Category: Creeds & Confessions

Caleb’s Baptism — Heidelberg Catechism Q. 12

Question 12. Since then, by the righteous judgment of God, we deserve temporal and eternal punishment, is there no way by which we may escape that punishment, and be again received into favour?

Answer: God will have his justice satisfied: and therefore we must make this full satisfaction, either by ourselves, or by another.

As we come to question 12 we begin to consider the 2nd division of the Heidelberg Catechism which deals with the issue of God’s Redemption of man and so man’s deliverance. The 1st division dealt with man’s sin and misery. It’s intent was twofold. First, to convince us how majestic, holy, and transcendent God is. Second, to convince us that we can have no concourse with this God because of our sin and misery. The 2nd part of the catechism is committed to revealing that we may have concourse with this God because of God’s initiative in man’s redemption.

Question 12 serves as a basic summary of the 1st part of the Catechism. The question serves to remind us that all ways are blocked unto being in God’s favor. The effect of the first part of the catechism, psychologically speaking, is to leave the one instructed with both a sense of God’s opposition and a understanding of our peril.

As we consider the answer a glimmer of hope begins to shine through the prison of our sin and misery in the last three words, “or by another.” The Catechism has effectively shut off all other avenues for finding favor with God and with those three words begins to hint to God’s gospel deliverance for those who are convinced of their sin and misery.

Note the theme again in the answer. The theme is legal and personal. God’s honor has been injured (personal) and so the justice that justly rises up against the injured honor of a personal God must be satisfied (legal). This reminds us that God is a personal God and it reminds us that Christianity is a faith that concentrates heavily on legal (forensic) categories. This is important for us to remember Caleb as we continue to move through the Catechism. Contemporary Christianity heavily emphasizes the personal – relational aspect of the Christian faith (though this most commonly is the personal – relational as we envision that and not as Scripture portrays) but often forgets the legal aspect of the Christian faith which sets before us a God who is offended because His law has been violated and who, before He can have a favored relationship with lawbreakers again, must have His law (which is the embodiment of His character) satisfied.

Answer 12 reinforces once again that God’s offended justice will be satisfied. Now keep in mind here that God is not being petulant with this demand for satisfaction. God is the sovereign ruler of the universe and has said, “the soul that sinneth, shall surely die (Gen. 2:17).” Either God’s justice is done and someone makes satisfaction or God dies. The catechism gives a flurry of Scriptures that underscoring that God’s justice will be done,

Exod.20:5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;

Exod.23:7 Keep thee far from a false matter; and the innocent and righteous slay thou not: for I will not justify the wicked.

Ezek.18:4 Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die.

Matt.5:26 Verily I say unto thee, Thou shalt by no means come out thence, till thou hast paid the uttermost farthing.

2 Thess.1:6 Seeing it is a righteous thing with God to recompense tribulation to them that trouble you;

Luke 16:2 And he called him, and said unto him, How is it that I hear this of thee? give an account of thy stewardship; for thou mayest be no longer steward.

God will not be mocked and so will have His justice uphold His slighted honor.

The catechism teaches we must satisfy God’s justice either by ourselves or by another. Notice the beginning strains of good news here. First, clearly what is being hinted at here is that another can make our satisfaction. This begins to hint at Gospel truths we will look at later such as atonement, justification, reconciliation, substitution, imputation, reconciliation, propitiation, expiation, redemption, and others. Second, the point that we want to scream here is that the catechism, following Scripture, is opening up a window that we might escape the dungeon of our sin and misery. Someone else might bear the lashings of God’s justice in our place.

In the holding out of this possible substitute God’s law is still satisfied, (the soul that sinneth does die in His substitute) and so the legal requirements that we mentioned earlier are upheld, and we enter into a personal knowing of God who is for us at every turn.

The Scripture that the Catechism offers really should be memorized by all believers.

Romans 8:1 — There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit. 2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made me free from the law of sin and death. 3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: 4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

Again Caleb, notice the legal themes here

1.) No condemnation (i.e. — no penalty after judgment)

The threat we were under was a legal threat (condemnation). Because of our substitute was condemned in our place the legal requirement for condemnation has been met in Christ Jesus.

2.) What the law could not do — The law, following God’s holy character, required moral perfection but because of man’s sin the moral law could not give what it required.

3.) Condemned sin in the flesh — Once again, legal categories. Breaking of the law occurred. Satisfaction of the law must be had.

4.) Righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us — The law requires moral perfection and because of Christ’s moral perfection in the life He lived that righteousness of the law is fulfilled in us.

More on this later but I wanted to end by emphasizing again that the Christian faith is not the Christian faith unless we understand that it moves in these legal – forensic terms.

Yes, Christianity is relational / personal but it is only relational personal if it is also legal / forensic. Many many modern Christians have forgotten this and their faith languishes because of their forgetfulness.

Sola Fide, Nuda Fide, Mortuis Fide & Rev. Wilson’s Comments On Mr. Stellman

“With regard to sola fide, he (Stellman) is quite right to see the very narrow position he was nurtured in as contrary to the teaching of the New Testament. The righteousness of Jesus Christ is imputed to sinners, and the instrument of a God-given faith is what receives that gracious gift. But the gift received is that of living faith, breathing faith, loving faith, the only kind of faith the living God bestows. It is sola fide, not nuda fide. Stellman was wrong to identify his previous narrow view of sola fide as the doctrine of sola fide itself.”

Doug Wilson
http://www.dougwils.com/Auburn-Avenue-Stuff/a-decent-sandwich-in-new-york.html

Stellman, like all the Reformers before him, held to Sola Fide, which is to say, “Faith Alone is the instrumental means by which a person is justified.” The faith that the Reformers held to and which they said “justified,” was always defined as a living, breathing, loving faith, but that living, breathing, loving, faith is alone the instrumental means by which men are justified. In other words, because faith, is by its very definition one that is living, breathing, and loving, it is the case that Sola Fide is the same thing as nuda fide when it comes to justification by faith alone. When Rev. Wilson tries to suggest that those who have held to the Historic doctrine of justification by faith alone are instead holding to the doctrine of justification by nuda fide he is inaccurate. As much as I dislike the theology of the R2K camp none of them hold to a doctrine of justification whereby one is justified by anything but a living faith, breathing faith, loving faith.

Is it the case that Rev. Wilson wants that living faith, breathing faith, loving faith to be a faith that justifies as it is no longer the alone faith, which by definition is living faith, breathing faith, loving faith? If so, then he is overturning the Reformational doctrine of “Justification by faith alone.” If faith is redefined to mean faithfulness then “faith alone,” becomes the oxymoronic, “faithfulness alone.” This yields a situation where I am justified by faith alone as my faith performs good works. So, in justification the proper living, breathing, loving faith by which one is subjectively justified is Nuda Fide. As a beggar, with nothing but living, loving, breathing, naked faith, I look to Christ alone who is my Faithfulness and eschew any good works clothing with which I might want to adorn my otherwise naked faith. If Sola Fide isn’t also at the same time Nuda Fide I am of all men to be pitied, for how much faithfulness adornment does my faith need to have in order to be justifying faith? In justification faith does its proper work when it, in the nude, rests in Christ alone and His righteousness.

Of course “nuda fide” could mean, for Rev. Wilson, that we are not justified by dead faith, but whoever taught that we are justified by “mortuis fide?” Does Rev. Wilson really believe that Stellman held and taught that we are justified by “mortuis fide?”

Caleb’s Baptism — Heidelberg Catechism, Q.) 11

Dear Caleb,

Question 11 is the last question in the 1st section of the Catechism that explicitly deals with Man’s sin and misery. Starting with question 12 of the Catechism the instruction works towards providing the only solution to Man’s sin and Misery.

Question 11. Is not God then also merciful?

Question 11 opens this way because question and answer 10 was so exacting as to the truth of God’s justice. It seems as if what is happening here is that God’s justice has been so clearly put forth that there might be some doubt as to whether or not God is merciful and so the question is asked.

And the answer is given,

God is indeed merciful, (a) but also just; (b) therefore his justice requires, that sin which is committed against the most high majesty of God, be also punished with extreme, that is, with everlasting punishment of body and soul.

In answer #10 the Heidelberg confirms God as merciful but it immediately returns to the reality of God’s justice. It is as if the Catechizers are saying, “Yes, God is merciful, but you better be sure that you reckon with His justice before you end up nullifying the reality of His justice by a slovenly appeal to a sloppy mercy that ignores God’s justice.”

Clearly, God is indeed merciful. Mercy is God’s attribute wherein He does not give to people that which they deserve. All of Adam’s descendants deserve God’s condemnation and yet not all of Adam’s descendants are condemned by God. This is the proof of God’s mercy.

Exod.34:6 And the LORD passed by before him, and proclaimed, The LORD, The LORD God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abundant in goodness and truth, Exod.34:7 Keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children’s children, unto the third and to the fourth generation.

Yet, in question 11 immediately upon affirming God’s merciful character the Catechizers, following the testimony of Scriptures, return to the fact that God is just.

Exod.23:7 Keep thee far from a false matter; and the innocent and righteous slay thou not: for I will not justify the wicked.

Ps.5:5 The foolish shall not stand in thy sight: thou hatest all workers of iniquity. 6 Thou shalt destroy them that speak leasing: the LORD will abhor the bloody and deceitful man.

Nah.1:2 God is jealous, and the LORD revengeth; the LORD revengeth, and is furious; the LORD will take vengeance on his adversaries, and he reserveth wrath for his enemies. Nah.1:3 The LORD is slow to anger, and great in power, and will not at all acquit the wicked: the LORD hath his way in the whirlwind and in the storm, and the clouds are the dust of his feet.

It is tempting to spend a great deal of time here because our current generation has made an idol out of God as love as that idea has been torn from its Biblical context. It is true that God is merciful and loving but not in a way that denies His justice and not in the way that most of your peers think about God.

If you have some time Caleb, give the link below a read,

https://ironink.org/2008/07/god_loves_you_and_has_a_wonderful_plan_f/

At that link I spend some time developing the problem with Evangelism that doesn’t follow the approach the Heidelberg is taking by first establishing clearly God’s justice.

With regard to answer 11, notice

1.) God’s justice requires that God punish sin.

God’s word teaches, “the soul that sinneth shall surely die.” If God does not follow through on that promise then God’s justice is called into question. The character of God requires that God punish sin. If God didn’t punish sin then God wouldn’t be God because at that point of failure to punish sin God’s justice, holiness, and truthfulness, as well as His love and mercy would be called into question. If God didn’t punish sin God would un-god Himself. God can not let even one sin go unpunished because if He did He would be a worthless bum.

2.) Sin is committed against the Most High Majesty of God

We don’t talk or think like this much anymore Caleb. What is being communicated here is an older understanding of justice that includes the idea that the seriousness of sin was calculated in terms of the one who the sinner sinned against. For example, once upon a time, if one were to commit sin against Royalty that would be taken far more seriously then if one had committed the same sin against a commoner or a vassal. A person’s degree of majesty increased the degree of seriousness of the sin. Well, our sin is against a royalty no greater of whom can be named. As such, since we have committed sins against the King of Kings and the Lord of Lords the punishment that is equal to that can only be everlasting punishment of body and soul. Any other lesser penalty would be a slight and a dishonoring against the majesty and royalty of the King.

It is difficult for us to think this way since, in our Democratic mind frame, we no longer see people carrying different degrees of majesty, and as such we have a hard time understanding that to sin against a higher majesty requires a greater punishment.

3.) Everlasting punishment of body and soul

Note that the Catechism here clearly teaches the doctrine of Hell. Now the doctrine of Hell has fallen on hard times. Many people don’t want to talk about it. More and more Evangelicals are writing books insisting that Hell does not exist.

Let us posit here that as the doctrine of Hell goes into eclipse so does the idea of the majesty of God go into eclipse, so does the sinfulness of sin go into eclipse and so does the idea of the necessity for commensurate justice go into eclipse. Since the doctrine of Hell is the doctrine that bespeaks God’s majesty and is the consequence of violating God’s majesty, when we eviscerate the doctrine of Hell we also communicate that God isn’t so majestic. Since the doctrine of Hell is the doctrine that bespeaks of the end of all sinners and all sinfulness, when we eviscerate the doctrine of Hell we also communicate that the sinfulness of sin isn’t so bad after all. Since the doctrine of Hell is the doctrine that establishes the concept of justice that “the punishment should fit the crime,” when we eviscerate the doctrine of Hell we also communicate the non-importance of justice.

All this to say that the doctrine of Hell is extremely important for Christian theology as well as for a Christian World and life view. Wrong views on Hell have sweeping implications.

4.) Body and Soul

Note the affirmation here in the Catechism that the reprobate are raised to life and in their earthly bodies they will suffer everlasting punishment. The whole person –Body and Soul — will be punished everlastingly. No soul sleep. No disembodied misery. It is man, body and soul, who will suffer.

Finally, I would note here that this everlasting punishment against sin begins in the present. Those who are warring against God are already partaking in God’s everlasting punishment, and unless they repent and flee to Christ for safety, they will live a life that goes from everlasting punishment unto everlasting punishment in ever greater degrees until they spend eternity with no hope of relief.

All of this is why it is so important to warn people of God’s justice. We do people no favors when we try to soft pedal this attribute of God. I hope for better days when the Church will once again find its voice on this truth because the lovely dulcimer tones of God’s love for sinners only makes sense when that love is heard against the backdrop of the reality of God’s justice.

Caleb’s Baptism — Heidelberg Catechism — Question 10

Caleb,

We covered question and answer #9 yesterday,

Question 9. Does not God then do injustice to man, by requiring from him in his law, that which he cannot perform?

Answer: Not at all; for God made man capable of performing it; but man, by the instigation of the devil, and his own wilful disobedience, deprived himself and all his posterity of those divine gifts.

And so it is on to question 10 today.

Question 10. Will God suffer such disobedience and rebellion to go unpunished?

Answer: By no means; but is terribly displeased with our original as well as actual sins; and will punish them in his just judgment temporally and eternally, as he has declared, “Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things, which are written in the book of the law,to do them.”

Note how this answer flies in the face of much of contemporary Churchianity.

1.) It asserts that God is just.

If modern Christians think of God as being just at all, more often than not they think of His justice being reserved for the other guy. It seems that they take the attitude of one author who famously wrote regarding God’s disposition towards sin he was being forewarned against, “God will forgive. That is His nature.” Of course God will forgive and it is His nature to forgive those in Christ, but such a cavalier attitude towards sin communicates the our author, and people who think in his terms, don’t understand God’s justice.

God’s justice is functionally denied by folks who believe that God will ignore the little sins without realizing that God never ignores any sin. Not one. They seem not to comprehend that the death of Christ was the justice of God against all sin for those who trust in Christ. In all of time, the God of justice has never ignored one sin. He has never let bygones be bygones. All sin is justly punished, either as born by a substitute or as born by the sinner who has no substitute. God’s justice is of such a exalted and honorable nature that even if a person could be perfect in word and deed their whole life (and of course no one can) that still would not have them escaping God’s justice, for His justice rightly addresses the sin nature that we received from Adam (God is terribly displeased with our original sin…). God is just Caleb, and will by no means clear the guilty (Exodus 34:7) and there are none who are not guilty.

2.) It asserts that God is terribly displeased with our disobedience and rebellion.

This is another aspect of God’s character that many modern Christians can’t seem to get their minds around. In our contemporary setting God is seen as a “God of love.” How many Christians think of God being “terrible displeased?” I’ve spoken to any number of people concerning any number of sins and often what the conversation will revert back to when I press the issue that God is just, is that “Well, my God is a God of love and He wouldn’t punish ________ .” (Fill in the blank with whatever sin you might imagine). God is a God of love, and it is precisely because He is a God of love that he is terribly displeased with our disobedience and rebellion. You see, while it is true that God is a God of love, the love of God is first and foremost for Himself, and if He loves Himself as the highest good and as that which His love has nothing more excellent to pursue then the love of God necessitates that He be terribly displeased with all that which is contrary to Himself. For God to not be terribly displeased with our disobedience and rebellion would be the most unloving cut of all. The Scripture that is cited regarding God’s disposition toward the rebellious and disobedient here is even stronger than the idea of “terribly displeased.”

Psalm 5:5 The foolish shall not stand in thy sight: thou hatest all workers of iniquity.

Nah.1:2 God is jealous, and the LORD revengeth; the LORD revengeth, and is furious; the LORD will take vengeance on his adversaries, and he reserveth wrath for his enemies.

Rom.1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;

Eph.5:6 Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience.

Keep in mind what the Catechism is attempting to do in this Lord’s Day #4 is to shut every door against the sinner that would argue for some solution to their rebellion and disobedience that is other than the solution held out in the Gospel. They do this in hope that the sinner will see that there is only one door through which they must walk if they are going to solve the problem of a Sovereign God who is terribly displeased with their rebellion and disobedience.

Just a few more words on the idea that a God of love would never hate workers of iniquity, or would never be storing up wrath against the sinner, or would never be furious against the sinner. When we deny these realities we turn the love of God into the love of a harlot. When we deny that God is terribly displeased with the rebellious and disobedient we affirm that God has no moral standard and so we deny God’s Holiness. If we lived in an age where all that was ever said about God is that He is a consuming fire we would need to emphasize properly the love and grace of God. However, we live in an age of moral degeneracy and so it really is the case that the truth that God is terribly displeased with our rebellion and disobedience needs to be repeated. One of my five star Theologians put it this way,

“From the fact that to a generation which knew God only as a righteous Judge, and in an atmosphere surcharged with the sense of retribution, He (Jesus) made the sum and substance of His preaching the love of God, it does not follow that, if He were in person to preach to our present age so strangely oblivious of everything but love, His message would be entirely the same.”

Geehardaus Vos
Redemptive History & Biblical Interpretation
The Scriptural Doctrine Of The Love Of God

One final observation on this score. It is commonplace among Evangelicals to insist that, “God hates the sin but loves the sinner.” Bunk! Psalm 5:5 above teaches that “God hates workers of iniquity.” God doesn’t just hate the iniquity. God hates the worker of iniquity. It is an odd abstraction that allows us the ability to extract how a person behaves from the person themselves. At that final day, it will not be sins but sinners that God throws, body and soul, into hell. But even here, God hates the elect worker of iniquity on the basis of His love for them. Because God loves the elect, even while he hates them as workers of iniquity, God hatred has as its end that they will be awakened to His personal opposition against them so that His opposition might instill in them a fleeing to Christ so as to find a refuge from God’s wrath and hatred against them. So, for the elect, God’s hatred upon them before conversion, while they are workers of iniquity, is serving His love for them as those eternally set apart for salvation.

3.) The catechism teaches that God is terribly displeased with two types of sin.

The two types of sin that God is terribly displeased with are,

a.) our original sin (our sin nature as received from Adam) (Romans 5:12)
b.) our actual sins (Romans 3)

We’ve talked about our sin nature and original sin previously so I will only say that our sin nature refers to the essence of who fallen man is. Birds fly, and fish swim because of their “nature.” Just so humans sin because of their sin nature as inherited from Adam.

Our actual sins are merely the instantiation or demonstration of our sin nature. Before we can be cured of our actual sins we need to be cured of our sin nature.

An important point here to keep in mind is that it is not the case that I am a sinner because I sin. It is rather a case that I sin because I am a sinner. Actual sins are only symptomatic of a sin nature that needs to be cured. This is why, unless men are born again (given a new nature) they can never stop sinning, even if they, comparatively speaking, clean up their sinning.

4.) The catechism teaches that God will punish sins and sinners temporally and eternally.

A.) Note here that the God the catechizer’s present to us is a God who will punish sins (Matthew 10:28). Again, this flies in the contemporary view that God is a harmless old grandfatherly type chap that would never hurt a fly. Unless some kind of solution to this sin problem is found God will punish.

B.) Note also that God’s punishing of sins and sinners is both in the here and now and during unending eternity. This portion of the catechism reminds us that to the sinner outside of Christ, God stands in relation to them as only a condemning Judge. God is opposed to the wicked 24-7 and while He does extend common grace to them (rain, sunshine, family life, etc.) that in no way diminishes the fact that God is the enemy of the wicked outside of Christ. God is not a Father to those outside of Christ but an avenging deity.

C.) Note also here that with the statement that God will punish eternally their is a hint of the doctrine of hell. The doctrine of hell as fallen on some hard times and is denied by a goodly number of Christians these days. We will deal with the issue of hell later when it comes up more directly in the catechism.

5.) The final Scriptures that the catechism cites in the answer are drawn from,

Deut.27:26 Cursed be he that confirmeth not all the words of this law to do them. And all the people shall say, Amen.

Gal.3:10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.

The importance of this citation is found in the reality that God is not terribly displeased only with those who have perfectly filled all that His just law requires. God does not grade on a curve Caleb. God grades on a straight scale and if someone isn’t 100% perfect with all that His just law requires and forbids God is terribly displeased with them.

This question and answer can cause people to flinch. Remember, the purpose of the first section of the catechism is to reveal how black our situation is. Because these truths cause people to cringe many Evangelicals no longer want to state these truths, preferring to try and give the good news (Gospel) to those who are yet clueless about the bad news that requires Good news.

Question #11 in the next entry.

“I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, and that His justice cannot sleep forever.” –
— Thomas Jefferson

Caleb’s Baptism — Heidelberg Catechism Question 9 (b)

Caleb,

Continuing now with the answer to Heidelberg Question #9.

4. Lord’s Day

Question 9. Does not God then do injustice to man, by requiring from him in his law, that which he cannot perform?

Answer: Not at all; (a) for God made man capable of performing it; but man, by the instigation of the devil, (b) and his own wilful disobedience, (c) deprived himself and all his posterity of those divine gifts.

First, since Scripture teaches that God is just (II Thessalonians 1:6) we knew that the Catechizers were not going to answer question #9 in the negative by saying “God is unjust.” Scripture is our touchstone for all truth so that if Scripture says that God is just, we therefore know that whatever God does, is by definition “just.”

Second, the Catechizers, following Scripture, inform us that God is not being unfair or unjust to man by requiring of him what, as fallen, he cannot give. God created man in righteousness and true holiness (Ephesians 4:24). God created man upright (Ecclesiastes 7:29). So, God is not responsible to man for man’s sin nature since God made man capable of performing all that God required. The reality that man is not able to meet his responsibility before God is not something that God can be charged with.

Third, note that the Catechism traces the reason for man’s total inability to man himself as through his willful disobedience he partnered with God’s arch enemy against God. Man, moving outside of God’s authoritative Law-Word (Genesis 3:3-4) which defined all reality yielded to the subtilty of Satan’s temptation (II Corinthians 11:3) that man could be his own authoritative law-word, in order to overthrow God in hopes that he might en-god himself in the place of God.

Karl Barth (a well known 20th century theologian) once said that one of the greatest mysteries of all is how someone bent towards God without a sin nature could still sin. How did bad water come from a good well? I can not answer that question precisely (it is a bit of a mystery) though I can say that whatever nature Adam had his nature was one that obviously was “still able to sin.” Clearly Adam, before the Fall, was both able to sin and able to not sin. Before the Fall Adam was judicially innocent before God having committed no sin. Before the Fall Adam was innocent, meaning that he had no guile in him predisposing him to sin. Still, Adam was not confirmed in this state though and so was able to sin and did sin.

Because of the Fall of Adam, men outside of Christ, like Adam when he gave into the instigation of the Devil, are of their Father the Devil (John 8:44). This is because in Adam’s fall we fell all. Adam did not just deprive himself of his divine gifts (a bent towards God, judicially righteous, innocent, favor with God, etc.) but he also deprived all of his posterity of these divine gifts. Whereas before the Fall Adam was able to not sin, now after the Fall, all of Adam’s descendants are not only able to sin but also are unable to not sin. This is the sin nature that results from the fall and this is the sin nature that must be cured before we are once again able to not sin and so choose Christ. Note, that the cure for our inability to not sin must be conferred before we can once again gain a nature that is able to not sin. The implication of this is that man must be regenerated unto faith in Christ.

Here we have being taught again the organic unity of mankind. As Americans we are so prone to think individualistically and atomistically but Scripture teaches that by our first Father sin entered the world and that sin nature, (as well as the guilt of Adam’s sin) was passed on to all of Adam’s descendants (Romans 5:12).

All of this begins to point to why Biblical Christians go on and on about the Sovereignty of God. Man is dead in his trespasses and sins. He is unable to not sin and so increases his debt against God daily. The only hope that dead men walking can have is if the Sovereign God, out of His free favor, sends forth His Spirit to make us alive.

Tomorrow we will move on to question #10.