03.04. MAN

Systematic Theology

4. MAN THE CREATION OF MAN THE NATURE OF MAN THE FALL OF MAN

Since Christ precedes man in preeminence, it may appear that the doctrine of Christ deserves prior attention to the doctrine of man. But since the redemptive work of Christ permeates the study of Christ, and since it was for human beings ­ - that is, the elect sinners ­ - that Christ made atonement, it is therefore reasonable to first study the doctrine of man. In addition, since Christ took upon himself human attributes in the incarnation, having a prior understanding of biblical anthropology will facilitate our understanding of this and other aspects of christology.

Therefore, although Christ is the second person of the Trinity, and comes immediately after the doctrine of God in a Trinitarian structure of systematic theology, in the present course of study we will place the doctrine of man immediately after the doctrine of God so that we may understand something about the other party in the God-man relationship that is so central to Christian theology. THE CREATION OF MAN

After creating the earth, plant life, and the animals, God created man. In creating the former things, God simply commanded them to come into being. For example, in Genesis 1:3, he says, "Let there be light," and in Genesis 1:11 he says, "Let the earth produce vegetation." As for the creation of man, the Genesis account records what seems to be a conference between the members of the Trinity, agreeing to create him in the image of God: "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness" (Genesis 1:26). Even without the other information contained in Genesis 1:26-30, this suggests a special relationship between God and man, and that special care was given to his creation.

Perhaps the most popular contemporary objection against the Genesis creation account of man is the theory of evolution. It denies the direct creation of man by God, and proposes that life originated from non-life, and that man is the product of mutations from the lower species. The theory of evolution contradicts what Scripture says about the origin of man. Genesis 2:7; Genesis 2:21-22 recount the creation of man as follows: The LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being....So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribs and closed up the place with flesh. Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man. The man was created before the woman, and since there already existed a member of the human species at the creation of the woman, God took preexisting materials from the man to create her. However, when God created the man, the Bible does not say that he used preexisting materials from the animals he had already made, but he went directly to "the dust of the ground," and directly "breathed into his nostrils the breath of life."

Therefore, the Bible teaches that man was created by a direct act of God, and not through biological evolution. Although there are other details in Genesis 1:1-31; Genesis 2:1-25 that reinforce such an understanding,1 the above is sufficient to show that the theory of evolution contradicts biblical revelation.

Now, the Bible itself claims that all of Scripture is divine revelation (2 Timothy 3:16), and so the entire Bible speaks with one authority. This being so, to reject any part of the Bible is to reject that authority. In other words, since the Bible itself claims that every part of the Bible is inspired by God, to reject any proposition in the Bible entails rejecting the Bible’s self-claim that all of it is inspired by God.

Since the Bible itself claims that every part of the Bible is true, to judge any part of it to be false requires an appeal to an authority or standard of truth foreign to the Bible. But if one has rejected the Bible’s self-claim of infallibility by judging one of its propositions as false, he cannot then accept the Bible’s self-claim of infallibility when he judges another one of its propositions to be true. That is, if a person appeals to a non-biblical authority or standard to reject a given biblical proposition, he must then continue to appeal to a non-biblical authority or standard when he agrees with another biblical proposition. For example, since the Bible itself affirms the deity of Christ, one who rejects the deity of Christ can only do so by assuming a non-biblical authority or standard by which he judges the Bible to be false.2 But then, if this same individual agrees with the biblical teaching that murder is immoral, he cannot do so just because the Bible teaches that murder is immoral. Instead, he must again appeal to a non-biblical authority or standard to justify his belief that murder is immoral.

Since he has rejected the Bible’s authority to justify its own claims when he rejected its teaching about the deity of Christ, he cannot now appeal to the Bible’s authority to justify its own claims when he affirms that murder is wrong. However, if the non-biblical authority or standard to which he appeals is unjustifiable ­ and our position is that every non-biblical authority or standard is unjustifiable3 ­ then he can justify neither his rejection of the deity of Christ nor his affirmation that murder is wrong.

If by an authority or standard foreign to the Bible one accepts one part of the Bible and rejects another, then the part of the Bible he accepts is no longer true because the Bible says so, but because the authority to which he is loyal says so. Therefore, he cannot justify his belief in the part of the Bible that he affirms because the Bible says it, but he must justify this belief by the epistemological authority or standard by which he evaluates the Bible. However, if his epistemology lacks justification, his verdict on any part of the Bible also lacks justification, and what he says is worthless.

Therefore, a person who rejects one part of the Bible cannot claim to accept another part of the Bible on the basis that the second part is the revelation of God, since he has rejected the revelatory status of the former. Likewise, to accept any one of the Bible’s propositions because it is a part of the Bible obligates one to accept the entire Bible as true, since the authority behind all biblical propositions is one and not many. A person who rejects even one biblical proposition cannot at the same time appeal to divine authority to sustain his other beliefs. He must rely on that authority or standard by which he judges that one biblical proposition to be false. However, if only divine authority can justify any proposition or sustain any belief at all, then this person who relies on a non-biblical authority or standard immediately and simultaneously loses justification for everything that he affirms. Since the Bible’s self-claim of ultimacy and infallibility is attached to all of its propositions, one who rejects any part of the Bible must reject all of the Bible, and one who accepts any part of the Bible must accept all of the Bible. For our purpose, this means that one who rejects the biblical account of the direct creation of man cannot at the same time affirm the creation of the universe by God on the basis of Scripture. If one accepts the creation of the universe by God because the Scripture teaches it, he must also affirm the direct creation of man by God because the Scripture teaches it.

Now, the theory of evolution deals with what became of preexisting materials. Since no evolution could have taken place if there was nothing to evolve, the theory of evolution presupposes the existence of the universe. That is, biology presupposes cosmology. But both biology and cosmology presuppose the possibility of human knowledge, or epistemology. Thus, epistemology is prior to cosmology, which is prior to biology.

We have shown that evolutionary biology is a non-Christian biology. We have also shown that one cannot reject one aspect of the Christian worldview and then accept another aspect of the Christian worldview. Therefore, a non-Christian biology presupposes a non-Christian cosmology, and a non-Christian cosmology presupposes a non-Christian epistemology. However, if all non-Christian theories of epistemology are demonstrably false, then all non-Christian theories of cosmology are destroyed. And if all non-Christian theories of cosmology are destroyed, then all non-Christian theories of biology are also destroyed, including evolutionary biology. To affirm evolutionary biology presupposes a non-Christian epistemology, resulting in the destruction of one’s entire worldview. But to presuppose a Christian epistemology in which the exclusive infallibility of Scripture is affirmed rules out evolutionary biology from the start. Therefore, Christian biology, which affirms the direct creation of man by God, is true by deductive necessity, but it is impossible for evolutionary biology to be true. Of course, within the context of debate, we may also temporarily take up the presuppositions of secular science for the sake of argument, and from that basis argue that evolution is "a theory in crisis" and that "the fossils still say No."4 But as I have pointed out elsewhere, all scientific reasoning is formally fallacious and cannot attain deductive certainty. Thus, the scientific arguments against evolution are weaker than the biblical argument against evolution that I am presenting here.5 An argument that destroys the evolutionist’s entire worldview at its very starting point is certainly superior. The following is a summary of the above argument against evolutionary biology:

1. The theory of evolution contradicts the Bible.

2. Therefore, the evolutionist cannot borrow any Christian premise in his worldview.

3. A universe must first exist for life to exist in it (or to evolve from it).

4. Therefore, any theory of biology presupposes a theory of cosmology.

5. Knowledge must be possible before a theory of cosmology can be formulated.

6. Therefore, any theory of cosmology presupposes a theory of epistemology.

7. Only Christian epistemology is justifiable and true.

8. Therefore, only the Christian worldview is justifiable and true, and thus only Christian cosmology is justifiable and true, and thus only Christian biology is justifiable and true.

9. Christian biology affirms the direct creation of man by God.

10. Therefore, the view that God made man by direct creation is true, and the theory of evolution is false.

I demand the evolutionist to tell me how a non-Christian can know anything before he presents to me his theories of cosmology and biology. But since the evolutionist cannot find an epistemology to support his cosmology, and since he cannot find a cosmology to support his biology, his biology exists only in his own imaginary world, and his theory of evolution is just as much a fantasy as his universe. Thus, the evolutionist does not even have the right to present his case on evolutionary biology unless I choose to hear it.

Biology does not exist in a vacuum. We cannot just agree that the universe exists and argue only about biology, since the kind of universe assumed determines what is possible within it. If non-Christian epistemology is impossible, then non-Christian cosmology is impossible, and if non-Christian cosmology is impossible, then non-Christian biology is impossible. However, once we accept a Christian epistemology, and thus a Christian cosmology, then the direct creation of man by God follows by necessity, and all non-Christian theories of biology are ruled out.

All this is only to apply the dogmatical argument to the theory of evolution. The power of the dogmatical argument is such that it conclusively establishes the entire Christian faith as true, and simultaneously serves as a conclusive refutation to all non-Christian ideas and worldviews, whether known or unknown. Since we have shown all of Scripture to be exclusively true by the dogmatical argument, and since evolution contradicts Scripture, then evolution is automatically false. That is, since only the Bible is right, and since evolution contradicts the Bible, evolution is wrong. No additional argument is required.

We may now proceed with the understanding that God made man through direct and complete creation, without any sort of evolutionary processes. Having directly formed man’s body using the preexisting materials of the earth (but not from the animals), God gave him life, and man became a living being: "The LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being" (Genesis 2:7). As for the purpose of man’s creation, the Bible teaches that man was created by the will of God for the glory of God:

You are worthy, our Lord and God, to receive glory and honor and power, for you created all things, and by your will they were created and have their being. (Revelation 4:11)

I will say to the north, "Give them up!" and to the south, "Do not hold them back." Bring my sons from afar and my daughters from the ends of the earth ­ everyone who is called by my name, whom I created for my glory, whom I formed and made. (Isaiah 43:6-7) In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will, in order that we, who were the first to hope in Christ, might be for the praise of his glory. (Ephesians 1:11-12) And I will harden Pharaoh’s heart, and he will pursue them. But I will gain glory for myself through Pharaoh and all his army, and the Egyptians will know that I am the LORD. (Exodus 14:4)

What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath ­ prepared for destruction? What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory ­ even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles? (Romans 9:22-24)

Some teach that God’s loving nature compelled him to create suitable objects of affection to satisfy his need to exercise sacrificial and giving love. But it is heretical to say that God has any needs. Paul says in Acts 17:25, "And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything, because he himself gives all men life and breath and everything else." Being eternally self-existent, God is self-sufficient. Since man is not eternal, but has a definite time of origin before which he did not exist, and since "With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day" (2 Peter 3:8), if ever God could exist without man, he could have continued to exist in the same state forever. Therefore, the creation of man was not due to a necessity in God. The above passages show that God created both the elect and the reprobates for his own glory. Although the reprobates do not consciously glorify God, he gains glory for himself through them, so that he is glorified by the elect in their salvation and by the reprobates in their destruction.

Only the order of the eternal decrees in SUPRALAPSARIANISM, as opposed to INFRALAPSARIANISM, is consistent with the biblical data:

1. The election of some sinners to salvation in Christ; the reprobation of the rest of sinful mankind.

2. The application of the redemptive work of Christ to the elect sinners.

3. The redemption of the elect sinners by the work of Christ.

4. The fall of man.

5. The creation of the world and man.

Although all thoughts are simultaneous in the mind of God, the logical arrangement of the eternal decrees begins with the decree that God would glorify himself through the salvation of the elect by Christ and the destruction of the reprobates. Each subsequent decree is then made as the means by which the former one would be accomplished.

Therefore, God chose to glorify himself, and the means by which he would be glorified is the salvation of some by Christ and the damnation of all others. The means by which the latter would be accomplished is the redemptive work of Christ. And the means by which the redemptive work of Christ is made meaningful is the fall of mankind. For the fall of mankind to be possible, God decreed the creation of the world and man.

Infralapsarianism confuses the execution of the eternal plan with its formulation, so that it begins where the supralapsarian order ends. However, a rational mind formulates a plan first by determining the end, and then working backward, determines the means by which it would reach the determined end. The execution of such a plan, however, reverses the order of the formulation so that it begins where the formulation ends.

Supralapsarianism is the teleological order and infralapsarianism is the historical order. Since the purpose for discussing the order of the eternal decrees is to discover the logical arrangement of the formulation, and not the historical order of the plan’s execution, supralapsarianism is the biblical position. This means that God actively decreed the fall of mankind as one of the steps by which he would fulfill his eternal plan. Sin was not an accident, and redemption was not a mere reaction on the part of God. As the Scripture says, "The LORD works out everything for his own ends ­ even the wicked for a day of disaster" (Proverbs 16:4). THE NATURE OF MAN

According to the Bible, God made man in his own image: "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him" (Genesis 1:27). Whatever is meant by the image of God, it cannot refer to something that God himself does not possess. Since it has been established that God is incorporeal, the image must therefore be unrelated to man’s body.

However, since there are those who assert otherwise, we must take some time to deal with the issue here. We must approach the question by asking in what way man is like God, and what constitutes man’s point of contact with God. We should also consider in what way man is superior to the animals.

If the image of God is seen in man’s body, then it is arguable that some animals are also made in God’s image, since the physical differences between man and some animals are not so vast as to say that one is made in the image of God and the other not ­ that is, if the image includes the physical appearance of Man 1:6 But this is unacceptable since the Scripture tells us that what distinguishes man from the animals is precisely the image of God. Therefore, the image of God cannot refer to the body of man or his appearance, but something else.

Deuteronomy 4:15-18 says that God has "no form," and therefore it is unlawful to make any idol or image to represent God, even if it is in the appearance of a human being:

You saw no form of any kind the day the LORD spoke to you at Horeb out of the fire. Therefore watch yourselves very carefully, so that you do not become corrupt and make for yourselves an idol, an image of any shape, whether formed like a man or a woman, or like any animal on earth or any bird that flies in the air, or like any creature that moves along the ground or any fish in the waters below. This passage alone is sufficient to establish that any substance with a form or appearance cannot be the image of God. Since God himself has "no form," the physical body or appearance of man cannot be the image of God; it cannot even be a part of it. An analysis of the biblical data demands that the image of God be defined in terms of the intellect. Although man has the advantage of being an upright primate biped possessing opposable thumbs, the bodies of many animals are superior to man’s in various ways. However, none of the animals can compare to man in intellectual abilities. That God had made man in his own image means that man is a rational mind. Many animals run faster than man, many are stronger, and some can even fly, but none can understand deductive syllogisms or solve algebraic equations. Animals sometimes seem to perform tasks that require rational thinking or design, such as building elaborate nests. But upon further observation, we discover that their creativity and ability to adapt are limited, and that they are able to perform these tasks only by instinct, and not through deliberate and rational thought. Most importantly, no animal can perform theological reflections.

Man’s rational mind is the likeness of God and his point of contact with him. Man’s intellectual qualities are evident from the beginning of Genesis. God blessed man in Genesis 1:28-30, giving him dominion over nature by a verbal pronouncement. Adam cared for Eden not by instinct, but in obedience to God’s verbal instructions. God gave man a moral command in Genesis 2:16, forbidding him to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, but allowed him to eat from all the other trees. Man was warned that to violate this command would result in his death. Only a rational mind can understand concepts such as duty, sin, and death. The Bible explicitly distinguishes man from the animals on the basis of his intellectual powers: The LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being....But it is the spirit in a man, the breath of the Almighty, that gives him understanding. (Genesis 2:7, Job 32:8) [God] teaches more to us than to the beasts of the earth and makes us wiser than the birds of the air. (Job 35:11) God did not endow [the ostrich] with wisdom or give her a share of good sense. (Job 39:17) Do not be like the horse or the mule, which have no understanding but must be controlled by bit and bridle or they will not come to you. (Psalms 32:9) The new self...is being renewed in knowledge in the image of its Creator. (Colossians 3:10)

It is impossible to deny the conclusion that the image of God is man’s rational mind, but some have tried to add other elements to this definition, such as man’s morality and his dominion over nature. Although this is consistent with our position (Ephesians 4:24), we must maintain that rationality remains the basic element in defining the image of God in man.

Man has a moral nature that distinguishes him from the animals, and so it seems to some that we ought to include this as part of the image of God, even though rationality may be one element. Now, even animals and inanimate objects "obey" God’s commands, but instead of doing so by a rational mind, they are compelled by God’s power. But since man has a rational mind, he chooses to obey God through the intellect, and he sins by defying divine commands. Man can comprehend the concepts of good and evil, and can discuss them through the use of language. This means that man is moral precisely because he is rational; morality is a function of rationality. Therefore, although we may acknowledge that having a moral nature is part of what it means to be a human being, it is not necessary to include it as part of our definition for the image of God.

Man’s dominion over the animals is also an extension or result of his intellectual superiority (Genesis 1:28-30), and not to be confused as part of the image of God. James writes, "All kinds of animals, birds, reptiles and creatures of the sea are being tamed and have been tamed by man" (James 3:7). Although man is physically weaker than many animals, his understanding and knowledge enable him to devise methods, tools, and weapons to tame and exploit them. Man’s rule over nature is made possible by his intellectual abilities, and not by any supernatural or mystical power given by God. The strong interest in animal rights and vegetarianism will justify a brief digression at this point. Scripture teaches that human beings are more valuable than animals and that human beings may eat animals for food: The fear and dread of you will fall upon all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air, upon every creature that moves along the ground, and upon all the fish of the sea; they are given into your hands. Everything that lives and moves will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything. (Genesis 9:2-3)

Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much more valuable than they? (Matthew 6:26)

He said to them, "If any of you has a sheep and it falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will you not take hold of it and lift it out? How much more valuable is a man than a sheep! Therefore it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath." (Matthew 12:11-12)

Indeed, the very hairs of your head are all numbered. Don’t be afraid; you are worth more than many sparrows. (Luke 12:7)

Consider the ravens: They do not sow or reap, they have no storeroom or barn; yet God feeds them. And how much more valuable you are than birds! (Luke 12:24) For it is written in the Law of Moses: "Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain." Is it about oxen that God is concerned? (1 Corinthians 9:9) The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron. They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth. For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, because it is consecrated by the word of God and prayer. (1 Timothy 4:1-5) The Christian’s priority should always be human beings, not animals. Given what the Bible says about the superior value of human beings, we should allocate our resources in such a way as to aid the cause of Christ among human beings, even at the expense of the comfort and the lives of animals. Much of what is done in the name of animal rights robs from the resources that ought to be devoted to helping humanity. This is an indirect denial that man is made in the divine image, that he is special among God’s creatures, and therefore it is an indirect rejection of Scripture. As for vegetarianism, God has granted man permission to consume "everything that lives and moves" (Genesis 9:3). Scripture states that man is not restricted to eating plant life: "Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything" (Genesis 9:3). Therefore, to abstain from eating meat for spiritual reasons or as an acknowledgment of "animal rights" defies biblical teaching.

Although animal rights activists are in error, this does not mean that man may abuse and torture animals as he pleases. The Scripture gives instructions as to how we should treat them.7 For example, animals are to benefit from the Sabbath rest, and they must be allowed to eat while laboring (Deuteronomy 5:13-14; Deuteronomy 25:4). Proverbs 12:10 says, "A righteous man cares for the needs of his animal." We may conclude from such passages that it is wrong to torture animals for sport or to cause them any unjustified suffering. But it remains that we are to freely slaughter them for food, since Scripture itself grants that this is legitimate. Given the contemporary tendency to favor animals even at the expense of humanity, we must strive to give priority to human beings when thinking about the treatment of animals.

God always puts humanity before the animals. After citing the biblical command that says, "Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain," Paul adds, "Is it about oxen that God is concerned?" (1 Corinthians 9:9). Even such a command about the treatment of animals have the benefit of humanity and the just treatment of man in view: "Surely he says this for us, doesn’t he? Yes, this was written for us, because when the plowman plows and the thresher threshes, they ought to do so in the hope of sharing in the harvest" (1 Corinthians 9:10). Therefore, we should say with Acts 10:13 where God calls to Peter the apostle, "Arise, Peter, kill and eat."

Returning to our topic, some who admit that the image of God is seen in the intellect of man nevertheless argue that since the body is necessary to express one’s rational mind, whether in words or in actions, it must be at least a part of the image of God. However, the earlier reference to Deuteronomy 4:15-18 already eliminated this possibility; the body of man cannot be even a part of God’s image. In addition, the argument confuses the image of God with the equipment required to express it in the physical world. The mind can certainly engage in rational communication with God without the body; we only need the body to interact with the physical world. Indeed, before the consummation of our salvation, "to be away from the body" is to be "at home with the Lord" (2 Corinthians 5:8). The Bible views the physical body as very important, and the New Testament even says that the believer’s body is the temple of God (2 Corinthians 6:16); however, the body is not part of the image of God.

Another objection against equating the image of God with the intellect of man is rooted in the view that man is a TRICHOTOMY consisting of spirit, soul, and body. Proponents of this view assert that the Bible portrays man as a trichotomy, and since "God is spirit" (John 4:24), the image of God must therefore be man’s spirit as opposed to his soul or body. This being so, the image of God is not the rational intellect of man, but it is a non-intellectual part of man called the "spirit." The problem with this view is that the Bible does not endorse trichotomy, but instead teaches that man is a DICHOTOMY consisting of soul and body.

Although trichotomists often cite Hebrews 4:12 to support their view, a proper reading of the verse renders their position impossible. The verse says, "For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart." The trichotomists claim that although it is often difficult to distinguish between the soul and the spirit, this verse says that they can be divided by the word of God. Therefore, the soul and the spirit are two different parts of a person.

However, the verse does not say that the word of God can divide the "soul and spirit and body," but that it can divide "soul and spirit, joints and marrow." Since "joints and marrow" belong to the body, or the material part of man, the natural interpretation is that "soul and spirit" also belong together in the same part of a person, or the immaterial part of man.

If X = soul, Y = spirit, and Z = body, then the trichotomist understanding of this verse will make it say, "dividing X and Y, Z and Z," which generates an awkwardness to the verse that is absent in the dichotomist interpretation. Dichotomists understand that soul = spirit, and therefore X = Y. Thus, the verse reads, "dividing X and X, Z and Z," which preserves the symmetry intended by the biblical author.

Robert Reymond provides a grammatical argument on this verse, and writes:

Here the trichotomist insists, since the soul can be "divided" from the spirit, is evidence that they are two separate and distinct ontological entities. But this is to ignore the fact that "soul" and "spirit" are both genitives governed by the participle "dividing." The verse is saying that the Word of God "divides" the soul, even the spirit. But it does not say that the Word of God divides between soul and spirit...or divides the soul from the spirit.8 In addition, this verse does not in fact refer to any dividing power in the word of God, but its ability to penetrate. The word of God is so powerful that it reaches, affects, and transforms even the deepest regions of a person’s mind ­ that is, "it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart" (Hebrews 4:12).9 The next verse confirms this interpretation: "Nothing in all creation is hidden from God’s sight. Everything is uncovered and laid bare before the eyes of him to whom we must give account" (Hebrews 4:13). The point is that nothing about us is hidden from God, not even our thoughts and intentions.

Another verse the trichotomists use to support their position is 1 Thessalonians 5:23, which says, "May God himself, the God of peace, sanctify you through and through. May your whole spirit, soul and body be kept blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ." It is true that the three words translated "spirit, soul and body" are different Greek words. Some take this to mean that Paul is referring to God’s preservation of the "whole" human being, which the apostle asserts to be consisting of three parts: spirit, soul, and body.

However, Mark 12:30 makes such an interpretation impossible. The verse says, "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength." He mentions four items here with which we must love God, namely, the heart, soul, mind, and strength. If 1 Thessalonians 5:23 demands the understanding that man consists of three parts, then Mark 12:30 demands the understanding that man consists of four parts. Thus, the trichotomist argument from 1 Thessalonians 5:23 fails.

Many biblical verses employ repetition for the sake of emphasis. That the above verses use different words to refer to man does not necessarily mean that each word designates a different part of man; rather, the intention is to refer to the whole person.

Popular Christian preaching often assumes a sharp distinction between the spirit and the soul of man, identifying the "heart" with the spirit, and the mind with the soul. However, the Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament defines "heart" (Greek: kardia) as, "the inner person, the seat of understanding, knowledge, and will..."10 Kittel contains a lengthy article on the word, and says, "The heart is the seat of understanding, the source of thought and reflection."11 As with other lexicons, it confirms that "The NT use of the word agrees with the OT use…"12 The word "heart" in the Bible includes a range of meanings, but unless it points to the physical organ, it is speaking of the mind, with the context of the passage giving emphasis to its particular functions.

Gordon Clark estimates that, "the term heart denotes emotion about ten or at the very most fifteen percent of the time. It denotes the will maybe thirty percent of the time; and it very clearly means the intellect sixty or seventy percent [of the time]."13 Since both the emotion and the will are functions of the intellect, or the mind, unless the reference is to the physical organ, the word "heart" in the Bible means the mind.

Having presented several pages of relevant passages, Clark concludes, "Therefore when someone in the pews hears the preacher contrasting the head and the heart, he will realize that the preacher either does not know or does not believe what the Bible says. That the gospel may be proclaimed in its purity and power, the churches should eliminate their Freudianism and other forms of contemporary psychology and return to God’s Word..."14

It is unbiblical to distinguish between "head faith" and "heart faith" or "head knowledge" and "heart knowledge." In the first place, the mind of man is not his "head" or his brain. The mind of man is incorporeal, made in the image of God; it is not part of the body at all. So to make a contrast between the "head" and the "heart" is to commit theological error on more than one level. The trichotomist distinguishes between the spirit and the soul, or the heart and the mind, not the head, since the head belongs to the body. Therefore, the contrast is between faith in the spirit and faith in the mind, or knowledge in the spirit and knowledge in the mind. But since trichotomy is false, such a contrast is also false. Since the words spirit, soul, heart, and mind all refer to the same immaterial part of man, faith in the spirit is faith in the mind, and knowledge in the spirit is knowledge in the mind. They are just different words for the same part of man. This also means that faith and knowledge are always intellectual. In A Treatise Concerning Religious Affections, Jonathan Edwards writes regarding the inclination and will of man, that, "the mind, with regard to the exercises of this faculty, is often called the heart."15 Also, Thayer writes, "kardia...the soul or mind, as it is the fountain and seat of the thoughts, passions, desires, appetites, affections, purposes, endeavors...used of the understanding, the faculty and seat of the intelligence..."16 The point is that the heart is intellectual.

After an extensive presentation of the relevant evidence, Robert Morey concludes in his Death and the Afterlife:

Man’s immaterial side is given several different names in Scripture. It has been called the "spirit," "soul," "mind," "heart," "inward parts," etc., of man. The names should not be viewed as referring to separate entities but as descriptions of different functions or relationships which man’s immaterial side has....Indeed, spirit and soul are used interchangeably in various passages...17

Therefore, a human being consists of mind and body. We may consider the terms spirit, soul, heart, and mind as generally interchangeable: Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell. (Matthew 10:28)

Since we have these promises, dear friends, let us purify ourselves from everything that contaminates body and spirit, perfecting holiness out of reverence for God. (2 Corinthians 7:1) For it doesn’t go into his heart but into his stomach, and then out of his body. (Mark 7:19)

Since many readers tend to think of the spirit and the heart, or even the soul, as more or less non-intellectual, I often prefer the word mind so as to remind the reader that, no matter what one calls it, the immaterial part of man is intellectual in nature. Words such as spirit, soul, heart, and mind all refer to the same immaterial and intellectual part of man. In summary, the Bible teaches that man consists of two parts ­ the material and the immaterial: "Therefore we do not lose heart, but though our outer man is decaying, yet our inner man is being renewed day by day" (2 Corinthians 4:16, NASB). Man is a soul and a body. The soul entered into man when God breathed life into him, and it is this breath of God that gives man his intellectual powers. Our conclusion remains that the image of God is the intellect of man; that is, man is made in the image and likeness of God in the sense that man has a rational mind.

Genesis 1:27 says that God created male and female human beings: "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them." This verse indicates that both male and female are made in the image of God, and both belong to the category of man or mankind. The dominion that God gave to man belongs to both the male and the female, since verse 28 says, "God blessed them and said to them, ’Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground’" (Genesis 1:28). The implication of these two verses is that one gender is not intrinsically superior to the other. However, although the ontological value of men and women are the same, God has imposed an authority structure upon them so as to define their roles within society, especially in the marriage relationship and church government.18 In connection with this, we will examine several relevant passages below.

After the fall of mankind, God says to the woman, "Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you" (Genesis 3:16). One common interpretation of this statement understands it as saying that the woman will experience great sexual desire for her husband, or at least a desire for his companionship. Reflecting this view, the Living Bible paraphrases the verse as, "You shall welcome your husband’s affections, and he shall be your master." But this interpretation fails to relate the first clause of the sentence to the second. In addition, a similar statement appears in Genesis 4:7, but this time it is translated, "It desires to have you, but you must master it." Therefore, a proper understanding of this verse should read it as, "Your desire will be to dominate your husband, but he will rule over you."

Some assert that man and woman had equal authority in the marriage relationship before the Fall, and it was only after mankind transgressed the law of God that man was given rule over the woman as part of the curse upon humanity. According to this view, the subordination of the woman is only a result of sin, and it has been negated after the death and resurrection of Christ.

However, not all the effects of the Fall have been eliminated after the resurrection of Christ. There are some things that must await the consummation of our salvation at his second coming. For example, sickness and death originated because of sin, but they are still in effect today. But if the work of Christ have removed all the results of sin for this stage of human history, they should be now completely absent from human experience, at least for the Christian. Therefore, even if the subordination of women resulted from sin, it does not follow that it has been negated after the resurrection of Christ unless the Bible explicitly teaches it. But the authority of man over the woman did not originate because of the Fall in the first place. Even before God created the woman, he said that she would be the man’s "helper" (Genesis 2:18). Paul teaches that the authority of the man over the woman did not originate because of sin, but that it is a creation ordinance. That is, by the nature and order of the creation of the man and the woman, the man has authority over the woman: For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. (1 Corinthians 11:8-9) A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. (1 Timothy 2:11-13)

It is only natural that any ordinance of God instituted because of the very nature of creation is still in effect as long as we are human beings.19 In addition, both Paul and Peter wrote to believers saying that Christian wives are to obey their husbands. Thus the work of Christ and the apostolic teaching did nothing to abolish the authority structure instituted by God at creation, but rather reinforced it as an absolute moral law:

Then they can train the younger women to love their husbands and children, to be self-controlled and pure, to be busy at home, to be kind, and to be subject to their husbands, so that no one will malign the word of God. (Titus 2:4-5)

Wives, in the same way be submissive to your husbands so that, if any of them do not believe the word, they may be won over without words by the behavior of their wives, when they see the purity and reverence of your lives. (1 Peter 3:1-2) The argument saying that the redemptive work of Christ removed the "curse" of the subordination of women under men within the marriage relationship is an unbiblical position. The Bible teaches that the husband has authority over the wife at the creation of man, after the fall of man, and after the work of Christ.

Rather than teaching that the subordination of women resulted from sin, Genesis 3:16 indicates that sin produced their usurpation of men’s authority. For Christian women to submit to male leadership in the home and the church is a sign of righteousness and regeneration; however, the rejection male leadership in the home and the church is a manifestation of sin and wickedness. Rather than abolishing male leadership in the home and the church, the work of Christ restored and reinforced the original divine design.

One important aspect of the feminist movement and feminist theology is to alter or abolish the biblical structure of the marriage relationship and church government. In their efforts to promote an anti-biblical "equality," the feminists have facilitated the erosion of the most basic unit of society, the family. God has designed that the man should be the head of the home from the beginning, but sin has produced in the woman an urge to usurp the husband’s authority, and to be "liberated" from his rule. But the joy and hope of humanity depends on knowing and obeying biblical commands, and not in fighting against them.20 The leadership of man in the family has been a controversial topic, both within and without theological circles. The reason for much of the debate is not because Scripture is unclear on the topic, but rather because of the ideological climate of the day and the sinful tendency of human beings to resent legitimate authority. As Keil & Delitzsch says in relation to Genesis 3:16, the desire within the woman to defy the man’s authority is one that is "bordering upon disease."21 Our second passages comes from 1 Peter 3:1-6. 1 Peter 3:1-4 say:

Wives, in the same way be submissive to your husbands so that, if any of them do not believe the word, they may be won over without words by the behavior of their wives, when they see the purity and reverence of your lives. Your beauty should not come from outward adornment, such as braided hair and the wearing of gold jewelry and fine clothes. Instead, it should be that of your inner self, the unfading beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is of great worth in God’s sight. The passage shows that not only are wives to subject themselves to Christian husbands, but they must be submissive even if the men are unbelievers. Since elsewhere we find that a Christian woman may only marry another Christian man (1 Corinthians 7:39), Peter here addresses women who became Christians after they were married to non-Christian men. The part concerning submissiveness enters into the discussion when the apostle says that the men may be "won over without words." This does not mean that a person may bring another to faith in Christ without verbally communicating the gospel message. It is popular to assume nowadays that "action speaks louder than words," but this is contrary to biblical teaching.

These husbands to whom Peter exhorts the wives to submit are said to have already rejected the gospel as verbally communicated, whether by the wives or by someone else. Thus the intellectual content of the Christian faith has already been conveyed to these men, but they have refused to give it their assent. Peter is then telling the wives that God may still use their "purity and reverence" as the means by which to impress and convert their husbands, so that they may give assent to what they have already heard. Therefore, this passage presupposes the preaching of the gospel rather than denying its necessity.

Peter continues in 1 Peter 3:5-6 : For this is the way the holy women of the past who put their hope in God used to make themselves beautiful. They were submissive to their own husbands, like Sarah, who obeyed Abraham and called him her master. You are her daughters if you do what is right and do not give way to fear.

How did the women make themselves beautiful? "They were submissive to their own husbands." Although Sarah was "a very beautiful woman" (Genesis 12:14) in terms of appearance, Peter cites her case as an example of achieving inner beauty through submissiveness and obedience. Being physically attractive is not enough ­ Sarah made herself beautiful because she "obeyed Abraham and called him her master."

Just as Christians become the children of Abraham by imitating his faith (Galatians 3:7), women become the daughters of Sarah by imitating her obedience to her husband. Peter does not deny the existence of abusive husbands, but he says, "You are her daughters if you do what is right and do not give way to fear" (1 Peter 3:6). The ungodly behavior of some husbands does not excuse the wives from following God’s precepts. The biblical instruction is to "do what is right and do not give way to fear" in the context of being submissive and obedient to one’s husband, so that "if any of them do not believe the word, they may be won over without words by the behavior of their wives, when they see the purity and reverence of your lives" (1 Peter 3:1-2). Our next passage on the subject is Ephesians 5:22-24. It says:

Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything. The meaning of this passage is very clear, but many commentators have attempted to subvert it. For example, New Testament scholar Walter L. Liefeld writes as follows: To submit meant to yield one’s own rights. If the relationship called for it, as in the military, the term could connote obedience, but that meaning is not called for here. In fact, the word "obey" does not appear in Scripture with respect to wives, though it does with respect to children (Ephesians 6:1) and slaves (Ephesians 6:55).22

He admits that the word translated "submit" can mean obedience if the relationship described calls for it, but he says that the marriage relationship does not call for this meaning.

Now, Paul writes, "Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord" (Ephesians 6:22), and "as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything" (Ephesians 6:24). Wives must submit to their husbands as the church must submit to Christ, and Liefeld claims that the submission of the wives does not include obedience. But if this is true, then neither does the submission of the church include obedience. Therefore, according to Liefeld, the wives and the church do not need to be obedient to the husbands or to Christ, but one must be obedient to his superiors in the military.

Instead of assuming that submission does not include obedience, we should allow biblical teaching concerning Christ’s absolute authority over the believers and the church to dictate the meaning of submission. And since the believers and the church are to obey Christ in their submission to him, the wives are also to obey their husbands "in everything."

Defining "to submit" as "to yield one’s own rights" is problematic in the first place. Since the passage also applies "to submit" to our relationship with Christ, this definition implies that we have a right to defy the Lord, only that we are to surrender such a right. However, since other biblical passages deny that we have a right to defy God, the definition is false.23

These blunders alone reflect terrible scholarship, and produce blasphemous implications. However, Liefeld’s errors do not stop here, since his claim that "the word ’obey’ does not appear in Scripture with respect to wives" is both misleading and false. The claim is misleading since although the word translated "submit" (hypotasso-) in Ephesians 5:22 is different from the one translated "obey" (hypakouo-) in Ephesians 6:1 and Ephesians 6:5, both words carry the meaning of obedience. For example, Luke 2:51 uses the word hypotasso-, but this time it is translated "obedient": "Then [Jesus] went down to Nazareth with them and was obedient [hypotasso-] to them."

Ephesians 6:1 uses hypakouo- when it says, "Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right." In Ephesians 6:2, Paul assumes that the commandment, "Honor your father and mother," means that children must obey their parents. Since the word in Luke 2:51 is hypotasso-, is Liefeld insinuating that Jesus merely submitted to his parents,24 but did not obey them? If Jesus had obeyed the commandment, "Honor your father and mother," and this commandment entails obedience to one’s parents, it follows that Jesus obeyed his parents, and that it is correct to translate hypotasso- as "obedient" in Luke 2:51.

However, Liefeld’s claim is not only misleading ­ it is simply false. Since he affirms that hypotasso- is correctly translated "submit" in Ephesians 5:22 and that hypakouo- is correctly translated "obey" in Ephesians 6:1 and Ephesians 6:5, his claim that "the word ’obey’ does not appear in Scripture with respect to wives" would mean that hypakouo- is never used in Scripture when referring to wives. But 1 Peter 3:5-6 applies the word hypakouo- to Sarah: For this is the way the holy women of the past who put their hope in God used to make themselves beautiful. They were submissive [hypotasso-] to their own husbands, like Sarah, who obeyed [hypakouo-] Abraham and called him her master. You are her daughters if you do what is right and do not give way to fear.25

Since Sarah was the wife of Abraham, and she obeyed (hypakouo-) her husband, and since the wives are told in this passage to imitate her obedience, it necessarily follows that hypakouo- is being equally applied to all wives. This passage applies hypakouo- to Sarah as a wife, and by extension to all wives. How then can Liefeld assert that "the word ’obey’ does not appear in Scripture with respect to wives"? In any case, whether hypakouo- or hypotasso- is used, the Bible teaches that wives must obey their husbands.

Wives may protest that this is difficult to do, but it is arguable that the husband’s duty is even more challenging: "Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her" (Ephesians 5:25). The command is not for the husbands to merely show affection to their wives, but to love them to the death, and cherish her more than his own life and welfare. To the extent that one does not possess such love for his wife, he is less than a biblical man. Our estimation of a man should never rise higher than his love for God, the Bible, and his wife.

It may be true that many men are difficult to obey, but it is also true that many women are difficult to love. However, just as God empowers Christian men to love their wives as Christ loves his church, he empowers Christian women to obey their husbands as the church ought to obey Christ. In any case, each person is accountable to God regardless of what the other does, as the apostle Peter affirms (1 Peter 3:1-7). That a husband is unloving does not excuse the wife’s disobedience, and a husband must love his wife regardless of her shortcomings. A popular objection to the biblical authority structure for the family comes from a misuse of Galatians 3:28, and argues that the verse speaks against all gender "inequality" or distinctions: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." Since there is "neither...male nor female" in Christ, some make the argument that there should be no role distinction or difference in authority within the marriage relationship.

However, this cannot be the intent of the verse, since elsewhere Paul prescribes role distinctions and recognizes differences in authority between husbands and wives and masters and slaves, saying, "Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord," and "Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ" (Ephesians 5:22; Ephesians 6:5). Therefore, Galatians 3:28 does not abolish all gender distinctions, and it does not contradict or nullify those biblical passages teaching the male headship of the family. When we read the verse in its context, it becomes obvious that it only refers to the equality of every elect individual in his ready access to justification by faith:

You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise. (Galatians 3:26-29) The verse does not teach social or gender equality at all, but it teaches a spiritual equality among the elect. All those whom God has chosen to receive salvation have equal access to justification through Christ by faith, whether they are men or women, Jews or non-Jews, masters or slaves. Gender, race, and social status are irrelevant to one’s access to salvation through Christ by faith, although only the elect will obtain it (Romans 11:7). The verse carries no reference to gender equality in any other setting, and has no relevance to role distinctions among male and female.26

We have examined several passages that affirm male leadership in the marriage relationship, but there are many more that assert or imply the divinely instituted authority structure in the family as expounded above. Elizabeth Handford writes, "If you are intellectually honest, you have to admit that it is impossible to find a single loophole, a single exception, an ’if’ or ’unless.’ The Scriptures say, without qualification...that a woman ought to obey her husband."27 Paul says that a wife must obey her husband, "so that no one will malign the word of God" (Titus 2:5); a disobedient wife brings shame to the kingdom of God. THE FALL OF MAN

Adam was created in the divine image, and in the beginning he was good and upright (Ecclesiastes 7:29). Then God placed him in Eden to work the land, and commanded him not to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil: The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. And the LORD God commanded the man, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die." (Genesis 2:15-17) But Satan came in the form of a serpent, deceived the woman into eating from the tree, and she in turn gave Adam fruit from the tree to eat. In this manner, both of them sinned against God (Genesis 3:1-13; 1 Timothy 2:14). Then God pronounced a curse upon them that included pain, toil, and death (Genesis 3:16-19), and he expelled the two from Eden (Genesis 3:23). Thus man fell from his original estate.

Sin produced devastating effects on humanity. The FEDERAL HEADSHIP of Adam refers to his role as the representative of all mankind in Eden. Scripture teaches that when he sinned, he acted on the behalf of all his descendants in the mind of God.28 Therefore, when Adam fell into sin, all of humanity fell with him: "...sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men...the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men..." (Romans 5:12; Romans 5:18).

Adam represented the human race in Eden as a "federal head" and not an "organic head." All of humanity is condemned by his sin not because of its physical relation to him, but because Adam represented humanity in the mind of God; that is, God sovereignly determined that Adam represented all of humanity in Eden.29 Therefore, every person conceived after Adam is condemned by inherited guilt even before the individual has an opportunity to commit any personal sins. When Adam sinned, all of humanity sinned; when Adam came under condemnation, all of humanity came under condemnation (Romans 5:18). The term ORIGINAL SIN refers to this inherited guilt rather than the sin committed by Adam. I agree with Wayne Grudem that the term is misleading.30 Alternatives may include "original guilt" and "inherited sin," but "original guilt" may be misunderstood as referring to the sin of Adam, and "inherited sin" may be misunderstood as referring to a transmission of guilt based on our physical relation to Adam. But as Adam was our representative in the mind of God, so is his guilt imputed to us in the mind of God. Thus IMPUTED GUILT is a more accurate term, and makes a good parallel to the IMPUTED RIGHTEOUSNESS that the elect receive by faith in the work of Christ.

Other than Romans 5:12-19, the following biblical verses also point to the imputed guilt we have received from Adam:

Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me. (Psalms 51:5) Even from birth the wicked go astray; from the womb they are wayward and speak lies. (Psalms 58:3) For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. (1 Corinthians 15:22)31 Not only did we inherit from Adam the guilt of sin, but we also inherited from him a sinful nature. This means that not only are we guilty in God’s sight because of Adam’s sin, but we also possess a disposition to sin and to rebel against God’s laws. Grudem uses the term INHERITED CORRUPTION to designate this sinful disposition that we have received from Adam.32 Many people favor the teaching of secular philosophy that human beings are born with a disposition toward good; however, the Bible teaches otherwise. Proverbs 22:15 says, "Folly is bound up in the heart of a child." Paul states that we all followed our "sinful nature" before God regenerated us, and that "we were by nature objects of wrath" (Ephesians 2:3).

Many people resist the biblical teaching on imputed guilt and inherited corruption. Even some professing Christians would deny that they have ever sinned.33 They may admit to having done a number of things out of their "human weaknesses," and that they have made "mistakes," but they insist that it would be an exaggeration to label what they have done as "sins." The problem is that their definition of sin falls short of the definition given in Scripture. The Bible defines sin as the transgression of God’s moral law: "Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact, sin is lawlessness" (1 John 3:4). A person sins when he fails to do what God commands him to do, or when he does what God prohibits him from doing. Now, if sin is a violation of God’s moral law, then whether a particular action is sinful must be defined by its relation to this law, that is, to see whether a violation has indeed occurred. And since the moral law of God addresses all areas of thought and conduct either by explicit command or by necessary inference, our thoughts and actions are never morally neutral (1 Corinthians 10:31).

Jesus makes it clear that each moral command from God does not only govern a person’s actions, but also his thoughts. Murder does not include only the physical act of killing another human being without biblical justification,34 but it is also a sin of the mind:

You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, "Do not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment." But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, "Raca," is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, "You fool!" will be in danger of the fire of hell. (Matthew 5:21-22)

Likewise, the moral law prohibiting adultery applies not only to the physical act of sexual infidelity, but adultery is also a sin of the mind: "You have heard that it was said, ’Do not commit adultery.’ But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart" (Matthew 5:27-28).

Jesus explains that sins proceed from the mind: "For from within, out of men’s hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly" (Mark 7:21-22). What appears to be physical sins are in fact first conceived in the mind; therefore, although not all sins of the mind result in physical expression, all physical sins imply prior sins of the mind. Some people commit fewer physical sins than others, but all of us often displease God in our thoughts. In addition, Jesus says in Matthew 12:36, "But I tell you that men will have to give account on the day of judgment for every careless word they have spoken." How many of us have never uttered even one "careless word"?

Paul writes that "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23), and John says, "If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us....If we claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a liar and his word has no place in our lives" (1 John 1:8; 1 John 1:10). Psalms 130:3-4 indicates that unless God forgives some of us, no one can be justified in his presence: "If you, O LORD, kept a record of sins, O Lord, who could stand? But with you there is forgiveness; therefore you are feared." Therefore, no one can say that he is sinless before God. Not only is every person guilty from birth because of the imputation of Adam’s sin, but every person has inherited from Adam a sinful disposition, which causes him to defy God in thought and in action throughout his life. The result is that every man is headed for eternal damnation unless there is some sort of an intervention.

Sin has wrought considerable damage in the human person. Some people go as far as to argue that although God had created Adam in the divine image, the Fall had so marred and distorted it so that what Adam passed on to his offspring was no longer the image of God, but the image of man. Proponents of this view often make their argument from Genesis 5:1-3, which says, "When God created man, he made him in the likeness of God. He created them male and female and blessed them. And when they were created, he called them ’man.’ When Adam had lived 130 years, he had a son in his own likeness, in his own image; and he named him Seth."

However, the passage does not indicate that the image was so altered or damaged that it was no longer the image of God. It says that God made Adam in the image of God, and then Adam in turn had an offspring in the image of Adam. If A = B and B = C, then A = C. The passage does not state if the image had changed or how it had changed. Its intent is to portray the continuation of God’s image in humankind rather than its abolition. If the image had remained the same in Adam, then of course his offspring was also made in the image of God.

Other biblical passages indicate that God’s image in man has indeed remained intact. Generations after the time of Adam, God said to Noah that murder was punishable by death because "in the image of God has God made man" (Genesis 9:6). The apostle James likewise reasons that it is wrong to curse other human beings because they "have been made in God’s likeness" (James 3:9).

Appealing to the image of God in man would be illegitimate if man no longer exists as God’s image, but these two instances of appealing to the image of God in man are obviously authoritative and legitimate, since the first comes from God and the second comes from an apostle. Also, if man is defined by the image of God, then man would no longer be man if this image is so marred or distorted from its original form that it can no longer be called God’s image. Therefore, we must conclude that man continues to exist as the image of God.

However, this does not mean that the image of God in man was completely unharmed by sin. After the fall of man, and as early as Genesis 6:5, "The LORD saw how great man’s wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time." This verse provides an apt description of man’s sinful nature, that it is the "inclination of the thoughts" toward evil. Paul says that to gratify "the cravings of our sinful nature" is to follow "its desires and thoughts" (Ephesians 2:3). Likewise, Jesus says, "For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander" (Matthew 15:19).

Thus the Bible defines the sinful nature in man as the evil disposition of the mind, or the disposition to think and act contrary to the precepts of Scripture. All the descendants of Adam except Christ have inherited such a disposition:

Those who live according to the sinful nature have their minds set on what that nature desires; but those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires. The mind of sinful man is death, but the mind controlled by the Spirit is life and peace; the sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so. (Romans 8:5-7) The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. (2 Corinthians 4:4) Once you were alienated from God and were enemies in your minds [as shown by]35 your evil behavior. (Colossians 1:21)

Among other things, and in accordance with the above, the Bible portrays sin as a lapse in rationality. Ecclesiastes 7:25 mentions "the stupidity of wickedness,"36 and Proverbs 6:32 says, "one who commits adultery with a woman is lacking sense" (NASB). Speaking of those who refuse to worship the true God, Paul writes, "Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools" (Romans 1:22). Rebellion against God ultimately makes no sense. Insofar as one disobeys the Scripture, he is deficient in judgment and understanding. On the other hand, "The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom; all who follow his precepts have good understanding" (Psalms 111:10). The implication of these verses is that although the intellectual equipment of the unbeliever remains in existence, the sinful disposition of his mind causes him to reason from false premises. His mind is biased against the truth of God, and causes him to select the wrong first principles with which to construct his worldview. The result is a comprehensively false and delusional view of all reality. Even if the unbeliever were to begin from true premises, such as biblical propositions, his sinful mind would still err in reasoning, and produces false conclusions through fallacious deductions.37 This corresponds to an earlier statement in this book that all non-Christians are intellectually defective. Their thinking is controlled by biases and fallacies so that they consistently form conclusions that are hostile to God. Recall that it is the rational mind of man that reflects his likeness to God; therefore, that evil has affected the intellect of man means that it has penetrated the core of his being. The above shows that although man still retains his likeness to God in that he still possesses a rational mind, this rationality has been so damaged that man is now born with a disposition toward evil. The destructive consequences of sin on the mind is called the NOETIC EFFECTS OF SIN. To understand the redemptive plan of God, we need to grasp the extent to which man has fallen. The effect of sin on the spiritual aspect of man is more than that of a crippling blow, but a fatal one. The unregenerate are not only spiritually sick and blind (Luke 5:31; Matthew 15:14), but they are spiritually dead. And since they are spiritually dead, they are completely helpless when it comes to spiritual operations. Ecclesiastes 9:3 says, "Furthermore, the hearts of the sons of men are full of evil, and insanity is in their hearts throughout their lives" (NASB), and the prophet Jeremiah observes, "The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure" (Jeremiah 17:9). Man in his unregenerate condition is here described as evil, insane, and incurable. Just as a dead person cannot request or respond to any assistance, a sinner cannot attain to or prepare for salvation by his own will or effort, and in himself he cannot even decide to repent or accept mercy from God. The biblical verses indicating that the unbeliever is spiritually dead include the following: But Jesus told him, "Follow me, and let the dead bury their own dead." (Matthew 8:22)

"For this son of mine was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found." So they began to celebrate...."But we had to celebrate and be glad, because this brother of yours was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found." (Luke 15:24; Luke 15:32) For just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, even so the Son gives life to whom he is pleased to give it. (John 5:21) As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins...But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions ­ it is by grace you have been saved. (Ephesians 2:1; Ephesians 2:4-5)

We know that we have passed from death to life, because we love our brothers. Anyone who does not love remains in death. (1 John 3:14)

Thus the Bible teaches what is called the TOTAL DEPRAVITY of man; however, the term may be misleading. It does not intend to say that every human being is as evil as he can be, but it means that the damage that sin has effected in man is comprehensive and pervasive, so that every part of the human person has been affected by evil. This damage is of such an extent that man is spiritually dead, and thus he is helpless to even cooperate with God when it comes to salvation. This means that unless the unbelievers experience regeneration, or spiritual resurrection, they will never recognize the truth of the gospel message, and they will never accept Christ. However, since they cannot effect or facilitate their own spiritual regeneration, the new birth occurs only by the sovereign grace of God.

Endnotes:

1. For example, to understand the Hebrew word translated "day" in Genesis 1:1-31 as indicating a twenty-four hour period would rule out the theory of evolution, which claims that human life took many years to come about.

2. The deity of Christ is just an example. The point is that one who rejects any biblical proposition, even a seemingly insignificant one, cannot at the same time agree with another biblical proposition by recognizing its divine authority. Since he judges one to be false by a non-biblical standard, he must judge another to be correct also by a non-biblical standard.

3. See the previous chapter of this book, and Vincent Cheung, Ultimate Questions and The Light of Our Minds.

4. Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis; Adler & Adler Publishers, 1997; Duane T. Gish, Evolution: The Fossils Still Say No!; Institute for Creation Research, 1985. Also see Michael J. Behe, Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution; Touchstone Books, 1998; William Dembski, No Free Lunch: Why Specified Complexity Cannot be Purchased Without Intelligence; Rowman & Littlefield, 2001.

5. This is not because the scientific case against evolution is weak, but because science itself is unable to discover any truth.

6. Having established the Christian worldview as true, similarities between the human body and that of the animals imply common design, not common descent.

7. Humans and animals do not have intrinsic rights; only God has intrinsic rights. Humans and animals have "rights" only in the sense that Scripture commands that they should be treated in the manner it prescribes. Such rights only exist in relation to other creatures, since God is free to treat his creatures in whatever way he desires. See my writings on human rights, animal rights, and vegetarianism.

8. Robert Reymond, A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith, p. 421-422.

9. "Attitudes" are just as mental or intellectual as "thoughts." Thus the symmetry of the verse extends to this latter part, so that if Q represents the intellect, the verse would read, "...dividing X and X, Z and Z; it judges the Q and Q of the heart." X and Q, then, would be referring to the same part of man.

10. Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament, Vol. 2; Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1981; p. 250.

11. Gerhard Kittel, ed., Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Vol. 3; Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1999 (Original: 1965); p. 612.

12. Ibid., p. 611.

13. Gordon H. Clark, The Biblical Doctrine of Man; Jefferson, Maryland: The Trinity Foundation, 1984; p. 82.

14. Ibid., p. 87-88.

15. The Works of Jonathan Edwards; Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 2000 (Original: 1834); p. 237.

16. Joseph H. Thayer, Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament; Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 2002 (original: 1896); p. 325-326.

17. Robert A. Morey, Death and the Afterlife; Minneapolis, Minnesota: Bethany House Publishers, 1984; p. 65.

18. George W. Knight III, The Role Relationships of Men and Women; Phillipsburg, New Jersey: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1985. We will focus on the authority structure within the marriage relationship in the following paragraphs.

19. "While the male and female are equal in terms of their being or nature...the Scriptures also teach that they are not equal in terms of function or office. Man’s headship did not arise because of the fall or as a result of Hebrew culture. Man was the head of the woman at creation as a direct institution of God Himself..."; Robert Morey, Introduction to Defending the Faith; Nevada: Christian Scholars Press, 2002; p. 34.

20. "Since marriage and the family belong to God, we must follow the structure of marriage which God instituted in the Garden. Adam was the head of the family and Eve was submissive to his headship. This structure is what ’ought’ to be in every marriage. Thus the Women’s Liberation Movement is in open violation of God’s creation ordinance of marriage when it denies the man’s headship over the woman"; Ibid.

21. C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch, Commentary on the Old Testament, Vol. 1; Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 2001; p. 64.

22. The NIV Study Bible, 10th Anniversary Edition; Grand Rapids, Michigan: The Zondervan Corporation, 1995; Notes on Ephesians 5:22.

23. Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon: "to arrange under, to subordinate; to subject, put in subjection; to subject oneself, to obey; to submit to one’s control; to yield to one’s admonition or advice"; p. 645.

24. That is, submission as defined by Liefeld ­ as something less than obedience.

25. Submission and obedience are interchangeable in this verse: "They were submissive to their own husbands, like Sarah, who obeyed Abraham..."

26. Richard W. Hove, Equality in Christ? Galatians 3:28 and the Gender Dispute; Crossway Books, 1999.

27. Elizabeth Rice Handford, Me? Obey Him?; Murfreesboro, Tennessee: Sword of the Lord Publishers, 1994; p. 31.

28. To be more precise, he represented only every member belonging to the group of people assigned to him in the mind of God, which is every member of the human race except Christ. Christ was Adam’s descendant in the sense that he took on human attributes at his incarnation, but he was sinless, born without imputed guilt or inherited corruption. This confirms that the effects of Adam’s sin are sovereignly imputed to his descendants, and not passed on by his physical relation to them. Christ himself was the federal head of the elect, and the Scripture calls him another "Adam" (1 Corinthians 15:45).

29. Some people may object that it was unfair for God to have chosen Adam as our federal head without our assent. Once again, the answer is that since God is the sole moral authority, everything that he does is just by definition.

30. Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology; Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1994; p. 494-495.

31. This verse does not teach universal salvation or universal atonement. In fact, given that Scripture elsewhere denies universal salvation, the verse by necessity teaches particular atonement with Christ as the federal head of the elect. Adam represented every member in his group, and all of humanity died under him. Christ also represented every member in his group, and every member in this group were made alive. However, not every member of the human race would be saved; therefore, Christ did not represent every member of the human race, but only the elect.

32. Grudem, p. 496.

33. Of course, these are not genuine Christians.

34. To kill a human being with biblical justification is not murder, such as the execution of a violent criminal.

35. This is the alternate rendering from the NIV footnotes.

36. An alternate translation is "the wickedness of stupidity." Either translation relates the evil in man to his diminished or inconsistent rationality.

37. This means that the unbeliever can never discover truth by himself, and even if given the truth, he will fail to grasp it or acknowledge its implications. Thus Jesus says, "I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again" (John 3:3), and such a new birth must be initiated and completed by God without any cooperation from man.