11. Modal Theories of Native Depravity

CHAPTER XI Modal Theories of Native Depravity Behold I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did m’ mother conceive me.- Psalms 51:5. The modal theories of native depravity, or the manner in which depravity is transmitted, is a subject deserving treatment distinct from the fact, nature, and extent of native depravity. There are three modal theories of native depravity that deserve attention. These are the realistic mode, the representative mode, and the genetic law mode. After a brief statement of these three theories each will be examined in the order given.

FALSE THEORIES OF THE MODE OF NATIVE DEPRAVITY The realistic mode of native depravity teaches that in essence we all existed in Adam at the time of his transgression in Eden. From this hypothesis the theory proceeds to genetic transgression and to genetic guilt. In other words, since we all existed in Adam at the time he committed the primitive sin, we, in him, committed the sin, and consequently we partake of his guilt. The Bible says nothing about all men having existed in Adam in any such realistic manner. If realism could be established as a reality, to apply it to the mode of native depravity would still be a rank fallacy, as I shall proceed to show. There are two ways to commit error in reasoning -to prove too little or to prove too much. Could realism establish all it claims, it would fall hopelessly into the last error; for if we were sharers in the primitive sin, then we should be equally sharers in all ancestral deeds. We should be guilty not only of Adam’s first sin, but of all the sins that Adam and Eve ever committed. Not only so, but we should be sharers in all the guilt of all our ancestors, from the sin of Adam in the Garden of Eden to the last sin of our immediate parents prior to our birth. Such is preposterous, but it is the inevitable result of realism. Furthermore, the very success of the realistic mode of native depravity would prove its utter failure; for there is no reason why, if we were sharers in the primitive sin, we should not be sharers in the good deeds of our progenitors. Hence if Adam repented, we all repented in him, and if he was forgiven, we are all forgiven. Our forgiveness, then, is as real as our guilt. Hence we are guiltless, and the realistic theory of native demerit to the race is a self confessed falsehood.

There is a lower form of realism, popularly called traducianism. This theory is grounded upon the principle of a germinal, or seminal, existence of the race in Adam. Whether such form of existence included both body and soul is often left without definite statement by the adherents of the theory. Some hold the immediate creation of the soul on occasion of the propagation of the body. In such case the theory is traducian only with respect to the body, and creational with respect to the soul. A most definite statement of the theory is given by Miley: "We say that Adam, being the root and head of all human kind, and we all branches from that root, all parts of that body whereof he was the head, his will may be said to be ours. We were all that one man-we were all in him, and had no other will but his; so that though that be extrinsic unto us, considered as particular persons, yet it is intrinsical, as we are all parts of one common nature. As in him we sinned, so in him we have a will of sinning. " In answer to this theory, it seems useless to any reasonable mind to argue that we could have been guilty in a mere seminal state. Guilt is impossible without personal existence. The same argument might be urged against the lower form of realism as against the higher. If by consequence of our seminal existence in Adam we were guilty of Adam’s sin, we are on the same ground partakers of all ancestral deeds. Every man has existed in the loins of his father in precisely the same way as we existed in Adam; therefore if Adam’s sin entails guilt upon his posterity, the sins of every father have been entailed upon every child. Thus, lower realism, like higher realism, falls by the weight of its own fallacy.

"The theory [of representativism] is that God instituted a covenant with Adam whereby he was constituted federal head and representative of the race in the primitive probation. This federal headship constituted a moral or legal oneness of the race with Adam; so that the legal consequence of his conduct under the law of probation, and whether good or bad, might justly be reckoned to them. His obedience should thus be accounted to them as their obedience, or his transgression as their transgression. In this sense the probation and fall of Adam were the probation and fall of the race. Hence the guilt of his sin could be justly accounted to them.

" After the representative headship of Adam, there is still the question of the manner in which all men share his sin. It is not theirs [according to this theory] intrinsically or immediately, as from an actual sharing in the sin, but becomes theirs by a judicial act of divine imputation. This imputation, however, carries over to them neither the act nor the demerit of Adam’s sin, but only its guilt as an amenability to punishment. " The principal objection to this theory is that no such headship of Adam and no such covenant between Adam and God is even hinted at in the Bible. This theory denies a direct sharing of the race in the act of Adam’s sin. In this it differs from the realistic mode, and in this respect is more illogical than that model for if we had no part in the act of Adam’s sin, yet are made partakers in the guilt of his sin, the innocent are punished with the guilty. Such is plainly contrary to the justice and holiness of God.

What has been said in the examination of both the realistic and the representative mode of native depravity concerning the entailment upon the race of Adam’s guilt holds true with respect to the entailment of native depravity. Both theories maintain that the depravity of the race is a penal retribution on account of the sin of Adam, but penal retribution can not justly be meted out except on the ground of demerit or guilt. Such would squarely contradict the principle that no " just constitution will punish the innocent. " Any theory that would make native depravity a just penal retribution on account of the sin of Adam must prove that each individual of the race had a part in Adam’s sin and is therefore guilty of Adam’s sin.

TRUE THEORY OF NATIVE DEPRAVITY The genetic theory is the only true theory of the mode of native depravity. The genetic law was divinely instituted at the very beginning of life. " God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit, offer his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. And the earth brought forth grass and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good " (Genesis 1:11-12 ) . It is the determining law of species, and gives us the orderly forms of life. In vegetable life, in animal life, and in human life, the law holds good. The lion, the bear, and the tiger of today are substantially the same as such animals were in preceding generations. The lamb of today is the same docile creature that the young of sheep have been in all ages. Though environment, customs, governments, and religions have made external differences, yet the man of today is, in his constitutional qualities, the same humanity that he has been always and everywhere. This fundamental sameness, universal and abiding identity, can be accounted for in no other way than by the uniformity of the genetic law.

Originally what is now termed native depravity was not an incipient cause, but a resultant state; therefore, in this sense, it is analogous to the law of heredity. However, hereditary law is generally applied to the transmission of physical and mental characteristics only. Prof. Huxley ( Encyclopedia Britannica, 9th Ed., Art. Biology) states that, in general, characteristics that are acquired naturally (by which he doubtless means those unaccountable variations that sometimes rise) are transmissible, and tend to become more strongly pronounced in successive generations; whereas those that are produced artificially by mutilation are not generally transmissible.

It is unnecessary to give proof of the well known fact that in the various departments of organic life variations which have arisen "naturally" have been the means of producing distinct varieties in species- fixed forms, which breed true to their kind.

Now, there is no doubt that mental and moral characteristics are also transmissible, and tend to become more strongly pronounced in successive generations, resulting in a fixed form. The introduction of sin into the human family at the beginning beginning produced such a radical change in the moral constitution of man that a race type was thereby fixed. It is reasonable to suppose that Adam’s moral state, had he maintained his primeval innocence, would have been transmitted to his posterity. There might have been the lapse of individuals. through whom a distinct sinful type would have originated; but that would not have affected the entire race. But since the fountainhead of the race itself became corrupt the stream would naturally be corrupt -Adam brought forth after his kind. The penalty of Eden’s law was death, and when Adam transgressed that law, he died a moral death, which, as I have shown, radically changed his moral constitution. God fixed the genetic law, but Adam fixed the race type of the human family. Hence we read, "Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a SOD-not in the likeness and image of God, but-in his own likeness, after his image: and called his name Seth" (Genesis 5:3). Job says, "Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? Not one" (Job 14:4) David says, "Behold, I was shapen in iniquity. and in sin did my mother conceive me" (Psalms 51:5) From these texts we may clearly infer the transmissibleness of native depravity. In applying the genetic law to the transmission of native depravity, some have met the question, " If native depravity is received by transmission, why do the children of sanctified parents inherit depravity?" In other words, "Why is not redemptive purity transmissible on t h e same ground?" In answering this question we should remember that the transmission of native depravity is the result of the law of Genesis, " after his kind. " ’This does not always include slight variations in tile individual. "After his kind" in this case means after the nature of man. Sanctification is received by grace, whereas native depravity belongs to the constitution of mall. The salvation of the soul is a miracle. Being, therefore, not a constituent part of the natural man, but something superhuman, divine, and miraculous, salvation, unlike native depravity, is not transmissible by any law.

Even physical characteristics that are the result of accident are seldom transmissible. A man who has lost one arm, for instance, transmits to his children- "after his kind," not after his own body-two arms. In like manner, sanctified parents beget a child "after their kind," after the race type not after their own natures acquired by grace.

We conclude, then, that native depravity i s not transmitted as a penal retribution on the ground of any participation in the sin of Adam either really or representatively, but is transmitted to the race by genetic law, a law to which our natural life is subject.