Original Sin - Inability - Biblical Basis — John Murray

O Lord our God, we bow down to Thee, may we give Thee Thy Word of love to our feet as a light to our heart. May we receive its rebuke, may we take warning from its admonitions, and may we draw true consolation from its promises.

The Biblical Witness to Original Sin

May we live to Thee and not to ourselves. For Jesus' sake, amen. In other words, the letter I read to you was a test in terms of the doctrine of original sin, and let me just very briefly repeat what I said at the close of the hour, that on the basis of such texts as Ephesians 2, 1 -3, John 3, 6, Romans 8, 5 -8, on the basis of such texts as these, you have certain very important principles enunciated that this depravity called in Ephesians 2, death, destruction of human sins, is native to us.

It is not something that you receive by superimposition or by acquisition, but it is native to us. Then you have the principle of universality in John 3, 6, that which is born of the flesh is flesh, and flesh of course understood in the ethical sense as denoting human nature, actuated, directed and controlled by sin.

Then you have two negative considerations. The first negative consideration that the natural man has not pleaded God, man that he is not subject to the law of God, these two negative considerations, and then you have the more positive, more positive judgment.

So the effect first, that those who are of the flesh mind the things of the flesh, and therefore their thoughts and their interests are governed by the flesh, determined by the flesh. And then you have finally the most significant positive judgment that you find perhaps in all of scripture, that the mind of the flesh is enmity against God, enmity against God.

And when you are evil women, what is the ultimate analysis of things? There is nothing that is more significant than that indictment of Paul in Romans 8, that the mind of the flesh is enmity, is enmity.

It is not simply that we are the enemies of God. Do we know? But this goes further, and it goes to the very fountain of man's moral and spiritual being, moral and religious being, and indicates that that which is most determinative of human personality in respect of moral, spiritual and religious dedication is enmity.

And if that does not involve what we define as total depravity, then I despair of the adequacy of language. There is not an equation between total depravity and enmity against God. And I don't know where we are in the interpretation of enmity, so that at every point of God's manifestation, at the very point of the flesh rises up in contradiction, divine perfection, and divine perfection as revealed in self-manifestation.

The condition is that at every point sin is the contradiction of God, of His glory. If we don't believe in the witness of Scripture, I don't say it's all right, but from a theoretical point of view, that's one thing.

If we don't believe the witness of Scripture as a finality, then we are shattered, absolutely shattered, to what has in the form of theology been defined as total depravity. We're not going to continue longer on that.

There are various other considerations establishing the doctrine of total depravity, and you'll find a great many considerations in the textbook. And I would draw your attention particularly to the argument that the only way whereby we can have deliverance from our depravity is by regeneration.

And you have that if you take into account the radical character of regeneration, and place that on the background of the presupposition, presupposition which requires so radical a transformation as regeneration, in order to remedy it.

But I'm not going to develop any more arguments on, from Scripture. I have given you the five points of the biblical witness on this question, and the conclusion I submit to anything. Now we come to the next means of division of our discussion of the doctrine of sin, and that is inability to support any speculation.

Inability as an Implication of Original Sin

In other words, this could be very well subsumed under depravity, under original sin, because it is an implication of original sin. But nevertheless, because there are certain new facets, we can deal with it under its own head, under its own subdivision.

Now, in essence, the doctrine of inability is implicit in our doctrine of original sin, is the biblical doctrine of original sin, because it simply means that so deep-seated and pervasive is our depravity, deep-seated and pervasive is our depravity, that we are not able to act contrary to our character, and therefore are not able to remedy it by any act native to us, by any action of our own.

First of all, capital A under this is... Excuse me, Mr. Burnett.

Yes? Is the term remedy it by any act of our own? You mean remedy our character or remedy our actions?

Oh, remedy our character, remedy our depravity by any action of our own. That's what I mean. Well, we'll deal with this subject after the three main subdivisions. And capital A, the nature of inability, definition of nature, nature of inability.

Moral Inability and the Natural Man

And I'll deal with the positive definition first, the positive aspect of it first. Inability means that as a result of original sin, man is not only indisposed and made opposite to all good, unable to be otherwise, and therefore his total inability to discern, love, or choose the things that are well-pleasing to God.

To discern, love, or choose the things that are well-pleasing to God. He cannot know them because they are spiritually discerned, love them because his heart is enmity against God, and he cannot will them, cannot choose them, will them, because they that are in the flesh cannot.

What is particularly emphasized in this doctrine is the old Juno term, natural man, unregenerate man, a Juno term. There's a great possibility that you, when you speak to them, will unify and talk a Juno term.

Deeply, positively, negatively, negatively. It does not refer to a metaphysical limitation. This inability does not refer to a metaphysical limitation. It does not refer to any limitation arising from outside nature.

Inability, necessary, which belongs to our metaphysical being, and the moral, vicious inability, which belongs to our sinful being. You know, there is great need of emphasizing that distinction. In the dialectic theology, a confusion of this very score, very question.

Of course, already with various viewpoints, outside of dialectic theology, which has really no affinity with the dialectic theology, where this failure to discriminate appears. We find it, for example, in Roman Catholic theology.

We found it, for example, in Trichotomy. There is no need to repeat the errors that arise in connection with that subject. It isn't something that belongs to our metaphysical being. The limitations which are here in our metaphysical vision.

Humanity's Original Ability and the Loss of Uprightness

This second negative, that it did not belong to man in his original state. Inability did not characterize man in his original state. Since he was created very good, since he was made upright, he was constituted.

Constituted by what? By the fulfillment of all his obligations. That is what we mean when we say that as created, man has plenary ability to fulfill all the will of God. Liberty in the theological sense.

The answer for that is, inability does not mean the loss of liberty. Liberty in theology means that man exercises volition according to his character. Exercises volition according to his character. Inability.

Inability is concerned with the fallen religious incapacity. Inheres in his depraved character. Religious incapacity, which appears in the depravity of his character, in his depraved character. So, inability, the ethic of assessment.

The ethic of assessment is inherent in man's responsibility. Conditions in which he finds himself. Inability. That inability, which is predicated on man's liberty. I suggest in the teaching of Jesus himself, Matthew 7, 17 and 18.

Matthew 7, 17 and 18. Matthew 12, 33 through 35. And Luke 6, 43 through 45. Just take these together. Luke 6, 43 through 45. Now without quoting all of these passages. In the Matthew 12 passage, Jesus said, Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks.

The good man, out of the good treasure of his heart, bring forth that which is good. The good man, out of the good treasure, bring forth that which is good. I cannot adequately impress upon you the elements of that statement.

Out of the good treasure, bring forth that which is good. You see the sequel. Psychological statement. Now he says the opposite. The evil man, out of the wicked man, out of the wicked treasure of his heart, bring forth that which is good.

The evil man, out of the wicked man, the wicked man, out of the wicked treasure of his heart, bring forth that which brings forth evil things. Well, let us be content with evil. We give it the right connotation.

The evil man, out of the evil treasure of his heart, brings forth evil things. On the rock, three times. Now you see that according to the statements of Jesus himself, who knew what was in man, there is clearly established the same kind of psychological sequence.

Inevitable ordination. The evil man, evil treasure, bring forth evil. Now I suppose that if you analyzed all the implications of that simple statement, you would have the necessary influence to stop the total inability.

But we will not pursue that. Our law goes further. In Matthew 7, 18. Matthew 7, 18. He expertly inertiates this inefficiency. He's dealing, of course, with the very same subject. Only he's using this particular five-figurative language.

And he says that good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit. Neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good. And there you have Oomph! Do the time. I do not believe, barring it directly from what Jesus has reminded me, that a corrupt man cannot bring forth good.

An evil man. Now we surely ought to take this to heart, because this is the wisdom of Heaven, in whom I give you all the preciousness of His wisdom. These are derived from witness of the Apostle Paul, in Romans 8, 5 -8 again.

Romans 8, 5 -8. This text, especially in verses 7 and 8, this text, not only that the carnal mind is enmity against God, but you have here again on the impossibility of the opposite. Occasionally, you have this formula, to Oomph!

Do the time. Oomph! Do the time. God said, O, how best I Oomph! Do the time. That is in flesh, cannot please God. And the importance of that is surely, that it is psychologically, morally, religiously impossible for that person to be pleasing God, to do what is well-pleasing to God.

Psychologically, morally, religiously impossible. And there's nothing less than that involved in that. It's Oomph! statement, four words, saying, O, how best I Oomph! Do the time. And then, later on in the same passage, the mind of the flesh is enmity against God, which is not subject to the law of God.

Neither indeed cannot. Would a God do not Oomph! Or indeed it cannot. Would a God do not Oomph! Various ways in the spiritual, of initiating the criterion of what is good. Various ways. By now, for example, likeness to God.

Pleasing God. No criterion that is more characteristic of the criterion that is applied here. And with reference to the person characterized by the flesh, or by the mind of the flesh, by the mind that is enmity against God, that he cannot, he cannot.

And that amounts again to say that it's a moral, it's a psychological, moral and religious inconsistency. Take 1 Corinthians 2 .14. Another one from Paul. 1 Corinthians 2 .14. Paul is dealing with antroposophical, the natural man.

The natural man receives not the things of the spirit of God, because they are foolishness unto him, neither can he know them, because they are spiritually deserved. The formula here again is the same.

Udunatai nonai. Glonai perhaps is pronounced. Udunatai glonai. And he cannot know them. He is simply deserving and appreciating and receiving the things of the spirit of God. Paul has spoken in the preceding commentaries that we seek the wisdom of God in a mystery, even a hidden mystery.

Which none of the persons of this world knew, for as they know it, and have crucified the Lord of glory, I have not seen that He appeared in the identity of the heart of man into God and prepared for him the float.

But God has revealed them unto us by the mystery, in search of all things, even the deep things of God. And it is justly right to request of Mr. D. that Paul and 1 Corinthians 2 .14 say that the natural man, that the unregenerate man, the man in great corrupt condition, cannot discern them.

That means that he cannot understand them, he cannot appreciate them, he cannot receive them. Again, it is the impossible. Now another consideration is derived from John 3 .3, Luther's teaching of our Lord.

Regeneration and Entrance into the Kingdom

We'll return to that again in a moment. John 3 .3 .2. And the point there is that lest a man be born from a valve of water in the spirit, he cannot see the kingdom of God. See is a physical sight. It's not dealing with the receiving of the spectatorship.

He's using the word see which is so frequently used in Scripture to understand, perceive. That is to say he cannot have any perception of character, and he cannot have any appreciation of its meaning.

And that's what our purpose is. It's more eloquent than the other statement which Jesus makes in verse five. Lest a man be born of water and of the spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. To see God, or deeply into it, the incapacity that belongs to man is a part of this radical change which is called regeneration.

Christ's Teaching on the Father's Drawing

Now I'm going to take another few passages from the Gospel. It's a matter really to conclude. John 6 .37 -79. Language here is the same as the Old Testament. And Jesus says, first of all, that no man can come unto him except the Father who hath sent him, draw him.

44 -45. No one can come unto him except the Father draw him. And then in verse 65, no one can come unto him except it were given to him of the Father. These two statements we are concerned with. First in the Greek is, Udeis dunatai, alfen, alfei, prasmi.

Udeis dunatai, alfei, no one can come unto him. And then in verse 65, for the Udeis dunatai, alfei, prasmi, no one can come unto him except it were given unto him of my Father. Now we cannot question apparently that Jesus is here talking about what I have repeatedly stated, the psychological, moral, religious impossibility.

And this impossibility with which Jesus is here speaking evades it the man that devolves upon men as they are confronted with revelation of God's grace. Evades it the man devolving upon men as they are confronted with God's self-revelation in His own Son.

Now this formula, alfei, prasmi, come unto me quite often as a way of stating that amounts to faith in Jesus Christ, faith in Jesus Christ. That's quite obvious in the context. On page 37, all that the Father giveth me shall come to me, shall come to me, and him that cometh unto me I will in no wise cast out.

So we don't need to argue that point. He is referring simply to that faith in Jesus, faith in Himself. And it is that which is under causation, because in John 6, 39, as you will remember, he says, this is the will of Him who sent me that everything which He hath given to me I should not lose of it, but should raise it up in the last day.

Before, in the verse of John 6, 39, it makes perfectly clear that what Jesus is talking of is that coming unto Him which is unto eternal salvation. A salvation which reaches its confirmation being raised up at the last day.

So I won't have to wait until next day to show what the implications of Jesus' teaching here really are in reference to this particular subject.