Introduction
Made in God’s Image
We are made in the image of God.
In Genesis 1:26 God declares, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.” We read in 1:27: “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.”
Later in Genesis, we read, “And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, and after his image; and called his name Seth” (5:3). Seth was created in his father’s image, just as I’m in my father’s image, and you are in your father’s image. If anyone advocates that mankind is no longer made in God’s image, we must continue to read scripture. Directly after the flood, we read, “Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man” (Gen 9:6), and we’re described as made in God’s image elsewhere in scripture. It is weak and unbiblical to say otherwise. But what does this mean?
Being made in the image of God entails morality. The law of the Lord is written on every man’s heart, which is the consciousness God has given us (Rom 2:15). Every person knows there is right or wrong, and they are commanded to abide by it through general revelation. Total Depravity asks whether can respond to this command. It ultimately entails five things:
- Man is born sinful
- Man has a sinful nature
- Man cannot choose God
- Man cannot understand spiritual things
- Regeneration precedes faith
In this chapter, I will cover two of these things, walking point-by-point through each belief and walking through every objection.
Man is Not Born Sinful
Perhaps the most common belief in Christianity is that we’re born sinful. Ask any mainline Christian whether were born sinners or born sinful, and the answer is a resounding “Yes!” When asked for evidence, there are three main verses they turn to: Psalm 51:5, Romans 5:12, and Romans 5:18. However, there’s much more to this debate than those three verses, and, as we regard scripture further, we find a different result from mainstream Christianity.
Children Don’t Know Right From Wrong
Deuteronomy 1:39 says, “Moreover your little ones, which ye said should be a prey, and your children, which in that day had no knowledge between good and evil, they shall go in thither, and unto them will I give it, and they shall possess it.” Contextually, this chapter occurs as the Israelites disobeyed God. They were told they were going to the Promised Land which Abraham’s descendants were promised, (Gen 26:3, 28:13), but they disobeyed, having their privilege revoked. The parents, knowing right and wrong, were punished, but the children were not. It was because they “in that day had no knowledge between good and evil.”
In Isaiah’s prophecies about Jesus, he describes Jesus at an age of not knowing right from wrong. We read, “Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good. For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings” (Isa 7:15–16). Jesus is described at an age when he does not know good from evil, and in order to refuse evil, he must know what evil is.
Paul tells us to “be not children in understanding” (1 Cor 14:20), recognizing the fact that children do not understand these things. Without a shadow of a doubt, children do not know right from wrong. Do we believe they are still guilty though? Guilty for sins they don’t know? Scripture is clear that evil will be punished, and wicked men are not to prosper. If these children are sinful, they must be guilty.
At this point, the Age of Accountability is brought into the conversation. The Calvinist claims that the baby becomes accountable for their sin when they reach the Age of Accountability. This is arguing against their position! They are sinful and guilty, but not accountable? Does scripture describe anywhere a guilty, unaccountable person? When a child knows to do good and evil, and he chooses evil, he becomes guilty (this is what we call the Age of Accountability). That seems to be the plain reading suggested by the above passages. The Calvinist argues that when they know good from evil and choose evil, they remain guilty but become accountable. Such a thing is absurd. Guiltiness and accountability are always synonymous—you simply cannot have a guilty person who is unaccountable.
Babies Go to Heaven
Almost every Christian can agree that babies go to heaven. Some people are consistent in their beliefs about original sin, acknowledging it’s historic roots of Infant Damnation and that babies must go to Hell. But what does the bible say?
The earliest writing corresponding to this is in 2 Samuel 12, where God tells David his son will die (14), David fasts for a week begging for mercy (16), the child dying (18), and finally David is comforted (21). He was fasting and begging for mercy, then comforted after his child died. He writes, “Can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me” (23). Some argue that he was referencing the grave, and that David believes he will join his son there. But David is comforted, is he not? Is David comforted that his son is in Hell, and David will rejoin him in the physical grave? Surely not! He is comforted because he knows that his child is in heaven.
Further than this, we must recognize that this child was being punished for his father’s sins—the baby would not have died if David never comitted adultry. Even though the child died for another’s sins the author believed he was still in heaven—what a promise this is!
Jesus goes on to tell us about children and infants, saying, “Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God” (Matt 19:14, Mk 10:14, Lk 18:16).” The phrase “for of such is the kingdom of God” tells us something. It tells us that these little children were of the kingdom of God. A plain interpretation of this verse is that heaven is for children.
Furthermore, Jesus further tells us in Matthew 18:3, “Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.” Jesus told you to become like a child to enter heaven, which in the premise assumes that children go into heaven. It should not be a secret or a subject to debate that children go to heaven.
What can we logically deduce from this? God is described as a judge in a plethora of verses, and “Assuredly, the evil man will not go unpunished” (Pro 11:21). If babies are evil, wicked creatures, why should they go to Heaven? God is allowing wicked, depraved creatures to heaven? At what point do they become Hell-bound? A Calvinist answers that they become Hell-bound when they know right from wrong, but this doesn’t deal with the text. That’s the answer of a non-Calvinist, but it doesn’t address the point. Children are Hell-bound when they have sinned, meaning they know evil and good, then choose evil. They are not Hell-bound at birth, because they are not sinful. There is simply no loop in logic that can reconcile this. If you believe children are born sinful, you must believe they go to Hell. Arguments against this are all emotional.
The final argument against this is that God shows mercy or grace to these children, so they can still go to heaven despite their sinfulness. This is pure speculation—it’s not in scripture. Does God make man sinful just to forgive them? Does God just overlook their sins, allowing them to heaven though they are accountably guilty? It’s illogical. Again, at what point do they become accountable? It seems the position of the Calvinists is that God will show mercy to them until they know right and wrong and choose wrong—beforehand he will show them mercy and just overlook their sin. Again, this is speculation, not scripture.
We Are Personally Responsible
Scripture is beyond explicit that we are not guilty for our parent’s sins. Ezekiel 18:20 says, “The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father’s iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son’s iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself.” Throughout history, people have blamed their parents for their sins, and God has directly rebuked them. Ezekiel 18 begins with a Proverb (not a scriptural one, but a man-made one), which says, “The fathers eat the sour grapes, but the children’s teeth are set on edge.” These people claimed their fathers would do something wrong and they would be punished for it, and it was used for a spiritual sense.
Many Calvinists have “covered” this verse. They point out that a group of people are blaming someone else for there sins (which is true), then follow by saying the verse is about being personally guilty. This is simply a lie. God doesn’t declare that we are guilty for ourselves (though it is implied). He declared what we are not guilty for. The Calvinist tries to portray God as using a hyperbole, using an exaggeration to get these people to understand the depths of their sin. But this is not what the text suggests. What implies this is an exaggeration from God, not how he operates? Would it not be much easier to simply declare that each man is guilty of himself? God, instead, reveals something to us which is perfectly fitting with scripture and conscious—each man guilty for himself, not for his father. The best thing to ask a Calvinist is this: Do you believe that you are guilty for your father’s sin? If they say so, they have rebuked scripture.
Scripture overwhelmingly speaks about personal guilt. Jeremiah 31:29–30 cross-references Ezekiel 18, saying, “In those days they will not say again, ‘The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children’s teeth are set on edge.’ But everyone will die for his own iniquity; each man who eats the sour grapes, his teeth will be set on edge.”
The final argument they make is pertains to Adam’s imputed sinfulness and Christ’s imputed righteousness. First, they assert that each man has sin imputed to him from Adam. Second, they assert that Christ’s righteousness is imputed to us to cover our unrighteousness. Third, they assume that these things must operate on the same grounds. That is, both imputations necessitate the other. If Christ imputes righteousness, Adam imputes sin, and vice-versa.
There are many things wrong with this. For starters, where does scripture say these operate the same way? Why is it that if we reject Adam’s imputation we must reject Christ’s? There is not scriptural ground for this, and no coherent or logical argument can be made for this. One can affirm Christ’s imputed righteousness and deny Adam’s imputed sinfulness—there would be no contradiction or flaw to believe this. It all goes back to faulty logic.
Taken by Iniquity
Consider the following story:
A man is staring at a pole in front of him. He declares, “I will now face this pole!”
A woman walking by says, “Sir, you are already facing the pole. How can you turn to it?”
He replies, “I have always faced this pole, but now I will turn to it.”
“But sir, you cannot turn away from what you already face.”
Again, he says, “I was born facing this pole, and I will turn to face this pole.”
As we read this story, we see a nonsensical man. He claims to be facing a pole and then to turn to it, and the woman recognizes the obvious fact that you can’t turn to something you already face. To turn from something, you must be facing another at one point, right? Isaiah 53:6 says that “we all, like sheep, have gone astray,” and 64:6 says that our iniquities have “taken us away.” David writes in Psalm 14:3, “They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy . . .” Paul also quotes this in Romans 3:12: “They have all turned aside, together they have become corrupt; . . .”
Remember the man facing the pole, claiming to “turn” to the pole? “I was born facing the pole but I have turned to face the pole”—compare that to the phrase, “I was born sinful but I have turned to sin.” It is obvious that the first phrase is absurd, but we fight against the second phrase? If you claim that the man staring at the pole is nonsensical while claiming scriptures teach original sin and that we turn to sin, you must claim that scripture is nonsensical.
Fearfully and Wonderfully Made
Voddie Baucham says, “That’s not a little angel. That’s a viper in a diaper. The angry cry happens early. The demanding cry happens early. The stiffening up of the body—that happens early. . . . One of the reasons God makes them so small is that they won’t kill you. And one of the reasons he makes them so cute is so that you won’t kill them.” God makes children small so they won’t kill us? This is disgusting. However, it’s the Calvinist view. R.C. Sproul said, “Calvin was once talking about babies, and he said that babies were depraved as rats. I said, ‘That’s the one time I really, really opposed the teachings of John Calvin.’ I said, ‘That’s terribly insulting to the rat.’” Steven Lawson gave the hypothetical of a eighteen-month-baby seeing a watch on his father’s arm and wanting it. If that child had an eighteen-year-old’s strength, he quotes, “I submit to you, that if that eighteen-month-old baby had the strength of an eighteen-year-old man he would slaughter you there where you stand, father, rip the watch off your arm and walk across your bloody body out the door without feeling an ounce of remorse.” Reader, I would like you to simply compare these statements with what scripture states.
“Lo, children are an heritage of the Lord: and the fruit of the womb is his reward. As arrows are in the hand of a mighty man; so are children of the youth” (Psa 127:3–4). “Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God” (Matt 19:14, Mk 10:14, Lk 18:16). “Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven” (Matt 18:3). There is not one example of scripture speaking lowly or poorly of children.
Psalm 139:14–15: “I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well. My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth.” David believed that he was fearfully and wonderfully made, and that he was created by God in the womb. God was the creator of us in the womb, and it is to him that David gives all the credit to creating us. Did God create David at enmity with him? Was his soul sinfully given to him by God? If God creates in secret a sinner, how is he not the author of sin? Perhaps “creator” would be a more suitable word, as a sinner is what God has created. Any Christian who is honest to scripture would recognize Jesus’ view of the children, and he should reject anyone that suggests something else. Infants are not damned, vipers in diapers, remorseless soon-to-be murders who are cute so that we won’t kill them. Infants are innocent, blessed, pure, and ignorant beings made in God’s image. To suggest anything else rebukes scripture.
Furthermore, Hebrews 2:17 says, “Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.” The NASB perhaps translates it more clearly when it says, “in all things He had to be made like His brothers . . . to make propitiation for the sins of the people.” Gregory of Nazianzus I think said it best: “The unassumed is the unredeemed.” Hebrews tells us that to make propitiation for our sins, Christ had to be made like us in every way—there are no exceptions to this. R.C. Sproul, a popular Calvinist theologian, said, “We know the scriptures teach us that he was made like us in every respect except one—namely, without sin, and without original sin.” This is a denial of scripture! The bible is clear that he was made like us in every single way, and it teaches that if he wasn’t then we are not redeemed. He had to be made like us in everything to be a propitiation for us, so it only follows that if he did not take on original sin, he did not redeem our original sin, and we stand before Christ unredeemed. There are three options:
- Christ inherited original sin and sin nature, as do humans. Christ is a sinner. Thus, he could not atone for us on the cross, and we’re guilty before God without a Savior.
- Christ did not inherit original sin and sin nature, but we do. Christ is not like us in every way. Thus, we are not fully redeemed, and we’re guilty before God without a Saviour.
- Christ did not inherit our original sin and sinful nature, and neither do we. Christ is sinless and like us in every way. Therefore he atoned for us on the cross, we are fully redeemed, and we stand justified before God through our Savior.
If we are to believe in original sin, scripture teaches us Christ is not the propitiation for our sins. God forbid we believe such a lie! Either we have a Savior and Original Sin is false, or every man is damned and Original Sin is true. There is no way around this simple logic.