For centuries theologians have debated the doctrine of total depravity,
the belief that people are holy and naturally corrupt due to original sin.
In this episode, I speak with Jonny Gibson who has edited a 1,000-page book on this topic.
We speak about why it's important as Christians that we have a clear grasp of sin
and what can go wrong if we don't. Welcome to Moore College's Centre for Christian Living podcast.
Today we're joined by Johnny Gibson, professor of Old Testament at Westminster Theological Seminary
in Philadelphia. Johnny, welcome to the podcast. Now we've had your wife, Jackie, and your brother,
David on this podcast, but we appreciate you for who you are. So can you tell us a little
bit about yourself, how you became a Christian, how you came into ministry?
Saving the best, the last, Pete. Yeah, I was brought up in a Christian home in Africa, East
Africa. Parents were missionaries there and heard the gospel from them from a young age. But I think
it was when we relocated to Northern Ireland and were attending a good Christian church and heard
the gospel from the minister, but also Mrs. Gallagher who taught me the gospel in Sunday
school and then obviously my parents at home. I think it was then that God opened my eyes to see
my sin and my need of a saviour and how Christ had died and risen again for me. So that was my
conversion, if you like. I don't have a moment, although I have many moments in those days,
but I don't pin my hopes on any one moment. But it was in those days, I think I was born again.
And then we were in a good Christian church for many years and discipled well through that. And
that was really the early stages of my Christian upbringing.
And then the journey into Christian ministry?
Did a gap year in South Africa, which had a big impact on me. Met a Reformed Baptist pastor who
introduced me to the doctrines of grace, put me onto good books. Charles De Kiewit, we've remained
close friends over the years, about 30 year friendship coming up. And I then returned to
Northern Ireland, studied physiotherapy for four years. But during that time I was brought up in
the Christian brethren. So I was doing quite a bit of itinerant preaching. And by the end of my four
year course, I was doing more preaching and Bible study leading than physio or interest in physio,
but didn't have the money to go to a seminary or a college at the time. So I worked for three and a
half years, saved up. And then in God's providence, I had a choice to go to Westminster in Philadelphia.
I got a scholarship for Philadelphia, but the timing didn't quite work out. And so I chose
Moore College, Sydney. And Jackie is very thankful I did.
Paul Maties That's right. So Jackie, your wife's from Sydney.
You have released a number of books, but you've just released a book which you've edited with your
brother, David, entitled “Ruined Sinners to Reclaim: Sin and Depravity in Historical, Biblical,
Theological and Pastoral Perspective”. Can you tell us a little bit about the origin of the book
and the series that it's part of?
Yeah. So it's the second book in a series of five. We are, Lord-willing, hoping to edit and publish
five books on the doctrines of grace. The first book that we did was called “From Heaven He Came
and Sought Her” on Definite Atonement in those four perspectives, historical, biblical,
theological, pastoral. And when we first did that book, and funny enough, that book actually had
its origins in Moore College. Doctrine 3, I think it was Mark Thompson, or one of the
doctrine professors, set an essay on limited atonement. I wrote the essay, but in the course
of writing the essay, I thought it'd be really good if there was a book that brought all this
together into one volume because I was having to go and find the historical stuff in one volume
and the biblical stuff in another and the theological in another. And I said to my brother
around the time of my wedding in 2007, I think there's some potential for a book on it. And he
said, well, let's put together a proposal. So anyway, we did, and that was accepted. And that
came out in 2013. And it was really well received. And at the time we just viewed it as a standalone
volume. But because it was so well received, we had the crazy idea to actually do four more.
And Crossway were crazy enough to be willing to publish the four more. And so we got all that
signed up in 2016. This is the next in the series on sin and depravity. We're hoping the others will
come out soon after, but in reality, the last one, “Perseverance of the Saints”, I think it'll be
published by our children. They're taking so long. The first one took six years. This one's taken
seven. So you do the maths and I think I'll be in glory in the intermediate state while my son, Ben
and Zachary try and pull the other one together. So the topic of this one broadly is sin. We'll get
to the details about that in a moment, but why do you think it's important for Christians to have a
clear understanding of sin? I think it's like any illness. If you don't diagnose it properly,
properly, you're not going to apply the right medicine or undergo the right kind of surgery
and the illness will get worse and you'll eventually die. So diagnosing is important
for prognosis and for prevention and for medicine. And that's really like sin. If we're not clear on
sin, then we're not going to be clear on what the gospel is. And think of what Paul says to
Timothy, this is a faithful saying and worthy of full acceptance that Christ Jesus came into the
world to save sinners. And so the gospel is predicated on the doctrine of sin. And if we
don't get the doctrine of sin right, we're not going to get the gospel right. And so if you think
that really our main problem is sickness, mental anxiety, some sort of relational disorder, and
that that's really what hinders you being a mature, healthy human being on planet Earth,
then you're going to look for your salvation in a psychologist or in some other system that might
actually fix some of those problems. But if you actually understand that your most fundamental
problem is that you're a rebel in the creator's world, a sinner, then you realize you don't need
a psychologist, you need a saviour. And so I think that's why it's important we're clear on the
doctrine of sin. More specifically, the book hones in on the doctrine of total depravity.
What is the doctrine of total depravity? What does it teach and why do you think it's important
in particular? So it's related to sin, obviously with the word depravity, but the adjective total
really relates to the extent of sin. To what extent does sin affect us? To what extent are we
tarnished by sin? And total depravity teaches not that you are as sinful as you possibly could be.
That's a caricature or a misunderstanding of total depravity, but rather that every facet of your
being is affected by sin, your thoughts, your desires, your words, your affections, your
emotions, your body, every aspect of your body and soul is tainted and corrupted by sin. So that's
really what the doctrine teaches. An illustration I use is imagine a glass of clean, cold water,
and you take a bit of purple dye, you drop it into the water and stir the water. Eventually you're
going to have a glass entirely full of purple water. And that's really what sin does. It is a
poisonous dye that's put into our being and our nature and it poisons all aspects of our being.
So I think total depravity relates to the doctrine of sin. We're liable to God's wrath.
We are incapable of any good. We are inclined toward evil in every way and we are left dead
in sin and enslaved to sin. And that's not what every Christian has professed through church
history. I think we'll maybe come onto that later, but that's really what the Reformed
doctrine of total depravity is trying to speak to.
When we turn to the scriptures, the term total depravity is not in the Bible. So
should that give us pause? If the doctrine is not mentioned in scripture, is it really there?
I think this is the whole thing about what Christian theology is. It's not just a sum
of biblical texts, an aggregate of them all added together and put into a paragraph.
It's really trying to synthesise what all those biblical texts are saying and then synthesise
all the internally related doctrines that impinge upon the particular doctrine you're looking at
and also to assess church history and see how did people in the past formulate this particular
doctrine. So the doctrine of the Trinity, the word Trinity is not in the Bible, but we all believe in
the doctrine of the Trinity. How do you get there? Well, you hold together various biblical texts
and then you synthesise other biblical doctrines and you do that in conversation with those who've
gone before us in the creeds and councils, et cetera. So total depravity, it's a theological
construct, but it's rooted in the Bible, not in speculation, not in historical theology in the
first place, but in the Bible. And I think three texts come to mind. There's numerous texts that
relate to the doctrine, but I would say Genesis 6, 5, the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was
great in the earth and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
Geerhardus Voss speaks about four aspects in that verse. He talks about the totality of sin, every
intention, the intensity of sin, the intent of the thoughts of the heart, the internal aspect,
the extensity of the sin, it was only evil, and the constancy of the sin, it was continual.
And I think that first really does actually capture total depravity in one verse, every intent of the
thoughts of the heart was only evil continually. Jeremiah 17, 9, the heart is deceitful above all
things, desperately sick, who can understand it? That's how complex the human heart is corrupted
by sin. And then Romans 1, the wrath of God has been poured out against all unrighteousness
and ungodliness. And Romans 3, Paul gives the vice list, there's none righteous, no not one.
There's none who seeks after God, no not one. And so we are enslaved to our sin. We're not just
sick with sin, we're dead in our sins. And more than that, we're enslaved to sin. So I think those
three or four biblical texts really root the doctrine in the Bible.
So that idea of slavery to sin,
Jesus talks about that, the one who sins is enslaved to sin. And there's a chapter in the
book on that. The other verse I was thinking about is just as an aside when Jesus is talking to his
disciples, not his opponents, but in Mark 7:11, he says, if you then who are evil, know how to give
good gifts to your children. You know, it's very striking, Jesus' verdict on his disciples is they're
evil. And it's confronting. But as you said, it runs throughout the entire Scriptures.
Yeah, and Romans 7, you see that sort of enslavement there, Romans 6, sin having
dominion over the unbeliever. And Romans 8, Paul speaks about without faith, it's impossible to
please God because we're enslaved to sin. Sin is an enemy and it's enmity against God, but it also
enslaves the Christian. Always struck by Psalm 51, the header at the top of Psalm 51, the Psalm
of David. When Nathan the prophet went to him after he had gone into Bathsheba, it's really actually
a huge theological statement that had the prophet not been sent to David, he would never have seen
the sinfulness of his sin with Bathsheba. It took a supernatural revelation from God through a prophet
to confront him because he was so self deceived with the sin. And even when he gives him the
parable of the man stealing the other man's use, he's like, bring that man to me and I'll have him
killed. He still doesn't even see the irony that it's him. And then the famous words, you are the
man. But it's when the prophet Nathan went to him, that is what is needed because we're so enslaved
to sin.
Will Barron As well as chapters on the biblical basis of total depravity, you spend a lot of time
considering historical perspectives. Why do you do that? Why do you think that's important?
Paul
Well, one of the things I teach my students here at Westminster, I have an introductory lecture I
give called beginning with the end in mind, where I sort of try to help them understand why they're
taking this particular course with me or why they're at Westminster. I put the curriculum up on a
PowerPoint slide and I showed them the connection between exegesis and hermeneutics, sort of one
box done in a biblical theological manner, another box that leads to systematic conclusions,
another box. And from systematic theology, which faces the world, we're able to answer the ethical
questions and the apologetics questions. Who is God? What is man? Who is Christ? And then from
there, when we've got our systematic theology and ethics and apologetics in place, we can now do
pastoral theology. We can preach, we can pastor, counsel, and we can praise God in light of what
we've seen. But then I say to them, well, where does church history fit in? Because all of those
boxes sort of go along one after the other. And I put it sort of floating above and below them. And
I do these feedback loops between each of those disciplines within a seminary curriculum. And I
say, what church history does, it does three things. It is the history of the exegesis of the Word of
God. As Carl Barth said, although he meant something different by Word of God to what we would
mean. But I like his saying, it's the history of the exegesis of the Word of God. It's the history
of the doctrinal formulation, how doctrine was formed in the midst of fights and heresies.
And third, it's ecclesial preservation. It's the history of how God preserved his people. So I say
church history does three things, history of how to interpret your Bible, history of how to formulate
doctrine, history, how the church has been kept through the ages. And that first one's really
important. So church history actually gives us the guardrails for our exegesis. It informs us that we
weren't the first people to try to interpret this text. And so we don't do our exegesis
de novo from new or tabula rasa blank slate. We pick up a chalkboard to do our exegesis and other
people have been writing on it before us and we should sort of take notice of what they've said.
And so that's why church history is important. And so that's why we have this particular section.
In each of these books, there'll be a section on perspective of church history because we want to
be informed in our exegesis of how others have interpreted the Bible. But also because we want
to be informed in our exegesis of how others have interpreted the Bible. And so we've got a
little bit of a discussion here about the church history. And I think it's important to think about
the church history because we are looking at this topic downstream, which is obvious. We're in the
21st century, the church has been going, the early church, at least from the days of the apostles.
And so we've got 2000 years of church history and we want to know what the categories are,
on the doctrine of sin. So you hinted earlier that not everyone has throughout church history
had the same understanding of total depravity. Can you say a little bit more about that?
Yeah. So I think there are four main isms that might capture the doctrine of sin in
church history. The first is Pelagianism from Pelagius, the British monk who was originally
from Ireland, but as you and I both know, he's from south of the border. He wasn't from the north.
That's better like that. Hence why he was a heretic. So Pelagius taught for any of our
Irish listeners. Are you a hundred percent sure he wasn't Welsh? I thought he was Welsh.
Oh, is he? Oh, right. I thought there was a connect. So maybe Celtic is the thing. I thought he
maybe spent some time in Ireland or. Yeah. Okay. There you go. Oh, my joke, my joke on the
southerners didn't work there. You're one joke. Yeah. Okay. So he was Welsh. We'll scrap that.
So Pelagius, fourth, fifth century British monk, he taught that human beings are born inherently
good. And really what makes them bad is society or relationships with other people or external
factors. So you're not born bad. Your will is not corrupt. Your will is free. And that's what he
taught. And Augustine was his big opponent. Augustine confronted this teaching in the church.
And Augustine taught that we were born in sin, conceived in sin, that we were enslaved to sin,
dead in sin, and that we had inherited that from Adam. And hence he really was the one who
articulated along with others, the doctrine of original sin, meaning that we had the guilt and
sin of Adam imputed to us because that's how we're connected to Adam. We're connected realistically.
We descend from him genealogically, physically, but really we're related to him federally.
And when he sinned and became guilty before God, we in him also became guilty and sinful.
So that was Augustine's response. So that would be the second ism,
Pelagianism, inherently good, Augustinianism, inherently evil, not as evil as you possibly
could be, but all aspects of your being, especially your will, corrupt and enslaved to sin.
Then there was a guy called John Cassian, fourth, fifth century, and he rejected Pelagianism,
but he didn't quite want to go with everything Augustine said. He didn't quite like his doctrine
of predestination. He wanted it to be a bit more conditional. And in regards to man, man was
not inherently good, but he wasn't inherently bad either. It was a sort of a midway. He was weakened
by sin, not enslaved by sin. He still had something of a free will. And so he taught that man would
make an initial move towards God and God would come and meet him in his grace and sort of complete
that move and he would be saved. And so this was what became known as Semi-Pelagianism. This is the
third ism, Semi-Pelagianism. And so the patient was sick and needed a helping hand. The patient
wasn't dead and needed resurrected like Augustine would say the patient was sick. And so it really
presented a synergistic, a salvation. Pelagianism presented a sort of auto-soterism where you saved
yourself because you were inherently good and you just needed to improve yourself. Semi-Pelagianism
was saying, no, you do have a problem, but you work with God. There's a synergism there to your
salvation. And then Arminianism, and sorry, I should say that Roman Catholicism is really
Semi-Pelagianism that the human being is born tainted by sin, but the grace of the church can
be infused into that person and they can then be saved. But also the person can resist the grace
of God. That was the other thing that John Cassian would teach that the human person still had enough
of a free will to resist God's grace. Well, the fourth ism is Arminianism, which is not strictly
speaking the same as semi-Pelagianism, but has a number of affinities with it. What Arminius did
in the 16th century and his followers, the Remonstrants in the 17th century, is he flipped
the order. God's grace comes to you first. It's provenient grace. But as a human being,
very like semi-Pelagianism, you are tainted by sin, but you're more weak than dead. You have a free
will and you can resist God's grace if you so choose. But if you by your free will choose not
to, then you'll be saved. So very similar to Semi-Pelagianism, but as I said, technically the
order of grace and free will flip around in Arminianism. So in one sense, you could condense
those four down into three. Pelagianism, man is morally well. Semi-Pelagianism, Arminianism,
man is morally sick, weak, and Augustinianism, man is morally dead and enslaved. And so that's
where church history is so helpful. You can now work with these three categories. And in modern
life, you look at our secular culture, you look at secular psychology or psychiatry,
it's inherently Pelagian. We are inherently good or neutral. Yes, we're not perfect, but the sin
or the bad that we have in our human nature, the immaturity, the problems in our relationships,
whatever they are, they have come to us from outside us. The problem is not in us, it's outside
us, it's society. It's the relational family tugs and ties that we have. These are the things that
affect our humanity and pull us down from being as good as we could be. And they're inherently
Pelagian. It's why they preach a false gospel. And the answer is not Semi-Pelagianism in Roman
Catholicism. It's not Arminianism in a lot of evangelical kind of churches. The answer is a
good solid Reformed doctrine of Augustinianism with respect to sin and therefore a Monergistic
view of salvation that only God is at work, ultimately raising the dead and expelling the
dead and releasing the slave and giving them new life and putting the desires in their heart
to seek after God. Because as Paul says in Romans 3, there is none that seek after God, no, not one.
So until God comes looking for us, we're not going to go looking for him. And I think Adam in the
garden is a good example of that, isn't it? He's hiding and it's God who comes looking for him.
He's looking for God.
Podcast Producer Karen Beilharz. For the first time ever, we are conducting a listener
survey to help us to get to know you and how you interact with the CCL podcast. We'd love it if you
could fill it in. There are only 10 questions and they're on stuff like how long you've been
listening to the podcast, whether you listen on your phone, your tablet or your computer,
or if you just read the transcripts and what you most like and least like about the podcast.
It should take around five to 10 minutes to complete and your responses will really help
us as we consider how to improve the podcast moving forward. You can find the survey link
in the episode description or the show notes or visit ccl.moore.edu.au/podcastsurvey.
That's one word, ccl.moore.edu.au/podcastsurvey. Thank you again for your
support. And now let's get back to our program. What are some of the theological implications?
You've touched on some already, but theological implications of the doctrine of total depravity?
I think the main one is we cannot save ourselves and that God has to come to us in order for us to
be saved. And we know that he has done that in the person of his Son because of the creator creature
distinction in order for God to actually mediate or provide a mediation for us or an atonement.
He has to actually become one of us. And we know that he's done that in the person of his Son,
but his Son cannot descend from the human race. He cannot be begotten of Adam. Otherwise he inherits
the sinful nature and he is a member of the covenant of works and Adam is the head of the
covenant of works. And so Adam would impute to him guilt and sin. And so that's why the virgin
birth is so crucial to our doctrine of Christ that he was not begotten of Joseph. He was conceived by
the Holy Spirit in the womb of the Virgin Mary. And so he could have a perfect human nature
and then live a perfect life under the law, credit righteousness to us because of that,
and then die the death that he didn't deserve, but that we deserve for our sin to give us the
forgiveness that we need. And then he raised a new life and to enter into a state of humanity that
is incorruptible. And it's the glorified state. Christ and his resurrection state is in his
glorified state, which is the state of humanity to which he will escalate us. And so in reform
teaching, they talk about the four states of man. I think it was Thomas Boston wrote the book,
The Four States of Man. Man is made in the state of innocence, original righteousness.
He falls into the state of sin. God rescues him into the state of grace, but that's not the end.
God is waiting to escalate us into the state of glory. And that escalation is only possible
because of what Christ has achieved in his life. So I was reading this week, Gerhardus Voss, he said,
Christ does not win for us what Adam lost. Christ wins for us what Adam could have achieved for us.
So Adam never escalated humanity into the state of glory. He was in a state of innocence
and righteousness, but it wasn't confirmed righteousness. It wasn't the immutable glorified
state body and soul. It was an unstable state. Adam could sin. Adam could not sin. It was his
choice. Christ takes us into a state of confirmed righteousness, of immutable glory, where we cannot
sin. And so he escalates us. So you can see that the doctrine of sin and depravity is connected to
these kind of theological discussions. And as you point out, you talked about the glory of the
gospel. And so having a clear view of our sin and our depravity, yes, it should sober us, but also
it points us to the wondrous glory of Christ and what he has done for us. And so it's a tremendously
encouraging doctrine in a strange way because it shows us the beauty of Christ.
Yeah. And Nancy Guthrie, who kindly endorsed the book, she said as she was reading it, she found
herself quite burdened by the chapter after chapter on sin. And yet she said she found herself
really delighting and rejoicing in the gospel at the same time that, wow, what God has saved us from
in Christ is just amazing. So as well as the historical perspective,
the theological implications, there are also a number of chapters drawing out the pastoral
implications of the doctrine. Could you say something about some of the pastoral implications
of this doctrine? Well, I guess it's back to that point that if you don't get the diagnosis right of
an illness, then you're not going to apply the right medicine or take the right radical surgery
that's needed to deal with the problem. And I suppose that would be perhaps in the area of
concupiscence, which is really the technical word for desire or passion or lust. New Testament
speaks about good desires, good passions, but also majority of uses of the word, where word group
is negative, sinful, lust, it's lust of the flesh. And so what do you do with concupiscence?
Is concupiscence sin? And some people like to say, well, no, it's not good that you desire those
things, but as long as you don't act on them, you haven't sinned. The desire is only sin if it's
acted upon. You know, often James 1, 13 to 15 is used that people are tempted. God doesn't tempt
anyone, but people are tempted when they're by their own desires, their own concupiscence,
their own sinful desires. They are led into temptation. And if they give way to the temptation,
then they sin. And people think, okay, there you go. There's a distinction between temptation and
sin. And so temptation itself isn't wrong. If you feel some lust in your heart for something,
whatever it be, money, car, another woman, another man, as long as you don't act on it,
you haven't sinned. But that's really a Roman Catholic doctrine of sin. And that's one of the
things that this book tries to really make clear. We have a whole chapter on concupiscence and
Stephen Wedgworth writes that one and he traces the doctrine from all through church history.
And then he applies it into contemporary contexts with some contemporary writers
and engages where he thinks have gone off either side of the road in regards to concupiscence.
And so I guess the really practical issue today, a common one is this discussion of same-sex
attraction is same-sex attraction sin. And I think evangelicals have inadvertently, not deliberately,
but inadvertently slipped into sort of a Roman Catholic view of same-sex attraction that as long
as you don't act on it, you're not sinning. But Protestant Reformed orthodoxy taught that any
concupiscence that is sinful desires, lust is itself sin. That even if you don't act on it,
just the fact you have the desire is itself sin and is to be repented of. So the 39 articles
speaks about sin, concupiscence being an infection of nature. The apostle does confess that concupiscence
and lust has of itself the nature of sin. And if it has the nature of sin, then it is to be
repented of. Now this is the distinction between original sin or what other reformers would call
habitual sin. Peter Vermingly calls it habitual sin and actual sin, the act of sinning. And what's
interesting in the liturgies of the reformers, they in their confessions of sin speak about
confessing not simply the acts of sin, but also original sin, habitual sin, and that both are
confessed before God and the request is made for forgiveness and that the Holy Spirit would renew
our natures, renew our thoughts and lead us to walk in ways that are worthy of him.
So I think this is really an important area from a pastoral perspective, because if we don't get
this right, what we're going to do is we're going to leave people in their sin and we're going to
let them create little fiefdoms. And it might not be same-sex attraction. It might be some other
lust or sin or covetousness or whatever it is that they think, well, as long as they don't act on it,
then I'm not actually sinning. And it becomes a little fiefdom in their life that the Holy Spirit
and the minister as he preaches the word is not allowed to go there. He's not allowed to touch it
because that's my little domain of my identity or that's just who I am. It's come down to me. I
didn't choose it. And I think this is where hopefully our book can start to speak into some
of those issues and actually show that we really need to get the doctrine clear and the theology
clear so that we can get the pastoral application clear. What about this idea that as Christians,
we should be living the victorious Christian life. How does the book speak to that idea?
I think what you'll find by the end, we have a chapter in the book by Mark Jones on the sinlessness
of Christ. That was a deliberate move, obviously on our part, because it's a book full of sin.
And we thought, well, let's actually have something positive to say. I wanted a chapter where we could
not just hold Jesus up as an example of a sinless person, but to show that our salvation is
dependent on Him being sinless. Now Christ died for our sin as the sinless one. So there's the
four on behalf of in the place of as a substitute. But Romans six says he died to sin. That
preposition to is really important. He didn't just die for the penalty of sin. He died to the
power of sin. And then Paul in Romans six makes the point precisely because Christ died to the
power of sin to the dominion of sin. Sin did not have any dominion over him ever in his life,
but he died to it. We should not let sin reign in our bodies. It should not have power over us.
And so therefore the victorious Christian life is something that we should be talking about and
living. So long as we also qualify that with now you will never be entirely victorious until
you're glorified or enter the intermediate state, but you are in Christ. Sin no longer has dominion
over you. And I think this is the problem with back to the same-sex attraction discussion. When
people put that compound adjective on the front of Christian, it's an oxymoron. I'm a same-sex
attracted Christian. I would be like me going around saying I'm an other woman attracted Christian
or I'm a covetousness attracted Christian. Well, do I struggle with covetousness? Sure. If I meet an
attractive woman, do I have lust in my heart that rise itself? Yes. I have to put it to death,
but we don't go around identifying ourselves with a sin on the front of the word Christian.
We are Christians. We're not yet perfect, but we're Christians. We're in Christ.
Sin shall not have dominion over us. So let's talk like we're Christians. We are in Christ.
We're putting to death the deeds of the flesh, but we are not to identify with that old world,
with the present evil age. We are now seated in the heavenly realms. We now belong to the age to
come. It is broken in Christ's resurrection and Christ is coming back to consummate that age
in his return. And we belong to that age, to the heavenly age, not to the earthly age. And so to
find Christians identifying themselves with what belongs to the earthly age is really quite
concerning. And it's also really liberating that if you are struggling with these things, you can
view yourself as in Christ connected to the age to come seated in the heavenly realms. And therefore,
by his spirit, you have the power to put those things to death.
Wonderful, Johnny, thank you so much for
your time with us today. Thank you for editing this book. It's a wonderfully rich reflection on this
very important doctrine. I thought I might finish just by reading the verse of the hymn by Philip
Bliss that the title “Ruined Sinners” is taken from it. It's a wonderful hymn that we sadly don't sing,
well, certainly in my circles, we don't sing very much these days. Man of Sorrows, what a name,
for the Son of God who came, ruined sinners to reclaim. Hallelujah. What a Saviour.
Amen.
To benefit from more resources from the Centre for Christian Living, please visit
ccl.more.edu.au where you'll find a host of resources including past podcast episodes,
videos from our live events and articles published through the Centre. We'd love for you to subscribe
to our podcast and for you to leave us a review so that more people can discover our resources.
On our website, we also have an opportunity for you to make a tax-deductible donation
to support the ongoing work of the Centre. We always benefit from receiving questions
and feedback from our listeners, so if you'd like to get in touch, you can email us at ccl.moore.edu.au.
As always, I'd like to thank Moore College for its support of the Centre for Christian Living
and to thank my assistant Karen Beilharz for her work in editing and transcribing the episodes.
The music for our podcast was generously provided by James West.