Miscellaneous

Total Depravity

Professor: Dr. R.J. Rushdoony

Subject: Miscellaneous

Lesson: 9-18

Genre: Lecture

Track: 29

Dictation Name: RR109A1

Location/Venue:

Year:

Scripture declares in Genesis 3 versus 1 through 5. Now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said unto the woman: “Yea hath God said ye shall not eat of every tree in the garden?” And the woman said to the serpent "We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden, but of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden God has said ye shall not eat of it neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die." And the serpent said unto the woman: “Ye shall not surely die. For God doth know that in the day ye eat there of then your eyes shall be opened and ye shall be as Gods. Knowing good and evil. These words we have original sin describe very clearly and plainly for us. Original sin, that which characterizes every man in Adam. Is the will be as Gods, knowing that is determining for one’s self what constitutes good and evil. Possessed by original sin man says "yea hath God said". He subscribes to Satan's doubt, that God's word is the absolute, the determinative word. And he declares that good and evil are that which he makes them to be.

That this is a do it yourself universe. That all morality is situation ethics. That the ultimate judge in every situation is the sovereign or would be sovereign man. Fallen man seeks autonomy from God. Either he severs himself from God totally and is in open warfare against the almighty, or else he pays lip service to God. Speaks of God as though he were a big brother. As though God like man were struggling in the universe. God's word is fine, but man’s word also has a place. That God can be an ally. God can be a help but not the absolute lord and sovereign.

Man, governed by original sin, seeks to retain determination of all things in his hand. The effect of original sin in the unregenerate is total, in every area of life. The unregenerate totally moves in terms of the premise, that he will be his own God. Increasingly as history moves to its consummation, the implications of man's total depravity come more and more clearly to the fore. The meaning of original sin is more and more openly expressed. Existentialism is a clear expression, the logical consummation of modern philosophy and also of the temptation. Albert Camus, perhaps the greatest of the existentialists along with John Paul Sartre, has stated the issues clearly. He has said there are only two possible worlds. The world of God, of grace, sovereign grace, and of righteousness on the one hand; And on the other hand the world of rebellion against God of revolution, of evil. Of man asserting that he is his own maker.

That only that is good which is pleasing in his own eyes. And so man now tries to remake himself. That title of a very popular book in paperback. An exposition of evolutionary faith, declares man makes himself. Man now we are told has reached that point in his evolution where he will proceed to make himself. To be his own God. Making himself, making all man that are to come. And so we have genetic tampering as a projection of the future. Man making man totally. Man being his own creation. Or in the words of Sartrea "Man making his own essence, his own nature." so that the hand of God will bear nothing in relationship to man.

But man was created in the image of God in knowledge as Colossians 3:10 declares. Righteousness and holiness as Ephesians 4:24 declares. With dominion as Genesis 126 to 28 declares. With the law of God written in his heart as Romans 2 versus 14 and 15 declare. The temptation was the attempt by the enemy. To recreate man in his image. The very name of Satan comes from a Hebrew root, which means to obstruct, to oppose and the word is cognate with hatred and hostility. And so from the attempt at the very beginning to that of the scientist of today. There is the concerted plan to obliterate the image of God by immorality. By psychological reconditioning, by genetic tampering.

But man created in the image of God, though fallen is still God's creation. Though he flee from God to the innermost parts of the world, though he seek to escape him in hell, God is still the inescapable creator. Every atom, every fiber of our being witnesses against us when we are in sin. Everything in us witnesses to God in the whole totality of his being. Of his handy work, which as Saint Paul declares in the first chapter of Romans "the natural man holds down, suppresses in unrighteousness". He knows the truth. Every atom in man's being is a revelation of God. It witnesses to God, but the natural man suppresses it in unrighteousness, and seeks to remake himself, so that he can obliterate in every area of life totally. The witness of God. The fixity as well as the flexibility of man's being, is entirely of God's creation and predestination rather than of man's determination. Man however is determined to overthrow the boundaries established by God. To abolish God from the universe and to reign unhindered upon the throne. But Psalm 2 describes earthly conspiracy, the conspiracy against the Father and the Son. "Why do the heathen rage and the people imagine a vain thing? They take council together and they say "let us break their bands asunder and cast their cords from us. But he that sitteth in the circle of the heavens shall laugh. The Lord shall have them in derision."

As we deal with the fact of sin, sin which is total in its extent, throughout the being of fallen man; It is important for us to understand the nuances of that sin and to understand the differences in its manifestation. The West Minster Larger Catechism defines sin thus in questions 24 and 25.

“Q: What is sin?

A: Sin is any want of conformity unto or transgression of any law of God, given as a rule to the reasonable creature.

Q: Wherein consisteth the sinfulness of that estate wherein man fell?

A: The sinfulness of that estate where into man fell consisteth in the guilt of Adam's first sin, the want of that righteousness wherein he was created and the corruption of his nature, whereby he is utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all that is spiritually good and holy, inclined to evil and of that continually; which is commonly called original sin and from which do proceed all actual transgressions.”

Now the catechism distinguishes us between two kinds of sin. Original sin which is total and then actual sin which is the actual commission of an act of sin. Now this distinction comes right out of scripture and it is important for us to grasp because until we do, we miss some basic points in the teaching of the scripture. In terms of this distinction between original sin which is total in its extent, and actual sin or actual transgressions. Man can avoid actual sins. Not every unredeemed man commits murder or steals or bears false witness or whatever the case may be, but he cannot avoid the principle of sin. The desire to be his own God. There is a difference between the chastity and the man of God and the chastity outwardly or seeming chastity of the man who is afraid of his wife. There is a difference between the honest of the man who will not steal and obedience and the honesty of a man who does not steal because he is afraid he will be caught.

The depravity of the unredeemed is total. As Job said: "Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? No one, not one." And Saint Paul declared: "There is no difference for all have sinned and come short of the glory of God." Now we have this distinction between the principle of sin, original sin on the one hand and actual sin clearly set forth for us in the scripture in two different words. These two words which we meet with in the New Testament repeatedly are anomea, often translated as sin, also as iniquity, the mystery of iniquity and lawlessness; and the other, hamartia; often translated also merely a sin and sometimes with variations. Transgression is also used for both words as a translation.

What is the difference between these two words? We can understand the meaning of anomea by looking at the first epistle of John; in fact there we see most clearly the difference between the two words. On the one hand the meaning of hamartia and on the other the meaning of anomea. In 1st John 3:4 we read: “Whosoever committeth sin or practices sin habitually, hamartia, also practices anomea, transgresseth the law. For sin, such sin, habitual sin, is lawlessness or anomea."

Now the meaning of these words is important for us to grasp here because anomea is being anti-law, anti God. Of denying God's law in total. It means saying I will not bow down to God. I will not recognize good and evil as God declares them and I will be my own God, determining good and evil for myself. The Christian cannot commit anomea. By the sovereign grace of God through Jesus Christ, he has been redeemed from that principle of sin, anomea. Lawlessness is not his sin. It is hamartia, which means off target, missing the mark, moving towards the goal but stumbling, falling. Sometimes that stumbling, that falling, that hamartia can be grievous as with David. But it is not anomea. It is not the principle of sin, being anti-God, anti-law. With us you see sin is sin, we know we have transgressed against God. We do not declare it to be our righteousness. We do not say: “It is my idea of what constitutes righteousness.” And John says anyone who habitually practices hamartia, is really guilty of anomea. They reveal by their habitual practice of sin that their real problem is lawlessness.

"Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not." The sixth verse declares. Now this puzzles many people because in the first chapter of the first epistle of John we read: "If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar and his word is not in us." Very true, the word there is hamartia. We are not sinless in the sense of hamartia. We commit actual transgressions, in this like. We are not perfectly sanctified, and to say that we have no hamartia, no actual transgressions, no missing of the mark, means that the truth is not in us. But, whosoever abideth in him sinneth not, doth not commit lawlessness, anomia, is not guilty of abiding in sin and asserting in his sin the principle of lawlessness, of anti-God, of saying: “It is my will that is done and it is my way that is righteous and I will decide what constitutes good and evil for myself.”

And thus it is that there is very clearly sent forth in scripture, a distinction between these two kinds of sin. Original sin which is total in its extent, and actual transgressions which the Christian commits; but if he commits them habitually he demonstrates he is not of the Lord. The blood of Jesus Christ we are told by john cleanses us from all sin, hamartia, because our sanctification is not complete although our justification is perfect and final. Therefore while we are judicially cleansed by the blood of Christ as the seventh verse of the first chapter declares "the blood of Jesus Christ his son, cleanseth us from all sin." Those actual transgressions that we commit as we miss the mark as we are off target and stumble. Still we do not commit anomea. Thus there is a difference between the principle of sin, original sin. Which is total in its extent and the actual transgressions of believers. The Christian there for cannot be antinomian, guilty of anomea, of being anti law.

Very often however when lawlessness approaches God its enmity is masked with false religiosity. All things are conceded to God, save his lordship and sovereignty. We cannot separate lordship from salvation. We cannot separate the sovereignty of God from his redeeming power, for when we do we deny him. Scripture speaks of Christ as lord and savior; if he is not Lord he cannot be savior, lawlessness wills to be its own God, and it will convert the receiver into the sovereign, the creature into the creator, choosing or denying God's gifts and there by claiming lordship over God. It converts God and Christ into the creatures of man, humble suppliants, pleading and begging man to receive them, rather than the reverse.

Lawlessness is not, moreover, deprivation. I think it is important for us to make note of this. Because one of the most insidious things that have entered the church in the past generation is pastoral phycology and counseling And 999 out of 1000 things written in that area speak of sin not as sin but as deprivation. And we must submit that sin is not deprivation, it is depravation. According to Greek philosophy in ancient Greece, win was deprivation. And this idea has heavily infected the church off and on through the centuries. When we reduce sin to deprivation we become antinomian. Sin is according to scripture, man’s willful transgression of God's law. It is man seeking to be his own law. But the idea of sin as deprivation reduces sin to an absence, a lack of something, and then man’s problem no longer becomes a willful lawlessness, but a problem of supply.

Provide love, provide a new environment, provide understanding, Christian charity, and any number of like things and we are told that deprivation will be cured. The problem with sin is then replaced by social conditioning. And sin is not the lawlessness, total lawlessness in principle, but merely a negation; a deprivation. Furthermore, sin as deprivation denies that sin is saying no to God. It is a revolution against God. Sin is a positive affirmation also of man’s claim to be his own god, to be autonomous, to be independent. It is a declaration of independence from the sovereign lord and creator.

Saint Paul declares in Ephesians 2:3 that sin is the desires of the flesh and of the mind. The total being of man, willing, desiring freedom from God. Sin is an active fable building force. It seeks to build the kingdom of God, a paradise without God in defiance of the sovereign God. Furthermore if we reduce sin to deprivation, we make man then not a sinner but a victim; not an offender, one who has declared war against God, but victim of God's creation. And the sinner then becomes a charity case, rather than a man at war with God. He is then someone on whom God should have mercy, instead of being at war with the sinner. The picture has changed with respect of man whenever we make sin a deprivation. When we say that God has not given enough to man as the tempter said to our lord in the wilderness "Turn these stones into bread, give the people a cradle of grace and security. You have the power. Why withhold this security from them? Think of all those poor starving people. Cast thyself down, give them miracles so this tremendous problem of trying to believe is no longer necessary. How could you be so heartless as to leave man in economic want, and not to spell it all out so that it wouldn’t be necessary for him to have faith, so that he could walk by sight. How God, can you deprive man so? If thou be a Son of God" the tempter said; "If you really are what you claim to be, you would have a heart for all these needy people as I do." And this, the theme of the tempter, is all too often the theme of modern theologians.

During the past year I was in one college where in the department of religion a book was used which declared and I quote: “That God has an obligation to reveal what his will is in all matters, on man’s terms. If there is a big disagreement over what God wishes, and he could easily settle it by saying what he wishes but he keeps quiet, that seems to be pretty irresponsible." The tables are turned when sin is reduced to deprivation. It is no longer man who is irresponsible in relationship to God, but God who is made irresponsible in relationship to man. It is God who is then brought to the judgment seat of man.

Furthermore the idea of deprivation exalts man from sin because it denies the fact of deliberate willfulness and lawlessness, of actual total enmity against God. But scripture declares the carnal mind is enmity against God, for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can it be.

The idea of deprivation is really a denial of the doctrine of original sin of total depravity. It denies God's sovereignty. It denies God's law. It denies God's righteousness, and it denies that God is the savior. Original sin is not deprivation but total depravation. And in dealing with people whether from the pulpit or in counseling we can never forget that the root of all problems is depravation on the part of the unregenerate. Total depravation. And sin, transgressions on the part of us who are regenerate.

The Old Testament calls sin by a number of words which in their root mean rebellion, treachery, deformity, disturbance, raving. The idea of sin as deprivation is basic to modern psychiatry, sociology and psychology; and all too often to much of pastoral counseling. Sin is denied when it is reduced to deprivation. But sin is total depravation. The whole nature of man is saturated by his rebellion against God, By his desire to be his own God. And so the knowledge he seeks is not of God but apart from God. The righteousness he seeks is self-righteousness. The holiness he seeks is consecration, dedication to man and not to God. The dominion he desires is the tower of Babel pattern of dominion, and the law he seeks to establish is his will against the will of God.

The fruits of man's depravation are always bad. Without exception as our lord emphatically declared. "Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit, but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit neither can a corrupt tree bringeth for good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them." Again the Canons of Dort in article two of the third and fourth heads summarizes the Biblical position with regard to the doctrine of man’s sin: "Man after the fall begat children in his own likeness, a corrupt stock produced of corrupt offspring. Hence all the posterity, Christ only excepted, have derived corruption from their original parent. Not by imitation as the Pelagians of old asserted, but by the propagation of a vicious nature in consequence of a just judgment of God."

A depraved humanity cannot establish a just social order. You cannot make a good omelet out of bad eggs. A corrupt tree cannot bring forth good fruit. This is the fallacy of so much of the conservatism of our time as well as the liberalism and the radicalism. They do not deal with the fact of man’s total depravation. And they imagine a vain thing when they believe that with depraved man they can create a good society.

The issue in total depravity is God or man. God's salvation, or man's claim that salvation is in its declaration of independence from God. God's order or man's lawlessness. Man's law however is in every age only anomea, anti law. So that when man are unregenerate or apostate we see all around us that which is now occurring, the breakdown of law and order. The ungodly cannot create it because their nature is by virtue of depravation anomea, anti law. And so they are fearful of the lawlessness all around them but they only aggravate it, because their nature is marked by depravation.

Our Lord and savior Jesus Christ declared: "Whosoever committeth sin or lives in sin is the servant or slave of sin. If the Son therefore make you free ye shall be free indeed." Man hungers for freedom, for salvation on his terms. But there is no salvation, there is no freedom for man. Accept by the sovereign grace of almighty God, as declared, manifested, and revealed to us through the cross of Jesus Christ.