ALONE WITH GOD     

Native Depravity

  There are already so many treatises on this subject that it need be considered here only as it relates to the practical side of the Christian life in the regenerate state. The doctrine is held in some form by most theologians. The Augustinian and Calvinistic view, that man is guilty and is fit only for damnation because of having partaken of Adam's sin, and the more modified view held by most Armenians, do not concern us here. We wish to consider depravity only as it relates to and affects the nature of man after he is born again.

That man's nature does contain depravity in some form is generally admitted. The Bible does not give us a scientific or philosophical treatment of the subject. Man's natural depravity is one of the many things that are assumed to be so much a f act of human consciousness as to need no proof. Since the Bible so treats the matter, and man is left to form his own conclusion on this, as well as many other points, it is not strange that there are many different ideas. Regarding the universality o f the doctrine, I quote from Miley: "The doctrine of entire sanctification in regeneration was new with Zinzendorff and wholly unknown before him." -Theology Volume II, page 367. This can have no meaning except that the doctrine of the existence of depravity in those regenerated was previously universal, as it practically is today.

From the Scriptural standpoint, it is only necessary to show that believers are promised a sanctification subsequent to their becoming believers. Jesus prayed for the Twelve in these words: "They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. Sanctify them through thy truth" (John 17:16,�17). Again, "For their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also may be sanctified" (verse 19). For the Thessalonian Christians, Paul prayed thus" "The very God of peace sanctify you wholly" (I Thessa lonians 5:23).

There are two general theories as to the origin of depravity. The first is that it is generic, being a corruption of the nature transmitted through all the race from Adam. This is the most commonly accepted idea. The second, held by Mr. Finney and others, is that depravity is not transmissible but results from the order of development of the child. The physical develops before the mental, and the mental before the spiritual, so that the physical and mental habits form and become wholly selfish before the spiritual is developed enough for it to have a proper moral sense; and thus the nature is depraved. Which of these theories may be correct has no practical bearing on the fact of its existence, so does not demand more than passing attention here.

For my part, I am inclined to adopt a middle ground, that is, that depravity is transmissible and transmitted and that it may be increased by the individual's own conduct, and also that it is invariable as a transmitted quality, being dependent upon the same laws as are the transmission of mental and physical qualities. That depravity is a constant in all, I am not prepared to accept, as observation certainly shows the opposite to be true.

One thing is certainly true of it. It is not an entity or tangible thing, such as a stump, by which it is sometimes illustrated. Nor is it a plant planted by Satan. He has no power to plant in man any such thing. The human will is free, and c an not be coerced by man or the devil, nor even by God himself. Depravity was not a new thing that entered Adam when he sinned. It was only a perversion or corruption of what he already was. It is not a sort of motor that Satan connects with our human nature and by which he operates us. It is not a thing that can be subtracted bodily from a person. It is a corruption that must be cleansed. It is an ovedevelopment, or rather an abnormal development, of the natural faculties or propensities which in their normal state are pure and necessary. Self-esteem when corrupted becomes pride. The sense of justice becomes vindictiveness and reveals itself in wrath, malice, hatred and revenge. Love of the beautiful becomes vanity. Amativeness becomes lust. Acquisitiveness becomes covetousness. This seems to me the only rational explanation that can be given to the subject.

The question is often asked: "If depravity is transmissible, how can the children of sanctified parents possess this depravity?" The fact that it is so should seem no stranger than the well-known fact that mental and physical diseases or malformations and abnormalities are transmitted through healthy links. It is undeniable that such diseases as scrofula, insanity, craving for liquor, and many like things are transmitted through parents who show no trace of such things, the diseases breaking out in descendants removed the second, third, or even fourth generation from grandparents who have been so afflicted or diseased. It is the life-current that is defiled. The sanctification of the parent is only as an accidental thing; that is, it is like the amputation of a limb or the removal of an eye in the physical. Parents who have suffered such mutilations do not transmit these to their children. We may not understand some of the laws of transmission; but our lack of comprehension does not prevent them from being true in human experience, neither does it disprove them. The transmission of depravity is only an example of the law of persistence of type - a law which, in natural things, is left unquestioned.

The animal and vegetable kingdoms are alike subject to man's control. He may produce new varieties and develop them to a high degree; but when once they are left to themselves, removed from man's care, they all revert to their former types. The different varieties of pigeons, of all colors and characters, would, if taken and placed by themselves, out of the reach of man, revert to the one type from which they were derived. This same law acts all through nature; and we ought not to be surprised on finding that the same law acts as truly in the moral sphere. It is not strange that children revert to the type of their ancestors, no matter what was the condition of their parents.

People who have been sanctified may at any time become depraved by unlawfully indulging desires or by going into rebellion against God. In this manner Adam became depraved; and so may we. In our case, however, we can not call the resulting depravity Adamic; it is the same as Adam's in essence; but we, not he, are responsible. Depravity is, as already stated, not something planted by Satan, but is a corruption, progressive in its nature and capable of being greatly increased by our sinful act ions. It can also be minimized by careful cultivation; and by thus repressing it, men become more moral than they otherwise would. Independent of the grace of God, therefore, we can to a considerable extent limit and restrain this inward element. It is, however, capable of complete elimination by the Spirit of God.

Among the practical effects of depravity in a regenerated person, is that he can not love God perfectly. There is a frequent assertion of the self-life. It is so easy for him to think that his way is right and best. And in spite of his desire to please and serve God, there is, nevertheless, within him a something that causes him to want his own way, to want to gratify his own personal desires. There is a twofoldness about his desires. There is a something that desires to please God, and at the same time another something that desires to please himself. This latter is sometimes very strong, and may occasion him no little difficulty when he endeavors to submit himself to the will of God. Through grace he may overcome this and submit to God, but he can not of himself destroy it. It is quite true that we can never become automatically unselfish; but it is also true that the strength of the self-life is depravity, and that, when this is destroyed, we can much more easily and mo re naturally be unselfish.

Temptation more forcefully takes hold of one when he is in the regenerate state than it does when he is in the wholly sanctified state, because under the former conditions it receives cooperation from depravity. A brother in telling of his personal experience spoke on this wise: "Temptations used to seem to get right up close to me and to take hold upon me. I used, oftentimes, to have a terrible battle with them; but now it seems that things are changed. Temptations do not get close to me as the y did then. There seems to be a something that holds them off at a distance from me so that they do not have the power that they used to have; nor does it take the struggle to overcome them that it used to take."

This brother's experience has been duplicated by the experiences of the writer and thousands of others. There is something within the regenerate man that seems to answer to temptation; and he must resist, not only the temptation, but also that something within himself upon which the temptation takes hold. I refer, not simply to his natural propensities (for these natural propensities will persist in the sanctified state), but rather to the depraved state of these natural propensities. When we are in the regenerated state, our natural desires are more inclined to run in unlawful channels and are harder to restrain than they are when we are in the wholly sanctified state. The more grace we have, the more our desires are restrained without appa ent effort. Grace overwhelms many desires or tendencies in our natural being, making it the more possible for us to guide ourselves in the way of God with ease. The more grace we have, the more easily we can keep ourselves in perfect standing before God and more perfectly conform to his will. The less grace we have, the less of power we have to do this.

The warfare between grace and depravity in a regenerated person uses up spiritual strength, and consequently limits his activities in other directions. We can not accomplish things for God as we might, if we have to use so much of our strength upon ourselves, and so, for this reason the obtaining of release from depravity enables us more fully to throw our energies into the life of salvation and the work of God; the greater grace that we possess when sanctified, increases our spiritual powers and makes us very much more able to accomplish work for God than we otherwise could be. We can thus glorify him in a greater degree. Regenerated people are to a degree conscious of this inner conflict; but they can not be as conscious of the distinction between the two different states of grace as can the one who has entered the higher state. They must have the personal experience in order to know for themselves.

Two remedies for this depraved state have been proposed. One of them is a palliative and the other a specific. The first is the repression remedy; that is, depravity must be kept in subjection through life by the will. Those teaching this theory hold that there can be no elimination of this element, no cleansing from it, but that it is of such a nature that it will ever be with us through the journey of life and that we must continually watch and guard against its asserting itself, lest it should overthrow us and lead us astray from God. According to this theory, life is a continued and unending warfare against it. Their only hope of ending this warfare is in death; they expect to be sanctified at death and not to take this element with t hem into heaven. Such as these are ready to exclaim with the apostle Paul, "Oh, wretched man that I am!" but are not able to join with him in the song of deliverance.

The other remedy, that of eradication, is taught by people who believe in a second work of divine grace. The teaching of these, however, frequently runs into an idealism that leaves nothing whatever to repress in our natures. According to this extreme position, we should become practically automatons. Advocates of such teaching like to picture sanctification as making us a sort of angelic beings; and they would have us live in an ecstatic state, high above the practical affairs of life. They ca n tell us just how glorious we should feel on all occasions; how rapturous it is to dwell in that condition. Their teaching is idealism pure and simple.

The true idea, it seems to me, can not be expressed by the extreme teachings of either of these theories. As is usually the case, the middle ground between the two extremes is the most tenable. Our human nature is a creation of God, and as such, it is a necessary part of us; and God will never destroy it, in fact, he can not destroy it without destroying us. Sanctification, therefore, is not the destruction of this nature, but is the purification of it. It corrects the abnormal spiritual condition and brings the natural into a condition in which it may regain a proper balance. Paul said, "I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection" (I Corinthians 9:27). All the faculties and propensities of our nature are for our service and use. W e are to master them. The will is to rule them and have them in subjection to itself and, as a result, to righteousness also. This subject will be discussed at length under the heading Our Natural Propensities.