Innocent as babes?

Here is a quote from J. C. Ryle considering sin in the heart of a young child. The quote comes from chapter one of Holiness.  Joe posted this yesterday over at the Reformed Virginian, I couldn’t resist repeating it here:

The fairest babe, that has entered life this year and become the sunbeam of a family, is not, as its mother perhaps fondly calls it, a little ‘angel’, or a little ‘innocent’, but a little ’sinner’. Alas! As it lies smiling and crowing in its cradle, that little creature carries in its heart the seeds of every kind of wickedness! Only watch it carefully, as it grows in stature and its mind develops, and you will soon detect in it an incessant tendency to that which is bad, and a backwardness to that which is good. You will see in it the buds and germs of deceit, evil temper, selfishness, self-will, obstinacy, greediness, envy, jealousy, passion, which, if indulged and let alone, will shoot up with painful rapidity. Who taught the child these things? Where did he learn them? The Bible alone can answer these questions! Of all the foolish things that parents can say about their children there is none worse than the common saying: ‘My son has a good heart at the bottom. He is not what he ought to be, but he has fallen into bad hands. Public schools are bad places. The tutors neglect the boys. Yet he has a good heart at the bottom.’ The truth, unhappily, is diametrically the other way. The first cause of all sin lies in the natural corruption of the boy’s own heart, and not in the school.

Proclaiming Christ (Depravity, conclusion)

Some might think that what I have said in the previous series of posts (about man’s total depravity and God’s sovereign election)  is inconsistent with our biblical mandate to preach Christ to all people indiscriminately. However, I don’t see that to be the case.

God indeed promises that whosoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life. God’s love for mankind is seen in the sending of his Son.  His grace is sufficient for all.  He calls all to repent and trust in Christ.  Christ’s work on the cross saves the human race by securing the salvation of all whom the Father has given him — yet not all individuals are saved.  One might ask, How can God be sincere in His promise if He has chosen to save only some?

Let me put it this way: The promises of God are sincere, but they are for those who come and take them. There are no gracious promises for those who will not believe. Christ is the only Savior there is and he is promised as the Savior of those who turn to Him, not those who don’t. This is why we must beseech men to believe in Christ, so they may take to themselves the promises of God. And we know that they are enabled to do so as the Lord quickens their dead hearts and removes their unwillingness and stubbornness.

The sincerity of a promise is proven by its fulfillment. And the glorious fact is that the promises of God have in every single instance been found true. Everyone who has called on the name of the Lord has been saved. Not one who has trusted Christ has perished. There has never been a person who has wanted to come to Christ, who has found God’s sovereign election to be a barrier in the way.

Synergistic or monergistic? (Depravity part 6)

At the risk of oversimplification, I will say that the real issue today in the doctrine of salvation boils down to one question. Is salvation synergistic or monergistic?

Synergistic may be defined as — “two or more agents working together to produce a result, a result not obtainable by any of the agents independently.” The word synergy (or synergistic) comes from two Greek words, erg meaning to work and syn meaning together, hence synergism is a working together.

Regarding the doctrine of salvation, this essentially means that God and man work together, each contributing their part to accomplish salvation in and for the individual. This is the predominant view in evangelical Christianity today. This synergistic theology basically says that although God has done a great and wondrous thing by sending Christ to die for the sins of men, it is up to man to respond by turning to Christ in faith. If he does, he will receive forgiveness of sins and be rewarded with eternal life. In other words, God has done His part, now it’s up to man to do his. This is the synergistic gospel that we hear from the pulpit today, but it is a false gospel with an erroneous view of salvation.

On Free will (Depravity part 5)

In the discussion topic of August 5th, I noted that proponents of free will and human ability challenge Calvinist theology (and the doctrine of fallen man’s inability) by suggesting the following: If God has not given all people free will and the ability to repent and believe in Christ, then he cannot hold them responsible for sin and unbelief. A common argument follows:

Major premise – God holds man responsible for his sin and unbelief.

Minor premise – Man cannot be held responsible for something if he can’t refrain from doing it, or do otherwise.

Conclusion – Man must have a free will and the ability, in and of himself, to choose between sinning and not sinning and between believing in Christ and rejecting Him.

I contend that the conclusion is false because the minor premise is false, namely that man can be held responsible only for what he is able to do. The critical assumption is that man’s responsibility implies his ability. And that’s exactly where the thinking is wrong.

The Scriptures do teach that man is responsible, but they also teach that he is unable to turn from sin and trust in Christ if left to himself. That was the thrust of the articles on August 3, 4, and 5. — man does not have the ability. Both are true. Yet we think this is inconsistent because we think man can’t be responsible and yet unable. There may appear to be an inconsistency here, but I assure you that it is only an appearance of one, for there are no inconsistencies with God.

On man’s will (Depravity part 4)

How are we to understand the idea of “free will” and the fact that man does indeed have the ability to freely make choices? Let me make some suggestions and observations:

1. I think all would agree that the will is the faculty of choice, and the immediate cause of action.

2. However, in every act of the will there is a preference – the desiring of one thing over another. To will is to choose and to choose is to decide between two or more alternatives. Where there is complete indifference, there is no volition, and no will to choose.

3. But when we do will to make a choice, there is something which influences the choice, something which determines the decision of the will. Therefore, the will is not free or sovereign but is subject to that “something.”

4. What is it that determines the will and causes it to make a choice? I’m sure it varies in different cases. It may be logic of reason, or the voice of conscience, or impulse of emotion. But all of these, considered individually or as interacting together, are direct reflections of the heart and mind. The action of the will is determined by the condition of the heart and mind at any given point.

The ability to believe (Depravity part 3)

Some might argue that even though there is truth in what I’ve said in the prior posts regarding man’s corrupt condition, the situation is not quite as I have portrayed it.

They might suggest, for example, that God, based on Christ’s atonement, has given all men sufficient grace to believe if they will. This is the view of Arminianism.  In fact, they would say that if God has not given all men the ability to believe, then (1) He is not fair to judge and (2) man cannot be held responsible for his unbelief.

Arminianism maintains that salvation is indeed all by grace. However, this grace has supposedly provided all men with a free will and the ability to exercise saving faith in Jesus Christ. 

I will deal with the concepts of free will and responsibility in later posts, but let me just say here that if this view is true, then we are faced with the following:

The natural man (Depravity part 2)

More on Ephesians 2:1-10 

When Paul says you were dead in your trespasses and sins, he is talking about the spiritual condition of the unbeliever — the natural unregenerate man; and he is making an absolute statement. When he says you were dead in your trespasses and sins, he doesn’t mean we were merely in danger of death but that we were in a state of real and present death.

So what does it mean to be “dead in our trespasses and sins”?  Paul tells us in verses 2 and 3 something of what it looks like. He gives us some rather specific characteristics of this spiritual death. To be dead in our trespasses and sins is: to walk according to the course of this world, to be dominated by Satan, to be self-indulgent, to cater to our lusts, and to manifest in untold ways our corrupt nature, proving that we deserve God’s wrath.

As you see, one can be a fairly active character and still be dead. We are very much alive to sin but dead to God. Paul is painting a rather grim picture of the unregenerate man. But, let me just say here — If we don’t see how fallen and destitute we are (were), we don’t see the grace of God as we ought.

To say, as the Scriptures do, that we were dead in trespasses and sins certainly has implications that go beyond the manifestations in verses 2 and 3. If man is spiritually dead, what does that mean on the inside? What is man’s real condition?  How bad off are we in our natural state?

Scripture has some things to say to help us assess the condition in which we find the natural man. So, let’s just call in Dr. Bible and give man a “spiritual” examination.^1  Dr. Bible’s examination reveals the following:

As dead as Lazarus! (Depravity part 1)

According to Ephesins 2:1-10, we were all dead in our sins until God regenerated us, i.e. made us alive in Christ (v. 5).  Now when it says “dead in trespasses and sins” this is, of course, speaking of our spiritual condition.  But it is no mere metaphor, for we were as dead spiritually as Lazarus was totally.

I sometimes try and picture the scene with dead Lazarus in John 11. I see the stone rolled away from the grave of Lazarus and some men are there. One is looking into the dark tomb and passionately pleading with dead Lazarus inside. “Lazarus, if you will only give God a chance, He will give you life. If you just take the first step, then the Holy Spirit will make you come alive. God honestly wants to make you come alive, but it’s up to you Lazarus. You must decide to take advantage of God’s offer of life. You must get up and take that first step in faith.” (This may be just a bit of a caricature, but it is often the theology of todays’ gospel message.)

Charles Spurgeon made an interesting comment that fits here: “This preposterous idea of the sinner taking the first step reminds me of the Catholic claim that one of her saints had his head cut off in battle. The man (supposedly) picked up his head and walked 3,000 miles back to Rome.” Spurgeon continues, “I would have no problem believing such a story, if the man could have taken that first step!”

If a depraved sinner can take the first step, namely to become willing, then he can just as well make it the rest of the way. That first step, however, happens to be the big one. That first step is out of the grave of spiritual death. If the sinner has the spiritual power to will his way out of the grave, he should have no problem walking out of the grave yard to wherever he chose to go. It’s that first step that is the real problem.