Inherited Depravity Catechism Lesson

Inherited Depravity Catechism Lesson

Eric Kuhns

 

 

Q.1 What is inherited depravity?

 

A. Inherited depravity is the corrupted nature that is within mankind. The sinfulness of man. Man’s natural tendency to do that which is morally wrong or sinful. Some have labeled it the “bent” towards sin or a “curve” towards the forbidden and prohibited. It is not a “thing” like a tumor or a section of the brain but rather the condition of being corrupted morally.

Rom 3:10-11  As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.

Gen 6:5  And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 

Psa 51:5  Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me. 

 

 

Q.2 Why is it called inherited depravity?

 

A. First of all it is called inherited because this condition was a result of Adam’s sin in the Garden of Eden. His disobedience as the first man marred his perfectly created moral image. This damaged and corrupted nature has been and continues to be passed on from Adam to every human being except that of Jesus Christ who was born of a Virgen and was born sinless. Romans 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; and also, Romans 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so, death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: So, we can see from scripture that this is an inherited condition that has been passed down from Adam.

It is called depravity because it is a condition completely void of good. Man cannot find enough morality in himself to save himself or reform himself. He is a sinner on every level. The holiness that man needs to please and serve God is completely missing in his nature and can only be found outside of himself in the person and sacrifice of Jesus Christ.

 

Q.3 Does this mean that we are guilty and will be judged for Adam’s sin?

 

A. We cannot be guilty or judged for other people’s sins. Adam did not make us responsible or guilty but he passed on to us the nature or the moral corruptness that makes us liable to sin. Once we commit sin, we will be guilty and judged for our own personal actions. A nature cannot sin or bear guilt it is not something physical.

Rom 2:5-6  But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God;  Who will render to every man according to his deeds: 

Eze 18:20  The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

 

Q.4 What are some of the terms used in the Bible to refer to inherited depravity?

 

A. There are many terms used in the Bible to refer to the corrupted nature in man. Some examples are:

--The flesh.  Rom. 8:7-8

--The body of sin.   Rom. 6:6

--Carnality.  I Cor. 3:3

-- The old man.  Eph. 4:22-24

 

Q. 5 How do Wesleyans and Calvinists differ on their view of original sin?

A. Both believe that man is depraved and born with a sin nature. However, Calvinists believe in total depravity, that man is so corrupted that he can do no good and can only choose evil. They also believe that man is guilty of Adam's sin, since Adam represented the human race. Wesleyans believe that although man is corrupted, he can still know the difference between good and evil and can still do good deeds and that man is not guilty of Adam's sin but was morally marred. Wesleyans also believe that God in his prevenient grace, works to show man his need for salvation. Calvinists believe that God chooses who He will save.

 

Q.6 Are Wesleyans also Pelagian in their view of inherited depravity?

 

A. Pelagius denied the existence of inherited depravity and taught that humans in themselves are capable of choosing good and can avoid sin without God’s grace. Wesleyans do believe in inherited depravity and do not believe that without God’s grace we can avoid sin. But they teach that God in his prevenient grace speaks to man through nature, through his conscience and by other means to show him his spiritual need and that man in his free-will can respond to God’s grace and salvation that He offers.

 

Q.7 Does God provide a remedy for inherited depravity?

 

A. Yes! Once man realizes his need for a Savior and puts his trust in Jesus Christ as Lord, the Holy Spirit can begin to show man that no only can he be forgiven of his committed sins but can also be cleansed from his sinful nature. This cleansing is called sanctification. A person must surrender their selfish nature, confess it and ask God to cleanse it. The Holy Spirit then enables the person that is walking in the light to choose to please God in all that they do. The dominion of the sinful nature is cleansed and the Holy Spirit takes control.

 

 

 

Helpful Resources

1. Scheurer, John (May 1, 2018) From Putrefecation to Sanctification: John Wesley's Understanding of Original Sin and Theology of Grace. Obsculta.11(1). https://digitalcommons.csbsju.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1191&context=obsculta

2. Jonathan Edwards. The Doctrine of Original Sin. Independently published, 2020. https://www.amazon.com/Doctrine-Original-Sin-Jonathan-Edwards/dp/B08928MG4S/ref=sr_1_18?crid=2K09J7HRO040T&keywords=theology+original+sin&qid=1647401752&sprefix=theology+original+sin%2Caps%2C232&sr=8-18

 

The Quadrilateral Approach to Theology

 

As John Wesley began his quest for truth in the mid 1700’s he cunningly developed a “way” of doing theology and coming to sound doctrinal conclusions. This method would later be coined The Wesleyan Quadrilateral. It consists of four “tools” that can be used to answer doctrinal questions. They being scripture, tradition, reason and experience. It is important to understand that these four sources are not to be viewed as equal sides like a square box but rather one long side and three shorter supporting sides similar to a trapezoid. Scripture must take center stage and the other three sources work in supporting roles in order for this theological approach to work correctly.

 

Scripture

Early in Wesley’s ministry he determined that the Bible was going to be foundational to his theology. It was in 1729 that he began to read and study the Bible as the single standard of truth.[1] Other so called “holy” writings such as the Qur’an, the rabbinic Talmud or even the Apocrypha would all be viewed as heretical, instructional or helpful but not inspired by God. The Bible and the Bible alone is to be the source of truth upon which theology should stand. Vic Reasoner makes an interesting statement about the inspiration and inerrancy of the Bible. He says, “The same Spirit who overshadowed the virgin Mary so that the living Word was conceived without Adam’s sin also overshadowed the human authors so that their word became the written Word of God without error.”[2] The Wesleyan Quadrilateral takes a high view of scripture, it is the inspired, inerrant Word of God. This must be kept in the forefront as we seek to build our theological groundwork. The Bible is to be the final authority in all matters. All of our dogma must be grounded in the question, “Is this Biblical?” Is what we believe, teach, and live supported by scripture? Whatever theological conclusions we reach, it is imperative that those conclusions are based upon the Bible. In this quadrilateral, scripture is the longest of the four sides and holds the preeminence. The remaining three sides are merely “security features” that guide us to sound orthodoxy. As you look for answers to your theological questions in God’s Word keep in mind that it is important to rightfully handle the Word of God. There are different genres of writing. The Proverbs for example, are very different from the epistles of Paul. The book of Leviticus is completely different from the book of Revelation. Having a good understanding of the varying genres as you study out your topic through the Bible will be very helpful in you reaching a solid conclusion. Grant Osborne says this about genre, “The presence of genre is an important point in the debate as to whether one can recover the author’s intended meaning. All writers couch their message in a certain genre in order to give the reader sufficient rules by which to decode that message. These hints guide the reader (or hearer) and provide clues for interpretation”.[3] Believing that the Bible is the inspired Word of God and having a proper understanding of how to interpret the Bible is the first and most fundamental side of the quadrilateral.

 

Tradition

Once you have laid a solid foundation Biblically to answer your theological question, the next step is to filter that conclusion through the tradition of the church. Has your conclusion coincided with the majority of church leaders over the past few centuries? Is what you believe fit within mainstream Christianity? Although there are an array of denominations and branches within Christendom each one with their emphasis and peculiarities; yet there is an overarching general consensus on the big theological issues. Topics such as Christ’s divinity, justification by faith or the trinity have been held in general consensus for many years by the majority of Christians. Compare your conclusions to what the early church fathers, the commentators, and present-day church leaders have said about it. Is there a gap between your conclusion and the general consensus?

“Within the parameters of biblical truth there are some things the Scripture does not make clear or address in detail.”[4] This is where tradition can help to guide us. Coppedge explains that for Wesley tradition did not simply mean the laws and customs of the church. But rather “(1) the church’s understanding of Scripture, (2) it’s use of reason in formulating doctrine and (3) its models for the application of truth in experience.”[5] Using this as a filter can help us see if we have understood Scripture just as generations of Christians have done before us. This secondary source helps to orient us on the path of sound doctrine and keeps us from falling in the ditches of legalism and liberalism.

 

Reason

After a theological conclusion is born out of the study of God’s Word and is tested against the historical interpretation and application of Christian tradition, it needs a rigorous examination from reason. Wesley believed that reason came from God and that all true religion will be reasonable in essence.[6] This reason was given to man in order that he could understand what God was saying to him through His Word. Faith does not mean that what we believe cannot be explained. God’s character will not allow for unreasonable demands and capricious whims. He is a God of order and wisdom and those attributes shine through his Word.

Reason is limited however, and must be kept in balance. We must not overvalue it and raise it to the level of Scripture neither should we undervalue it and delve into mysticism. It is a tool that helps us to encapsulate in terms easily understood what the Bible teaches and how to apply that to our life. What good is our theology if we cannot explain it or understand it? If there is no sense to it, how can it be lived? Reason is a tool that helps us to comprehend and connect together some things that are implied in scripture. It also helps us to understand how we can apply this truth to our everyday lives. Our theology better do more than look good on paper, it better be something that is practical and is at the level where all people of all ages can live.

 

Experience

Wesley used experience not as a primary source to judge Scripture but rather to confirm scriptural truth.[7] If a theology is biblical, traditional and reasonable then naturally it will be experiential. There should be a record to look to that says yes, this is how professing followers of Christ have lived. These truths are being lived out.  However, there exists the danger of putting too much emphasis on experience and delving into feelings, impressions, voices and visions. This is not what Wesley was after. He wanted to see if scripture was actually working in people’s lives. It is to be used to clarify and confirm scripture. Wesley wrote, “Whereas it is objected that experience is not sufficient to prove a doctrine unsupported by scripture…we answer, Experience is sufficient to confirm a doctrine which is grounded on scripture”.[8] If we are saved by faith then there should be testimonies of that happening. If Jesus Christ truly arose from the dead and lives in us through his Holy Spirit then we should see evidence of that. If the Bible teaches that we should be holy then we should see people living holy lives. If the Word is true then that truth will be evident in our lives. Experience to put it in street terms “is where the rubber meets the road”. So important when testing whether a theological conclusion is valid.

 

Conclusion

The central focus is God’s Word. It is inerrant, powerful and the final source of truth. There is no equal. All of our theology must be based upon the Bible. But as our theology forms from the scripture, we need to analyze it in the light of tradition, reason and experience. These three secondary sources like the security features on a twenty-dollar bill, show us the validity of what we have concluded. They serve to bolster our confidence that we have not come to some heretical or extreme belief but that we are showing that we are safe and solid on God’s Word.  

 

 

 

---

[1] Allan C., “How Wesleyans Do Theology”. In Doing Theology in Today’s World ed. John D. Woodbridge and Thomas Edward McComiskey (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1991), pg. 268.

[2] Vic Reasoner, The Importance of Inerrancy (Evansville, IN: Fundamental Wesleyan Publishers, 2013), pg. 17.

[3] Grant R. Osborne, The Hermeneutical Spiral (Downers Grove, Illinois, InterVarsity Press, 2006), pg. 26.

[4] Allan C., “How Wesleyans Do Theology”. In Doing Theology in Today’s World ed. John D. Woodbridge and Thomas Edward McComiskey (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1991), pg. 273.

 

[5] Ibid, pg. 275.

[6] Ibid, pg. 273.

[7] Ibid, pg. 278.

 

[8] Ibid, pg. 278.