural (i.e., unregenerate state) is absolutely and completely unable to do anything tending to his own salvation. The first stirrings of the will and/or heart with a longing for salvation or a desire to come to Christ are always and in every instance preceded by an enabling act of God’s Spirit. Reformed theologians frequently use the term Total Depravity to denote such doctrine because it accurately informs us that the inability is due to the reigning power of sin in the life of the unregenerate.

That which we propose to discuss here is the doctrine of Total Inability. It is sometimes called Total Depravity. It is a natural corollary of an accurate conception of Original Sin. It would be rather easy to give a long list of Biblical references that state the doctrine in question and comment briefly on each one, but this has been done many times already by men far abler than me. Therefore, I will limit the subject matter of this paper to a few choice passages of Scripture with a more detailed analysis of each. I do have, however, in my possession a list of no less than 50 New Testament passages that explicitly proclaim man’s inability. This, of course, does not include all the other New Testament passages which either insinuate or presuppose this doctrine. Nor does it include the even larger number of Old Testament passages that teach the same truth.

A short amount of deliberation is sufficient to reveal why this doctrine is found only in the Reformed/Calvinist camp. When one draws forth the logical conclusions of such doctrine, the freedom of the will, so vociferously defended by Arminians (and as equally vociferously opposed by true Calvinists) is at once belittled. For if one accepts and believes on Christ as He is offered in the Gospel because God has preveniently enabled his will, then Arminians affirm that the decision cannot be valid or justifiably attributed to the repentant sinner. This is because they believe that all men have an innate ability to use their wills freely, even with regard to salvation. However, if Total Inability be true, as we will demonstrate, then the Arminian scheme of doctrine must be false, both to the Church and to Scripture.

What saith the Scripture? In declaring the state of the sinful unregenerate nature after the Fall (before the effectual operation of the Holy Spirit), the Scripture primarily insists on three things:

• The corruption and depravity of the mind; which it calls by the name of darkness and blindness.
• The depravity of the will and affections, which it expresses several ways, as by weakness or inability, and stubbornness or obstinacy.
  
• The general name of death, which is extended to the condition of the whole soul.

Total Depravity

Total Depravity: What does it mean? Socrates said that the beginning of wisdom is the definition of terms. So, we should begin with some elucidation. In doing so we will first clarify what it does not mean. It does not mean that every man is as bad as he can potentially be. This misunderstanding is perhaps why many people reject the doctrine. C.S. Lewis, in his book, The Problem of Pain, stated that he disbelieved the doctrine of Total Depravity because, “if our depravity were total we should not know ourselves to be depraved, and partly because experience shows us much goodness in human nature.” Both parts of Lewis’ rejection of the doctrine are due to the misrepresentation that I am refuting.

Firstly, I would assert that, by nature, we do not know that we are depraved. It is theologians who have formulated this doctrine from the Divine revelation of Scripture, not secular philosophers from observation of humanity. If God had not revealed to us our depravity we would not know it, and that, in itself, is an indication of the totality.

The word, “depraved,” occurs three times in the New Testament (NASB). It is rendered thus from the Greek: αδοκιμος. The word αδοκιμος occurs eight times in the New Testament (Rom. 1:28; 1 Cor. 9:27; 2 Cor. 13:5, 6, 7; 2 Tim. 3:8; Tit. 1:16; Heb. 6:8). The range of meanings includes: unfit, reprobate, worthless and depraved. It is impossible to say anything positive about humanity in light of this word. Let me reiterate, we did not discover this about ourselves; God revealed it in His Word.

Secondly, by “total,” we do not mean that every man is the worst he can possibly be. This is patently false. What we do mean is this: Every single faculty and part of the totality of man’s being has been ruined by Original Sin. There is no part of our total human nature that is unaffected by the Fall. In essence, Total Depravity means that corruption has extended to all aspects of human nature; hence, there is nothing any person can do to merit saving favor with God. Unregenerate man is not as bad as he can be, but he is as bad off as he can be. Only the restraining of God keeps any and every sinner from doing any evil thing any other sinner has done. All unregenerate are dead in sin (Eph. 2:1). There are no shades of dead: dead is dead! No unregenerate sinner is less liable to God's wrath than any other unregenerate sinner, regardless of outward appearances.

Scripture is very clear on this issue. In Jeremiah 17:5 we are told, “Cursed is he that trusteth in man.“ In verse 9, this reason is given: “The heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked; who can know it?” What heart is so wicked and deceitful? The heart we were told not to trust - and that heart belongs to man. Ecclesiastes 9:3 declares, “Madness is in the heart of the sons of men, while they live.” Consider also what Christ said to Peter in Matthew 16:23 “Get thee behind me, Satan – for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but the things that be of men.” This tells us very plainly that to be carnal and vain, (opposite to what is spiritual and divine) is what men in their present state are naturally like.

Paul supposes the very same thing. In 1 Cor. 3:3 he writes,”For ye are yet carnal. For whereas there is among you envying and strife, are ye not carnal, and walk as men?” Hosea proclaims in 6:7, “But they, like men, have transgressed the covenant.” We might also adduce Matthew 7:11 – “If ye being evil, know how to give good gifts…” In 1 Peter 4:2 we read, “That he no longer should live the rest of his time in the lusts of men, but to the will of God.”

But what could be stronger than the statement of Job 15:16 that says that mankind drinks iniquity like water? The only possible rival is perhaps Genesis 6:5, where the intent of mankind’s heart is said to be always evil – continually.

Theophilus of Antioch, the 3rd Century Apologist, writing to an unbeliever, says, “For God is seen by those who are enabled to see Him when they have the eyes of their soul opened: for all have eyes; but in some they are overspread, and do not see the light of the sun. Yet it does not follow, because the blind do not see, that the light of the sun does not shine; but let the blind blame themselves and their own eyes." Note the assertion that man must be enabled to see God because he does not have an innate ability or will to do so.

This is why some theologians have called this doctrine Total Inability. This term expresses the idea, that since man is so hopeless corrupted and dead in sin, he is totally unable to do anything tending to his own salvation. This make perfect sense. What corpse could respond to a "raise your hand" altar call? Jesus likened regeneration to birth. What baby decides when, how, where or even if it will be born? Hence the foolishness of asking people to decide for Jesus if they want to be born again.