Article XIV – Of the Creation and Fall of Man, and His Incapacity to Perform What is Truly Good

As the above title suggests, the contents of this article has to do especially with three considerations concerning man: his creation, his fall, and his incapacity to perform what is truly good. We shall therefore also treat this article according to this threefold division. I. Man’s Creation. It should be noticed first of all that what is said about man’s creation is definitely confession of faith. There is here no attempt by logical reasoning or argumentation to account for the origin of man. Our confession knows of no theories, such as the Evolutionary theory. Neither would it philosophize about the origin and development of man. But our fathers proceed immediately to express only their faith on this matter. The fact is, there is no other way to express it. The Evolutionists will never be able to answer the questions their theory presents. They are not only against the standpoint of faith, but also against the reality of all things. This standpoint of faith must be ours also. Never should we argue with anyone who will not proceed from the standpoint of faith, much less when the argumentation turns about the subject of creation in general or the creation of man in particular. This standpoint of faith is expressed in Hebrews 11:3: “Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the Word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.” What is said in this text of the creation of the worlds in general, applies also to the creation of man in particular. Only by faith can we know and understand the creation of the human body and soul. We notice too that God created the entire man after His image and likeness. God created Adam and Eve; and in them, the entire human nature and race. Also the creation of man was preceded by a Divine speech. Gen. 1: 26, 27: “And God said: Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; …so God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.” Gen. 2:7: “And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.” I Cor. 15:45: “And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.” Man was made a living soul (psyche). He was created out of the dust of the ground and therefore is closely related to the cosmos. He was the crown of creation. Man is not a product of two separate Divine creation acts, but of one act that is two-fold. He is constituted one complete organism. And the woman is created out of the man. Gen. 2:21-23. Among all the creatures there could be found none who would be “a help meet for Adam”. So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon him, and while he slept, God took from him a rib, whereof He made the woman. “And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of man.” vs. 23. Here God laid the foundation for marriage, and the propagation of the human race. “Therefore shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.” Gen. 2:24. “And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth.” Gen. 1:28. Man was created after the image and likeness of God. This means that man, in body and soul, was so created that in a creatural sense he was like God, resembled Him, and was a creatural expression or reflection of Him. That man is created also in the likeness of God does not mean that something was added to the image. Rather, we must understand that there is no essential difference between image and likeness, but the likeness expresses what the idea of the image is. It is a likeness of God. This image of God in man is usually distinguished two-fold: the image in its narrower sense and in its wider sense. By the image in its narrower sense is understood the fact that man is created in true knowledge, righteousness and holiness. And by the image in its wider sense is understood the fact that man is created a rational-moral creature in distinction from the animal. This distinction, however, is not above criticism. Our main criticism is that it opens the way for the argument concerning the fall of man that he lost not the image of God completely. We have more to say of this when we discuss the fall of man presently. Here, we simply call attention to the distinction as such. Because we believe it leads to the possibility of error, we prefer to distinguish thus: the image in its formal sense, and the image in its material sense. The former refers to the essential nature of the image, namely, its spiritual essence: true knowledge, righteousness and holiness. And the latter refers to the fact that man is an image-bearer, since in body and soul he is composed a rational-moral creature. When man sins and falls, he loses the image, but he continues an image-bearer, now, of course, not of God but of the devil. Questions: 1. Of which three main subjects does this article treat? 2. How must we answer one who refuses to accept the Genesis narrative of the creation of man? 3. Will you explain Gen. 2:7? 4. What is the distinction: image and likeness? (Gen. 1:26) 5. How was Eve created? 6. Is the woman subordinate to the man because of creation or the fall? 7. What does Lord’s Day III, Qu. 6, have to say of man’s creation? 8. What does the Canons (Art. 1 of IIIrd & IVth Heads) have to say of man’s creation? 9. How should we distinguish the image of God in man? 10. How is man, by virtue of creation, created a covenant creature? II. Man’s Fall Into Sin. Man, by virtue of his being created a rational-moral creature and in the image of God, was thus created a covenant creature. He was placed by God in a covenant relation to Him. This covenant has been generally designated a “Covenant of Works”. Accordingly, it is said when God established this covenant with man, He stipulated three things: A Condition, A Promise, and a Penalty. God had placed man in the garden of Paradise where he is commanded to dress and keep it. In the midst of this garden were especially two trees, the tree of knowledge of good and evil, and the tree of life. Concerning the former, God gave a special command that man should not eat of it, for in the day that he would eat of it, he would surely die. Of the latter, man was commanded to eat of it and live. Now it is said that the covenant God made with man consisted first of all in the condition of eating or not eating of the forbidden tree. The promise was that if man would not eat of the forbidden tree, but of the tree of life, he would live forever; While the penalty was that if he ate of the forbidden tree, he would die that very day. Concerning the promise further it is said, that if man passed the period of probation without transgressing, the time would come that he would merit eternal heavenly life. Against this conception there are several serious objections. First, it is to be noticed that in the Genesis narrative (Gen. 2:15-17) no condition whatever is spoken of. All we read there is “And the Lord God commanded the man, etc.” A command is quite different from a condition. Secondly, no mention is made of a promise at all. Nowhere do you read that God promised man eternal life, much less, eternal heavenly life on condition of obedience. This promise is supposed. Thirdly, though you do read of a penalty, namely, death in the day he would transgress, this penalty is not contingent on a condition but on the command not to eat of the forbidden tree. Fourthly, we object to the idea that man by his obedience could merit anything with God. Suppose that Adam had not transgressed, would there come a time that he could say to God: “Now Thou must give me eternal heavenly life, I earned it?” You feel immediately this cannot be true. Rather, if man had always remained obedient, he would still have to say: “I am only an unprofitable servant. I did only what I was required to do.” Fifthly, if Adam could have merited eternal heavenly life, it is indeed deplorable that he sinned. For by his sin he made the very Son of God in human nature to suffer and die. This all could have been avoided if man had remained obedient. But such a conception fails to reckon with the truth that Adam was earthly, and flesh and blood cannot enter the Kingdom of Heaven. The only way that Adam or any other could enter eternal heavenly life was through the Last Adam, the Lord from heaven. Though we deny such a thing as the “Covenant of Works” with the above meaning, we also believe that God placed man in a covenant relation to Himself. We chose to call this relation a “Covenant of Friendship”. Man, by virtue of creation, stood very high. He was prophet, priest and king under God. He could rightly know God, his Creator, and speak to and of Him. He could serve his God, consecrating himself and all things unto His service. And as king, he ruled over the earthly creation (not the heavenly). Man also possessed a free-will. By this you must not understand that he was absolutely free, God only is absolutely free. But man was called with that freedom of will to serve His God. We understand, therefore, man’s free will to be so constituted that it was lapsable. He was so created that he could will to serve His God or he could will to depart from Him. In this sense Adam was unique, i.e., there has not been another like him after him. After the fall, man is free only to choose sin and corruption. But before his fall, man was free to serve his God as God’s friend. He was, therefore, not free absolutely so that he could will independently of God, but he was free to serve his God as a covenant friend, Man was a friend-servant. Man sins, however, and therefore falls from his high estate by the instigation of the devil. Though Scripture does not dwell on it, the narrative of the fall of man presupposes the fall of the devil. Sin has its beginning in the angel world, and is extended to the earth and to man. How holy beings, such as the angels, could sin, is a mystery. That they did sin, however, is a fact fully substantiated by Scripture and experience. And by the temptation of the devil, man also was enticed and led to transgress. He sins, and separates himself from God. Thus making himself liable to both corporal, spiritual and eternal death. It is to be noticed that man by an act of his own will sins. The fall into sin, did not take place outside of his will, but willingly man transgresses. He is therefore responsible and guilty. Of his guilt and corruption we treat in the next lesson. Questions: 1. What is the “Covenant of Works”? 2. Do you have any criticism to offer concerning this “Covenant of Works”? If so, what? 3. What do you call the relation of Adam to God? 4. What three-fold office did man possess by virtue of creation, and what is significant of each? 5. Did Adam have a free-will? What do you understand by this? 6. Does man still have a free-will? 7. What does Article 1 of Canons III & IV have to say about the fall of man? 8. What is sin? Who is the first sinner? 9. Relate the Genesis narrative of the fall of man briefly? 10. Does Gen. 2:9 contain the doctrine of the “Antithesis”? If so, how and where? III. Man’s Incapacity to Perform What is Truly Good. By one act of disobedience man’s whole nature became guilty and corrupt. He lost the image of God. We underscore the word “lost” because we would emphasize this word in all its implications. He lost the image absolutely. Nothing of it remained. He ceased reflecting the image of God, and, in fact, the image was changed into its very opposite. Since the fall, natural man reflects the image of the devil. However, that man lost the image of God entirely does not mean that he ceased to be an image-bearer. No! he remains an image-bearer forever after his creation. By this we mean, that the fallen man continued to be a man. He did not change into another form. He did not become an irrational animal such as a dog or an elephant. No! He continued to be a man, an image-bearer, and one in whom it can clearly be seen that he once was capable of reflecting God’s virtues in a creaturely way. In other words, he continued to be a thinking, willing and responsible creature. However, that man lost the image of God entirely does not mean that he ceased to be an image-bearer. No! he remains an image-bearer forever after his creation. By this we mean, that the fallen man continued to be a man. He did not change into another form. He did not become an irrational animal such as a dog or an elephant. No! He continued to be a man, an image-bearer, and one in whom it can clearly be seen that he once was capable of reflecting God’s virtues in a creaturely way. In other words, he continued to be a thinking, willing and responsible creature. It is undoubtedly with reference to this that this article speaks of “and only retained a few remains thereof.” And Article 4 of the 3rd & 4th Heads of the Canons declares: “There remain, however, in man since the fall, the glimmerings of natural light, whereby he retains some knowledge of God, of natural things, and of the difference between good and evil, and discovers some regard for virtue, good order in society, and for maintaining an orderly external deportment. But so far is this light of nature from being sufficient to bring him to a saving knowledge of God, and to true conversion, that he is incapable of using it aright even in things natural and civil. Nay, further, this light, such as it is, man in various ways renders wholly polluted, and holds it in unrighteousness, by doing which he becomes inexcusable before God.” The reason why we dwell on this is because men who call themselves Reformed have made much of these “remnants” and have asserted that due to a certain “Common Grace” of God man did not become totally depraved. He was indeed inclined to become such, but God prevented this by the interposition of “Common Grace”, and so, naturally man did not become as depraved as he might have become had not the “Common Grace” spared him. We deny this, and declare that it is a heresy which is contradicted by Scripture and the Confessions. In the article of the Canons above referred to, it is plain that our fathers insist that whatever remained in man after the fall is wholly corrupt, in fact, “this light, such as it is, man in various ways RENDERS WHOLLY POLLUTED, AND HOLDS IT IN UNRIGHTEOUSNESS.” The Heidelberg Catechism (Lord’s Day II Qu. 5 and Lord’s Day III Qu. 8) also teaches the total depravity of man. And the Scriptures in many passages teach this truth. (Look up the following: Genesis 6:5; 8:21; Ps. 14:1-3; 51:5; 53:1-3; Isa. 1:5, 6; Jerm. 17:9; Rom. 3:10-19; Rom. 7:18; Rom. 8:7, 8). Man therefore is totally corrupt and incapable of doing any good and inclined unto all evil. All his light changed into darkness, all his righteousness became unrighteousness; all his holiness became corruption; all his knowledge became foolishness. He wills only to do evil continually. Yet, he remained, after the fall, a thinking, willing, and a responsible being. As far as the natural man is concerned, it would have been better for him had he changed into a dog or some other creature. Yes, it would have been better that he had never been born. He would not then be responsible for all his acts. But he didn’t change into another creature, and he is born, and he is a willing, thinking, desiring, knowing creature, who shall be treated as such before the tribunal of God. The truth to remember here is: that man lost all of God’s image, and this is replaced with the image of the devil. While man continued to be an image-bearer. Man lost the image in the formal sense, but retained it in the material sense. (See page 40 of our previous discussion.) Questions: 1. What is meant by “Total Depravity”? 2. What is meant by the “few remains” in this article? 3. How is the doctrine of Common Grace a denial of Total Depravity? 4. How do you explain the “will” of Rom. 7:18? 5. What terrible disadvantage is it for the natural man that he remained an image-bearer? 6. What advantage is it for the Christian that he remained (as fallen man) an image-bearer? 7. Give a brief review of Article 5 of the rejection of errors of the Illrd & IVth Heads in the Canons? 8. What does the first part of our Baptism Form have to say about “total depravity”? 9. If there is any good in man, how does Phil. 2:12, 13 account for it? 10. In what way does the doctrine of evolution contradict the doctrine of total depravity?