_5_The Effects of Original Corruption

We have already shown at length that original corruption includes spiritual death, the condition of being dead in trespasses and sins (Eph. 2:1, 5), of being alienated from the life of God (Eph. 4:18), and that if this spiritual death is not removed through faith in Christ, who blots out sin, it will be followed by temporal death and by eternal death, eternal damnation. We now add some particulars.

With regard to temporal death, the question has been ventilated much, from the days of the Church Fathers down to our day, whether the words: “In the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die” (Gen. 2:17) meant that death would ensue at a later period or whether it would set in immediately with the sinning. It would seem that the latter is meant. The expression “in the day that,” etc., links the dying closely with the act of sinning. The final total separation of body and soul is simply the culmination of the dissolution which began at once. All men are in the process of dying from their birth, because they are Adam’s children and thus sinners. The infirmities and sicknesses to which we are subject are the gradual loosening of the bond uniting body and soul; they are the early stages of the complete separation that will come to pass sooner or later.36

Of far greater importance is the question just why the eating of the forbidden fruit brought death to Adam and Eve. Modern theologians, such as Delitzsch and Hofmann, have expressed the view that death was not caused by the transgression of the divine commandment (Gen. 2:17), but rather was caused by the fact that the devil had taken possession of the forbidden tree, in consequence of which the eating had such an evil effect on “the physical nature” of Adam and Eve that their sensual desire was focused on “a material thing.” This strange notion, inspired by the determination to take from the first sin the stigma of , of a direct violation of God’s Word,37 is in conflict with the Biblical report and turns it topsy-turvy. The devil begins his seductive work not by calling Eve’s attention to the edibility and beauty of the fruit, but by creating, first and foremost, doubt of God’s Word. He suggests to Eve that God could hardly have given such a strange commandment. Eve, well-informed as to God’s command and the punishment placed by God on its transgression, responds: “God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.” But when the Tempter perceives that Eve does not indignantly turn from him, but finds that she is beginning to doubt the truth of the divine Word, he openly contradicts the Word of God and answers her that eating of the forbidden fruit will not result in death, but in great progress in knowledge. This argument against God’s Word pleases Eve, and now she sees the tree in a new light, as “a tree to be desired to make one wise.” Then “she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her, and he did eat.” Such was the origin of the first sin: it bore the nature of . Eve clearly knew, but deliberately set aside the divine . The fruit of the forbidden tree did not kill because it was in itself harmful or evil, but because it was forbidden.

Luther goes into this matter thoroughly. He epitomizes his presentation with the words: “Adam did indeed force his teeth into this apple; but in reality his teeth struck upon the sting in this apple, which was God’s prohibition and disobedience to God. This was the real and true cause of this tragedy, that Adam sinned against God and despised His command and obeyed the devil. The tree of the knowledge of good and evil was good and bore the most noble fruit; but since the prohibition of God was attached to it and man disregarded it, the tree became more deadly than poison… . Arbor scientiae boni et mali occidit virtute verbi prohibentis.” (St. L. I:117 f. Opp. ex., Erl. I, 120 sq.)

We are here strongly reminded of the analogous way by which modern theology has arrived at the denial that Scripture is the Word of God. Their thought processes are about as follows: Are the Scriptures, which speak in so human a manner, in the human tongue, indeed God’s Word? True, this has been assumed by the primitive Church, then by the Church of the Reformation, and particularly by the dogmaticians. And there is a certain excuse for this assumption; at that time the sense for “reality” was still undeveloped. But since, because of the great progress in all branches of science, the “well-developed sense of reality” has become the special endowment of our day, it is wholly impossible for men today to “identify” Scripture with the Word of God. At this point they form the definite judgment: Scripture is not the Word of God, and they regard it as imperative to flee away from Scripture into the “pious self-consciousness of the theologizing subject.” The final result is: All theologians who practice theology in this manner are actually become as God, yea, superior to God, for now they know how much of God’s Word is good, how much evil. One cannot fail to see here an analogy to the first deception of the devil.

In connection with the Fall, which occurred as a result of eating of the forbidden tree, the question is again and again raised, why the lex paradisiaca (the law given to man in Paradise) turned on such an unimportant, yea, arbitrary matter; would it not have been more appropriate if the “paradisiacal law” had embraced the entire Decalog? Similar thoughts have arisen in the hearts of many Christians in reading the story of the fall. “I ask you,” says Brenz,38 “what the idea is in God’s prohibiting the eating of the fruit of a tree and not rather some other kind of sin? … Why does He not rather recite to Adam the Decalog, which later in the desert of Sinai He recited to the Israelites?” Brenz answers: 1) The Decalog as natural Law was already inscribed in the hearts of Adam and Eve and therefore stood in no need of a special proclamation; and 2) it therefore pleased God to give them a commandment for the exercise and proof of their obedience which was not written in their hearts. Luther stresses the point very much. We take the proper attitude toward God only when we freely and willingly subject ourselves to His Word also when we do not understand why God speaks, commands, and acts just in this way and not in another. Luther says: “After all things had been delivered to Adam, that he might use them according to his pleasure for his need or for his enjoyment, God finally (tandem) demands of him that he prove his reverence and obedience in this tree of the knowledge of good and evil and thus, in a way, exercise divine worship.” At this point, Luther goes on to say, the matter becomes “theological”; the preceding regulations concerned only things of nature or of the family or civil government.

The theologians especially should note this point. Modern theology lies prostrate with this grievous malady that instead of taking the Christian doctrine from Scripture alone, they would obtain the doctrine by way of investigation (erkenntnismaessig) and according to their findings either accept or reject it. Against this pestilence — the expression is not too sharp — also they must be on their guard who sincerely accept the word: “If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God” (1 Pet. 4:11). This pestilence forms a part of the original corruption, which clings to us throughout our life on earth; for a characteristic of this corruption is not only the propagabilitas a patentibus ad liberos, but also the “tenacitas’ seu pertinax inhaerentia per omnem vitam.39

One of the consequences of the hereditary corruption is the loss of free will in spiritual matters. This is really no new subject, for all that can be said in this matter is already contained in the statement of Scripture that every man is “dead in trespasses and sins.” But since the term “free will” does not always mean the same thing and this ambiguity of meaning has been used for the purpose of denying the “death in trespasses,” a special treatment is called for. Where ambiguity prevails, the rule applies: Bene docet, qui bene distinguit. In accordance with this rule, the following is to be said:

a. If by “free will” is meant that man in distinction from the irrational creatures still has a will of his own and wills things, we shall have to say that man also after the Fall has a free will. Though fallen man is dead in sins and cannot but sin, non potest non peccare (Eph. 2:1, 5; Col. 2:13; Rom. 6:13; 8:7), he nevertheless sins voluntarily and gladly. The desire to sin is innate in him. John 3:6: He is by birth; the state of this is described Rom. 8:7: “The carnal mind is enmity against God”; also Gen. 8:21: “The imagination of man’s heart is evil from his youth.” We call this freedom of the will libertas a coactione or formal freedom. Coercion contradicts the very nature of the will. Therefore Gerhard correctly states that freedom of the will, conceived as freedom from coercion, and the servitude of sin, whereby man cannot but sin, agree very well. “There exists in man freedom of will along with the servitude of sin; for he both sins and cannot refrain from sinning (non potest non peccare), and nevertheless he sins freely and delights in sin; although he is moved to nothing but evil, yet he chooses it freely, i. e., willingly and spontaneously, not unwillingly or under coercion, and is moved to it with all his energy” (Loci, locus “De Libero Arbitrio,” § 29).40

b. If by free will is meant the ability to will or desire what is spiritually good, to believe the Gospel of Christ and out of love of God to keep God’s Law, we deny that since the Fall man has a free will. He cannot know the Gospel as the truth, but regards it as foolishness (1 Cor. 2:14; 1:23), and he cannot subject himself to God’s Law, but can only hate it (Rom. 8:7). We are speaking only of free will in this sense when we say that man after the Fall and before regeneration has no free will, cannot decide for the Gospel, but can only reject it. Lest the status controversias be shifted, it must be borne in mind that we are here not concerned with the will of man in itself, but with the object of his will.41

c. To be sure, fallen man, to a certain extent, still can render an external, or civil, righteousness (iustitia carnalis, operum, carnis). But we are constrained to add the qualification “to a certain extent.” This civil righteousness does not amount to much. The innate concupiscence and the enticement of the devil, who exercises dominion over the non-Christians (Eph. 2:2; Col. 1:13; Acts 26:18), is so strong that the restraining power of natural probity, education, culture, and other props of civic righteousness proves itself but a spider’s web. All these points are brought out by the Apology, in the article “De Libero Arbitrio”: “The human will has liberty in the choice of works and things which reason can comprehend by itself. It can to a certain extent render civil righteousness or the righteousness of works; it can speak of God, offer to God a certain service by an outward work, obey magistrates, parents; in the choice of an outward work it can restrain the hands from murder, from adultery, from theft. Since there is left in human nature reason and judgment concerning objects subjected to the senses, choice between these things and the liberty and power to render civil righteousness are also left. For Scripture calls this the righteousness of the flesh which the carnal nature, i. e., reason, renders by itself, without the Holy Ghost. Although the power of concupiscence is such that men more frequently obey evil dispositions than sound judgment. And the devil, who is efficacious in the godless, as Paul says, Eph. 2:2, does not cease to incite the feeble nature to various offenses. These are the reasons why even civil righteousness is rare among men, as we see that not even the philosophers themselves, who seem to have aspired after this righteousness, attained it.” (Trigl. 335, 70 f.)

The list of specious arguments for the free will of natural man in spiritual matters is quite imposing. 1. Faith in Christ, or conversion, and the observance of the commandments of God, is demanded of men. 2. Unless man co-operates (facultas se applicandi at grattiam, etc.), conversion would imply coercion. 3. God works only the power to believe, not the act of faith. 4. Without human co-operation the subject who believes would not be man, but the Holy Ghost. 5. Since the reason for man’s non-conversion lies in man, the decisive reason for the conversion of man must “according to invincible logic” also lie in man. 6. Conversion must be conceived as a “moral” process. 7. Homo “libere” se convertit; faith is “free obedience.” 8. The iustitia civilis, education, culture, science, etc., also have a part in the conversion of man. 9. Natural man still has the power to use the means of grace, to go to church, listen attentively, etc. These arguments are examined and refuted in Volume II, under the “Doctrine of Conversion,” and material from history of doctrine is there given. The true reasons which lead men to assert the freedom of will in spiritual matters — self-righteousness and self-conceit — are fully set forth there.42

d. The hereditary corruption results, finally, in the various sinful acts, the actual sins (peccata actualia). Scripture definitely declares the innate evil condition to be the source of the individual sinful acts. Thus Psalm 51 traces the actual sin of adultery (“he had gone in to Bathsheba”) to its evil source: “Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me “(v. 5). According to John 3:5 men are by their natural birth (flesh), and according to Gal. 5:19-21 “adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, envyings, murders, drunkenness, revelings, and such like,” are the works of the flesh, actions proceeding from the hereditary corruption. That leads to the chapter on the actual sins (peccata actualia).