GCLI Notes on Book III -- Original Sin

GCLI Book 3 has a lesson on The Doctrine of Sin and Man: Shattered Humanity. Pastor Doug Brown, who wrote the lesson, quotes another pastor, J. Sidlow Baxter, a few times concerning original sin. Brown uses Baxter's comments on Romans 5:12-14. Here's the passage from Romans.

Romans 5:12-14
Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned—for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.

Here is Baxter's commentary on the passage.

J. Sidlow Baxter
Guilt is a legal term. There is guilt only where there is actual transgression. Human babes inherit hereditary moral and physical consequences of Adam's fall, but they are not born guilty! There simply cannot be guilt unless there is trangression. Ronmans 5:13 settles that once for all: 'Sin is not imputed when there is no law (i.e. where there is no trangression). The point made in Romans 5:13-14, is that sin and death continued between Adam and Moses, yet because the Law was not yet given, men were not transgressors after the similitude of Adam, who transgressed a specific command. Mark well that clear distinction which Paul makes: Sin and death naturally inherited, but guilt not imputed!" (p. 36, GCLI Book III, Pastor Doug Brown quoting J. Sidlow Baxter)

This interpretation of the passage seems to go against the larger context of the passage. The passage may tangentially apply to human babies, but the passage is referring to people who died after Adam and before Moses. Baxter's view of sin in his commentary seems to contradict Romans 6:23, which teaches, "For the wages of sin is death." The pre-Mosaic people can be defined as sinners (e.g. Cain, Lamech, mankind before the flood). Is J. Sidlow Baxter asserting all these people who died physically in the pre-Mosaic era escaped judgement and are now in heaven? I asked Brooks about this quote and he pointed me to his sermon in the Roman series. It is a difficult passage, but I think Brooks would agree with the following theologians: Martin Luther, John Calvin, Charles Hodge, Charles Ryrie, John Stott, and John Piper. The following quote is a little difficult to read, but Hodge's commentary on the passage is the most concise summary of the position that I could find.

Charles Hodge
1. That the words evidently admit of this interpretation as naturally as of the other. Paul simply says, the persons referred to did not sin as Adam did. Whether he means that they did not sin at all; that they were not sinners in the ordinary sense of that term; or that they had not sinned against the same kind of law, depends on the context, and is not determined by the mere form of expression.

2. If ver. 12 teaches that men are subject to death on account of the sin of Adam, if this is the doctrine of the whole passage, and if, as is admitted, vers. 13, 14 are designed to prove the assertion of ver. 12, then is it necessary that the apostle should show that death comes on those who have no personal or actual sins to answer for. This he does: 'Death reigns not only over those who have never broken any positive law, but even over those who have never sinned as Adam did; that is, who have never in their own persons violated any law, by which their exposure to death can be accounted for.' All the arguments, therefore, which go to establish the interpretation given above of ver. 12, or the correctness of the exhibition of the course of the apostle's argument, and the design of the whole passage, bear with all their force in support of the view here given of this clause. The opposite interpretation, as was attempted to be proved above, rests on a false exegesis of ver 12, and a false view of the context. Almost all the objections to this interpretation, being founded on misapprehension, are answered by the mere statement of the case. The simple doctrine and argument of the apostle is, that

THERE ARE PENAL EVILS WHICH COME UPON MEN ANTECEDENT TO ANY TRANSGRESSIONS OF THEIR OWN; AND AS THE INFLICTION OF THESE EVILS IMPLIES A VIOLATION OF LAW, IT FOLLOWS THAT THEY ARE REGARDED AND TREATED AS SINNERS, ON THE GROUND OF THE DISOBEDIENCE OF ANOTHER.

In other words, it was "by the offense of one man that judgment came on all men to condemnation." It is of course not implied in this statement or argument, that men are not now, or were not from Adam to Moses, punishable for their own sins, but simply that they are subject to penal evils, which cannot be accounted for on the ground of their personal transgressions, or their hereditary depravity. This statement, which contains the whole doctrine of imputation, is so obviously contained in the argument of the apostle, and stands out so conspicuously in the Bible, and is so fully established by the history of the world, that it is frequently and freely admitted by the great majority of commentators.(pp. 155-156, Charles Hodge's Commentary on Romans)

After Pastor Brown treats the topic of "Original Sin" in the lesson, He moves on to the topic of "Total Depravity."

Doug Brown
"...although man is spiritually dead and needs regeneration to a new spiritual life, he is not morally dead, even though sadly perverted. He is not only alive to moral good, but constitutionally bound to appreciate it when it is truly perceived, however much he may resist it. Being spiritually dead, man is utterly unable to regenerate himself; but being morally alive he can at least respond to the truth which regenerates. (p. 37, GCLI Book III)

I would agree that man is "constitutionally bound to appreciate" moral good. I don't understand how a man can a person be spiritually dead, but morally alive? What part of man makes moral decisions? According to Ephesians 2:1, we are dead in our trepasses and sins. If that is not a moral death, I'm not sure what is.

Brown quotes J. Sidlow Baxter again to define the doctrine.

J. Sidlow Baxter
"The phrase "total depravity" means all parts of man's mental and moral nature is infected with sin. Sin extends to the whole person-spirit, soul, and body (1 Thessalonians 5:23). "It means all the parts' of man are affected, it does not mean that all the parts are all bad... There is no human body on earth which absolutely free from disease. From birth, evary part is affected in greater or lesser degree by that hereditary infection which eventually issues in death. Yet though all parts are affected, it is utterly untrue to say that all parts are all disease. Degrees of disease, latent, dormant, chronic, may co-exist with degrees of health in the same body." (p. 37 Brown quoting J. Sidlow Baxter).

This analogy to me is confusing to me. What point is he trying to make? Man is not totally depraved in every part? If so, how can it be called "Total Depravity?" This may not be Sidlow's fault. The format of the GCLI materials lends itself to short quotes and he may have been taken out of context. For a clearer definition of the doctrine, I turn to Ryrie's Basic Theology.

Charles Ryrie
Every facet of man's being is affected by this sin nature. (1) His intellect is blinded (2 Cor. 4:4). His mind is reprobate or disapproved (Rom. 1:28). His understanding is darkened, separated from the life of God (Eph. 4:18). (2) His emotions are degraded and defiled (Rom. 1:21, 24, 26; Titus 1:15). (3) His will is enslaved to sin and therefore stands in opposition to God (Rom. 6:20; 7:20).

The scriptural evidence provides the basis for what has been commonly called total depravity. The English word "depravity" means perverted or crooked. It is not used in the translation of the King James Version, but some modern translations do use it to translate adokimos in Romans 1:28. This word means "not standing the test" and gives us a clue as to how to define the concept of depravity. Depravity means that man fails the test of pleasing God. He denotes his unmeritoriousness in God's sight. This failure is total in that (a) it affects all aspects of man's being and (b) it affects all people.

Negatively, the concept of total depravity does not mean (a) that every person has exhibited his depravity as thoroughly as he or she could; (b) that sinners do not have a conscience or a "native induction" concerning God; (c) that sinners will indulge in every form of sin; or (d) that depraved people do not perform actions that are good in the sight of others and even in the sight of God.

Positively, total depravity means (a) that corruption extends to every facet of man's nature and faculties; and (b) that there is nothing in anyone that can commend him to a righteous God.


Total depravity must always be measured against God's holiness. Relative goodness exists in people. They can do good works, which are appreciated by others. But nothing that anyone can do will gain salvational merit or favor in the sight of a holy God. (pp. 252-253, Basic Theology: A Popular Systematic Guide to Understanding Biblical Truth)