The following is an excerpt from Pastor Michael Pearl's book in the study of "Romans 1-8 Verse By Verse." An online study through the book of Romans can be found at this site http://nogreaterjoy.org/index.php?id=112

Going through this study has immensely furthered my understanding of the Scriptures in Romans and how it is and can be applied in my own personal life. By filtering out man's terminology and believing what the Bible says alone, without man's interpretation, with a twist of his words added to convince me of what he thinks the verses mean, I can read straight from the Bible and believe every word as it is written, what is written, with the exact words printed in the pages, as it states, without changing those words to mean something other than what they mean.

For being in agreement with Scriptural truth as this Baptist Pastor teaches concerning Romans, I am dumped off the face of this earth by a close friend accusing me of following false teachers, that I am abandoning traditional doctrine, and not even "shock therapy" (her type of shock therapy) helps me. In other words, I have lost it. I no longer exist in this friend's eye. There was much misunderstanding and vengeful rhetoric rather than allowing the time needed in dealing with the Scriptures and letting them interpret for itself, without adding personal interpretation. You'll read statements to warn others of one's "subsequent theological studies based on numerous misinterpretations and misapplications of scripture," but they fail to provide any examples! People of this color have done the same with Dr. Ruckman. It is obvious why the examples are not provided. Maybe some will eventually find out that you really are independent and do have your own mind to make your own judgments based on your own observations with much study and prayer on your part. "You" are to "prove all things."

 I see nothing but the picture of what man has been doing for centuries, and that is passing along teachings that have been taken for granted without fully examining or questioning the position against what the Scriptures actually say. There is a mixture of man's words among some truth...the issue of "sinful nature," for one. The word "sinful nature" is found no where in the Bible, nor its concept. I will be told, "Well, Rapture doesn't appear in the Bible either, but you believe that." I believe it because the Bible teaches "....which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord," but no where does the Bible teach that a born again child of God has two natures, and one of them being a sinful nature.

I have noticed something else. It appears in some circles that if one does not believe like Dr. Ruckman believes, then one is on the verge of being a heretic or is considered one, or is being led astray by others. If one says something contrary to what Dr. Ruckman might say in one of his commentaries, then in some cases the belief of that person is off the mark. I realize there are some people who admire Dr. Ruckman, people who praise God for such a man like him, a man who stands in defense of the King James Bible and his excellent commentaries. Believe me, I am one of them. But one thing I will say, I don't believe Dr. Ruckman has a hold on all Biblical truth and that his commentaries stand as final authority, as I am sure most of you would agree. All of us have no complete corner on the truth so as to disregard others. Dr. Ruckman, my own pastor, or any other man can be wrong in some areas. I don't compare man's commentaries with other men's commentaries, but I must compare what they are saying as in favor with Scripture. We are to let the Scriptures correct us though our corrections will not all be at the same time, like I've got all Biblical doctrine down pat and neatly packaged. (see Convictions).

The Lord certainly can reveal truth to anyone who searches the Scriptures, and this is where we can glean from one another. We can glean from people like Finney, Hodge, Taylor, Spurgeon, Watchman Nee, Pearl, Ruckman, my own pastor, etc. etc., and even our own friends. We can sift through what is taught and hold fast that which is good. It's Biblical truth that matters and comes out on top. What matters is that we "Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." Like the Bible also says, "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good," and that's exactly my goal whether one agrees or disagrees, whether one wishes to continue or discontinue fellowship with me, or deny they ever knew me. It does not matter to me. My aim is not to please my friends, nor will I be bullied by them or my enemies. My aim is to please God, to believe every word of God and to study His word and apply it in my own life. I may be a miserable failure at times, and I may be confused at times searching for answers, so forgive me for not living up to your expectations or your pet doctrines. It does not matter what you think of me. If I lose more friends because of my stance, so be it. It does not matter if you are a friend or a foe, I know "there is a friend that sticketh closer than a brother," who will never leave me nor forsake me.

If you do not agree with the following, don't worry, I won't chew off your head. I won't scream, I won't yell names. You may have understanding where I don't, but in God's time, if we are true disciples, He will bring light and understanding to His children. (1 Cor. 2:13)

 _________________________________________________________

 

A Sinful Nature?
(From Romans 5:12 and on)

There are those who explain the subsequent sin of the many as a result of some inherent pollution caused by Adam's sin that is now resident in all Adam's descendants. Some imaginative persons have coined the bizarre term "sinful nature." That it has come to be popular doesn't lesson its alien quality. That is a nonsense term doesn't seem to deter its use.

Proponents of this view are not teaching that all sinned, but that all became sinners. As they see it, the damning factor is not in the condemnation passed down in the original sin, but in the effect original sin had on the nature of Adam's posterity. It is taught that when Adam sinned his "nature" became corrupted so that he passed that depraved condition on to all his posterity. Sin is viewed as a disease, a kind of nonmaterial genetic mutation acquired in Adam and then passed down from generation to generation. It is a reverse evolution of the nonmaterial. Like organic evolution, it requires the creation of missing links to substantiate it. In this case, the missing links are fabricated terms and concepts not appearing in Scripture.

Since Augustine, a heretic of the fifth century, the level of absurdity has grown with increasing philosophical speculation, from Luther to Calvin, and down through the Puritans to Hodge, and now a whole string of modern parrots. They say that all men die because, though they didn't sin either personally or in Adam, yet all are born evil in the very essence of their souls.

But we have not reached the bottom yet. Infants, by the very composition of their souls, are said to be loathsome to God from the moment they are conceived. They come out of the womb despised by God and deserving of the fires of Hell. Those who believe in inherent evil cover the dastardly implication it has on infants by quickly pointing out that God does not damn the child who has not yet reached accountability. Yet some confidently assert that every child is born under the wrath of God unless his original sin is removed by a covenant with the parents through infant baptism. This is the view of most Protestants and all Roman Catholics.

Not only is the idea of inherent sin foreign to Scripture and reason, but it would do violence to the parallel. The initial disobedience of Adam alone is the issue on which his argument is built. For the analogy to be accurate, it must be true that the death of Adam's posterity has nothing to do with their personal condition. If mankind is despised of God because of some inherent tendency or moral impurity received from Adam, then they are deserving of death in their own right, and the analogy is destroyed. For the analogy would imply that Christians are counted righteous because of some implanted goodness.

The inherent sin concept would be more consistent with the seminal view, since Adam's descendants would have an organic link with him in his sin. But the representative (covenant/federal head) view necessarily assumes no organic link to Adam or his sin other than that of representative.

If, according to the covenant view, all came under condemnation because of a judicial ruling (that Adam should act on the behalf of everyone) then there would be no organic link to produce inherited depravity. On the other hand, according to the seminal view, if the human race organically participated in the sin, then the guilt is direct and personal, and depravity would be the result of the moral act of all....accurring simultaneously in Adam. but if there is no organic participation the sin of Adam, and condemnation is a covenant relationship only, then moral depravity (sinful nature) must be the creation of God.

If only Adam sinned, and none but he are to blame, yet his posterity are born with natures that cannot please God, then you have a situation were men and babies are damned through no fault of their own, faulted for not being what they could not be.

Inherent condemnation, yes; inherent moral depravity, no.

Read this passage in Romans 5:12, considering only what it says without reading between the lines. The subject is not inherent depravity, but inherent condemnation. Nothing else could be consistent with the analogy. This author is amazed at how something so simple could have become so clouded. It is as if the theologians have traded their common sense in for an ascetic's imaginative visions. It would be embarrassing to hold the Calvinist's view.

All died, not all sinned.

No place does it say, "In Adam all sinned." It says, Adam sinned and all died. All share the consequences, not the sin. The very wording of verse 12 does everything it can to avoid saying that in Adam all sinned. There are three parts to verse 12: (1. Sin enters the world through one man. (2. Death enters the world as a result of the one man's sin (3. For all have sinned. If Paul wanted to teach that Adam's sin was the sin of all and not just the one man, he definitely missed a good opportunity. And he never even initimates---not here, and not anywhere in all the Bible that death comes on all because of the sinfulness or depravity inherited at the moment of Adam's sin.

Inherited Guilt?

Some insist that condemnation of death passing on all men is testimony of their guilt, either the guilt of participation in Adam's sin or guilt of an evil nature inherited from Adam. Aside from the irrationality of it and the total lack of any Scriptural testimony, the concept of inherited guilt would do violence to Paul's argument that death is not of their own doing or deserving but the imputation of the doing and deserving of another.

Furthermore, if death is testimony as to the guilt of the human race, how do we explain the death of animals? Are they bearing the blame of a deed for which they participated, or are they bearing the consequences of the deed of another? The only rational answer is to agree that death in the animal world is a result of sharing the physical curse on Adam's sin, not a result of being blamed. Then know that according to Romans 8:20-21 the curse on animals is the same curse, on the same basis, as the curse on man---and it has the same cure, effected at the same time, on the same basis. (See Sins of the Fathers(2) in the Appendix)

What the verse does teach

We have used up a lot of paper discussing error; we now look at the simple truth.

The plain sense of Scripture makes the most sense. Father Adam sins, and when the death sentence falls on him it falls on all that are in his loins. There is nothing here about guilt or blame or sinfulness. Physical death is the lot of all flesh on a planet that has forsaken the God of life.

There is sufficient Scriptural support throughout all the Bible for the following three concepts:

  1. A man is damned only on the basis of his personal and willful violation of truth-----truth understood. Until he is made consciously responsible, he is not held accountable.

  2. The death penalty passes on all men because the race was in Father Adam when he sinned. Understand there is a great difference between imputing someone else's sin, with its guilt, and imputing the temporal consequences----death.

  3. In consequence of Adam's sin, the whole world has in fact actually and personally sinned. One man sinned, all died, and it resulted in all sinning.

Finally, in what way was the fall of Adam the fall of the entire human race?

Adam alone sinned. He only was guilty. He alone was to blame, for he was the only one that consciously acted. But when he slipped off the edge, he took the entire future race with him, not immediately into sin, but into separation from God. Adam was sole proprietor of planet earth. At that moment he was the entire race. When he sinned God forsook Adam and all that pertained to him, which included his future descendants. When Adam was driven out of the garden, it was a foregone conclusion that his children would be born outside the garden, beyond the presence of God, which Adam had enjoyed there in the garden. The consequence on him and his posterity was not a fault in nature; it was a fault in relationship. All who are born are born separated from God----without the Holy Spirit.

A newborn baby is born into separation from God, with the penalty of death. Because of this separation, there are manifold influences to evil. Adam's race must also content with a natural body possessed of many carnal passions, and a body weakened by generations of sin.

In addition, the fall was a fall into the kingdom of darkness. Satan exercises great control and influence over those in the kingdom of darkness.

To sum it up, a soul comes into this world without God, destined to die. This estrangement, coupled with natural tendencies to indulge, is sufficient to account for the universality of sin.

All mature persons are wicked, but men can only repent of real sin done in real time, sin that is part of their conscious history, not theological sin, doctrinal sin, sin one must accept by faith, against the dictates of his own conscience.

Why go beyond Scriptures where it necessitates creating missing links to defend a nonsense doctrine? The plain sense of Scriptures is profoundly simple and straightforward with no deep, unfathomable mysteries. The concept of mysteriously inherited sin comes from Origen and Augustine, and should be discarded with the rest of their heathen ignorance. (1)

________________________________________________

Sins Of The Fathers

It is asked, "If it is true that Adam's descendants do not inherit guilt from Adam, why does the Scripture teach that the children inherit the sins of their fathers?" It doesn't teach that at all. It teaches that the sins of the parents will be visited on the children to the third and fourth generation. It is the consequences that children inherit, not the guilt or blame.

Furthermore, if one appeals to this principle in support of inherent sin, he has proven too much and therefore proven nothing at all. If the "generational sins" theory is an extension of the manner in which Adam's sin affected his descendants, then children must be to blame for all sins of all fathers all the way back to Adam. On the other hand, if the "generational sins" last only to the third or fourth generation, then Adam's sins, now more than four generations removed, could not affect us at all. So it couldn't be said, "In Adam all died." It would be said, "In Great Grandfather, Grandfather, and Father all died." Look at what the Bible actually says about visiting sins on the children.

Adam's actions affected his descendants in the same way that a man's actions affect his descendants today. Granted, Adam had far more to lose than a man does today. He had further to fall. But the mechanics of offspring inheritance are the same now as they were then.

It is the effects of sin that are inherited, not a sinful disposition. The consequence of original sin is not more sin; it is death. To carry the parallel through, when the Scripture says that in Christ we are made righteous, it is referring to our being treated in a way that we are in fact not. That is the point, that from Adam to Moses death was universally experienced by those who had not in fact personally sinned as did Adam. It is the consequences that are passed on, both in Adam and in Christ. If in Adam one is made actually sinful, then in Christ one must be made actually righteous. Absurdity abounds. (2)

_____________________________________________

(1) (Romans 1-8 Verse by Verse pp. 94-97)
(2) (Appendix...pp. 214-215)

A free, complete online study (and download) in the book of Romans can be found at this site http://nogreaterjoy.org/index.php?id=112

You be the judge.

Guk