SEMESTER 1
207 – The Doctrine of Depravity Attacked and Defended
BIBLE INSTITUTE OF CORRESPONDENCE
COURSE: SOTERIOLOGY I LESSON # 7
THE DOCTRINE OF DEPRAVITY ATTACKED AND DEFENDED
INTRODUCTION:
1. The doctrine of inherent depravity, or human depravity, or total depravity is so logical, and more importantly biblical, that it seems inconceivable to me that it is ever questioned.
2. It is, however, not only questioned, but hated and denied.
3. This denial comes in dozens of declarations with varying degrees of consent or denial.
4. They all, however, have the roots of their philosophical reasoning in three categories or schools of “theology.”
5. We shall consider each of their objections and attacks, and endeavor to defend the doctrine against them with Scripture.
I. THE PELAGIAN ATTACK
Pelagius was a British monk, who served at Rome in about 409 A.D. He was not the originator of all that was attributed to him, but was an able exponent and successful promoter of his heresy.
1. He saw Adam as merely innocent in his original state, not holy.
2. He saw every baby as a direct creation of God and thus as totally innocent and free of Adamic sin.
3. He taught that the only effect that Adam’s sin had on posterity was evil example.
4. He taught that men could, with careful effort, be obedient to the law unto salvation, and that many men had.
5. He taught that God’s only access to man’s inner being, and that His only approach, was by external means.
6. Dorner says, “It is deism applied to human nature. God could not enter man’s being if He would, and would not if He could. Free will is everything.”
7. Bits of this atheistic philosophy are widespread, but are so unbiblical they do not merit broad consideration.
II. THE ARMINIAN ATTACK
This philosophy was promoted by Arminius, a Dutch professor in the University of Leyden in South Holland, (1560 to 1609). Arminius taught that:
1. Man was elected by foresight of faith and good works.
2. Man was born without righteousness, and with inherent evil tendencies, and that he is therefore:
i. Wholly unable of himself to obey God or attain life.
ii. The state of the infant was sinful but did not involve guilt, because it was involuntary.
iii. That we do not inherit sin from Adam, only infirmity.
3. That God obligatorily bestowed on all men common (and essentially equal) grace and therefore:
4. Man always has the natural power of cooperation.
5. Only by conscious refusal does man become condemned.
6. Wesleyanism was an equally evil modification of Arminianism, and has crossbred with many so-called Baptists of our day.
III. THE NEW ENGLAND OR NEW SCHOOL THEOLOGY
This was developed by an attempted compromise of men who wanted the reputation of the Puritans, but held the theology of Pelagius and Arminius. A prime example is Charles G. Finney. He taught:
1. Moral depravity does not involve the fallen state of man, because:
i. That fallen state is physical, not moral.
ii. Depravity (moral) cannot consist in anything back of choice.
iii. Moral depravity is thus sinfulness of voluntary state not nature.
It is heartbreaking that today so many “Baptist” schools teach this garbage, not knowing what garbage can it came out of.
IV. OUR ANSWER TO THIS:
All of these categories have (more or less in common) the following errors:
1. They deny our participation in Adam’s apostasy, which Scripture teaches. (Rom 5:12
, 1Co 15:22)
2. They deny that sin, as an existing state, produces the evil choice, which the Bible affirms. (Mat 12:33)
3. They imply that the will may choose and ultimately act contrary to man’s nature.
4. They wrongly imply that a man’s affections are in subjection to his will, and not vice versa.
5. They teach neutrality of will, which is to imply absence of any real character.
The entire approach is the result of a rebellion against responsibility to divine sovereignty.
We shall disprove the whole of this foolishness in lessons that follow.