PART THREE
MAN AND SIN
i. The Essential Nature of Man1
a. His Origin
Scripture does not provide us with a classified anthropology. But, on the other hand, it does state a number of principles concerning the nature of man which are of great importance because the whole of subsequent scriptural doctrine is based upon them. Again, while the references to man’s origin are comparatively scanty, yet the biblical statements must be given priority over all philosophical speculation. Only in this way will the reverent student be prevented from adopting types of fallacious thinking which ultimately give rise to widespread deviations from the plain New Testament teaching on this and allied subjects.

To the New Testament writers, Adam was as much an historical person as our Lord Himself. They are frequently contrasted as, for example, in the Epistles to the Romans and Corinthians. Our Lord’s own references to man’s origin are of the same direct nature. By no process of literary interpretation can these references to Adam be made to mean other than that he was considered as much a person as the patriarchs subsequently described in the same book.

It is impossible to review here the various alliterative theories. The clash between religion and true science has never been so real as many appear to imagine. The tendency of most scientific writers (by which is meant the leaders in research and foremost authorities in its various branches) is to confine themselves to the facts and principles of their own speciality and to admit that the ultimate explanation of origins is still a matter for philosophic speculation. There are, of course, popular authors who speak with far greater precision, and who claim far more for their branch of study than the majority of its leaders. But the average attitude current among prominent exponents of the various sciences would appear to be one of indifferent agnosticism and a greater concentration upon their ever—narrowing and over—specialised fields of research.

In such matters the chief aim of the reverent student of Holy Scripture should be to obtain a clear grasp of basic principles which must be firmly held. What are they?

A full discussion of the many problems connected with this and the following sections is impossible within the limits of this book. Students are advised to read the appropriate chapters in the larger books referred to in the bibliographies.
1. The ultimate origin of the material universe by the free, purposive action of God.
2. The origins of the main divisions of life by similar progressive action.
3. The communality of all mankind. To many it would seem legitimate to add that Scripture teaches the descent of the race from a single human pair, whose being resulted from a similar, but special, act.

In the case of 1 and 2, the time factor is of little or no importance; and, in the case of 3, it becomes so only if it can first be proved that the scriptural genealogies are complete (having been designed to contain mention of each of the generations), and that the suggested chronologies have been properly deduced.
The doctrine of Scripture as to man’s origin is, in its full details, unique in literature.’ He is said to be the result not merely of God’s creation but the subject of deliberation on the part of the Godhead prior to the act. Genesis 1:26, 27 would have us take the view that man’s creation had something unique attached to it. It is clear that true science is not competent to pass judgement on this and the above two assertions. The biblical revelation is not accessible to scientific adjudication, and there is neither call for compromise nor room for conflict. Indeed, in some matters such as the following, science may even be said to provide partial confirmation of biblical teaching:

1. Man is to be regarded as the apex of the system of living things. He is the ‘head’ of creation.
2. The race of mankind is one, and is derived from a single origin (Acts I 7:26). The theories of series of ‘cradles’ for the human race now appear to have been abandoned.
3. By whatever developments his body may have been produced, explanations of a different nature are required to account for man’s mind and his moral nature.

For a review of opposing theories, see books on apologetics. Students should beware of using the term ‘evolution’ loosely. In its original connotation it may legitimately be employed. The Old Testament Scriptures show an evolution in the sense of an ‘unfolding’ of successive stages of a divine plan in human history and of a progressive revelation to men. But the term is best avoided altogether when its use is merely a high—sounding substitute for vague expressions such as ‘somehow came into being’ or ‘for the first time appeared’. Used in this way, it means absolutely nothing. If it is to be substituted for the normal biblical, and much more satisfying,

With regard to the two accounts of man’s creation, in Genesis s :26 man is considered in his relation to the rest of the universe and as a moral being. In Genesis 2:7 it is the physical details which are described. term ‘create’, then it should be confined to its original connection with the mode or the time factor in human origin. Nothing has done more to confuse the issues than the shallow thinking which goes hand in hand with a careless use of this term. The individual Christian may justifiably accept the term as describing the mode of divine intervention, but he must utterly reject it as in itself a sufficient cause.

b. Body, Soul and Spirit
There have long existed amongst Christian thinkers two views of the components of man’s being. Some regard man as tripartite (body, soul and spirit); others as bipartite (body and soul with the spirit as the essence, or another aspect, of the soul). Many accept the view that man is to be regarded as bipartite, for the reasons given below. A third view, creasingly dominant of late, emphasises the unity of man, and regards words like ‘body’ and ‘soul’ as denoting not distinct components of man but different aspects of the whole man’s life and activity in his various relations to God and the world, i.e., man as spirit, man as flesh, etc.

1. Scripture never teaches us to take the view that the body is a useless impediment and clog to the soul, which is to be shed at the earliest possible moment. It is important to observe we are never encouraged to dishonour or maltreat the body. On the contrary, the period of human life in the earthy body is of considerable importance. At the judgement-seat, for example, we are to receive for the deeds ‘done in the body’. The body is obviously regarded as providing the means whereby the moral values inherent in the soul may be given expression.

2. While the human body may possess few anatomical and physiological advantages, and, in comparison with some creatures, even disadvantages, yet Scripture teaches us to regard it with a measure of respect greater than that accorded to the bodies of other living things. For example, God the Son has been pleased to enter into association with a human body, and the Holy Spirit is willing to dwell in redeemed men.

3.‘Soul’ and ‘spirit’ are certainly not to be regarded as synonymous in scriptural language. But, on the other hand, they are not kept invariably distinct. Compare Psalm 74:19 with Ecclesiastics 3:21; Matthew 10:28 with Luke 23:46; Acts 2:27 with 7:59, and see 1 Corinthians 15:45 (AV, Rev. 4. In general, Scripture perhaps favours a division into soul and body. The former is used for the whole person, the human individual, as in our usage ‘a kindly soul’, etc.; cf. AV and Rv with RSV in Leviticus 4:2; 5:2; Romans 2:9;13:1, etc. It is further used for the immaterial part of man which survives death.

5. The references invoked in suggesting the tripartite division are those such as 1 Thessalonians 5:23; Hebrews 4:12; cf. Luke 1:46,47. But those who suggest tripartism admit that soul and spirit in the body are separable only in thought. It would seem best to regard them as differing aspects of the same essence and to remember that, whatever distinctions are made for the spiritual purposes of scriptural teaching, there is a substratum which is common to both soul and spirit.
6. The Bible nowhere depicts man as enjoying fullness of being apart from the body. The body is not merely a temporary abode for the soul regarded as the real man. This is made triumphantly clear by the doctrine of the resurrection of the body, and is not refuted by the difficult passage in 2Corinthians 5:1—8 (see the Tyndale Commentary, ad loc.). Man is essentially body, just as he is essentially soul or spirit.

The author would suggest that the more important distinctions to be observed are:

1. The soul (psyche) is the manifestation of the immaterial part of man towards the world, and spirit (pneuma) is its manifestation towards God (He is a Spirit and man can properly approach Him only ‘in spirit’).

2. In 1Corinthians 2:14,15 we have a distinction drawn between ‘natural’ and ‘spiritual’ men. The unregenerate man (psychikos), or ‘soulish’, is unable to appreciate God’s revelation, but the regenerate man (pneumatikos) is alive towards God. Hence we can speak of the ‘spirits of just men made perfect’ (Heb. 12:23). The essential difference appears to be in the possession of the divine Spirit. Jude 19 describes those ‘devoid of the Spirit’ as (lit.) ‘soulish’. This throws a light on the position of the unbeliever as ‘dead’, and the believer as ‘alive from the dead’ in relationship towards God.

3. Some teachers have pressed this distinction to the point of describing the unregenerate as bipartite and the regenerate as tripartite; and there is a sense in which it is true. So far as man originally was concerned, however, he was possessed of soul as well as body, and the soul was capable of a spiritual relationship with God.

c. ‘Image’ and ‘Likeness’
What is the meaning of these terms, which are used to describe man’s original state?
What they certainly do not mean are:

I. That man’s body resembles anything in the divine ‘form’. As Spirit, God is ‘without parts’.
2. That, as the Socinians taught, it merely describes human dominion over the rest of creation.
3. That man was an incarnation of God. Our Lord’s incarnate life illustrates man’s original relationship to God, but is essentially different in its nature.
4. That since God pronounced man ‘very good’, he possessed inherent perfection apart from his relation to God.

The image and likeness of God are expressed in man by:
1. His personality. Compared with the animals he is self-conscious, possesses the power of abstract thought, and has a spiritual nature.
2. He normally has a moral resemblance to God. This may be seen in the laws which govern human relationships and human government at their best.
3. He possesses dominion, of a limited type, over creation.
4. He has characteristics which argue in favour of his hope of immortality.
Though he was righteous in his unfallen state, that righteousness was obviously not inherent, for God told him His will. He required tuition in righteousness, and having received it, he disobeyed. On the other hand, the Fall was not a necessity. By maintaining his communion with the upholding Creator he need not have sinned. At his Fall the image was retained (although permanently defaced and debased), but the righteousness was lost.

d. Freedom
Scripture makes it abundantly clear that Adam was free to act either in accordance with the divine will or against it. Though he was capable of being tempted (like our Lord when on earth), he was under no compulsion to sin. His act of sin was disobedience by choice. (Compare the action of our Lord, who freely chose not to sin.) He was better placed than we find ourselves in this matter; for, unlike us, Adam had no inward urge to sin. In one sense, we are less free in this respect than he was.
The original righteousness of the first man, however, was not a part of his inalienable right or an inherent characteristic. His remaining righteousness depended upon his relationship with his Maker. All the while that his communion with God was unabrogated by disobedience, the divine power was, as it were, a prophylactic. It cannot be made too clear, or sufficiently emphasised, that Adam’s revolt was entirely unnecessary, deliberate and blameworthy. It had no vestige of being a mere accidental slip. In its nature, the first sin was comparable with that hinted at in the suggestion of the fall of Satan.
Man was in a position not to sin had he wished (posse non peccare); though he was not in a state in which it was impossible for him to sin (non posse peccare).

e. Immortality
In an absolute sense, immortality belongs alone to God. Immortality of the creature is derived. That is, it is dependent upon conservation by the Creator. Also, man was not created incapable of death (as subsequently became evident). There had even been death in the world before his creation, as is shown by many fossilised forms in the lower geological strata. But it is evident from the sacred text that death is not natural to man. The very nature of man as body-and-soul renders death the negation of all that to which man’s characteristics point. It is difficult to believe philosophically (and in spite of the objections and alternative theories which have been devised) that man is not destined for immortality.

In the Old Testament a disembodied spirit in Sheol is regarded with a sense of foreboding and gloom; and, even in the case of the Christian, the New Testament does not give any encouragement to us to regard the ‘unclothed’ spirit with satisfaction. ‘The spirits of just men’ await the consummation of the resurrection morning, when they will be made finally perfect, by the redemption of the body (Rom. 8:23; Phil. 3:21). ‘The tree of life’ in Genesis 3 is to be regarded as symbolic of God’s immortality. The breaking of man’s relationship with God removed him from its influence, thereby affecting his derived immortality. Immortality does not merely mean endless ‘survival’, but ‘eternal life’. It is its quality which is important. While the souls of the unregenerate will survive the disintegration of the body, only the regenerate can experience the life, which is of the same quality as the divine life that has been ‘brought to light’ though the gospel. See 2Timothy 1:10.

f. The Origin of the Soul
The question how the souls of individual men come into being has long been discussed by theologians, and has received in the main two different answers. The Creationist teaches that God implants the soul in each new human being at, or a short time prior to, birth. The Traducianist avers that soul, as well as body, is transmitted from the parents.
The importance of the subject has generally been held to lie in its bearing on the problem of the propagation of original sin. However, the question presupposes that the soul is a separate entity to be distinguished from the rest of the human being, and is not really meaningful when the soul is seen as an aspect or relation of the whole person regarded as a unity (see above). From this latter standpoint, the debate about the ‘origin’ of the soul is resolved by the creation of (the whole) man in God’s image.

Scriptures
1. Creation.—That man was created is stated in Gn. 1:6,27;7,8,21—23;5:1, Mal. 2:I0, and is confirmed by our Lord. See Mt. 19:4; Mk. 10:6.
2. 0rinal State.—’Little lower than the angels’ (Av) or ‘than God’ (av, rsv), Ps. 8:5; ‘the image of God’, Gn.I:26; 9:6; Jas. 3:9. Compare the New Testament statements that the image of God is being restored (Rom. 8:29; Eph. 4~ 23,24; Col. 3:10).
3. Body, Soul, Spirit.—1 Thes. 5:23; 1 Cor. 2:14 (where Paul differentiates between ‘spiritual’ men and ‘natural’ (sensuous) men).

The following distinction is sometimes made on the basis of scriptural references:
(I) Hebrew ruach (breath, wind, spirit) = Greek pneuma. Cf Gn. 41:8 and a Cor. 5:5. It is suggested that this is the part of man capable of God-consciousness and survival of death.
(ii) Hebrew nephesh (soul) = Greek psyche. Cf. Ps. 86:4; Mt. 26:38. This word is taken by some to denote the ego or self-conscious part of man.
Many scholars reject this interpretation on the ground that the words are not consistently used in Scripture with such a distinction. See above.
4. (Spiritual) Immortality.—Immortality in the fullest sense belongs only to God
(1 Tim. 6:16; cf Gn.3:22). True immortality for man is secured only through Christ
(1Cor.15:53,54; 2Tim.1:I0),but see also Mt.22:31,32;25:46; Jn.3:36;5:28,29; Rev. 20:10,15
5. Each man is directly influenced by the headship of the race.—Rom.5:12—21 and 1 Cor. 15:20—22, 44—49 (cf. Col. 3:9, 10).

Questions
1. To what extent can biblical and scientific views of man’s origins be regarded as complementary?
2. Do you regard man’s nature as bipartite or tripartite, or neither? Give reasons for your answer.
3. What importance may be attached to the similarity in phrase between the descriptions of our Lord in Col. 1:15 and Heb. Gen 1:3 (sty) and the description of man’s nature as created by God in Gen.1:26? Discuss the phrases used. Cf also Ps.8:4—6 with Heb.2:5—9.

2. The Fall of Man and Original Sin
a. The Origin of Evil
The ultimate mystery of the origin of evil is not open to explanation by man, whether he approaches the problem through philosophy or through revelation. The most that the latter supplies is found, for example, in the form of scattered hints relating to the remote past and suggestions as to the motives behind Satan’s persistent hostility to the Son of God. Scripture does not encourage philosophical speculation on this subject and, ever keeping itself to the practical needs of mankind, focuses the attention on the acts of human responsibility. The present-day Christian would be well advised to do the same.

But the reader should have settled views on certain underlying principles which are abundantly clear in Scripture. We can give no final answer to such questions as ‘Why did not God’s foreknowledge lead Him to anticipate and to prevent sin both in the first man and also at its first entry into the universe (in whatever form this may have been)?’ But we can state the following on the authority of revelation.

1. God is not the author of sin.
2. God has no need of sin in order to enhance His glory, and He did not permit it solely in order to demonstrate His moral grandeur.
3. The subsequent responsibility of mankind in relation to sin is in no way diminished nor excused on the ground that the men now living were not guilty of its inception.
4. God is not to be regarded as a ‘party’ to the repeated acts of sin— e.g., those of sex—which man has all too successfully perpetuated, nor is He to be held as partly responsible for the perpetuation of vice simply because He has not withdrawn His sustaining power from the universe. If man freely chooses to misuse certain of his wonderful endowments and to prostitute his remarkable abilities to base ends, it is scarcely just to blame God.

Space forbids a review of the theories and speculations of philosophy. It is worth reflecting upon the possibility, as was suggested by Augustine, that evil, being essentially negative, is not to be regarded as having an origin in the usually accepted sense.

b. The Consequences of the Fall
It is essential to realise that man’s constitution—his mind, his emotions and his will—remained intact. Their powers were certainly diminished, but their chief characteristics were perpetuated. Scripture concentrates its emphasis upon man’s spiritual loss. The most valuable thing he forfeited was his right of free communion with God. Heaven would appear to have been very close to the first man and the veil between earth and the unseen very thin. Man’s rebellion has dislocated his power of communication with the Godhead and thrust between his posterity and the divine Being a barrier which only Christ can remove. Fallen man still has a capacity for such communion, but he has no power to exercise it until he receives reconciliation in Christ and is ‘renewed’ by the Holy Spirit. A consequence of the loss of this upward ‘pull’ is that man is now a prey to ‘the law of sin’ in his members, which continually exerts a downward force which we may compare with that of the law of gravity. Man is unable to escape its continuous operation until he is made free by the operation of another and stronger law introduced and controlled by the Spirit of God.

The further disabilities imposed by the divine providence are in the nature of a discipline, and their object is chiefly to restrain man from further evil. Among these disciplinary measures are the continuous toil for livelihood against the relentless course of nature, the difficulties of childbirth, the limitation of the duration of physical well-being to an average of seventy years, and finally physical disintegration. In the thought-life, the accusations of conscience, a sense of shame and fear of retribution all combine to restrain from further evil.

Man forfeited also his ‘original righteousness’ or conformity to the will and purpose of God, although he is still under the necessity (now become partly disciplinary) of being subject to the divine law. He can regain a position of righteousness only through the obedience of Christ. In Christ he is free from the condemnation of the law and, through the operation of the Holy Spirit, is gradually freed from the corruption of sin.

Original Sin
Revelation provides the explanation of what is a matter of universal experience—the hereditary tendency to sin which sooner or later makes itself evident in every child. Scripture declares that the consequences of sin have descended upon all men, and particularly the inherent and persistent bias towards sin, already referred to above as ‘the law of sin’.

A full discussion of the problems underlying this most important subject is impossible within the limits of the present study. Students are strongly advised to refer to some of the books mentioned in the bibliography in order to arrive at an accurate understanding of the nature of man’s spiritual condition. The following brief notes are intended to indicate several of the most important aspects of the inquiry.

1.The Teaching of Scripture.—Passages such as Genesis 8:21 and Psalm 51:5 indicate that from the moment of conception man becomes subject to a persistent tendency to sin and rebellion against the divine will. The condition in which man finds himself is the reverse of ‘original righteousness’, and he has lost the power to become, and habitually to remain, righteous. This is a matter of universal experience. The word used by the mediaeval theologians to describe this condition was ‘deprivation’. The state of subjection to the evil principle continuously operating is one of depravity. The states of deprivation and of depravity are always transmitted at birth (Job.14:1,4;15:14; Jn.3:6). There is no evidence that anyone has ever escaped these birth-taints, except our Lord. Scripture gives no hint of the Roman Catholic doctrine of the immaculate conception of the blessed virgin. By the incarnation of our Lord, and only in the case of that incarnation, was the process interrupted so that the Lord was free from this law as Him ‘who knew no sin’.
The condition is both negative and positive. Negatively, it may be stated that ‘man is very far gone from original righteousness’ (i.e., in a state of ‘deprivation’); positively, he ‘is of his own nature inclined to evil, so that the flesh lusteth always contrary to the spirit’ (i.e., there is a condition of ‘depravity’ or the persistence of an evil principle acting as a downward force).

2. Total Depravity.—C are must be taken to see that this phase is used only in the sense originally given to it by theologians. It was never intended to convey the meaning that man is as bad as he possibly can be, and that every trace of moral rectitude has been lost in fallen man. Total depravity is intended to indicate that the evil principle above described has invaded each part of human nature, so that there is no part of it which can now invariably perform righteous acts or invariably think righteous thoughts. That is to say, the totality applies rather to the field of operation of the evil principle and not to the actual degree of evil in the individual. The depravity is also total in the sense that, a p art from divine aid, it is irreversible. A good illustration of the theological position is the difference between a straight and a crooked line. A line that is not the shortest distance between two points is crooked or depraved (i.e., turned aside). If it cannot straighten itself, it is totally depraved, whether it is an inch or a mile out of plumb. There is no means known to man by which he can alter the bias of his nature.

3. Some Objections.—Various objections have been urged against this doctrine. A few examples may be given:

(I) God would not be righteous to give men a hopeless start in their race of life and then to condemn them to failure.
(ii) This doctrine makes God the Author of sin, since He is the Author of human nature and therefore of sinful nature.
(iii) It conflicts with man’s ‘freedom’.
(iv) As a consequence man is responsible only for voluntary acts, and if he is subject to an inexorable law, he is not able to be righteous.

In reviewing these, and all such difficulties, the student is strongly advised to be very careful about the use of terms. For example, in (ii) the word ‘nature’ is used in two senses—God is certainly the Author of human nature in the sense of its essence, but He is not the Author of our present disposition to sin except in so far as He is the Author of man’s freedom. Because He has not destroyed man’s power to perpetuate human existence, He cannot be accounted to be the active Author of mankind’s perversions! The student is also advised to note carefully the emphasis of Scripture in all such problems. The problems, as stated above in (iii) and (iv), place the emphasis upon man’s limitations, though of course it should be realised that all created beings are necessarily limited. Angels, for example, act ‘freely’, but under a constant law of righteousness. If they had not been ‘free’, none could have fallen. Scripture, on the other hand, places the emphasis on man’s freedom to choose Christ, if he will. ‘This is the judgement, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light.’ Nothing can excuse a man who deliberately refuses Christ. There are hints of similar moral choices open to men even without ‘special’ revelation (cf Acts 17:27,30;
Rom.1:19—25; 2:14, is). Scripture does not regard man’s depravity as conflicting with his responsibility.

The student is advised to consider carefully several problems outside the range of theology proper before committing himself to hasty generalisations on the subject of ‘free will’. Freedom is used in many different senses. It means frequently nothing more than the absence of external constraint. A drunkard drinks freely if he is not forcibly compelled to imbibe liquor. It sometimes means ability to control impulses. A man acts freely when he disregards an inner craving. Closely akin to this latter view, freedom is identified with conformity to our reason. We speak of men ‘blinded by passion’, etc. All men are rational, yet no man acts always in a perfectly rational manner. This is a problem of ethics that runs parallel with the theological problem of original sin.

Then, again, psychology takes account of a man’s ‘history’. Psychoanalysis explains irrational action by subconscious obsession. Race and environment are requisitioned to explain many of our simplest and apparently freest acts. ‘Good form’ is partly a tradition and partly a discipline imposed on life. So we ask in relation to objection (I) above, ‘Where shall we place the start?’ It is impossible to regard men as unrelated unoriginated units. There is no more facile, and no more ultimately baffling, mental process than that which separates the person and nature of the individual, giving to the former ‘freedom’ and to the latter a history. It is the bane of theology as well as of psychology.

The problem of freedom centres in the question, ‘Can we secure moral choice in a finite being without granting the possibility of a wrong moral choice? Given the wrong turning, what would be the possible effects?’ The problem of objection (iv) is, ‘Can we isolate an act from its history and make it voluntary in the sense of being unrelated to a previous moral condition? If we cannot, what meaning attaches to voluntary?’ The answer must be that voluntary means the free expression of an individual at any moment, his nature and history entering as real elements into his choice, which is free but not unconditioned. If this be not so, all attempts at a science of psychology are in vain and education is meaningless.

It has often been pointed out (without sufficient attention having been paid to it) that the difficulties felt by some modern minds to the individual’s sharing in the fate of the race are unnecessary if the following be observed. It was open to God to organise human life on either an individual or some collective basis. In His wisdom He selected the collective method and bound men together. This, it must be acknowledged, is in many cases for their common good. When sin entered, short of arresting the progress of human generation altogether, God could not prevent the perpetuation of ‘racial sin’.
On the other hand, it has also not been fully appreciated that the cross of Christ saved man from utter ruin. In the mediatorial and redemptive work of Christ there is a constant provision for the uplift of the fallen race. God, to whom time stands in a different relation from that which it bears to us, was able to apply the virtue of the cross both before and after the event (Rom.3:24—26; 5:6, 8, 10 and 12—19). But while the obedience of ‘the last Adam’ benefits all men indirectly, its eternal redemptive value is experienced only by those who, having committed actual sin, renounce their own disobedience and obey the gospel.

It needs to be emphasised that just as racial sin has descended upon all men under the collective system of human organisation, on exactly the same principle the obedience of the new Head of the race is able to benefit those who receive Him as their Head. If we do not allow the one, we must disallow the other. In addition, it should be added that by virtue of the new covenant the penitent sinner who acknowledges Him as his Head is assured of all that Adam and the race could ever have attained had original righteousness not been lost.
It has been said that had there been no story of the Fall in our Bibles we should have been compelled to invent something of the kind to account for human history.

d. Pelagianism and Other Divergent Theories
Several of the chief divergent views are worth noting:

1. In the early part of the fifth century, Pelagius developed teaching which differed radically from that held generally in the church. He contended that God could not justly demand from man more than man could at any time perform. The essence of his teaching was that obligation is relative to the ability to perform. ‘If I ought, I can.’ The following is a brief summary of the chief points.

(I) Human freedom is such that man has complete power at any moment to choose between good and evil and to perform the good if he so wills. Sin, therefore, consists only in deliberate and, as it were, momentary choice of evil.

(ii) There is no hereditary principle of sin, and men are born into the same moral condition as Adam possessed before his Fall.
(iii) Adam was created mortal and would have died in any case. His sin affected no-one but himself.
(iv) Men are able to live free from sin if they wish, and some have actually done so apart from the supernatural influence of Christ and of the Holy Spirit. Pelagius did, however, recognise the force of the habit of sin.

The implications of this teaching lead finally to the narrowing of the nature of sin to a series of isolated acts of rebellion (without relation to what precedes or follows) and to a denial of the absolute necessity of divine grace in human redemption.

Briefly, the doctrine of the Pelagians is contradicted by:

(i) The common experience of men that they know they should perfectly love God and their frequent wish to do right; but they habitually fail in both.
(ii) The moral nature of men who know that their thought-life is the chief source of the trouble: they are the victims of jealousy, hatred, malice, pride, over which they can gain no control.
(iii) Man’s experience that freedom and ability to perform are not identical.
(iv) The Word of God. This is utterly at variance with these doctrines and states categorically that Adam’s sin has affected all men and that the grace of God is a necessity.

Augustine met Pelagianism with a clear definition of the nature of sin and an overwhelming emphasis upon the necessity of the work of Christ for human restoration. Augustine taught that sin, being a lack of conformity to the law of moral good, is in the nature of a negation and therefore is not a necessity. He also stated the traditional doctrine of inherited depravity and the necessity for divine grace.

2. There is a marked divergence between Roman Catholic and
Protestant doctrine on this subject. The former is, in practice, semi— Pelagian (although the findings of the Council of Trent are anti-Pelagian).
There is no consistency in the scheme of the Tridentine Council, but the
following is a valid summary.

(i) The effects of the Fall were loss of original righteousness, physical disabilities which have been transmitted, and spiritual death (not closely defined). Trent is not clear about a condition of depravity.
(ii) The consequences of original sin are transmitted to each child and can be removed only by Christ in the grace of baptism.
(iii) Baptism remits not only the guilt but the whole nature of original sin and, though a desire to sin remains after baptism, it is not itself to be regarded as having the nature of sin, though it may issue in actual sin. The stress is upon the virtue of the church’s baptism.

The Protestant divines strongly asserted that there is also an evil principle in man, that there is no power in human nature which can lead to recovery and that the grace of God alone can effect his salvation. They protested that the desire to sin (concupiscence) had the nature of sin and was ‘an infection of the nature’ whether in the baptised or unbaptized. The Reformers taught that as a consequence of Adam’s Fall every man is in a condition both of deprivation (the loss of original righteousness) and depravity (the existence of an evil principle).

3. There are a number of modern theories, most of which are modifications, or advances upon, the philosophic difficulties debated during the Middle Ages. Reference is made to them in order that the student may be on his guard against any teaching which underestimates the serious nature of sin. It has been well said that the point of departure in many heresies is traceable to an inadequate view of sin and its far—reaching consequences. Modem psychology, as taught and practised by some, would tend to deny the fact of sin as such and to explain away the responsibility of man on the grounds of sex abnormalities or endocrine gland disturbance. But those who would thus disprove the reality of sin appear oblivious of the fact that it is human sin which is the root cause of the abnormalities and disturbances. At the most, their contentions affect the question of responsibility in certain cases only.

Scriptures
1. The ultimate origin of evil is not described in Scripture and no attempt is made to give us a solution of the mystery as to why God permitted the first sin of man. Note carefully that Isaiah 45:7 means that God ordained the consequences of sin, not the sin itself. Scripture begins by stating Satan’s malignant attitude to God and, incidentally, to God’s most recent creature—man. See Gn.3:1—7; Is. 14:12—I5; Ezk.28:12—19; Jn.8:44; 2 Cor.11:3; Rev. 12:9.

2. The Consequences of the Fall.—Gn.3:14—19; cf the development of the many vices in Gn.6 and 9-19; Jb.14:1—10; Ps. 90:5—12; Rom.3:10—18; 5:12—al; 7:5—24; 8:10, 19—22; 1 Tim. 2:13—15; Jas. 4:14.
3. Original Sin..—Gn.5:3 (NB ‘in his own (not God’s) image’); 6:5, 12, I3; 8:21; Jb.15:14—16;
Ps.14:1—3; 51:5; 143:2; Je.17:9; Mt. 7:16; 12:33—35; . 7:20—23; Rom 1:18—3:23; 8:7, 8; I Cor. 15:22; Gal. 3:10; Eph. 2:1—3; 4:18, 19; I Jn. 3:8.

Questions
1. Do you believe that there is a personal devil? If you do not, can you give any other satisfactory explanation of the origin and prevalence of evil in the world? State why you find this explanation satisfying.
2. List the changes which occurred at the Fall in the relationship between (a) God and man, (b) man and man, and (c) man and the rest of creation.
3. ‘Separation from God is in itself a sufficient punishment of sin.’ Discuss this statement.
4. What are the main views as to the perpetuation of sin? Do you think that the term ‘original sin’ is satisfactory? Can you suggest a better?
5. Does the view that God permitted the transmission of an ‘hereditary taint’ rather than ‘hereditary sin’ relieve the problem connected with the justice of original sin?
6. Explain the meaning of ‘total depravity’ in non-technical language. Can you think of a less ambiguous phrase to convey its full traditional connotation?

3. The Nature and Extent of Sin
a. The Nature of Sin
It should be remembered that the Bible is ‘a chronicle of redemption’ and not a textbook on sin. Hence the scarcity of precise definitions. But the biblical view of sin is that of willful disobedience to the divine will, or, in other words, it is ultimately an act or attitude of deliberate rebellion. It may be described in various terms and its manifestations may be variously viewed according to the relations in which it is being examined, but the ugly facts of its true characteristics should never be overlooked.
‘Sin’ is a generic term describing such ideas as ‘failure to attain to a prescribed standard’, ‘self—will’ and ‘lawlessness’ (in the sense of active opposition to law, as well as of neglect). It takes for granted the possession by man of personality and assumes his understanding of what is required, and his responsibility, contingent upon his freedom. It must be distinguished from the term ‘evil’. Evil may exist apart from human responsibility for it, but sin is connected with the volition of an individual or group. In this connection, sin must be regarded as the voluntary separation of man from God.

In considering God’s view of sin, two aspects must be distinguished. In relation to God’s nature it is unholiness, and in relation to His moral government it is direct disobedience to the divine law. So far as God’s requirements are concerned, man has been constituted a moral being and he is universally aware of the fact. For instance, he is fully aware both from his own consciousness and from divine revelation that he is under law to God. He is also aware that he is responsible to obey; and his conscience constantly witnesses to his duty to obey. In the last analysis, man’s personal demerit is expressed through his will. Hence, in relation to God’s government, sin is ultimately the refusal of man’s will to yield obedience to the divine requirements. It must be noticed, however, that in relation to God Himself, sin exists in man’s mind and heart. Human nature is sinful, and it is because of this sinful nature that there is expression in overt acts (Mt. 15:18).

b. The Extent of Sin
At this stage we need only summarize the points made in our full-scale discussion above. The state of sin is declared by Scripture to be shared by every individual who has been naturally born. Our Lord alone is excepted because of His supernatural birth. It must also be emphasized that not only is every individual involved, but every part of that individual’s nature. Together with human characteristics there is transmitted to each new individual a sinful bias, involving liability to endure the consequences of human sin, and the evil principle (‘the law of sin’) which will uncompromisingly work in antagonism to the requirements of the divine law. The objection that this view is not that of the Old Testament writers, but was introduced by the apostle to the Gentiles, is surely disproved by Genesis 6: 12;Job 25:4; Psalm 51:5. It was also deduced by later Jewish writers before the New Testament came into existence.

c. Sin and the Individual
The personality of fallen man is in a state of disharmony. Emotions, mind and will which should be perfectly and continually balanced in a movement for his highest good are repeatedly found in a state of conflict. Most damaging of all is the ascendancy of the lower and sensuous departments of his nature over the higher and spiritual. He knows and approves the good, yet he continually performs the evil which he hates (see Rom.6 and 7). That is to say, ‘original sin’ is the root of the actual sin manifested in the individual’s repeated acts,

Scriptures
1. Sin primarily is ‘Rebellion’ .—Je.44:4; Dn. 9:5, 6, 11; Rom.8:7; 1 Jn.3:4. For other aspects of sin see Mt 15:18; Rom.14:23; Heb.3:13 ;Jas. 4:17; I Jn.2:16. That it is also a relentless evil principle may be inferred from Rom.6:6; 7:17, 23.
2. Sin and the Individual.—Jn.3:3;Rom. 7:5—24; 8:6—8; 1 Cor.2:14; Gal. 5:17— 21; Col. 2:13; Heb. 3:13.

Questions

What factors were present in the first act of human sin? What did the sin consist of? Cf. Jn.8:44

2 Cor.11:3; 1 Tim. 2:14; Jas. 1:14, 15; 1 Jn.2:16.
2. Classify the scriptural definitions and descriptive phrases connected with sin.
3. Trace the development in the teaching about the nature of sin in (i) the Pentateuch, (ii) the Psalms, (iii) our Lord’s attitude to sinners, (iv) the teachings of St. Paul and St. John.
4. Is it correct to tell children that they are ‘sinners’? If not, give your reasons and state precisely what they are to be taught on the subject of wrong-doing.

4. Guilt and Retribution
a. The Nature of Guilt
It is frequently objected that it is not just for God to impute guilt to an individual who was born involuntarily into the world without power to resist and who started life with a bias towards the sin to which guilt is attached. Others (not observing the nature of guilt) will go further and protest that it is grossly unfair for the divine justice to extend Adam’s guilt to each individual of today.
A careful distinction must be preserved between the guilt of an individual act and guilt resulting from corporate responsibility. It often happens in our ordinary life that one man becomes involved in responsibility for another’s wrongdoing. No man today is condemned by God for the guilt of Adam’s individual act, but if Adam is the fountainhead of the race, then it is reasonable to assume a corporate responsibility for the first act of sin. It lies in the very principle of the perpetuation of the race that man, coming into the inheritance tainted by early rebellion, is not only involved in the guilt but adopts for himself an attitude of revolt from the beginning of his conscious existence.

Scripture implies that just as ‘original sin’ is imparted to the individual, so what may be termed ‘original guilt’ is reckoned by God. Indeed, it is not possible to conceive of sin without its correlate of guilt. The student ought to compare carefully the application of the efficacy of the atonement of Christ. For example, the impartation of ‘original sin’ is met by the importation of the ‘new nature’; and ‘original guilt’ is met by ‘remission’ of sin on the basis of our Lord’s sacrificial death. The two principles are closely parallel. As from Adam men derive sin and guilt, so from Christ, the new federal Head of the race, we derive forgiveness and righteousness.
Finally, man is not eternally condemned for sin other than his own. Actual sin and guilt are joined by God. Men themselves deliberately choose to sin. Those who have heard the gospel message are left wholly without excuse, since they have deliberately rejected the pardon offered.1

b. Conscience
A small separate section has been allotted to the subject of conscience, in order to emphasize its nature.
1. The fate of those who have never heard of Christ is more difficult. Many find in Romans 1:18—25 and 2:12—16 evidence for a judgment based on the measure of light they have enjoyed. We must remember that the judgment related concerns itself with those who have been faced with Christ
(cf Jn.3:19), but on the other hand, Scripture provides no grounds for complacency as to the fate of the unevangelised.
MAN AND SIN

Conscience is to be regarded as nothing more than man’s constant assessor, witnessing to the extent or otherwise of his conformity to the divine law (Rom.2: I5). Hence, imprinted on the mind of the personality which has been created in God’s image, is a definite principle which seeks to enforce constant obedience to the divine law. While in itself possessing no power as an aid to obedience, it at least leaves man little excuse for not being aware of the nature of his acts, and to that extent increases his responsibility. Conscience, however, assesses on the evidence before it. In this sense conscience is capable of development.

c. The Justice of Retribution
Punishment is an inevitable sequel to sin. Nor has divine retribution anything of the nature of vindictiveness attaching to it. The object of punishment is the vindication of God as the Lawgiver. To some extent this is true of the punishment prescribed by a human magistrate. Man deliberately elected to separate himself from God by sin; God is just, on His side, separating Himself from sinful man.
The Bible mentions a form of judicial dealing (in the case of a Christian, for example) which is termed ‘chastening’ or ‘discipline’. The object of this is to bring the individual so disciplined to repentance and restoration. But in the case of the sin and guilt of mankind God is declared to be unalterably opposed to ‘all ungodliness and wickedness of men’. The punishment threatened against sin in vindication of the divine law is spiritual death.

Scriptures

1. The Nature of Guilt.—Ex. 9:27; Is. 6:5; Rom.1:18—21, 32; 3:4—20; 5:16, 18; Jas. 2:9—12.
2. Conscience.—Rom.2:14, 15; 9:1; 13:5; I Cor.8:7, I2; 1 Tim. 4:2; Heb.9:9, 14: 1 Pet. 3:16, 21; I Jn.3:19-21.
3. The Justice of Retribution.—Gn.18:25; 2 Ch.36:15—17 Ne.9:33—35;Jb. 8:3,
4; Ec.8:11—13; Mal. 3:18; Mt.10:15; Lk.12:47, 48; 23:40. 4I; Rom.2:1—16;3:8;12:19; Jas. 4:12.

Questions

1. What ‘raw materials’ does conscience work with and by? How far is its functioning dependent upon previous instruction and training?
2. How are conscience and guilt interrelated? Compare, for example, the common phrase ‘to have on one’s conscience’. Can conscience be mistaken?
3. How does Scripture’s description of man as a free agent bear upon the subject of his guilt?

5. God’s Eternal Purpose and Human Freedom
a. The Nature of the Purpose
There is nothing which more stabilizes faith than the full discovery that God is working to a plan. While the individual Christian is responsible for doing his utmost to extend the knowledge of the gospel and to work for the interests of Christ both in the church and in the world, he is not finally responsible for the results. After all the busy activity of man has done its utmost, the Godhead unerringly pursues the fulfillment of His eternal purpose.
The words of Ephesians I: 11—’According to the purpose of him who accomplishes all things according to the counsel of his will’—reveal the fact of what may be called ‘deliberative counsel’ on the part of the Godhead, leading to a ‘purpose’ which is being continually realized. The ultimate purpose of God is that His Son shall be supreme in the universe, that He may ‘unite all things’ in Christ, that ‘in everything he might be preeminent’ (Eph.1:10; Col.1:18). In the completion of this plan, the cross of Christ is stated to be essential. Coinciding with this purpose, and bringing into it all that His love means, is the collateral purpose that the men who shall have received Christ may be ‘conformed to the image of his Son’. It should be noticed that it is never termed a ‘plan to redeem the race’, nor is it ever referred to as an ‘absolute decree’ in itself. Nor is the reverse ever stated, that God decreed absolutely the destruction and eternal loss of any man. There is a confusion of thought in the notion of an ‘absolute decree’. Indeed, the conception of an isolated ‘decree’, considered apart from the whole condition of life and being in which men find themselves, is a return in thought to the deist position. The means, as well as the end, must be included in God’s purpose. There is, however, a plan for the salvation of God’s people and, associated with it as well as with our Lord’s part in the accomplishment of the eternal decree, is the revelation that God has foreordained that those who receive Christ shall be made like Him (Rom.8:29, 30). Scripture does not go much beyond this.

b. The Father’s Electing Grace and Covenant
Much that is false has been written and much needless controversy has been pursued by theologians and philosophers on the subject of God’s electing grace. It is an outstanding case of the need for adhering to what Scripture actually states and for avoiding the temptation to construct a complete logical system. By a process of induction we may obtain the following from Scripture.

1. Preceding human history, as recorded in the divine revelation, there existed in the mind of the sacred Trinity a counsel of redemption.
2. Its precise nature is not revealed to us beyond the fact that it was the ‘Father’s will’, which was accepted for completion by the Son and the details of which were to be put into operation by the Holy Spirit.
3. It is at least clear that the mysterious relations of the Persons of the Trinity permitted of each of the Persons taking a distinct part in the salvation of men’—the Father as the Author of the plan; the Son, begotten from the Father, performing the redemptive will of the Father (or of the triune Godhead); the Spirit, proceeding from Both, putting into execution the will of Both and being united with Them in the purpose of redemption. In relation to men, the Father’s purpose selected as its chief end the redemption of fallen man, chose the atoning sacrifice of Calvary as its necessary means, and provided for effectual application of the means in its accomplishment.

Dealing first with the covenant in general and then proceeding to the case of an individual who benefits from it, the precise description of this covenant should be noticed. The covenants with Adam, Noah and Abraham are illuminative of, and lead up to, the one supreme covenant which is described as having been kept secret until the time had fully come’, when Christ was revealed to become its Mediator and Surety. It is described as being between the Father and the Son, that is to say, made ‘on our behalf’ who were incapable of keeping our side of any contract between God and man. One of the chief ‘clauses’ in the covenant is that which promises the elevation of man in Christ to a position far higher than that which Adam had attained when he fell. It is to this that God has predestined man in Christ, not to be returned to an earthly paradise, but to be elevated into the ‘image’ of the divine Son.

But the word ‘predestination’ also implies a relation to the individuals who believe and a divine control of the steps leading up to their acceptance of Christ and to their renewal in His image, and the word ‘election’ implies this even more clearly. In other words, ‘election’ is a particular way of speaking of this ‘predestination’ as applied to those who are chosen to enjoy its fulfillment. Hence the New Testament uses the term ‘elect’ to describe those who in point of fact have been enlightened and are clearly separated from those around them by their undoubted allegiance to Christ and their different manner of life. But their election is nevertheless depicted as taking place ‘in Christ before the foundation of the world’, i.e., on a par with predestination.

The chief point of difficulty concerns the Father’s electing grace. All agree that repentance and faith are necessary for the individual’s salvation. All are agreed that Christ is the sole channel through whom God bestows redemption. All are agreed that sanctity of life is a necessity in the redeemed man. All are agreed that man is unable to help himself and needs the awakening and empowering touch of the divine Spirit. All are also agreed that after his conversion the redeemed and sanctified person generally becomes aware that his conversion was no mere accident and that he discovers God has had a plan for his life, and is filled with gratitude that he is permitted to be among the redeemed.
But the point of disagreement comes in relation to the grounds of their election. To some, election is the result of God’s having foreseen their potential faith and the fact that they would turn to Him when they heard the gospel. In this case, the ‘election’ confirms and seals their response to God, with its consequent fruit of predestinated conformity with Christ. To others, their response of faith and their turning to God were the result of God’s prior electing grace, which sought them in time and predisposed their wills to respond to His call. In the former case it is difficult to see why the word ‘election’ is used at all; in the latter it appears to some as if God’s election would be arbitrary and human free will would be impaired.

While it is true that Scripture teaches that it would be just and lawful for God to do what He wished with His own, the whole of Scripture is against the notion of any rigid arbitrariness in God.
What may be called the moderate Calvinist view appears to be in accord with Scripture and free from most of the causes for objection. In order that Christ might be presented with a redeemed church when He is revealed as supreme in the universe, God has ordained that at least some should be gathered out from the mass of men which had forfeited all claim to mercy by a deliberate revolt against God. This gathering of ‘the elect’ is effected by a preordained ‘effectual calling’.’

The comparative numerical extent to which God’s electing grace applies, the just and righteous ground of His elective choice and many kindred problems, are not revealed to us. We are, however, assured from Scripture that whatever man may find himself outside the sphere of the covenant of redemption has not had his chances of coming to Christ reduced one iota by God’s electing grace.
Nor can electing grace which controls and redirects a stubborn will impair the original liability incurred by the act of revolt or the consequent attitude, so that man’s responsibility remains exactly as it would always have been. Grace overcomes the spirit of revolt, reversing the soul’s attitude to God. The guilt of revolt remains still to be judged where grace does not operate.

c. Some Cautions
Both revelation and philosophy alike do not supply a complete explanation, and the latter in an endeavour to present a uniform system has often presented the most improbable and conflicting views. There are some points in the scheme of Christian doctrine where a ‘reverent agnosticism and an earnest attempt to remain faithful to the biblical presentation are far preferable to the production of a completely ‘water—tight’ scheme. In our attempts to trace the operations of the divine purposes our minds only wreck themselves again and again. The earnest student who essays to probe the profundities of this subject would do well to keep before him the following cautions which are suggested in the book Outlines of Christian Doctrine:’

1. This doctrine, as with other similar spiritual teaching, is not presented in Scripture in vacuo. It is not presented as an abstract problem, but is related both to the goodness of God and to the sin of the creature.
2. Scripture does not give the least suggestion that God forces His will on the creature. Man is always regarded as free.
3. The question of divine choice is presented in such a way as to result in definite moral impressions—e.g., that God’s mercy is completely unmerited by the individual who is contemplating it.
4. The question of God’s choice, wonderful as it is, is only a part of the doctrine of salvation. It cannot be used to excuse neglect or a moment of willful sin.
5. The Christian preacher (who in any case is ignorant of God’s actual choices) is responsible for beseeching everyone to be reconciled to God. He and the non-Christian have an equal responsibility, the one to foster the world-wide spread of the gospel, the other to respond to its message.
6. The doctrine of the atonement is undoubtedly presented in Scripture as not ultimately restricted in its scope. It has a world—wide aspect, and all may be invited to an actual provision without qualification on the part of the preacher.’
7. While implying that the man who has ‘confirmed’ his election practically by whole—hearted acceptance of Christ is eternally secure, Scripture yet abounds in earnest warnings against presumption and any form of dilly-dallying with sin. The Christian is even regarded as under a greater responsibility not to trifle with sin.
8. Like so many other problems, the more we approach it from a personal communion with God the less do various difficulties connected with certain aspects trouble us. Solvitur ambulando cum Deo.
d. Historical Survey of the Doctrine
Space forbids more than a few hints as to the chief schools of thought which have arisen during church history. It must also be remembered that the problem is not confined to Christianity. The teaching of the Stoics, for example, results in an extreme form of ‘fatalism’, and that of the Pharisees and certain non—Christian religions (e.g., Islam) implies this view.

1. To about the year AD 350, the early Fathers repeatedly refer to the subject, mostly in order to combat the fatalism of the pagan or Jewish views mentioned above. There was no systematic presentation of the subject.

2. AD 350—600.—Augustine first approached the subject in a fuller manner, developing his strong advocacy of the necessity of divine grace, when combating the Pelagian heresy, which much overemphasized man’s power of self-determination, even to the extent of denying original sin. The essential point in his teaching is that God is absolutely sovereign and that any holiness we may possess is invariably the result of God’s prior thought and act on our behalf. As for the unregenerate, he taught that God simply left them to the consequences of their sins. The Latin church became chiefly Augustinian, whereas the Greek church left the problem somewhat indefinite, insisting on man’s freedom and God’s grace without any serious attempt to relate the two sides of the question.

3. AD 600-1500.—The mediaeval schoolmen were mostly Augustinian. A few, however, had Pelagian tendencies.

4. The Reformation Era.—At the Council of Trent the Roman Catholic church revealed a tendency away from Augustinian views, although it paid lip-service to them. This tendency was further accentuated by the success of the Jesuits in suppressing the writings and school of the Jansenists in France. That church, in spite of its official formulae, may now fairly be classed either as ‘Semi—Pelagian’ or else as the chief of the ‘Arminian’ systems.

The Reformers were not agreed as to detail, but were in the main convinced Augustinians. The matter was made an issue among the Reformers by Calvin’s Institutes. This remarkable treatise is probably the most severely logical of all Reformation writings. Calvin, especially in his controversial defense of his system against opponents, placed an emphasis on the divine sovereignty which subsequent and less able followers carried to an extreme of which he himself was not guilty. Calvin himself was a logical Augustinian. It was his followers who developed the extremes from which some divines in the next period of history reacted. The prominence given to the doctrine of the sovereignty of divine grace was part of the Reformation insistence on a spiritual and practical creed, freed from the shackles of sacerdotalism. The English Reformers were what would now be called Calvinists.

5. To the Present Day.—At the beginning of the seventeenth century several teachers reacted from the extreme view of some of Calvin’s followers. Arminius (a Dutch divine) stated a view which, while acknowledging the necessity for divine grace, appeared to the divines of the Synod of Dort, who condemned it, to place too much emphasis on the freedom of man’s will in determining his own relation to the divine plan. This view was adopted by Laud and prevailed in England after the Restoration. It was a strong element in Wesley’s teaching, whereas the eighteenth-century Evangelicals of the Church of England were Augustimans. In greater or lesser degree Augustiianism (Calvinism) competes with Armiianism, and even forms of Semi-Pelagianism, for the supremacy in many sections of the church. Others are predominantly of one viewpoint. The Presbyterian churches, for example, are predominantly Calvinistic in creed though not always in practical fact.
This divergence of viewpoint is very frequently (and often without their realizing it) at the root of arguments between two equally earnest Christians. It invades almost every department of Christian doctrine and materially affects the attitude of each preacher to the methods by which the gospel may be presented to men. It might save much well-meant but wasted discussion if both the arguers could awaken to the fact that the Calvinist is usually commencing with God’s relation to the problem and working down to man’s, and the Arminian is starting with man s viewpoint and working up to God’s. The Calvinist will never be able to understand what he regards as a hopelessly low view of the supreme efficacy of the divine operations. The Arminian equally is appalled at what he feels is a lack of appreciation of the dire results ‘if man should fail’ in his responsibility to respond to the divine requirements.

e. Theories and Problems
It must suffice here to indicate some of the considerations which must be taken into account by those who wish to have even the smallest grasp of the problems confronting the Christian thinker.

I. In the divine revelation there are as clear references to some form of particularism as there are to the broad, universal application of the gospel. There are also examples of an individual, such as Abraham, or of nations, such as Israel, being specially selected to bestow blessing upon others. It is therefore of importance that something of the nature of God’s predestination should be known.

2. There is the further intellectual problem as to how man’s will can be considered really ‘free’ in the matter of the acceptance or rejection of divine grace, if God has predetermined some form of sovereign election.The two main schools of thought are as follows (though we must not forget that many people endeavor to adhere to some form of synthesis of their viewpoints):

1. The Arminian View.—This teaches that God predestinates those whom His attribute of foreknowledge is able to indicate will accept Christ and continue in His service. This emphasizes the responsibility of each man equally to obey God’s call in the gospel, but, in the last analysis, narrows the scope of divine salvation to complete dependence upon this human response. It nevertheless claims to preserve genuine freedom of will on man’s part without doing injustice to divine sovereignty. It naturally rejects any limitation of the number of the elect determined by anything other than God’s foreknowledge and consequent predestination. The biblical use of ‘foreknow’, however, often seems to carry with it the idea of ‘foreordain’ or ‘choose’ (cf Acts 2:23; Rom.11:2; I Pet. 1:2 (Av; cf Rsv), 20 (Rv; cf AV, Rsv); cf. the sense of ‘know’ in Je.1:5; Am. 3:2.)

2. The Augustinian (or Calvinist) View.—This places the emphasis upon God’s predeterminate counsels. It says, in effect, that the Godhead decreed human redemption in etemity past, a redemption which should not in any sense be contingent upon the works of men but solely upon the divine grace, and which should be dispensed accordingly to men without reference to human merit. The individual who is to be saved, however, requires the gift of faith for the appropriation of the divinely wrought salvation, and hence faith is bestowed on the elect, who have been chosen for salvation from before the creation of the world, though of course their number and identity are not known to men.

There is much to be said for this view, but unfortunately it has been carried by some to extremes which have blinded many to the fact that it alone does real justice to the grace of God. Extremists have carried the view to limits which are scarcely distinguishable from fatalism, or which make God arbitrarily to select some men for salvation and others for perdition.
For many it fails to give a satisfactory answer to the question why, if God is able to bring all to eternal salvation, He does not do so in every case. There still remains a mystery connected with the operation of divine grace and human responsibility, which extreme Calvinism does not allow for.

The truth seems undoubtedly to lie in a modified form of the Calvinist view, which will allow fully for the mysterious element of human responsibility which Scripture clearly teaches alongside the plain statement that salvation is from start to finish solely upon the basis of divine grace. In practice, the Christian must keep firmly in mind that there are two parallel truths taught in Scripture. There is the divine sovereignty, by which we are assured that God’s purposes will be completed, but also we are nevertheless responsible to work and to appeal to men as though everything depends upon our diligence and upon human response to the message. The oft-quoted lines from St. Bernard will bear repetition: ‘Remove free will and there will be nothing to save; remove grace and there will be nothing to save with.’ The student should seek to keep all his thinking on this subject in relation to the Godhead, to remember that there is nothing arbitrary in God’s electing grace, and to understand that it is taught in Scripture in contexts which imply that it is intended to have practical results in the life of the Christian. It has often been contended that the doctrine of election and its corollary, the eternal security of the Christian, leads to slackness in daily living and to carelessness with regard to the responsibility to bear the gospel to others. The reverse has been the case! As a matter of fact, the Calvinist has more often than not been the leader in religious and social reform and the most energetic of missionaries. One has only to look at the history of the Reformation and the Puritans, or of nations such as Scotland and Holland, to be convinced of the moral power of Calvinism.

Scriptures
1. 'The Divine Purpose.—Mt.25:34; Jn.6:37,44,45, 65; 17:2, 6,9; Acts 2:23;
2. Human Responsibility.—Is.1:19,2O; 65:1,2; Je.9:6; 27:13; Mt. 23:37; Jn.3:36;5:24,4O;7:57,37; Acts 7:55;10:43; Rom.1:28; 2 Thes.2:10; Heb.2:3; 3:6, I4~ 12:25.
3.Both Cornbined.—Acts 2:23;3:23;4:27,28;13:46—48; Rom.6:17—23; Phil.2:52,13; 2 Pet. 1:10,3:9.
4. Scriptures to Compare.—(i)Those which state that redemption was for all:
Mt. 28:19; Jn. 12:32; Rom.5:i8 (cf. s Cor.15:22); 1 Tim. 2:4,6;4:50; Heb.2:9;
2 Pet.3:9 1 Jn.2:2. (ii) Those which appear to restrict its efficacy to the church:
Jn.10:11,15,26-28; Acts 20:28; Eph.5:25—27. Rom.8:32,33; 2 Cor.5:14,15.

Questions
1. Are there any Scriptures which would lead us to believe that God has had a ‘fixed purpose’ throughout the ages? What do you understand by the expression ‘the counsel of his will’? What is the precise content of God’s eternal purpose of redemption?
2. Is it possible to reconcile satisfactorily God’s foreordination and human responsibility in the matter of man’s sin and salvation? Follow the course of Paul’s argument in Romans 9—11.
3. Is there any scriptural authority for stating that some men are predestinated to eternal condemnation? How has this subject been treated by various Christian writers?
4. Does Scripture give any support for, or reconciliation of, the (apparently)
contradictory beliefs in (a) the infallible ‘perseverance of the saints’ and (b) the
possibility of ‘falling from grace’?