XV

XXI. MORAL DEPRAVITY – Part 2

Let us consider the proper method of determining the universal and total moral depravity of the unsaved.

A First, I will eliminate those things that we cannot consider.
In order to do this we must first remember what is moral depravity. All the error that exists on this subject we base on false assumptions of the nature of moral depravity. Most people make no distinction between moral and physical depravity; and as a result, they confuse physical depravity with moral depravity. This, of course, leads to a lot of confusion and nonsense on this subject. Please remember that moral depravity consists in choosing self‑interest, self‑gratification, or self‑indulgence, as an end. As a result:

1 Moral depravity cannot consist in a sinful constitution, or in a constitutional appetite or craving for sin. Disobedience to the moral law is not based on a constitution or appetite.

2 Moral depravity is sinful all by itself and not the cause of sin. It is not something that causes a person to sin, but it is the essence and the whole of sin.

3 It cannot be an attribute of our human nature, for that would make it physical, and not moral depravity.

4 We cannot attribute moral depravity to a nature that is sinful. To talk of a sinful nature in the sense of a physical sinful nature, is to attribute sinfulness to the Creator, who is the author of all physical nature. It is to overlook the essential nature of sin, and to make sin a physical virus instead of a voluntary and responsible choice. Both sound philosophy and the Bible declare that sin consists in obeying the flesh, or in self‑indulgence, which the Bible sometimes calls, minding the flesh. But, writers on moral depravity have assumed that moral depravity is not only different from sin, it is also the cause of sin, that is, the cause of our actual transgressions. They call moral depravity such things as original sin, indwelling sin, a sinful nature, an appetite for sin, or an attribute of human nature. We will now see what has led to this view of moral depravity.

B Lets look at a very popular view of moral depravity, which many, who fall into the error of confusing physical and moral depravity, believe in today. Let me refer to Dr. Woods, whose writings reflect the beliefs of millions to this day. He defines moral depravity as “sinfulness”. He also maintained that it is voluntary. Then he attempted to prove that moral depravity is an attribute of human nature. I don’t intend to expose the inconsistency of claiming that moral depravity is a voluntary state of mind and yet it is also a natural attribute, but I only intend to examine the philosophy, the logic, and the theory of his main argument. The following quotation will show the sense in which he believed that moral depravity belonged to the nature of man. On page 54 he says:

1     “The word ‘depravity’ means the same as sinfulness. It is the opposite of moral purity, or holiness. In this use of the word, there is a general agreement. But, what is the meaning of native, or natural? Among the variety of meanings specified by Johnson, and others, I refer to the following, as relating particularly to the subject before us.
     “Native. Produced by nature. Natural, or such as is according to nature; belonging by birth; original. Natural has substantially the same meaning: ‘produced by nature; not acquired.’ So Crabbe: ‘Of a person we say, his worth is native, to designate it as some important property born with him, not foreign to him, or engrafted on him; but we say of his disposition, that it is natural, as opposed to something that is acquired by habit.’ And Johnson defines nature to be ‘the native state or properties of anything, by which it is discriminated from others.’ He quotes the definition of Boyle: ‘Nature sometimes means what belongs to a living creature at his birth, or accrues to it by its birth, as when we say a man is noble by nature, or a child is naturally outgoing.’ ‘This,’ he says, ‘may be expressed by saying, the man was born so.’
     “After these brief definitions, which mean nearly the same thing, I proceed to inquire, what is the evidence which shows anything in man to be natural, or native; and how much of this evidence is found in relation to depravity.”

2 On page 66, he says: “The evil, then, cannot originate in any unfavorable external circumstances, such as corrupting examples, or insinuating and strong temptations; for if we suppose that these were entirely removed, all human beings would still be sinners. With such a moral nature as they now have, they would not wait for strong temptations to sin. Nay, they would be sinners in opposition to the strongest motives to the contrary. Indeed, we know that human beings will turn those very motives, which most powerfully urge to holiness, into occasions of sin. Now, does not the certainty with which we...presuppose a full conviction...resting on what we regard as satisfactory evidence, that sin...arises from something that is within the mind itself, and which belongs to our very nature as moral beings? Have we not as much evidence that this is the case with moral evil as with any of our natural affections or bodily appetites?”

3 Now, Dr. Woods’ whole argument shows that he considers moral depravity to be an attribute of human nature in the same sense that our appetites and passions are. Before I examine his argument, let me state that an argument, or fact, that equally supports two opposing theories can prove neither. Dr. Woods presents the following facts and considerations in support of his great position; that moral depravity, or sinfulness, is an attribute of our human nature; and three college presidents indorsed the soundness and conclusiveness of his argument.

C He proves his position first from the fact that moral depravity is universal. To this I reply that this argument does not prove his theory unless it is true that whatever is universal among mankind, must also be a natural attribute of man; that whatever is common to all men, must also be an attribute of human nature. But, this assumption assumes that the assumption is true. Sin may be the result of temptation; temptation may be universal and of such a nature that it usually results in sin, unless God’s persuasive influence secures a different result. However, his argument assumes that there is only one method to account for the universality of human sinfulness. But because this assumption is the question we are debating, we cannot simply assume that this is true.

1 Selfishness is common to all unregenerate men. Is selfishness a natural attribute? We have seen earlier that selfishness consists in a choice. Can a choice be a natural attribute of human nature? No!

2 This argument is just as consistent with the opposite theory, which is, that moral depravity is selfishness. The fact that selfishness is universal is just what one might expect if selfishness consists in committing our will to self-gratification. We will continue to commit our will to gratify our self unless the Holy Spirit intervenes to enlighten us, and break up our force of habit, and change the attitude of our will, which has been yielding to our fleshly desires from the time we reached the age of reason. If we must account for moral depravity by ascribing it to the influence of temptation, or to a physically depraved constitution surrounded by the circumstances in which the human race first forms their moral character, we probably would expect it to be universal. This argument, then, agrees equally well with either theory, and so it proves neither.

D His second argument was that “Moral depravity develops itself early in life”.
But his is also just what we might expect from the opposite theory. If moral depravity consists in choosing self‑gratification, it would also appear early in life. Therefore, this argument agrees just as well with the opposing theory, and therefore proves nothing. This argument is worthless, unless you assume the following as a major premise: “Whatever is developed early in life, must be an attribute of human nature.” But this again is assuming the truth what we are trying to prove. This argument is based on the assumption that any course of action that is common to all men, and beginning as soon as they become moral agents, must be an attribute of nature. But this is not true. There may be more than one way to account for the universal sinfulness of human actions from the beginning of moral agency. For example it may be because of the fact that temptation is universal, as I mentioned earlier.

E     His third argument was, that “Moral depravity is not due to any change that occurs after birth”.
     No, the circumstances of temptation are sufficient to account for moral depravity without supposing that our nature has been changed. This argument proves nothing, unless it is true, that the peculiar circumstances of temptation under which moral agents act, from the dawn of their moral agency, cannot sufficiently account for their conduct without believing in a change of nature following birth. What then, does this argument prove?
     This argument is just as consistent with either theory, and therefore proves neither.

F His fourth argument was, “That moral depravity acts freely and spontaneously.”
Now, the moral agent acts freely, and selfishly, that is, wickedly. This argument assumes, that if a moral agent acts freely and wickedly then moral depravity, or sin, must be an attribute of his nature. Or, more fairly, if mankind universally acts sinfully, sinfulness must be an attribute of human nature. But, what is sin? Why sin is a voluntary transgression of law. Can a voluntary transgression of the law be an attribute of human nature? Again, this argument alleges nothing but what is equally consistent with both theories. If moral depravity consists in choosing self‑gratification as an end, it would of course freely and spontaneously manifest itself. This argument then, is good for nothing.

G His fifth argument was, “That moral depravity is hard to overcome, and therefore it must be an attribute of human nature”.
But if it were an attribute of human nature, it would be impossible to overcome without a change of our human constitution. It is hard to overcome, just as selfishness naturally would be hard to overcome in physically depraved beings, and in the presence of so many self-indulging temptations. If moral depravity was an attribute of human nature, no one could overcome it at all without a change of human nature. But, the fact that moral depravity can be overcome, without destroying or changing human nature, proves that moral depravity is not an attribute of human nature.

H His sixth argument was, that “We can predict with certainty, that in due time it will act itself out.”
However, this is just what we would expect. If moral depravity consists in selfishness, we can predict with certainty that the spirit of self‑pleasing will act itself out. We can also predict, without the gift of prophecy, that with a physically depraved constitution, and surrounded with objects to excite our appetites, and with all the circumstances in which human beings first form their moral character, they will universally seek to gratify themselves, unless prevented by the illuminations of the Holy Spirit. This argument is just as consistent with the opposite theory, and therefore proves neither.

I        It is unnecessary to waste any more time with Dr. Woods. I will now quote the standards of the Presbyterian Church from the 1840’s, which will put you in possession of their views on this subject. At pp. 30, 31, of the Presbyterian Confession of Faith, we have the following: “By this sin, they (Adam and Eve) fell from their original righteousness and communion with God, and so became dead in sin, and wholly defiled in all the faculties and parts of soul and body. Because they are the root of all mankind, the guilt of this sin was imputed, and the same death in sin and corrupted nature was conveyed to all their descendants. From this original corruption, whereby we are utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil, proceeds all actual transgressions.”
     Pages 152‑154, Shorter Catechism. “Question 22. Did all mankind fall in that first transgression? Answer: The covenant was not only made with Adam as a public person, but it was also made for all mankind who descended from him by ordinary generation, and so they all sinned in him, and fell with him in that first transgression.
     “Question 23. Into what estate did the fall bring mankind? Answer: The fall brought mankind into an estate of sin and misery.
     “Question 24. What is sin? Answer: Sin is any lack of conformity to, or transgression of, any law of God, given as a rule to the reasonable creature.
     “Question 25. Wherein consists the sinfulness of that estate where into man fell? Answer: The sinfulness of that estate whereunto man fell, consists in the guilt of Adam’s first sin, the lack of that righteousness wherein man was created, and the corruption of his nature, whereby he is utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all that is spiritually good, and wholly inclined to all evil, and that continually, which is commonly called original sin, and from which proceeds all actual transgressions.
     “Question 26. How is original sin conveyed from our first parents to their descendants? Answer: Original sin is conveyed from our first parents to their descendants by natural generation, so that all who proceed from them in that way, are conceived and born in sin.”
     These extracts show that the framers and defenders of this confession of faith account for the moral depravity of mankind by making moral depravity consist in a sinful nature inherited by natural generation from Adam. They regard our constitution, inherited from Adam, as being sinful all by itself, and the cause of all transgressions. They make no distinction between physical and moral depravity. However, they do distinguish between original and actual sin. They define original sin as a constitutional sinfulness that Adam’s descendants inherited by birth. This original sin, or sinful nature, makes mankind totally unable to do anything that is spiritually good, and totally inclined to do everything that is evil. This is their view of moral depravity. This is substantially what Dr. Woods believed.
     It is common for those who confuse physical depravity with moral depravity, and who maintain that human nature is sinful all by itself, to quote certain passages of Scripture to support their position. Let us examine these so-called proof texts. But before we do, lets look at some basic rules of biblical interpretation.

1 If possible, we must interpret different passages so they don’t contradict each other.

2 We must interpret the language or the words of a passage according to the context of the passage.

3 We must consider the general scope and design of the speaker or writer.

4 Texts that are consistent with two opposing theories prove neither.

5 We must interpret the words of a passage so it does not conflict with sound philosophy, matters of fact, the nature of things, or immutable justice.

J With these rules of sound interpretation before us, let us now proceed to examine those passages that are supposed to establish this popular theory of depravity:

1 “And Adam lived one hundred and thirty years, and begot a son in his own likeness, after his image, and named him Seth” (Gen. 5:3) This says nothing about our human nature being sinful. There is no reason to assume that the likeness and image mentioned here is a moral likeness or image. Yet, unless a sinful human nature is assumed, the text has nothing to do with the subject.
Many believe that Adam was a regenerate man at the time that Seth was born. Now does that mean that Adam gave birth to a saint or a sinner? If Adam were a saint of God, then according to this theory, Adam would have given birth to a saint. This passage does not support those who believe that human nature is sinful.

2 Another text is: “Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? No one!” (Job 14:4) This text is quoted to support the position that children inherit from their parents, by natural generation, a sinful nature. All that we can conclude from this text, even if we read it without examining the translation or its context, is that a physically depraved parent will produce a physically depraved offspring. That this is its real meaning is quite clear when we look into its context. Job is talking about the frail and dying state of man, and has, in the context of this passage, his eye on man’s physical state, and not man’s moral character. What Job is saying is; who can bring forth anything but a frail, dying offspring from a frail dying parent? No one. This is substantially how Professor Stuart views this text. The most that we can make of this scripture is that since one belongs to a race of sinners, then he can expect to be a sinner.

3 Again: “What is man, that he could be pure? And he who is born of a woman, that he could be righteous?” (Job 15:14)
These are the words of Eliphaz, and it is improper to quote him as inspired truth. For God Himself testifies that Job’s friends did not possess the truth. But, suppose we treat this passage as true, what is its importance? Why, it simply implies the righteousness or sinfulness of the whole human race. It expresses the fact that human depravity is universal, in the very common way of including all that are born of woman. This certainly says nothing, and implies nothing about a sinful constitution.

4     Again: “Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin my mother conceived me”. (Psalms 51:5)
     It would seem that if we take this passage literally, then the Psalmist is saying that his mother was in a sinful state at the time of his conception and during gestation. But, to claim that this passage the Psalmist teaches that we are all constitutionally sinful is to contradict God’s own definition of sin, and the only definition that human reason can receive, which is that “sin is a transgression of the law”. This is the only correct definition of sin. But we saw that the law does not legislate over physical substance. It does not require us to have a certain nature. The law legislates over our willful actions only. If the Psalmist really wanted to say that his body was sinful from his conception, then he not only opposes God’s own definition of sin, but he also affirms sheer nonsense. The substance of an unborn child sinful! It’s impossible! But what did the Psalmist mean? Well, this verse is found in David’s penitential psalm. He was deeply convicted of sin, and was, as he had good reason to be, greatly distressed, and so he expressed himself in very strong language. As was natural and is common in similar situations, David reflected as far back as he could remember. He remembered sins among the earliest acts that he could remember. The words he used in this passage expresses, not the anti‑scriptural and nonsensical teaching of a sinful constitution, but that he had been a sinner from the beginning of his moral existence, or from the earliest moment that he was capable of being a sinner. This is the strong language of poetry.
     Some believe that the Psalmist referred to his low and despicable origin, and was essentially saying, “I was always a sinner, and my mother who conceived me was a sinner, and I am but the degenerate plant of a strange vine”, without intending to affirm anything concerning the absolute sinfulness of his nature.

5 Again, “The wicked are estranged from the womb; they go astray as soon as they are born, speaking lies”. (Psalms 58:3) Many quote this passage to establish the doctrine of a sinful nature, and to prove that infants sin from the very day and hour they are born. But certainly, we can’t interpret this passage this way. This passage does not say anything about a sinful nature, but many conclude this because it says that the wicked are estranged, or hostile from the womb. But does this mean, that they are really and literally hostile from the day and hour of their birth, and that they really go astray the very day they are born, speaking lies? Everyone knows that this is contrary to fact. We cannot take passage literally. Then what does it mean? It must mean that the wicked go astray from the time they first become moral agents. If you make it mean any more than this, you would make it contradict other passages of scripture. This passage proclaims, in strong, graphic, and poetic language, the fact that the first moral conduct and character of children is sinful. This is all that it can truthfully declare; and it certainly suggests that their moral depravity begins at a very early age, and suggests it using very strong words, as if it were literally from the hour of birth. But when this passage adds that they go astray speaking lies, we know that this can’t be taken literally because, as every one knows, children do not speak at all on the day they are born. Even if we believe that the Psalmist says that children go astray as soon as they are able to go at all, and speak lies as soon as they are able to speak, this would not prove that God created them with a sinful nature. This is also consistent with the theory that their physical depravity, together with their circumstances of temptation, led them into selfishness from the very beginning of their moral existence.

6 Again, “Something that is born of the flesh is flesh, and something that is born of the Spirit is spirit” (John 3:6) If we look at this passage, it means nothing more than the body, which is born of flesh is flesh, and something that is born of the spirit is spirit. In other words, new birth is a birth of the spirit and not a birth of the fleshly body. But it can also mean, something that results from the influence of the flesh is flesh, in the sense of sin; for this is the way the term flesh is commonly used in the New Testament; and something that results from the Spirit is spirit or spiritual, in the sense of holy. I believe that this is the way these words are used here. This passage, when understood this way, does not support the teaching of a sinful nature or constitution, but only that the flesh tends to sin, that our appetites and passions are temptations to sin; so that when our will obeys them, it sins. Whatever comes from fleshly desires, in the sense that the will yields to fleshly control, is sinful. And, on the other hand, whatever is born of the Spirit, in the sense that our will yields to the Spirit of God, is holy.