Are Humans "Children of Wrath" and "Slaves of Sin" by Nature from Birth?

Statements such as "children of wrath," "slaves of sin," and "children of disobedience" are biblical phrases, but the way they are used in classic Reformed theology---following teachers like RC Sproul---often reflects systematic assumptions more than careful, contextual exegesis.

subsection*1. The Reformed Use of These Phrases

In Reformed theology, such terms are typically taken to mean:

• Every human being, from conception, is by nature a child of wrath, under God's judgment.
• Every person is a slave of sin in such a way that he or she is unable to respond positively to God.
• All are children of disobedience from birth, with a nature fixed in rebellion.

These descriptions are then folded into a doctrine of total depravity and total inability, where:

• The image of God is viewed as so marred that people cannot exercise meaningful moral agency toward God.
• Regeneration must occur first, enabling faith, because in their natural state people are wholly incapable of responding.

This reading is often supported by selective use of biblical proof texts, interpreted through a pre-existing theological lens.

subsection*2. The Need for a Literal, Contextual Reading

I believe many of these applications arise from theology books and later systems rather than from a close, literal, grammatical, historical reading of the texts themselves.

Consider some points:

1. The image of God Scripture presents humans as created in the image of God and continues to speak of humanity as bearing that image even after the fall and after the flood. The image is damaged by sin but not annihilated. That means humans retain real capacities---moral, rational, volitional---that ground meaningful responsibility.
2. Scriptural references to righteousness While passages say, "There is none righteous, no, not one," we also read of individuals like Zechariah and Elizabeth described as "righteous" in their generation and before the law. This indicates that such universal statements have a contextual and covenantal dimension, not a flat, abstract universality that erases all distinctions in how people respond to God.
3. Contextual use of "children of wrath" and similar phrases When Scripture uses terms like "children of wrath" or "children of disobedience," these are often addressing specific audiences in specific conditions---people who have chosen disobedience and unbelief, not merely those who exist as human beings. To universalize these terms as an ontological description of every human from conception goes beyond what the text itself demands.

subsection*3. The Doctrine of Man: Image and Choice

A sound biblical anthropology affirms that:

• Humans are created in the image of God, and that image includes real moral agency.
• People are universally sinners; all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.
• Yet individuals retain the capacity to respond to God's revelation, to believe or to reject, and are held accountable precisely because that capacity is real.

Reformed theology often collapses these truths into an anthropology in which:

• Humans are treated almost as metaphysical automata at the moral level---incapable of doing anything but sin until sovereignly regenerated.
• Phrases like "children of wrath" are treated as a timeless, universal, ontological label for all humans from conception.

I regard this as a serious distortion. The biblical picture is that we become slaves of sin, children of disobedience, and so forth, through choices and patterns of rebellion. These descriptors are not mere synonyms for "human being" or "descendant of Adam."

subsection*4. Nature vs.~Choice

The key difference is between:

• Saying, "Because of Adam's sin, every human is in a fallen condition and inevitably sins," which I affirm, and
• Saying, "Every human is, from conception, a child of wrath and a slave of sin in such a way that he has no real possibility of responding to God," which I reject.

The latter view undermines:

• The meaningfulness of God's appeals to repent and believe.
• The integrity of moral responsibility and judgment.
• The enduring reality of the image of God in all people.

It also conflates positional or covenantal status (e.g., being under wrath due to unbelief) with ontological nature from birth, which the text of Scripture does not consistently support.

subsection*5. A Better Starting Point

Instead of starting with systematic categories like total depravity and then reading them into every anthropological text, we should:

1. Establish interpretive rules: read Scripture literally, grammatically, and historically. Words carry a range of meaning within context; they must not be spiritualized or allegorized to fit a system.
2. Let each passage speak within its specific situation: who is being addressed, under what covenant, in what stage of redemptive history?
3. Maintain the biblical tension: humans are genuinely sinful and under judgment apart from God's grace, yet also genuinely responsible and capable of responding to that grace.

When this method is followed, the rigid Reformed portrayal of all humans as "children of wrath" and "slaves of sin" in a total-inability sense gives way to a more nuanced biblical picture: we are image-bearers who universally sin and incur wrath by our unbelief and disobedience, yet we remain morally accountable and genuinely addressed by God's appeals.

subsection*6. Conclusion on RC Sproul's Statements

RC Sproul was a capable theologian within the Reformed tradition, but on this point I believe he allowed his system to drive his exegesis. The repeated use of phrases like "children of wrath" and "slaves of sin" as blanket descriptors of human nature from conception reflects:

• A theological tradition deeply shaped by post-biblical formulations.
• An anthropology that downplays or redefines human moral agency.
• A failure to let the context and exact wording of Scripture set the boundaries of meaning.

In contrast, a careful literal, grammatical, historical reading of Scripture leads to this conclusion:

• Humans are created in the image of God and retain that image.
• All people sin and come under wrath because of unbelief and disobedience, not merely by existing.
• Terms such as "children of wrath" and "slaves of sin" describe real, serious conditions that arise in the course of human response to God, not an ontological status that makes genuine response impossible.

On that basis, I disagree with Sproul's use and application of those terms as they are commonly employed in Calvinist anthropology.

% === 021026.tex ===