Kids get it from their parents/teachers & others!

Kids get it from their parents/teachers & others!

What do they get? Behaviour!

Over the past week I have made it a point to closely watch those around me. That’s not really a hard task for me because I am by nature a people watcher. My degree program at ETSU wasn’t just built around criminal justice, but around social and behavioral sciences, observing people’s reactions and understanding their body language. This method of reading people has gain popular attention through shows like N.C.I.S. and other shows with lines like “he looked down and to the left,” so he lied type of thing. The study is much deeper than that but not the topic for this blog.


This past week I observed a lady in probably her mid to late 40’s coming out of Walmart with and oxygen bottle. As soon as she stepped out the door she stopped, slid the oxygen port down, and immediately lit up a cigarette. This alone really upsets me but again not the point of this blog. She had with her what looked like her son who was obviously at least 16 years old. Her son pushed the cart straight towards a handicap parking spot where a nice, clean, new, Cadillac set. This car was shining from bumper to bumper and even still had a temporary tag in the back window where they had obviously just bought it. The son had the keys and released the trunk latch and began loading the cart into the truck. When he finished the lady told him to just “push the cart up front next the sign, someone else will get it.”  Now what frustrated me is the lady was leaning up against the cart return, they had parked in the last handicap spot next to the return. This mother is teaching her child in my view to be lazy and that it is acceptable and alright to break rules. Even more frustrating is this lady would no doubt be one of the first to pitch a fit if a cart rolled and hit her precious car. Really lady, teach your kid to do the right thing.

Schools and school zones are another area of concern for me, probably more so than Walmart….LOL! I know of 3 different schools in the area that have signs that say “do not enter,” or “wrong way” plainly posted. However, every day I see teachers, parents and others, clearly driving up the wrong way. You have heard the saying, “out of the mouth of babes,” well my son asked me why they are so bent on the rules inside the school, but they break the law everyday outside the school by going the wrong way? What could I say? It’s ok for them to break rules but not you? Remember kids learn by example and some of these same kids will be driving before you know it! And by the way, this has nothing to do with the education part of it. I believe we really do have some of the best teachers in the world right around our area!

Speed zones in schools are a joke as far as I am concerned. Do we need them, definitely and without a doubt! Do people obey them, nope! Unless the county officer (which they do an outstanding job) is out in front most parents don’t even slow down. However, the flashing light of 20 just doesn’t mean when the officer is present, it means when flashing! Well how do I know they are speeding? First of all it’s really obvious, but secondly as part of my military training and while I was a reserve deputy I learned how to guess at speeds. We would set with a radar and watch approaching cars and guess at speeds before we clocked them and after a while I actually got pretty good at it. The sad thing is many of those speeding are parents and teachers. Again, kids learn by example!

During the same time as the schools zones and while speeding guess what many of the parents are doing….texting. I observed one lady with a cigarette in her right hand trying to steer the car, while phone in left hand obviously texting or looking at a website or something which was not even near the stiring wheel, all the while speeding through a school zone, only to turn in at the next school entrance, while having her son in the car. Great example mom, not only to your kid but to others around you!

So, what is the point? Kids observe EVERYTHING we as parents do. Not only do they observe us as parents, but they observe others as well. Even if you are not a parent, there are children, kids, and youth, whatever you want to call them still observing you. What we practice we also preach so to speak. The sad thing is in many of these situations if the roles are reversed those people would be complaining. They lady at Walmart would be furious if a cart hit her nice shiny new car. We punish or get upset at our kids for breaking “do not enter” and “wrong way” laws, especially if they came home with a ticket, yet they get if from those they observe. How would that mother feel, God forbid, if she got a call that her son was involved in a horrific accident due to texting? He learned it from her or others around him. We as parents, teachers, or as a society, have to realize that there are those around us that are watching. We need to obey the rules and laws if we expect our children and that generation to do what is right. Remember, they learn for those they see!


Book Critique, Family to Family: Leaving a Lasting Legacy

Liberty University




Book Critique

Family to family: Leaving a Lasting Legacy

A Paper Submitted To Mr Nicholas Dodson

In Partial Fulfillment Of The Requirements For

The Course Evan 565

Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary


Anthony D. Padgett


Saturday, April 30, 2011


Pipes, Jerry F,, and Victor Lee. Family to Family: Leaving A Lasting Legacy. Alpharetta, GA:
North American Mission Board of the Southern Baptist Convention, 1999.


Author Information

Dr. Jerry Pipes is the Team Leader of the Prayer and Spiritual Awakening Team with the North American Mission Board and is the director of Jerry Pipes Productions.  Dr. Pipes travels internationally, speaking to millions of people at events and conferences.  He has authored three other books including Becoming Complete: Discovering and Developing the Real You, People Sharing Jesus, and, Building a Successful Family; and he has produced numerous training materials with over 18 million in print today.  In the early 1990s, Dr. Pipes served as one of the presenters for President George H.W. Bush administration’s War on Drugs.
Dr. Pipes completed his Bachelors degree at Texas A&M University and his Masters at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary and at Luther Rice Seminary his Doctorate of Ministry. He had his wife Debra; have two children Paige and Josh.
Victor Lee the other author is the pastor of Young Adults and Families at First Baptist Concord, Knoxville, TN. He has been writing professionally for 22 years and entered fulltime ministry in 1995. He is a former newspaper reporter and his focus is on sports evangelism, singles ministry and evangelism strategy. He is a regular contributor to various Christian publications as well as serving as editor. Lee and his wife, Judy, have an adult daughter and three foster children and currently reside in Knoxville.

Content Summary

Pipes and Lee, in Family to Family: Leaving a Lasting Legacy provide parents with vital information for passing a lasting Christian heritage to their children and God’s purpose for the family.  They first begin the book by explaining what an unhealthy family is. After bring to our attention what the unhealthy family looks like they go into further explanation about what God intended a Christ centered family to look like. They begin this by pointing out what healthy “model” family should look like in the word of God, but also taking into account that in today’s society there are many single parent families. They point out that even though they are single parent families, they are still accountable to God and the foundations set out for us in the bible.

They continue to build on that foundation by showing the parents how to set up a mission statement for the family. They focus on how to use that mission statement to guide the family in their daily lives by serving Christ and through encouragement. They use the mission statement as a cornerstone for the rest of their book.

They next discuss how to address sharing their personal faith in Christ with one’s own children.  Pipes and Lee believe it is essential that parents learn how to lead their children to Christ and how to model their family of faith for their children to learn from. They divide the chapter into four sections that deal with various topics of family growth and ways of exactly how to reach their children to Christ and keep the focus on Him through devotions and family worship.

The next few chapters discuss at length how to function as a family to serve Christ in all aspects of life. This is to include going out and worshipping within your neighborhoods, schools, and the community as a whole. They also discuss how to plug your family into corporate worship within a congregation and how to find where to best fit in. They finish the book with how to lead someone to Christ after they have already chosen to believe.


Family to Family is a simple book that includes many stories and straight forward communication to help the modern day parent with dealing with families in today’s society. Pipes and Lee seem to be blaming the state of today’s family on the big business and the corporate world. Their approach to handle the family is modeled off of a large management system of structure whereas the boss puts out the policy and if the workers below believe in the strategy or system, then it will be successful. However if someone key to the system, as in this case a family member, does not buy into the system or “mission statement,” then the system or structure will fail. The key then to what Pipes and Lee are offering in Family to Family is completely centered on the mission statement. If for instance the father and mother decide on the mission statement but the kids do not agree, the system is doomed from the beginning. There is no ownership or individuality in the system they offer, the average family now days have their own uniqueness and individuality that makes them a family together. This system does not allow for that kind of thought or individuality.

There are many aspects of a modern day family that do and should run as a business, and Pipes and Lee make several good recommendations. However while trying to incorporate Christ into the home; taking the approach of a business is probably not the best approach. Pipes and Lees suggest running the home like a business which is often what we see today in the church. Men go to their section and bible studies, while women go to theirs, and the youth off to the youth department. The only time you see a collective worship is in morning worship, and in many churches today the children are still not present.

Obviously there is more to raising children than passing on one’s beliefs, although very important in today’s society. The mission statement if possibly replaced with clear communication, and expectations about how the family should conduct themselves in all aspects of life.  And with the understanding that as parents it is their wish that those same principles be passed from generation to generation, that could be the same as following a family “mission statement.”

Overlooking the mission statement in Family to Family, Pipes and Lee bring to the table some very good definitions and understandings of what a healthy family should look like. They go into great detail of how to worship as a family, and more importantly bring a child to Christ. They also give great detail and time in how to worship to others in our communities and neighborhoods, making a better area for families to live in.

Pipes and Lee have definitely written this book from the Christian perspective, however non-believers who are struggling with children and modern day problems could benefit from their book. It is obvious to see that Pipes and Lee come from the Southern Baptist background and those traditions are deeply rooted in their book.  The book is not overwhelming in length and has some good suggestions, questions, and material. If one was to choose to follow what Pipes and Lee suggest in their book, they provide a detailed description on how to accomplish their goal. This book could also be used effectively, pointing out the “mission statement” concern, in any church class or setting to help struggling parents that wish to make their families closer as well as communities. Pipes and Lee have done the research, have great biblical principles, and have focused the book on reaching the Christian family so that they may be better equipped to hold their families together through worship and prayer.


Theological Critique of the Four Views on Hell

Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary

Liberty University

A theological critique of

Four Views on Hell

Stanley N. Gundry and William Crocket

A Paper Submitted to Dr. Michael Stallard

In Partial Fulfillment of course Requirements for

 Theology 530 Systematic Theology II


Anthony D. Padgett

Jonesborough, TN.

November 14, 2011



Introduction  ——————————————————————————————— 2

Summary of Book —————————————————————————————- 2

The Literal View —————————————————————————————- 3

The Metaphorical View ——————————————————————————- 3

The Purgatorial View———————————————————————————- 4

The Conditional View ———————————————————————————- 4

Critical Interaction ———————————————————————————– 5

Conclusion  ———————————————————————————————— 9

Bibliography ——————————————————————————————— 10



This is a book critique of the Four Views of Hell, edited by William Crockett and Stanley N. Gundry.  The topic of hell makes most believers of Christ uneasy and it is most often a topic that is not preached from the pulpits anymore. However, the topic of hell should not be ignored or avoided; hell is very real and as with the Bible as a whole, everything should be taught and studied to fully understands God’s intentions for one’s life.

Summary of Book

      The concept of hell is important to understand in Christian religion but it is also an important concept in other world religions. The book brings together four viewpoints on hell as viewed by John F. Walvoord, William Crockett, Zachary J. Hayes, and Clark H. Pinnock; it is then edited by Stanly N. Gundry and Crockett.  The four views of hell offered in this book are, the literal view, the metaphorical view, the purgatorial view, and the conditional view of hell. Each view is written by a scholarly contributor and offers an argument and counterargument on the topic of hell by each of the contributors.  Each contributor brings to their respective view an argument of their understanding or interpretation of what the bible teaches about hell, and each has their own distinct background. John F. Walvoord was a long time president of the Dallas Theological Seminary[1] and argues the literal view, while William V. Crockett is a New Testament professor at Alliance Theological Seminary[2] and argues the metaphorical view. Then there is Zachary J. Hayes who is a retired teacher of theology at the Catholic Theological Union[3] and discusses the purgatory view of hell. Then to conclude the four views is Clark H. Pinnock, who was a Professor Emeritus of Christian interpretation at McMaster Divinity College,[4] and discusses the conditional view of hell. After each contributor offers their respective view of hell it is followed by brief counterarguments by the remaining three contributors.  This critique will look at each view and compare and contrast them respectively in an attempt to view the most convincing argument of the four views of hell.

The Literal View

     The book begins with Dr. John Walvoord and the literal view of hell. Dr. Walvoord begins by defending that hell is a real place of eternal punishment and that the punishment is “punitive, not redemptive” as the orthodox view is commonly interpreted. [5] That this punishment is everlasting and will take place in a dark spot called hell as portrayed in scripture. Dr. Walvoord bases is entire foundation of hell on biblical scripture and suggests that those who feel eternal punishment really does not exist, should also have no problem with this view of hell,  unless they deny the inerrancy of the bible as well.[6]

The Metaphorical View


     The metaphorical view is discussed by Dr. William Crockett and from the first paragraph it is seen that there are some similarities between Walvoord’s literal view and Crockett’s metaphorical view. The most important being that they both believe that hell is a real place of eternal punishment however, that is where the similarities stop. Crockett disagrees with Walvoord’s assumption that hell is made up of “intense heat, material fire, and smoke.”[7] Crockett believes that the fiery darkness, intense heat, and smoke is to be taken metaphorically and not literally as Walvoord’s believes. Crockett argues that though hell is a place of eternal punishment, and no less dreadful than Walvoord’s literal view, the fire and darkness are simply metaphors used to describe hell but should not be taken literally.[8]

The Purgatorial View

The third view of hell, the purgatorial view, is presented by Dr. Zachary Hayes. His argument is based on the Roman Catholic teachings of the intermediate place between heaven and hell call purgatory.  He argues the need for purgatory and describes it as a temporary place of cleansing and purification that prepares one for the eternal life with God. He argues that upon leaving this life, one is not sufficiently ready to meet God for eternity due to their sins; therefore purgatory must be entered into until cleansed and ready for eternal life in heaven.[9] This argument has very little if any scriptural support and his argument focuses on purgatory and not on hell as a place. However, Dr. Hayes does explain that at the time of judgment, purgatory will cease to exist and at that point only leaving heaven and hell.[10]

The Conditional View

     The final view of hell, the conditional view, is present by Dr. Clark Pinnock. He agrees that hell is a real place; however it cannot be a place of eternal punishment because that would not be in God’s character. Pinnock’s argument centers on the view of immortality which is frequently referred to as annihilation. He describes annihilation as the idea that punishment of the burning hell will lead to the total destruction of the evil. Pinnock further explains it this way, “Being unable to discount the possibility of hell as a final irreversible condition, I am forced to choose between two interpretations of hell: Do the finally impenitent suffer everlasting, conscious punishment (in body and soul, either literally or metaphorically), or do they go out of existence in the second death? In other words, does hellfire torment or consume? I contend that God does not grant immortality to the wicked to inflict endless pain upon them but will allow them finally to perish.”[11] He argues that God alone is immortal and that those who reject him will in fact perish, however the final outcome is the same; they will not have eternal life with God.[12]

Critical Interaction

      When most think of the place called hell they think of the traditional view as described by Dr. Walvoord, a dark hot place with fire, torture, pain and the devil. Dr. Walvoord’s description of hell comes directly from scripture and is common in belief to what many already believe hell looks like. Dr. Walvoord uses both Old Testament and New Testament scripture to support his literal view of hell. In the Old Testament he uses “sheol,” when translated from the King James Version is interpreted as “grave” or “hell” at thirty ones times each, or as “pit” three times. In comparison the New Testament uses “hades” instead of “sheol” with translations also meaning “hell” or “the grave,” and includes the translation “in the depths.” However, Dr. Walvoord further supports his argument with the New Testament usage of “gehenna” which is consistently translated as “hell” and referring to eternal punishment.[13]

There are a few weaknesses in Dr. Walvoord’s literal view of hell; first he does not provide much scripture on why hell cannot be seen as metaphorical. This becomes the bases for Dr. Crockett’s contradiction to Walvoord’s literal view and his view of hell as metaphorical. Crockett believes that if everything about hell is to be taken literally in the bible such as Matthew 25:41 and the eternal fire, so then other verses such as Matthew 5:29 and plucking ones eye out should be taken literally as well.[14] Dr. Crockett further argues that in Matthew 25:41 “the eternal fire was created for spirit beings like the devil and his angles. The fire must in some sense be a spiritual fire, which is another way of acknowledging it to be a metaphor for God’s punishment of the wicked,” therefore the “physical fire works on physical bodies with physical nerve endings,” and not on the spirit beings.[15]

Dr. Crockett concludes his arguments by pointing out that the pictures we have of hell outside of scripture comes from Jewish literature and are mostly symbolic. This was to describe the most appalling image of hell has possible, “no matter how incompatible the images.” Dr. Crockett claims that their descriptions of hell are not meant to be literal but are meant to be warnings of the coming judgment.[16]

The problem with Crockett’s assessment is that he himself never clearly describes hell. He gives a clear argument to Walvoord’s literal position, but never even attempts to explain in his opinion what hell then actually looks like. He concludes that while looking at all the images that describe hell and then combine them with what seems clearly to be metaphorical language about heaven, it can be seen that God has really not given the complete picture of what is to come in the afterlife.[17]

While Dr. Walvoord and Dr. Crockett view that hell in the New Testament is a place of endless conscious punishment, Dr. Pinnock disagrees, however, Dr. Pinnock’s view of hell might offer the best argument against the traditional view of Dr. Walvoord. Pinnock begins by showing that three out of five American’s believe in hell but that their beliefs in damnation differ vastly. He continues with that “the traditional view of the nature of hell has been a stumbling block for believers and an effective weapon in the hands of skeptics for use against the faith. The situation has become so serious that one scarcely hears hell mentioned at all today, even from pulpits committed to the traditional view.” He argues that even those who support the traditional view of doctrine and belief are wavering and do not defend it enthusiastically.[18]

Dr. Pinnock’s main argument is that  any doctrine of hell will have to pass a morality test.  Dr. Pinnock believes that God is “morally justified in destroying the wicked because he respects their human choices”[19] however, he does not agree with Walvoord and Crockett because he believes that evil and good cannot co exist for all eternity. He believes that God wills the salvation of everyone as described in 2 Peter 3:9, but will not save them all because of their own freedom. They have a right to choose and sinners will never be forced to go to heaven.[20]

Pinnock and his conditional view places the significance on God’s attributes to convey the reasonable consistency of argument and relies greatly on bible scripture that teaches both punishment and full obliteration of the lost.  He believes that annihilation is logical and easy to accept for those whose lives openly rejected and said “no” to God. However it is hard for those to accept hell as an “everlasting conscious torment with no hope for escape or remittance as a just punishment for anything.” Pinnock strongly believes that God would not allow such a heavy sentence for anyone and it would be more than anyone would ever deserve.[21]

Pinnock ultimately argues that hell where people suffer and are tormented for eternity with any hope does not exist. He believes that all who suffer and who are hell bound will eventually be extinguished.  He argues that eternal torment serves no purpose and is contrary to what we know of God and His love for mankind. While his fellow contributors have a great amount of respect for Dr. Pinnock, they believe he focuses on only a few scriptures and outside writings to base his view. However, they each use their own interpretation of scripture to suit each of their own views when discussing eternal punishment and the subject of hell, and “that the nature of hell, its eternity, and its punishment can only be determined by what the Bible teaches.”[22] Dr. Walvoord summed it up the best, “no one really knows enough about the future to deny what the Bible teaches.”[23]

Dr. Hayes was placed last in this discussion because his view is of purgatory rather than an actual hell as the others have described. Dr. Hays focuses on the theological background of purgatory as viewed by the Roman Catholic Church. He believes like Pinnock that the view of the other two contributors is too unforgiving and would never be something our loving God would never do. He bases the purgatory view on very little scripture and solely depends on the “revelation” as was given to the Roman Church. Hayes believes that purification is needed, though not pleasant experience, it is also not eternal. This view of hell or as it is called purgatory appeals to some, because it allows a second chance after death though not scripturally based.[24]

Dr. Hayes’ fellow contributors for the most part believe that he bases his view of hell or purgatory on the Roman Catholic Church belief. His main passage for support of purgatory is that of 2 Maccabees 12:41-46, which is an apocryphal writing, accepted by the Roman Catholic Church, however not by the main stream Protestant theologians.[25] Considering all of the contributors, it would seem that Dr. Pinnock is more in agreement with Dr. Hayes than the others. He clearly states that Dr. Hayes “believes in both hell and purgatory, as the Catholic tradition does, and is not suggesting here that hell is purgatory or that it leads all souls to heaven.”[26] Pinnock defends the doctrine of purgatory as it is obvious that Christian character is not perfectly transformed at death and only through a perfecting process is it possible to continue the process started in one’s earthly life.[27]


     The Four Views of Hell is a great book in which overviews the four most well-known views of hell. Walvoord and Crockett base their views on scripture yet come to different conclusions of hell, while Hayes and Pinnock believe that our God has a deep desire for mercy and would never punish anyone to eternal damnation.  All the contributors argue their respective views with passion and with a great understanding of their subject or view. Each contributor expresses valid arguments in their responses against the other contributors. However, during the book it was found that one would most likely find themselves flipping back numerous times to review what was written on a particular view or a response for clarification. The book however is still a great resource and leaves one questioning and searching for further answers on the view of hell.

Bibliography, John F. Walvoord: Theologian. Educator.


John F. Walvoord, Zachary J. Hayes, and Clark H. Pinnock, Four Views on Hell, ed. Stanley N.

Gundry and William Crockett (Grand Rapids, MI; Zondervan, 1996), 12.


[1], John F. Walvoord: Theologian. Educator. Author.

[5]John F. Walvoord, Zachary J. Hayes, and Clark H. Pinnock, Four Views on Hell, ed. Stanley N. Gundry and William Crockett (Grand Rapids, MI; Zondervan, 1996), 12.


[7]Ibid., 29.

[8]Walvoord, Hayes, and Pinnock, Four Views on Hell., 31.

[9]Ibid., 97.

[10]Ibid., 93.

[11]Walvoord, Hayes, and Pinnock, Four Views on Hell., 142-143.


[13]Ibid., 19

[14]Walvoord, Hayes, and Pinnock, Four Views on Hell., 30.



[17]Ibid., 61.

[18] Walvoord, Hayes, and Pinnock, Four Views on Hell., 136.

[19]Ibid., 151.


[21]Ibid., 152.

[22]Walvoord, Hayes, and Pinnock, Four Views on Hell., 170.


[24]Ibid., 96-97.

[25]Walvoord, Hayes, and Pinnock, Four Views on Hell., 118.

[26]Ibid., 127-128.

[27]Ibid., 130.

Politics and Policies; Are we really doing what it takes to reach the unchurched?

Politics and Policies; Are we really doing what it takes to reach the unchurched? Survey numbers would indicate, NO!

Back in 2008 Lifeway Research, who is the research arm of the Southern Baptist Convention, did a survey with “unchurched” adults. They found that 72% say that “God, a higher or supreme being, actually exists.” However, the survey also found that 72% also say the church is “full of hypocrites.” Another 44% agreed with the statement that “Christians get on my nerves.”

They defined the “unchurched” as someone who had not attended a religious service for a period of time up to six months.  And according to the General Social Survey which is conducted every two years by the Nation Opinion Research Center the number of Americans who say they never go to church raised from 17% two years ago to 22% in 2008.  That number for 2012 is now at 19.6 who claim to never have attend a church, 3.3 claiming to be agnostic, and 2.4 claiming to be atheist. The long term trend in a religious affiliation has for the most part declined from 62 % in 1972 to 51% in 2010 according to records and that number was expected to continue to decrease.

According to the survey 86% said they believe they can have a “good relationship with God without belonging to a church.” And 79% say “Christianity today is more about organized religion than loving God and loving people.” Think about that last statement, “more about organized religion than loving God and loving people.” Can you see that, I can! We concentrate so much on rules, regulations, bylaws, committees, and other nonsense, that many churches have lost their main focus, loving God and loving people. I dare to say that most churches are losing just as many out the backdoor as they are bringing in the front door. Why, politics and policies. We have to be real and accept the normally unaccepted and get down to people loving people from all backgrounds, trials, tribulations, and faults.

Listen people, we have to, let me repeat that one more time, WE HAVE TO take the politics out of the church….period!!! People  would rather have the one-to one approach and find it more attractive and don’t want to go to an institution to fix their problems.  Most people today have already heard the basic Christian message. The big question is: “Do you have a take that is authentic and engaging in a way that works for the unchurched?” Most churches don’t, why,  because they are too busy focusing on politics, policies, and the buddy system and not on reaching the lost and dying! Just my two cents worth!

Another take on divorced men being deacons.

Out of all of the arguments about divorced men being deacons, this is the one that just seems plain and simple too me!

As most of you know, 1 Timothy 3 is a highly debated passage and one that is somewhat disturbing for many people, in part because of the longstanding TRADITION that it means “married only once.” Below are comments from the Bible Knowledge Commentary and then I will share my two cents worth.
The comments from the BKC somewhat trace the historical arguments on the passage:

Timothy 3:2.  More is required of an overseer than mere willingness to serve. In verses 2-7 Paul listed 15 requirements for a church leader: (1) above reproach. He must be blameless in his behavior. This Greek word anepile„mpton, “above reproach,” is used in the New Testament only in this epistle (v. 2; 5:7; 6:14). It means to have nothing in one’s conduct on which someone could ground a charge or accusation. It differs slightly in meaning from its synonym anenkle„tos in 3:10 (see comments there). (2) Husband of but one wife, literally, a “one-woman man.” This ambiguous but important phrase is subject to several interpretations. The question is, how stringent a standard was Paul erecting for overseers? Virtually all commentators agree that this phrase prohibits both polygamy and promiscuity, which are unthinkable for spiritual leaders in the church. Many Bible students say the words a “one-woman man” are saying that the affections of an elder must be centered exclusively on his wife. Many others hold, however, that the phrase further prohibits any who have been divorced and remarried from becoming overseers. The reasoning behind this view is usually that divorce represents a failure in the home, so that even though a man may be forgiven for any sin involved, he remains permanently disqualified for leadership in the congregation (cf. vv. 4-5; 1 Cor. 9:24-27). The most strict interpretation and the one common among the earliest commentators (second and third centuries) includes each of the above but extends the prohibition to any second marriage, even by widowers. Their argument is that in the first century second marriages were generally viewed as evidence of self-indulgence. Though Paul honored marriage, he also valued the spiritual benefits of celibacy (1 Cor. 7:37-38) even for those who had lost a mate (1 Tim. 5:3-14). Thus he considered celibacy a worthy goal for those who possessed the self-control to remain unmarried. According to this strict view Paul considered a widower’s second marriage, though by no means improper, to be evidence of a lack of the kind of self-control required of an overseer, in much the same way that a similar lack disqualified a widow from eligibility for the list of widows (5:9).
Now for my two cents. Plainly, the passage says, “a one-woman man” just as 5:9 says, “a one-man woman.” If you remember, later in chapter 5 verse 14, Paul actually told the younger widows to marry rather than to remain single. If Paul meant married only once in 5:9 rather than referring to a woman who had been faithful to her husband, then he would have been excluding these younger widows from ever being able to be included in the list of widows should they be widowed again.Additionally, if the passage means married only once, regardless of the reason, even in the case of the death of the spouse, then this is the only qualification in the list that is an absolute. Think of it this way. All the other qualifications are to some extent relative since no man is 100% perfect in fulfilling these qualifications. Even the most mature and godly man is going to fall short to a degree in this life in these qualifications. Who, for example, is perfectly temperate in all areas of his life? I see many elders, deacons, and well-known preachers who are to some degree over weight because they are not self-controlled in their eating habits and disciplined in exercise. However, we never think twice about selecting such men to these offices, why, clearly they do not qualify based on 1 Timothy. The point is, these are characteristics that should commonly evident to a large degree in an elder or deacon.
On the other hand, if we take “a one-woman man” to mean one who has shown and demonstrated constant faithfulness and who has eyes only for his wife, then this qualification falls in line with the others from this standpoint. However, if it is taken in the absolute sense of “married only once,” then it stands alone as the only absolute qualification. To me that just simply does not make sense. Historically in Paul’s day the Roman world that divorce and sexual impurity was even more widespread than it is in our day. Finding men or women, for that matter, who were married only one time, could have been as difficult as it is becoming in our day. Concerning divorce and remarriage, Ephesians 5 and 1 Corinthians 7 are key Pauline texts. In short, “Paul’s view is that a believer whose unbelieving spouse has deserted him is not disqualified from being an elder or deacon; a believer who was divorced when he was an unbeliever is not disqualified; and a believer who is the innocent party in a divorce involving adultery is not disqualified.” Having said all that, a man’s life should still be looked at for any pattern, for example multiple marriages, three, four or so. However, the fact that he has been divorced once based on my study should not in no way disqualify a man from being a deacon and or pastor. Why would God make only one of the qualifications absolute and the others not? I don’t think He did, man has made that a traditional thought over the years from one generation to another, not a biblical one in my eyes and study.

Being Gay! Bet that got your attention!

Being Gay!

Guess that got your attention!

Nope this blog post is not about me coming out of the closet, but about my early experiences learning about being gay and my thoughts on the subject and religion.

Growing up I spent a lot of time with two of my cousins in particular, for the sake of this article let’s call them Dan and Pete. Pete was the oldest by about 18 months and then Dan and I were both the same age with only a few months in between. Growing up I would spend every weekend with them and then during the summer about 5 weeks. They lived about four and half hours away from us but that is where my dad’s side of the family all lived.

My earliest memories at about the age of five, where of Dan and I always playing outside in the dirt, in trees, or building then blowing something up. Pete always was inside and always in the kitchen around my mom and the aunts. As we got older Dan began to share things with me about his brother Pete, things he felt very embarrassed by. Just to set the record straight we are talking about 40 years ago when there was no closet even to speak of, you just didn’t admit you or anyone in your family was gay. Dan was so paranoid about “catching it” that he would keep his own plate, silverware, and cups in his room. He would bring them out to use and then take them to a different sink to wash them and would not even let them be in the same water as his. He kept all his toilet supplies in his bedroom and when he did use the bathroom he would take cleaning supplies (also kept in his room) into the bathroom and clean it before each use. He did this for years and begged the rest of the family to do the same thing. He even legally changed the spelling of his last name by one letter so that people at school would not confuse them as brothers. Of course everyone already knew they were!

I remember on one visit my aunt asking us to come in and sit down and that she needed to tell us something. Pete had contracted aides and was put on medication and yes it was from his sexual experiences with his significant other. Just as the words were finishing my aunt’s lips out runs Dan saying “I told you all, good chance you are going to get it.” Now, let me pause here to say this, Dan was not a bad person, this was just before being gay was even gay. Aides were just coming out to the news media in a strong way and gays were still very much in the closet so to speak. I watched how my cousin Pete struggled with being gay or the fact he was and that it was not accepted. I saw how his brother treated him and how in fact my own family treated him. Everyone was down on him except his mother, my aunt, who never blamed or held it against him. Some in the family would say he was born that way because we remember as such a small child him in the kitchen always around the women and never out with the other cousins playing. Others would say it was his choice and that he wanted to be that way and could change back if he wanted to. Now I am not here to debate born that way versus choice, I’m just sharing my family’s story.

10 years go by of learning, sharing, rejecting, Pete’s lifestyle until…..

This continued to escalate until the big explosion at our grandmother’s funeral. We had agreed that all of the grandson’s, seven total, would each lay a rose on our grandmothers chest and we would do so from oldest to youngest, which was me for 10 years until another cousin was born. As we would go by the casket we would then set in the front two rows with our married spouses. Of course you can see where this is going, all of us where married but Pete, however, he did have a significant other as we called it. Our youngest cousin who I will call Roy was not married and for the record was Pete’s youngest half brother. Well as you can imagine this all broke out into a big argument right before the pastor was to speak about our grandmother. Part of the problem was that there was not enough room on the front row for all of us, so I spoke up and said let the cousins set in the front row and our spouse’s behind us in the second row. Everyone agreed, however it doesn’t end there, there was an extra seat, eight chairs for seven grandsons. Well before you could blink, Pete placed his significant other in the seat next to him right in the middle because Pete was the middle grandson and this placed them both right up front in the center. The pastor did a wonderful service but as you can imagine the arguing didn’t stop after the service.

Now, why do I write all this, well, because I wanted you to know that being around gay is nothing new to me and hasn’t been for over 40 years now. I was around it, submerged in it, and lived (when I visited) with a gay person for many years before it was even popular to talk about it. I seen his struggles and I seen the family struggle with it for many years and this is what I have learned from it. I can’t say how or why one becomes gay, but I can say that God is not surprised by it. I told Pete several years ago that I do not like his lifestyle nor do I agree with it, but I love him as my cousin and always will. He asked me once if God made him gay for a reason and I simply shared, “I don’t know.” However, I did share with him that the Bible condemns homosexuality as an immoral and unnatural sin. Leviticus 18:22 identifies homosexual sex as an abomination, a detestable sin. Romans 1:26-27 declares homosexual desires and actions to be shameful, unnatural, lustful, and indecent. 1 Corinthians 6:9 states that homosexuals are unrighteous and will not inherit the kingdom of God. Since both homosexual desires and actions are condemned in the Bible, it is clear that homosexuals “marrying” is not God’s will, and would be, in fact, sinful. It is for that reason Pete never got married, his state allows it, but he has chosen to just live with his as he calls it “significant other.” However, I also shared with Pete, Matthew 7:1 “”Do not judge, or you too will be judged.”

The point of this blog is to share that I do not agree with the gay lifestyle, however, it is not for me to judge, only God. Having been around this lifestyle through family and yes, even friends, for many years now it has given me the perspective of do not judge, but love. I do not have to love their actions, but I am to love the individual, the Bible is clear on that. So instead of beating a person down like I know my family did for many years to Pete. Why don’t we lift them up to God in prayer and let Him judge them when the time comes. Our job is to love them here on earth and minister to their needs, no matter what they might be. See, gays lose loved ones; they have trials and tribulations and are not unlike us. You can love the person, but not agree with their lifestyle. And just for the record, I support having gays in church, again if they love the Lord and want to worship Him, who am I to say No and judge!

God Bless.

P.S. Pete is still living and kicking and struggles with the effects of aides everyday. Every time I see him I never pass up the chance to give him a hug and tell him I love him!

Total Depravity

Liberty University

Research Paper

A Paper Submitted to Dr. Christopher Bosson
In Partial Fulfillment of The Requirements For
The Course Theology 525

Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary

Anthony D. Padgett

Jonesborough, TN.
October 4, 2011

INTRODUCTION ——————————————————————————————— 1
THE DOCTRINE OF TOTAL DEPRAVITY —————————————————————– 2
ORIGIN ——————————————————————————————————- 3
THE NATURE OF TEMPTATION ————————————————————————— 5
IMPUTATION ————————————————————————————————- 6
ADAM AS THE HEAD OF MANKIND ————————————————————– 6
GOD’S COVENANT WITH ADAM —————————————————————– 8
GUILTY IN ADAM ———————————————————————————- 9
INHERITANCE OF SIN ————————————————————————————– 10
CONSEQUENCES OF MANKIND ————————————————————————— 11
CONCLUSION ———————————————————————————————– 14
BIBLIOGRAPHY – ——————————————————————————————– 16


Total depravity is often met with mixed emotions and is often debated. When a Christian first hears those words several things come to mind, sin, The Fall of Man, Unconditional Election, as well as Limited Atonement, and God’s grace. All have their place in total depravity and are closely related to the topic, yet very distinctive and separate from the subject itself. To the theologian when they hear total depravity, “Calvinism” comes to mind and the five-points or “TULIP” as it is often referred to. TULIP is an acronym and stands for the following, T – Total depravity, U – Unconditional election, L – Limited atonement, I – Irresistible grace, and P – Perseverance of the saints. True Calvinists strictly believe in all five points while others claim only part of the system and often call themselves “four-point Calvinists,” or a “three-point Calvinist,” depending on their beliefs on each point. Elwell states, “as a result no one can do anything, even good things, that can gain soteriological merit in God’s sight. Therefore, we may concisely define total depravity as the unmeritoriousness of man before God because of the corruption of original sin.” While others believe that sin is the matter of the entire person and that there is nothing they can do to merit the saving grace of God. As To examine the subject of total depravity of man to the fullest and to completely understand it, one must look at everything from the doctrine and origin, to the impact and remedy, and it must be made clear that with total depravity also comes the fall of man and the sinful nature in man. Each subject is so intertwine that one cannot discuss one matter without the other. Depending on beliefs and how they are viewed independently one could take this topic in several different directions. Arthur W. Pink states it best “Is man a totally and thoroughly depraved creature by nature? Does he enter the world completely ruined and helpless, spiritually blind and dead in trespasses and sins? According as is our answers to that question so will be our views on many others.” This paper will argue that sin is inherited through Adam and by nature man is sinful.

The Doctrine of Total Depravity

Total depravity is a theological doctrine closely linked with the doctrine of original sin that comes from the Augustinian and advocated in many Protestant confessions of faith and catechisms, especially in Calvinism. “The reformed tradition generally contends that each person born is guilty of the sin of Adam, who acted as the head of the race.” It is the teaching that, as a consequence of the Fall of Man, every person born into the world is morally corrupt, enslaved in sin and is, apart from the grace of God, utterly unable to choose to follow God or choose to turn to Christ in faith for salvation. The doctrine of total depravity teaches that people are not by very nature inclined to love God with their whole heart, or mind, as He requires, but rather all are inclined to serve their own interests, desires, wants, and needs, and to reject the rule of God. John G. Reisinger claims that total depravity can be explain in a nutshell this way; “Man is bad, but he is not that bad, but her really is bad.” This means, “(1) man is a sinner; but (2) he is not nearly as sinful in actual practice as he could be; however (3) he really is totally depraved sinner in the sight of God.”
Total depravity does not mean, however, that people are as bad as they possibly can be. It does mean that “sin affects every aspect of our person, that our good acts are not done entirely out of love for God, and that we are completely unable to extricate ourselves from this sinful condition. Even the “good” things man does are tainted by sin because they are not done for the glory of God and out of faith in Him. The world focuses on the external acts claiming that they are good, while God focuses on both the external and internal acts. His purpose is to determine the motivation that perpetuated the act. If the act goes against God then it demonstrates a rebellious heart, meaning that they are going against Him. They bring no glory to Him. Isaiah 64:6 says “All of us have become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous acts are like filthy rags; we all shrivel up like a leaf, and like the wind our sins sweep us away.” What this demonstrates is the selfishness of man’s intended good deed actually corrupts the act itself.

How sin came into the world has been studied by theologians for years. The title in which they call it has also been debated for years. Some choose to use the term “inheritance of sin,” while others use “sin nature.” Still others use the term “original sin” because Adam’s original sin created that moral corruption of nature that was transmitted by inheritance to each subsequent generation.
“Man is not now as God made him.” The crown of glory of His creation was plunged into sin and misery by very nature. This began with Adam’s free will and his own actions; he was not as he first came from the masters hands. Genesis 1:26-27 says “And God said, let us make man in our image, after our likeness. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.” The words “the image of God” does not mean that man was created as equals to God or that they were to be glorified. The term “the image of God” means in his moral nature. Calvin explained it as being “spiritual,” and stated that it “includes all the excellence in which the nature of man surpasses all the other species of animals” and” denotes the integrity Adam possessed.” Colossians 3:10 further supports the idea of this image which man was originally made, transformed in knowledge after the image of the new man made in the image that shaped him. This unmistakably implies that same image in which man was first made, and which now sin has defaced. Man’s original state was far from one of innocence’s but one which was full of negativity.
Looking at the Scripture and seeing how Adam was created, can give great insight into his sinful nature. Genesis 2:7 “And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.” Several things can be observed in this passage according to Pink. First, the material which his body was shaped, to reveal the wisdom and power of God in making out of such matter so amazing a thing as the human body, and to show man his lowly origin. Secondly the law bestowed on Adam, which was from God, an intelligent spirit, of which the fall did not deprive him as seen in Ecclesiastics 12:7 “Then the dust will return to the earth as it was, And the spirit will return to God who gave it.” Third, was the effect on Adam and how he was now full of life and made competent of vital acts. “Man’s body out of the dust was the workmanship of God, but his soul was an immediate communication from the Father of spirits.” Through this process earth and heaven were united in Adam.
The Nature of Temptation
All sins begin with human desires as seen in James 1:13-15 “Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am tempted by God”; for God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He Himself tempt anyone. But each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed. Then, when desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, brings forth death.” Due to man’s very sinful nature there are elements of man’s nature that form a natural disposition for him to sin. The elements in man that lead to this sinful nature are “pride, selfishness, natural disbelief, ignorance, disobedience, and self-deception.” Those elements seem to grow out of man’s depraved human nature and push the temptation process. These elements by themselves may not be considered sinful in nature, however when directed by biblical standards they are. Some would argue that the mentioned elements signify the essence of sin. However, Satan and Adam both “possessed a positive disposition to do right and had no evil nature as we do today with feelings of disbelief, pride, and disobedience, yet they still sinned.” The feelings of pride, self-deception, disbelief, ignorance, and selfishness are feelings that branch not only from man’s sinful nature but, more from his improper use of free will. It must be made clear here, that free will is not the cause of sin; rather it is man’s inappropriate use of his free will in seeking after his needs that leads men to decide in their will to do something opposite to the law of God. Man today wrestles with accurately controlling the desires within them and free will, but also the evil character of their nature that draws them to engage in sin in the first place.

Adam as the Head of Mankind

Adam is clearly the head of mankind as can be seen in three distinct areas of the Bible. The first is in reference to Adam as the “federal head of the race,” the second is that he entered into a covenant with God on behalf of all mankind, and the third that the guilt of his original sin was divinely imputed to his descendants. The first is in Romans 5:12-14; where it is see that through one man’s sin entered into the world, so did death to all men. So death would be from Adam to Moses and even over those who had not sinned, but because of Adam’s transgressions and our likeness to him all are guilty. Erickson states that “sin entered the world through Adam and death through that sin, and so death passed to all people, because all sinned. Through one person’s sin all became sinners.” This is the Calvinist position and is based upon the very serious and quite literal understanding of the Apostle Paul. Paul views salvation from view of the curse of Adam to God’s healing in Jesus. Adam’s one act of defiance brought both sin and death upon all of mankind. Jesus’ one act of obedience, on the cross, brought about the result to this curse. The work of Jesus affords all men not only the promise of the forgiveness of their sins, but a new life in Jesus Christ.
Paul shows two very important connections in these verses. The first is that between Adam and mankind, while the second is between Adam and Jesus. These connections are critical, because they explain the way God intends to save man from his sins. Jesus is the answer to what Adam has caused. The curse which Adam brought on all of mankind has its cure in Jesus. Adam is regarded as the source of sin’s entrance into the world because of his single act of disobedience. Any Christian who has studied the Bible at any length would not argue with this. However Adam’s sin did much more than that, it brought about a guilt across mankind. Adam’s sin and resulting guilt was imputed to all his descendants. Because of Adam’s sin he died, and so will the rest of mankind. All mankind is born of Adam so Adam’s sin and death were imputed to all of mankind and therefore our sin is from Adam. It is important that we understand what Paul is not saying here, as well as what he is saying. Paul is not saying that we all sin because Adam sinned, though this is true. Paul is saying that we are all guilty of sin, in Adam, and as a result we fall under the divine death penalty.
All mankind is the victim of Adam’s sin, but remember that while Paul speaks of mankind as a victim of Adam’s sin in Romans 5, he also says that we sinned in Adam. We are not forgiven or relieved of our own guilt and responsibility in the issue of sin. All those who lived before the Law was given were sinners as well. And even now those who have the complete revelation of God’s word are even more accountable. We must not also forget that in Romans 1-3 Paul finds every man guilty before God, not because of Adam, but because each person has discarded the revelation of God given to him. We are guilty because Adam sinned as seen in Romans 5, but we are also guilty because we have sinned ourselves as seen in Romans 3:23.

God’s Covenant with Adam

Adam entered into a covenant with God in Genesis 2:16-17 “And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, “Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.” God is the ruler and the creator of Adam so He has authority over him. He entered into a covenant with Adam, and if Adam obeyed he would surely live, but if he disobeyed, he would surely die. “Adam was placed not only under a divine law but under a covenant of works.” A law requires obedience and if broken the punishment is threatened in relationship to the nature of the crime. Adam was bound to obey the law by he cannot be rightly deprived of that which he has an ordinary right, except for in case of disobedience. Obedience to the law gives him a right to impunity; while a covenant gives a person the right, upon his satisfying the conditions, a reward or privilege. Adam was promised a life full of riches and rewards with the promise of eternal life, however if the covenant was broken as seen in Genesis 2:17 the penalty was death. God’s words in Genesis 2:17 signified His intention to punish sin, but were also intended to inspire obedience.
Roman’s 8:3-4 also shows the law that was given to Adam, “For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account of sin: He condemned sin in the flesh, 4 that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.” This statement is believed by many scholars to refer to back at Adam’s tendency to error. Pink describes it this way, “What the law ‘could not do’ with such material was to produce an indestructible righteousness. Therefore God in His sovereign grace sent His own incarnate Son, impeccable and immutable, to the make full atonement for the guilt of His people and to bring in an ‘everlasting righteousness’ for them.” Jesus was perfectly obedient which Adam failed to be, in so doing obtained for all the reward of the fulfilled law.
Another verse that clearly shows that God entered into a covenant with Adam is Hosea 6:7 “But like men (Adam) they transgressed the covenant; there they dealt treacherously with Me.” Adam was under a covenant with God and by which he was under continued subjection to God. This can also be seen by the evils and curse that fell upon Adam’s descendants due to his fall from God. “In Adam all die” because in him (Adam) all have sinned.
Adam was clearly the head of mankind and a covenant between him and God was established. God made Adam perfect and well suited to represent all of mankind. However, God also allowed Adam to have freewill to choose between right and wrong. God in no way can be blamed for Adam’s fall as can be seen in Ecclesiastic 7:29 “ This only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions.” All sin is traced back to their fountain head of corruption or in this case Adam. Adam was created without blemish but he turned from his original integrity because he believed he could better himself along with Eve.

Guilty in Adam

Adam took things into his own hands; he turned from God and blatantly disobeyed His law. Adam broke the covenant with God and in doing so brought sin into the world. This sin as seen in Roman’s 5:12 is that of sin death, which man will one day return to dust in which he came from. In 1 Corinthians 15:22 is seen that “In Adam all die,” explaining that “all die by virtue of their relation to the covenant head of our race – die because of their legal union with him.” As Pink continues to explain it best, “we are subject to mortality because we were ‘in Adam’ by federal representation – we share his fallen nature because we share his guilt and punishment.”
Inheritance of Sin
Inheritance of sin is very closely related to that of imputation but now verses shows more clearly that sin is inherited than that of Psalms 51:5, “Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity,
And in sin my mother conceived me.” This verse clearly shows that sin is in man from the time of conception, not from something he acquired by his actions. Hebrews 2:14-15 says, “Because God’s children are human beings–made of flesh and blood–the Son also became flesh and blood. For only as a human being could he die, and only by dying could he (Christ) break the power of the devil, who had the power of death.” That passage confirms Romans 5:14, which shows that death could have no authority over the young unless they were charged with Adam’s sin. Again showing that through Adam man is guilty of the sin death and that it was inherited from Adam.
Another view is to look back at Psalms 51:5 and it can be clearly seen that through conception and birth sin is in man. Genesis 4:1 says that Adam clearly knew his wife Eve and she gave birth to Cain, and that she had acquired a man from the Lord. After the sin they could only multiply after their own kind and their children were sinners by birth. This means that everyone born into the world is a sinner by inheritance and by nature. None are born into good or is anyone born just partly good and partly sinful. All are equally sinful in God’s eyes, if not then only half of the world would be sinful and would only need half of God’s salvation which is simply not true.
Consequences of Mankind
The sin Adam committed was great so the penalty must be also. Adam’s transgression was more than most ever realize or recognize. The theologian James Ussher pointed out many years ago, that Adam in essence broke all Ten Commandments of the moral law. He broke the first by choosing another God. The second, “in idolizing his palate, by making a god of his belly by eating the forbidden fruit.” The third, by not believing Gods threats of punishment in such a way of taking His name in vain. Fourth, “by breaking the sinless rest in which he had been placed. The fifth, by dishonoring his Father in heaven. “The sixth, by bringing death on himself and all his posterity.” The seventh, by committing spiritual adultery. Eighth, “by laying hands upon that to which he had no right. The ninth, by accepting the serpent’s false witness against God.” And the tenth, “by coveting that which God had not given him.”
Nothing written in the Bible after Adam’s fall is favorable about him, in fact quite the opposite. “Job denied that he covered his transgressions or hid his iniquity in his bosom “as Adam” did (31:33).” The psalmist points to Adam by declaring that those who judged unjustly and accept the wicked should die like Adam (82:7). In 1 Timothy 2:14 it mentions that “Adam was not deceived,” indicating his transgression. After being forced from Eden the Bible has nothing to say about God having anymore contact with Adam.
After the fall the consequences began to appear quickly. God’s command to Adam in Genesis 2:16-17 did not spell out all of the consequences for his defiance. In Genesis 2:25 is seen that Adam and Even were both naked and they felt no sense of shame, however after the fall they immediately were aware of their nakedness and wanted to cover up as seen in Genesis 3:7. They attempted to hide from God because their sin created a sense of guilt and shame in them. Added to their shame came the separation from God, not only did they try to hide from them in separation but God cast them out of the garden so that they may never return to the tree of life.
In Genesis 3 can be seen the “proof that the penal consequences of their transgression are inherited by their posterity.” Genesis 3:16 says “Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply they sorrow and they conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children.” A woman bearing a child is one of the most painful experiences she can have, but also can be one of the most rewarding. The pain they are subjected to is from that of the fall of man as part of “the curse on the ground, the obligation to live by toil and sweat, the decay and death of the body.” This can be seen further in Psalms 58:3 “The wicked are estranged from the womb; they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.” From very birth every child is morally and spiritually cut off from God and is a lost sinner. But nothing in Genesis 3 is more important than when God warned Adam that by eating of the fruit he would surely die, this is seen in Genesis 3:19-5:27. However, the death that is spoken of here will go way beyond Adam. Death has now entered into the world for all living creatures. The animals from which God made skin coverings for Adam and Eve would have had to die as seen in Genesis 3:21.
In Genesis 4, things get worse for Adam with the rebellion of his son Cain against God and the murder of his brother Abel. However, Pink makes a very important note here, That in Genesis 5:3 we are told, “Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image.” This statement occurs “after his defection, and they statement is in designed and direct contrast with the declaration of verse 1: “In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him.” Adam did not tell his descendants that he was made pure by God originally, but that he was polluted by the fall. Pink continues to make an excellent point, “it is very striking to note the precise place where this statement is made in the sacred narrative: not at the beginning of Genesis 4 in the connection with the begetting of Cain and Abel, but here, introducing a lengthy obituary list-showing the dying Adam could only beget mortals.” Since Adam’s fall he could only produce sinful and mortal offspring’s in “his own fallen likeness, which had in it corruption and death.”
Further biblical references include Psalms 14 which opens with “the fool hath said in his heart, there is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works.” This passage again shows the fall corrupt state of mankind. The entire Psalms is devoted to showing the corruption of mankind and the full state of mankind’s condition. Psalms 51:5 “Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and sin did my mother conceive me.” This is another confession that all mankind has, born like Adam as a fallen creature and through him all of his descendents including future descendants are nothing more than replicas of himself, Adam. Therefore Adam being the head of mankind and the one who all descendants flow, all are born into a depraved state and have the penalty of sin death.


Some will argue as Stephen R. Brock, that “we are not held accountable for what our daddy did. We do not inherit sin from Adam.” However, it is clear from scripture that Adam was the head of all mankind. When Adam ate of the forbidden fruit and sin enters into the world, that curse fell upon all mankind for generations to come. The only way for mankind to overcome what Adam so clearly caused, is through Jesus Christ, only He can overcome man’s depravity in such a way that man is able to know his spiritual state and his desperate condition apart from the grace of God.
Mankind’s eyes must be open to the truth that sin bonds the entire race and that only through the gospel message and Jesus Christ’s death on the cross can all be freed. Many Christians believe that through a “universal grace” God brings mankind to a condition where has the choice of choosing or rejecting Him. While others believe that only through the gospel of faith can man be born again and be able to fully understand what Jesus Christ has done for them.
Even when the doctrine of total depravity is correctly understood, there are those that will still reject the doctrine, because the world generally thinks of man as being basically good. So the concept of man by nature being a depraved sinner is contrary to most religious views of the nature of man. However the fact is that the Bible teaches how depraved man’s human heart really is, and the cause of mankind’s problem is not the setting, but that man by very nature is wicked and selfish as seen with Adam in the garden. If understood correctly, the doctrine of total depravity will obliterate the hopes of those who put their faith in any type of works-based system of salvation and will quickly recognize that only through Jesus Christ’s sovereign grace is there hope. So is man totally depraved without any glimmer of hope or reconciliation with our Lord and Savior? Matthew 19:25-26 answers that question, “When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished and asked, “Who then can be saved?” Jesus looked at them and said, with man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.” Even though man’s sinful nature is inherited through Adam, through Jesus Christ man’s depraved heart can be saved.

Bible Logos 4 Software: All Biblical References.

Brock, Stephen R. Inherited Sin and Other Myths. Stephen R. Brock Publisher, 1997. Kindle

Elwell, Walter. Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. 2d ed. Grand Rapids, MI; Baker Book
House, 2001.

Erickson, Millard. Christian Theology. 2d ed. Grand Rapids, MI; Baker Book House, 1998.

Erickson, Millard. Introducing Christian Doctrine. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1992.

McCord, James I. “The Biblical Doctrine of Human Depravity.” Union Theological Seminary
and Presbyterian School of Christian Education, Interpretations Article (April 1947):
142 – 153.

Pink, Arthur, W. The Doctrine of Human Depravity. Lafayette, IN: Sovereign Grace Publishers,

Pink, Arthur, W. The Total Depravity of Man. Memphis, TN: Bottom of the Hill Publishing,

Reisinger, John G. Total Depravity. Frederick, MD: New Covenant Media, 2000.

Ryrie, Charles, C. Basic Theology. Chicago, IL. Moody Press, 1999.

Sawyer, M. James. The Survivor’s Guide to Theology. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2006.

Towns, Elmer, L. Theology for Today. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning, 2002.