This doctrine puts forth that sinfulness or moral depravity is an attribute of sinful nature. The Doctrine of The Sin Nature (or Original Sin) renders mankind totally disabled from all that is spiritually good and completely inclined to that which is morally evil.
The NIV Bible appears to have a built in bias towards this widely held doctrine. Where scriptures use the Greek word anomia which means sin or sinfulness, the NIV often translates it "sin nature", without the Greek word for "nature" even being found in the original text. There are really no texts in the Bible that explicitly define or use the two Greek words "sin nature" together: even the concept of a "sin nature" as we have understood it doctrinally is not found explained in totality. The scriptural basis for such a nature is from a few passages which could, in context, mean something else. For example, Ephesians 2:3 says "we were by nature children of wrath." If this is viewed as proof of a sin nature then what it suggests is that people will experience the wrath of God simply because they possess a nature that they had no choice in having. That this is unjust is self-evident. This passages goes on to say: "when we were dead in our transgressions". That it is just to experience wrath for your own transgressions is also self-evident. If verse 3 means that judgment is a result of an inherent nature within a person and if verse 5 means that people are found to be "dead" because of their own transgressions: to maintain that these two concepts are in harmony and synonymous is ludicrous. It seems that what Ephesians 2:3 is saying that it is normal state of being for unregenerate people to tend towards moral depravity; this does not mean that people have a sin nature within them. This would be a blatant assumption.
The sense of Ephesians 2:3 is that man from his moment of birth begins practicing self-gratification, and this is even done prior to the development of reason. From infancy people secure the consent and activity of their will to gain self-indulgence. The human will at an early stage is committed to gratification of both appetite and feeling, and there is no moral depravity in the child until the idea of moral obligation has been developed. Once the concepts of moral obligation have been understood then, at this time, any committal of the will towards self-indulgence is considered selfishness and is morally depraved. Of course, it is clear that the demands of selfishness will become more tyrannical with every moment of indulgence. This process is evident, but nowhere in Scripture is an explicit proof text that there is an inherent nature within every person that is a source of sin.
Sin nature advocates have historically had a difficult time in describing or locating this nature. It has been said that it is not of physical substance nor of an action that emanates from a physical thing. If it is not a substance or an action, what does that leave it to be. Even a state of substance is a substance with a state. If neither a substance or an action, then in Christian terms, it could be a spirit. The problem is that once the sin nature is clearly identified it becomes easily disproved in doctrine, for its origins and even questions concerning its potential destruction come to play. If this sin nature is a material thing then the Law of Conservation of Mass have a bearing. As to the creator of both spirit and matter, God would of course be the natural progenitor; but, this brings a moral dilemma of causality. If God created or initiated the sin nature within all of man, He becomes, in effect, the originator of sin and the initiator of all of mankind's ills. That this is foolish is self-evident. God is a thrice holy God and is completely just, and it would be reprehensible to cause a person to sin and then to judge the person for it.
The process for sinning has been described in the Bible as: "Each one is tempted when he is carried away and enticed by his own lust. Then when lust has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and when sin is accomplished (completed, fully matured), it brings forth death", James 1:14,15. Is James' description of the process complete? Can Occam's razor be further applied to it, bringing greater clarity and understanding? If this is an elementally true definition of the process of sin, then a "sin nature" is not mandated for sin to take place, as all that is required is an illicit desire or lust that is focused upon by the individual. The Bible says that all that is in the world: the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the boastful pride of life... is from the world, I John 2:16. The world is a system or kingdom set in opposition to the kingdom of God and His righteousness and this is the source of all lust and pride. All inordinate desires and legitimate desires taken to excess stem from "the world". In essence:
system (of thinking) opposed to God -> lust & pride -> temptation -> desire and conformity in the individual's soul -> sin by the individual.
What we would expect to find in Christians that believe in the Doctrine of the Sin Nature is a subconscious reticence within them to see the sinner as a criminal and certainly not as an enemy of God: both well documented positions in the Word of God. With this view in mind, the sinner is in a very hard position and God is somehow under obligation to provide the sinner with a solution to the problem that God, Himself, has caused: a way of escape must, in all justice, be supplied. The position of the transgressor is infinitely hard as he finds himself helplessly bound hand and foot on a course to an infinite judgment. Should God not provide an escape, under such circumstances, wouldn't it be just to portray God as the most cruel and unreasonable of beings? Now if we stop here, we see that the solution applied by God, must of necessity be viewed as function of divine justice bringing moral correction to His own determinations. With the Doctrine of Sin Nature, the solution put forth by God towards mankind's position cannot be seen as an act of Divine Grace, both unmerited and undeserved. It must be one of Divine Justice towards His prior providential dealings with man. Any solution to man's dilemma can only be viewed as Divine Grace if the sinners are indeed completely, volitional transgressors of God's Law.
Logically, to hold the position that moral depravity stems from man's sin nature is to remove direct culpability from those who sin. In actuality what has happened here is that Christianity must now, at least subconsciously, see the transgressor as a victim of circumstances. It becomes apparent, in such a view, that the sinner does not have the ability to do much of anything of moral worth. The transgressor with a sin nature cannot even be expected to repent without an outside agent aiding him. Of course, that we see statements such as, "God is declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent", Acts 17:30, provides a problem in logic for such adherents. This problem is further compounded by the fact that people in the Bible, were historically expected to repent after nothing more than a simple exhortation to do so. In fact, those historic cases where entire people groups did repent, were held up as reasons for greater judgment on people who would fail to follow their examples (Matthew 11:21-24; 12:41,42). How could past precedent of repentance be a moral indictment against a future people who lacked the ability to repent in the first place?
The Bible always says that sin is lawlessness or a voluntary violation of moral law. Sin is also portrayed as obeying the flesh or an attitude of self-pleasing or self-indulgence: selfishness in the carnal mind or in a mind that is set upon the flesh. The fact that sin must be voluntary for it to be a moral violation demands that there cannot be a nature within the individual that can override the individual's free will to choose. The Bible also describes a wicked heart or a heart full of wickedness. This, in essence, is a heart that is only bent on a selfish existence. It is totally given over to self-gratification. The Bible clearly demonstrates that the sinner is responsible for their sin. It in no wise suggests that the root cause of all sin is a sin nature within a person. Adam in his most pristine state did not require a sinful nature within him to induce him to sin. The holy angels that fell did not have a sinful nature within them, and yet they rebelled none the less.
"A moral agent is responsible for his emotions, desires, etc., so far as they are under the direct control of his will, and no further. He is always responsible for the manner in which he gratifies them. If he indulges them in accordance with the law of God, he does right. If he makes their gratification his end, he sins." - Charles Finney
If moral depravity were an attribute of human nature, then it could not be overcome at all without a change of human constitution and a corresponding change of personal identity. But moral depravity can be overcome without destroying the consciousness of personal identity, this proves that moral depravity is not an attribute of a human, "sinful nature". To suggest that no one could ever stop indulging in a selfish, destructive action without a change in constitution is obviously in error for this has been observed numerous times in humanity. Even animal behavior can be changed with the proper motivation to do so.
The Total Depravity of Man, The Corollary to the Doctrine of Sin Nature
The concept of Total Depravity is the first of five points in Calvinism, as put forth by John Calvin. It teaches that as the result of the fall of man, every part of man - his mind, will, emotions and flesh have been corrupted by sin. It states that a person sins because we are sinners by nature and because of this sin nature whatever "good" a man does is tainted and is considered "filthy rags" in the eyes of a holy God.
A Biblical exception is found to this in Acts 10, when an angel from God visits an Italian centurion named Cornelius, vs 1. This man is not a Jew and is not a Christian, yet his alms to the Jewish people and his prayers "have ascended as a memorial before God." It is good to note that at this point in time none of the Apostles believed that a Gentile could be truly born again. In other words, if there were a written doctrine formed at this time after Pentecost, it would have said that salvation belonged only to the house of Israel. (The outpouring of the Spirit that took place in Acts 2 results in 3000 devout Jews being saved; these Jews were from all the nations of the world.) It is clear that Cornelius has not even heard the gospel as a result of evangelism by other born again, Jewish believers. In fact, their knowing that he was a Gentile, as set forth by his continued insistence on wearing Roman armor, would have precluded his being evangelized by any known Christians.
The Roman centurion, Cornelius, does not become born again until Acts 10:44,45 after Peter, a Jewish convert is divinely mandated to preach to him and his household. Prior to hearing the gospel message for the first time, this Roman soldier is visited by an angel of God who calls him by name and tells him: "Your prayers and alms have ascended as a memorial before God", Acts 10:4. It is noteworthy that since his prayers and alms had come before God as a memorial, while yet in his unregenerate state, Cornelius could not have been "Totally Depraved" as put forth by John Calvin.
The fact that the doctrine of Total Depravity is wrong, means that God, judged the world in Noah's time and Sodom in Abraham's time without impugning His own righteousness and justice. It also means that the Ninevites in Jonah's time would have been judged without impugning God's holiness. Furthermore, it suggests that a search by God for 10 righteous in Sodom was a logical possibility and not misguided hopes found in sentimental senility.
John Calvin's first tenant is fallacy and not Biblical. Unfortunately, when we build a belief system, we often do so one layer atop another. This, in itself, is not wrong... unless a bottom layer is continually assumed to be correct, when in actuality it is not. In many cases, we have a tendency to use our assumption as an accurate template for future "development", never checking our original assumption. This is a short cut maneuver to avoid "reinventing the wheel". However, should years go by and this pattern is continually referred to as being accurate, greater and greater deviations from what is true will result. The Five Points of Calvinism were codified in the Canons of Dort by the Synod of Dort in 1618. This means that there has been almost 400 years of "development" by Calvinists with an incorrect, foundational premise. Could you imagine holding to a incorrect theological premise for 400 years. It is one thing to be wrong and yet entirely another to be tenaciously wrong in the face of reason. Paul commended the Bereans and called them noble for measuring his teachings against the Word of God. What could you say of Calvinists? That they have been ignoble for 400 years?
It cannot be said that Calvinism is the cause of all the ills of Christianity. It may be said that it is the cause of much of what is right in Christianity. The Doctrine of The Total Depravity of Man is a clearly stated, foundational doctrine of Calvinism and of Reformed Theology. The Doctrine of Sin Nature or of Original Sin is found more pervasive throughout Christianity and is a foundational truth in much of the Church. The fact that these are not clearly stipulated truths in Scripture and are at odds with the Bible in numerous places should give us pause. It should cause us to ask why we believe what we believe. It should give us impetus to study God's Word in order "to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the Word of Truth", 2 Timothy 2:15.
The more I study God's Word, the more I see the great, omniscience of God. He has established the most intelligent, written work ever made and He has given this Truth in His holy Word. It is privilege to read it, it is immense grace to understand it. When we honor the Bible by holding it dear, we honor God Himself.
-------------
1 Finney's Systematic Theology, Charles Finney, Published by: Bethany Fellowship, Inc. Minneapolis, Minnesota 55438, pp 171-194, 1976.
No comments:
Post a Comment