Author Unknown (Labeled "Guest Editorial")
via Sentry Magazine, Vol. 16 No. 2, June 30, 1990

Sinful natures exist. It would be foolish for any serious individual to deny it. How this comes about in a person’s life and just who has a sinful nature are other matters. Please consider a few thoughts on the subject, which hopefully will shed light and not heat. We welcome your critique if you find what you read in this article to be erroneous.

The basis of what we learn about a sinful nature in man centers on two words (sinful and nature) used in the Bible to describe humanity. Here are two of the verses that deal directly with the issue.

1. "And you did he make alive, when ye were dead through your trespasses and sins, wherein ye once walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the powers of the air, of the spirit that now worketh in the sons of disobedience, among whom we also all once lived in the lusts of our flesh, doing the desires of the flesh and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest" (Ephesians 2:1- 3).
2. "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?" (Jeremiah 17:9).

Other passages clearly identify all men as victims of sin, with one exception, the man Christ Jesus. Outside of the Lord Jesus Christ, "all have sinned and come short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23). The wise man knew of no good man when he wrote, "For there is not a just man on earth who does good and does not sin" (Ecclesiastes 7:20). That settles the matter regarding the basic condition the human family gets into. All of us, even those with the highest regard for our strength of character, will come short of what the good Lord expects and requires of us. Don’t be deceived.

But why did all this happen? Why did Adam and Eve sin? Most of us agree that they sinned through their own choice and not because of some innate constitutional inability to resist the temptation. But that by no means answers all the questions. James says that when a person sins, it is because one is drawn away by his own lust. How did this lust enter that beautiful garden? Why was Eve’s desire for the forbidden more powerful than her desire to obey God? What effects do we suffer from their bad choice? I believe these questions have no clear answer in Scripture. Those of the ilk of Joseph Smith, Jr. answer that Adam and Eve had to sin to enjoy happiness. Unless we can exactly duplicate the conditions prevalent in the beautiful garden where God put them and fully understand how nakedness by both male and female in one another’s presence was a norm of life, I fail to see how we can get a full answer to this question. Is it not best to simply leave it that they had the choice to do right or wrong, chose the latter, and then let it lay? From what I read by good men among us, the best that can be said is that Adam and Eve made the wrong choice when they could have made the right one.

The first passage mentioned is Ephesians 2:1-3. An argument to prove men had to be saved by grace is developed in context. First, if no sin had been committed, saving grace would not have been needed. But sin did become a factor in all humanity. The rule that took the human family away from God is called "the course of this world." The course is the most likely and perfectly natural way for something to occur. The course of nature, as used by James, means very simply that there are certain natural processes at work in the world we come into. The American Standard Version, which translates the word "wheel" in James 3:6, has a footnote that gives it as "birth." It is simply how the world turns and how human activity proceeds in this life. The words are not the same in these two verses, but they deal with the same thing- human life.

The word "course" in Ephesians 2:2 means a cycle of things; in other words, "what goes around comes around." Paul now shows that, in this cycle, the human family degenerated to the extent that it became "sons of disobedience." The fact that "disobedience" is used clearly shows that choice was involved, not innate constitution. No one disobeys God by simply being born into the world, regardless of how sorry the world is. To further emphasize the need for grace, Paul includes himself and others. Probably, Paul is beginning here to argue that Gentiles (the "you" of Ephesians 2:1) and the Jews (the "we also”) of Ephesians 2:3 are equally in desperate need of grace for salvation. He concludes his argument on this point in Ephesians 2:14-16.

There is no indication at all how the Gentiles become sons of disobedience or how the Jews also became children of wrath by nature. The term nature could mean one’s birth as Paul uses it in Galatians 2:15. Nature can mean what comes naturally to a person or thing. Paul used it this way in Romans 2:13-14. Gentiles were not born to do what the Law of Moses prescribed. They became accustomed to a way of life according to the old law's precepts. They acquired a lifestyle that was in keeping with the old law. So, to understand how people become sons of disobedience, children of wrath, "by nature,” the rest of the story has to be heard.

That all become children of wrath by acquired and habitual lifestyles is established as a fact from all verses teaching the universality of sin in the world. Those passages mentioned above suffice at this point. The nature of sin itself denies the possibility of inheritance by birth of some sinful nature. Actions or nonactions are impossible to inherit. Only some consequences of the actions or nonactions of ancestors can be inherited. David reaped the consequences of his sin of adultery, and had he not been forgiven, he would have suffered eternal consequences. However, the child born from his adultery with Bathsheeba suffered only the consequences of the act but was not guilty of the sin. The Father does not bear the son’s iniquity, nor visa versa. (Ezekiel 18:20).

Regardless of how the whole human race gets tangled up in sin, the fact remains that they did what was natural for them to do. There is a vast difference between doing what is natural and doing what is foreordained and unavoidable. Sin could have been avoided and still be avoided, but it is the most natural course of life one can know while in the flesh. Thus, sinful natures are acquired by all who sin. (Those who may be studying this article and feel they never sin or will sin should stop reading now.) So, when one does what is natural, what is the normal "wheel of life" or the course all humans follow, they are children of wrath "by nature."

The Calvinists use a phrase that is most objectionable to those who deny that man is born as they think. They think that man is depraved by simply being born of another human, who obtained all the guilt as well as the consequences of Adam and Eve’s misadventure in the garden. The doctrine is called total inherited depravity. A myriad of words have been put on paper and spoken to listening ears to define and defend that wholly unscriptural doctrine.

John Murray, a renowned Calvinist writer and theologian, tried to establish a connection between the imputation or transferral of our sins to Christ in salvation and a corresponding transferral of the righteousness of Christ to us in return and the transferral of the sins of Adam and Eve to every human born into this world. The logic went like this. Since divine power and choice are the essence of salvation from sin, the guilt for sin must be equally determined by divine power and choice. Man had no choice in becoming a sinner, nor does he have a choice in being saved. This is bare-bones Calvinism. Others have modified it over the years when faced with consequences they would not accept, but this is the basic view. Murray expressed in his own words as he writes of the parallel found in Romans 5:12,19.

"The parallel to the imputation of Adam’s sin is the imputation of Christ’s righteousness. Or, to use Paul’s own terms, being ’constituted sinners’ through the disobedience of Adam is parallel to being ’constituted righteous’ through the obedience of Christ. In justification, according to Reformed theology and Dr. Hodge’s own position, it is not merely the judicial benefit of Christ’s righteousness or obedience that is imputed to believers but the righteousness itself" [The Imputation of Adam’s Sin, John Murray, page 76].

The next logical step Calvinists take is explaining why men sin as Adam sinned. They call this depravity. Once more, John Murray said,

"The imputation of Adam’s sin to posterity carries with in any event the infliction of the race with depravity. Whether we conceive of this depravity as implicate of the imputation or as penal consequence, it is an inevitable result." [Ibid., p. 93].

Murray next explains how all human beings become depraved. He adds,

"On the foregoing construction the case would be that the infliction with depravity is involved in the imputation of Adam’s sin; our involvement in and identification with the sin of Adam carries with it as a necessary ingredient the depravity or perversity apart from which sin does not exist. In other words, the imputation of Adam’s sin carries with it, not merely as consequence but as implicate, the depravity with which all the members of the race begin their existence as distinct individuals" [Ibid.].

This is the view Calvinists hold. Depravity starts at birth, the time when we all become "distinct individuals." But how deep is this depravity ingrained in us? Murray quotes Samuel Hopkins in his book as follows: "Hopkins is clear to the effect that ’mankind are born totally corrupt or sinful, in consequence of the apostasy of Adam’ and so ’a child, an infant, as soon as he exists, may have moral corruption or sin’" [Ibid. p. 49]. That which is totally corrupt is as corrupt as it can possibly be.

Depravity simply means corrupted. However, the mere sound of the word is repulsive to many of us. So long have we opposed the Calvinistic view of total inherited depravity that it is nearly impossible for us to say that man is depraved. But we concede nothing to Calvinists by admitting that the human family is depraved. This is not to say that the depravity is inherited or total. Melvin Curry expressed it quite simply when he wrote, "I affirm that men are depraved, in the sense that I defined this term above (he defined it as that which becomes crooked, and is not constitutionally crooked, Editor) and that the effect of sin leaves the human heart ’deceitful above all things’" [Guardian of Truth, January 1, 1987, p. 30]. All who are guilty of sin are corrupted, defiled, and therefore, depraved.

It matters little how many sins one may commit. Just one sin is sufficient to destroy the soul. "The soul that sins it shall die" cried the ancient prophet Ezekiel (Ezekiel 18:20). It would not be out of line to paraphrase the verse, "the soul that sins any, in any way, or at any time, shall surely die." Death is separation from God. But one who sins is not totally corrupt or depraved. The second verse I mentioned above is from the prophet Jeremiah. Both inspiration and experience led Jeremiah to write, "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked who can know it?" (Jeremiah 17:9). The very reason why all men need guidance is simple. The heart will deceive us, but the word of God will not. The heart of man that relies on human experience alone and is influenced by human motives and human doctrines will be as convincing to one who is in error as the honest heart is to the one who follows the word of God alone. However, the fact that the human heart is deceptive and cannot be completely known shows that what is human is always liable to error.

Some of the most able defenders of the faith have taken Calvinism on in debate and, while admitting to believing in human depravity, have shown clearly the error of the Calvinists on the same point. One of Kentucky’s most able defenders of the faith wrote a book called The Witness of the Spirit. His name was James W. Zachary, and he lived most of his life in and around Clinton County, Kentucky. On page 160 of his book, he dealt with depravity this way.

"The entire race is depraved, but not ’totally depraved. ’ Depravity is a corruption of man’s moral nature, and is brought about by degrees. It being the exact opposite of sanctification, then total depravity, like instantaneous and total sanctification, can never be attained by mortal man. The doctrine of total depravity and sinless perfection in human flesh, as taught by the creeds and churches of this country, is a slander upon man and a libel against the Bible.

"All men are depraved, and all Christians are sanctified, but neither in the sense of ’total’ or highest degree possible. Neither the term, ’dead in trespasses and sins’ (Eph. ii.1-5), nor ’dead to sin’ (Rom. vi.2-11), mean a state of utter helplessness or inactivity, as seen from the fact that while ’dead in sins’ the sinner had power to hear, believe, and obey the gospel (Eph. i.13), and the Christian ’dead to sin’ is commanded not to yield his members unto unrighteousness, but to bear ’fruit unto holiness’ (Rom. vi.22), and work out his ’own salvation with fear and trembling’ (Phil, ii.12)."

Are those who teach exactly what Brother Zachary taught in the same words he used now neo-Calvinists? If Brother Zachary were alive today and proclaimed this exactly as it is worded in his good book, he would likely be eyed with suspicion as one who is "dangerously close to Calvinism." Still, his book is the single best one I have read on the principles involved in basic Calvinism.

Another who fought Calvinism was Alexander Campbell. In his famous debate with N. L. Rice, Rice undertook to deal with Psalms 51:5 and Psalms 58:3-5 and remarked, "These passages teach the doctrine of original and entire depravity of man from his birth, in language so clear and so strong that comment is unnecessary" [Campbell Rice Debate, page 45]. Brother Campbell evidently didn’t think like Rice. He remarked, "He has given us a few of the dry remains of some old harangues or lectures upon total depravity, which he may have preached around the country I know not how many times. This matter is wholly foreign to the subject. The question is not about total depravity. I believe man is depraved." (Ibid., page 62). Campbell completely routed Rice but admitted believing in man’s depravity. Nothing is weak or loose in admitting what the Bible says about man as he is. God made man upright, but man (not God) sought out many inventions, many ways to sin and corrupt himself. All must know that it is the choice of man that causes this depravity, not the fiat of God.

Last, consider just how this depravity engulfs all mankind. Paul’s argument to the Ephesians is plain. It is man's fault that he became a son of disobedience and a child of wrath. It is the nature of man to sin. Every little baby and innocent child faces what Peter calls "the corruption of the world." This is what causes human depravity. The word depravity simply means corrupt or morally debased. Peter also says that those who are in Christ have escaped this corruption that is the world through lust (II Peter 1:4). He adds later the expression "the pollution that is in the world" (II Peter. 1:20 NKJV). Paul warned the Corinthians to avoid evil companions because such an alliance would corrupt (deprave or debase) their own morals and way of living. This is the course of this world.

Jesus spoke of the willingness of the spirit, but the weakness of the flesh (Matthew 26:41). Paul argued that there is a battle within every human being. "But I say, Walk by the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh. For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; for these are contrary the one to the other; that ye may not do the things that ye would" (Galatians 5:16-17). The New King James is a decided improvement on that verse, giving the last phrase as, "so that you do not do the things you wish." The capitalization of the word Spirit usually indicates that the Holy Spirit is meant, but it is not justified in this verse. The internal struggle all in the flesh experience is the obvious meaning, and from what we know of mankind, every single individual has lost this fight at some time. There is one exception, the man Himself, Christ Jesus.

Anytime Deity confronts that which is flesh, the flesh is regarded as sinful. Listen to just two verses. Isaiah described what it was like to be in the presence of Jehovah God and cried out in anguish, "Woe is me, for I am undone! Because I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips; for my eyes have seen the king, thee Lord of Hosts" (Isaiah 6:5). Focus on the fact that he said, "For...I...am. ...a...man." Humanity is sinful in the presence of Deity. All come short of God’s glory.

Another verse now—Jesus taught His disciples to pray and promised them that not only would God answer their prayers, He would do far better than they imagined. In Luke 11:13, the Lord said to His disciples, "If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask Him!" The disciples were not evil men in the sense of moral degenerates. The comparison is between how humans treat their own children and how God treats His. Yet, the Lord’s statement indicates that they were evil, and He used the most common form of the present tense of "to be." Another way these could be considered evil is that they were fighting that battle we mentioned earlier and, as men, were weak in the flesh while willing in spirit.

Only Christ could say, "Which of you convicteth me of sin?" and not expect an answer. Only Christ could say that Satan had nothing in Him. When the Lord was called "good" by a young man, He did not deny it. His reply was simply that only God is truly good. Outside of that which has Deity, either in part or whole, nothing can be truly good, in the sense the Lord used the word in Matthew 19:17. The best the best of us can accomplish is to continually strive for that ultimate perfection that belongs to the Lord. Personally, I hold that we have a sinful nature, meaning that the most natural thing for us to do is sin. We are urged to fight sin, avoid it, and be strong in our defense against its siren calls to us. By giving the proper diligence, adding to our faith the great qualities of virtue, knowledge, self-control, perseverance, godliness, brotherly kindness, and love, we will gradually (by degrees) purge out that human sinful nature and become partakers of the divine nature. Peter says that God’s promises are the incentive to bring that about (II Peter 1:4). It won’t come overnight. It does not take place at baptism. It is a gradual development of Christian maturity that brings us to unite our lives closer daily with "the faith" and to come to a "knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ" (Ephesians 4:13).

I may be wrong about the basic premise of this study and therefore seek input from others. Still, I hope this will not only allay any unmerited fears some may have that faithful saints are in any way Calvinistic but also lend to solidifying a great group of men who could and should stand as one in our striving against sin. I have just one final question. If one were to speak about depravity in the same terms used by James W. Zachary in the above quotation, would I still be considered suspect regarding soundness on Calvinism?