Total Depravity

[TibiasDad]

Neither is your's

I never said it was.

Which is a lie. Jew has a definition. Gentile has a definition.

I never said they didn’t.

You don't speak for Paul.

I never said I did.

I wonder why Paul said....

Rom 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression

Context (you are fond of that word remember) PY:

12Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned—

13To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law. 14Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come.

Paul’s main point is that reigned over all mankind, even before the “law” of Moses was established. If there is no law, sin is not held against us. Death means sin is present in us, even if we haven’t been exposed to the “law”. To sin doesn’t mean we are accountable for it. Even sins of ignorance, however, are sins, for they needed sacrifices made for them. (Ezk 45:20)

Abel didn't sin and you claim that he did. You're a false accuser. The same with many other men. You have a false gospel that deceives.

Then why did God command sacrifices of Cain and Abel? Scripture says “all (humans born of Adam) have sinned”, “there are none righteous, no not one”!

Did Abel need a Savior?


Doug

 

[Waylon]

We are living in the day of God’s grace. The Day of Judgment has not yet come, and until that day, this is what the kingdom will look like: Good wheat in a field laced with weeds.

Each generation has wickedness and evilness to deal with. The bible says that it gets worse and worse each generation. Our generation has the ability to destroy the earth with nuclear weapons.

The Bible says that “evil men and impostors will go from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived” 2 Timothy 3:13

Matthew 24:10-20​

10 And then, going from bad to worse, it will be dog-eat-dog, everyone at each other's throat, everyone hating each other.
11 "In the confusion, lying preachers will come forward and deceive a lot of people.
12 For many others, the overwhelming spread of evil will do them in - nothing left of their love but a mound of ashes.
13 "Staying with it - that's what God requires. Stay with it to the end. You won't be sorry, and you'll be saved.
14 All during this time, the good news - the Message of the kingdom - will be preached all over the world, a witness staked out in every country. And then the end will come.
15 "But be ready to run for it when you see the monster of desecration set up in the Temple sanctuary. The prophet Daniel described this. If you've read Daniel, you'll know what I'm talking about.
16 If you're living in Judea at the time, run for the hills;
17 if you're working in the yard, don't return to the house to get anything;
18 if you're out in the field, don't go back and get your coat.
19 Pregnant and nursing mothers will have it especially hard.
20 Hope and pray this won't happen during the winter or on a Sabbath.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

It’s why God wiped them out with the flood

That's not an answer as to what made them more wicked than any other generation since.

 

[praise_yeshua]

12Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned—

Within the context of Paul's sermon/epistle, this fits perfect. No, this does not mean that all men die because of personal sin.

Does the child in the womb have personal sin? You certainly make exceptions to Romans 5:12 because Paul is not referencing human children in the womb. Paul is not referencing Abel.

If you want to attribute personal sin to all human beings regardless of context and personal knowledge of their sin, then you're not an honest man.

To use your favorite words myself... GENERALLY, Paul is dealing with the historical narrative that NOW existed among humanity at this current point in his sermon/epistle. As I have already said, All men sin. However, this does not mean there was a time when MEN... did not sin. Even NOW, the innocent are victims of death without personal sin.

Pro 6:16 These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him:
Pro_6:17 A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood,

I know I know..... your theology doesn't believe in innocence.

Did Abel need a Savior?

Why certainly. He was under the judgement of death even though Abel did not personally sin himself. Just like Paul said......

Rom 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

Abel was innocent. He was murdered. He was under the judgement of sin because of Adam's sin and Cain's sin of murder. Death is an acknowledgement of the judgement of sin even among the innocent.

 

[praise_yeshua]

That's not an answer as to what made them more wicked than any other generation since.

Their choices. Sin always gets worse and worse and worse as it is accepted as being "good". You know this. You're just ignore any alternative answer other than the one you want to believe. Don't pretend it isn't an answer. It is.

 

[TibiasDad]

Within the context of Paul's sermon/epistle, this fits perfect. No, this does not mean that all men die because of personal sin.

I didn’t say that physical death is because of personal sin. That is a Calvinistic concept. There is a difference between the effects of sin on the race as a whole and the guilt rendered upon us by actually committing sin. Physical death is a temporal effect of sin upon the race as a whole; spiritual death, permanent separation from God, is individually assessed based solely upon our personal response to the gospel.

Does the child in the womb have personal sin?

A fetus is not a morally responsible being yet. As was said of Jacob and Esau, “before either of them had done any good or bad”, they were not morally accountable for any actions before they were born.

You certainly make exceptions to Romans 5:12 because Paul is not referencing human children in the womb. Paul is not referencing Abel.

Abel wasn’t in the womb. Abel was a morally responsible adult making choices about what he did in response to God’s instructions to him.

Again, neither of us can say anything concrete about Abel except that which is written in the Bible. My argument is not based on anything written about Abel, but on what is written about the human condition as a whole. “All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.” That’s what Paul was talking about in Rom 3. All Jews and all Gentiles (which includes everyone) fall short of the glory of God. It was true when the Psalms were written and true when Paul quoted them centuries later and concluded that “all” have sinned.

You, on the other hand, cannot say Abel didn’t ever sin just because there is no record of it in Genesis or any other scripture. That is an argument from silence.

Pro 6:16 These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him:
Pro_6:17 A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood,

Innocent blood doesn’t mean that they were sinless, but that they were not guilty of anything that warranted them being killed. Murdered people are not sinless, but their death was not legally justified to be carried out by the one who killed them.

I know I know..... your theology doesn't believe in innocence.

Not true at all! From a divine perspective, as Paul clearly stated, where there is no law, there is no guilt for sin. I think that cognitive awareness of these laws also plays into the equation. God is the only one who can adjudicate at what point that occurs in any given person’s life, but it certainly means that “selfish” behavior in toddlers is not held against them, though it is evidence of their being under the corruption of sin. In my 64 years of life, 43 years of marriage, 40 plus years of pastoral service, and 38 years of parenthood I have I ever seen a young child have to be taught to say “No!” “I don’t want to…” is an instinctive response in every human being from the earliest days of life.

Doug

 

[Rockson]

I didn’t say that physical death is because of personal sin. That is a Calvinistic concept. There is a difference between the effects of sin on the race as a whole and the guilt rendered upon us by actually committing sin. Physical death is a temporal effect of sin upon the race as a whole; spiritual death, permanent separation from God, is individually assessed based solely upon our personal response to the gospel.



A fetus is not a morally responsible being yet. As was said of Jacob and Esau, “before either of them had done any good or bad”, they were not morally accountable for any actions before they were born.



Abel wasn’t in the womb. Abel was a morally responsible adult making choices about what he did in response to God’s instructions to him.

Again, neither of us can say anything concrete about Abel except that which is written in the Bible. My argument is not based on anything written about Abel, but on what is written about the human condition as a whole. “All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.” That’s what Paul was talking about in Rom 3. All Jews and all Gentiles (which includes everyone) fall short of the glory of God. It was true when the Psalms were written and true when Paul quoted them centuries later and concluded that “all” have sinned.

You, on the other hand, cannot say Abel didn’t ever sin just because there is no record of it in Genesis or any other scripture. That is an argument from silence.


Innocent blood doesn’t mean that they were sinless, but that they were not guilty of anything that warranted them being killed. Murdered people are not sinless, but their death was not legally justified to be carried out by the one who killed them.


Not true at all! From a divine perspective, as Paul clearly stated, where there is no law, there is no guilt for sin. I think that cognitive awareness of these laws also plays into the equation. Gos is the only one who can adjudicate at what point that occurs in any given person’s life, but it certainly means that “selfish” behavior in toddlers is not held against them, though it is evidence of their being under the corruption of sin. In my 64 years of life, 43 years of marriage, 40 plus years of pastoral service, and 38 years of parenthood I have I ever seen a young child have to be taught to say “No!” “I don’t want to…” is an instinctive response in every human being from the earliest days of life.

Doug

Well thought out responses.

 

[TibiasDad]

Well thought out responses.

Thank you!

Doug

 

[praise_yeshua]

I didn’t say that physical death is because of personal sin. That is a Calvinistic concept. There is a difference between the effects of sin on the race as a whole and the guilt rendered upon us by actually committing sin. Physical death is a temporal effect of sin upon the race as a whole; spiritual death, permanent separation from God, is individually assessed based solely upon our personal response to the gospel.

No. It is not just a "Calvinist" doctrine. It has been around for a very long time and predates the Incarnation. There are concepts of it throughout certain Jewish theological sects. It has long be used as means of control and false doctrine among the faithful. YOU came to it from the students and followers of the "Reformation".

You have repeatedly insisted that Abel sinned from the statement "all have sinned". I get tired of this "slippery pig" you're becoming.

A fetus is not a morally responsible being yet. As was said of Jacob and Esau, “before either of them had done any good or bad”, they were not morally accountable for any actions before they were born.

Abel wasn’t in the womb. Abel was a morally responsible adult making choices about what he did in response to God’s instructions to him.

Innocence extends beyond those in the womb and you're ignoring this in your response. I don't say they were exactly the same. They are similar in the facts of innocence. You make an exception for life in the womb and even life in the womb makes choices. Many a child has unknowingly wrapped themselves in their own "cord" that resulted in their own death. Your arguments are rudimentary and nonsensical.

You, on the other hand, cannot say Abel didn’t ever sin just because there is no record of it in Genesis or any other scripture. That is an argument from silence.

You are being ridiculous. There is no evidence for the sin of Abel and we draw conclusion from evidence. Not the lack thereof. You need to understand an "argument from silence" and the arguments of ignorance".

Cain is most certainly evidence in this narrative. The sin of Cain is clear and is contrasted against the innocence of Abel.

You're demanding that Paul's statement is a explicit reference to Abel when Paul does not include Abel in this statements in Romans 3. That sir is a "argument from silence" from YOU. It has nothing to do with me.

Innocent blood doesn’t mean that they were sinless, but that they were not guilty of anything that warranted them being killed. Murdered people are not sinless, but their death was not legally justified to be carried out by the one who killed them.

Again. Wrong. Innocence is a lack of guilt. It is not exclusively relative to just murder. Nor have I applied as only relative to murder.

"lack of guile or corruption; purity"

Not true at all! From a divine perspective, as Paul clearly stated, where there is no law, there is no guilt for sin. I think that cognitive awareness of these laws also plays into the equation. God is the only one who can adjudicate at what point that occurs in any given person’s life, but it certainly means that “selfish” behavior in toddlers is not held against them, though it is evidence of their being under the corruption of sin. In my 64 years of life, 43 years of marriage, 40 plus years of pastoral service, and 38 years of parenthood I have I ever seen a young child have to be taught to say “No!” “I don’t want to…” is an instinctive response in every human being from the earliest days of life.

Doug

Pay attention to what I say. I'm appealing to Abel and those/many before the flood as being innocent and devoid of guilt. Pay attention. Your experience means nothing. You're worse than they are. You're offspring is worse than they were. Your comparison is utterly preposterous. As a good Calvinist/Arminian that you are, you do not see the truth of your guilt relative to generation after generation of men continually failing God.... over and over and over and over again. You're endlessly impacted by the successive generations of sinful men and their foolish traditions you blindly accept without question. Again. You're a component Wesley Arminian. That isn't saying much of anything. It just means that you know how to put the "grease on" when you're trapped.

There really isn't anything you just stated that makes you any different than a Calvinist that believes in Total Depravity. In fact, the the only reason most of them are not "patting you on the back" is because of the group you claim. What you believe about this is in "total lock step" with Calvinism and Reformed theology.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Well thought out responses.

Arminians think alike. That is all.

Join the conversation.

 

[TibiasDad]

There is no evidence for the sin of Abel and we draw conclusion from evidence.

There is no evidence for the lack of it either! I have never said anything contrary to what you say above; I have made the same argument about your claims.

My argument from Romans logically can mean exactly what I believe it says; that “all” means every human born of Adam’s seed. Including his first two sons and eventually Seth.

As for sounding Calvinistic, your argument says “all” doesn’t mean all at all! So not every one has sinned, not everyone is unrighteous. In other words, “all” doesn’t always mean all. That is classic Calvinism!

The first rule of hermeneutics is the simplest natural meaning is probably the right reading. To get to your conclusion you have to be an Olympic gymnast and jump through hoops of your own design.

Call me what you will, but my education taught me that the simplest meaning is the correct meaning unless there are clearly stated modifiers that qualify a more specific meaning. You claim Romans has such modifiers, but have not demonstrated their existence in the text.

Innocence extends beyond those in the womb and you're ignoring this in your response.

I did not ignore anything! I said that young children are not held accountable for their actions until they have the ability to cognitively understand the “law”, that some things are right and others are wrong. Where there is no law, sin is not held to their account!

I don't say they were exactly the same. They are similar in the facts of innocence. You make an exception for life in the womb and even life in the womb makes choices. Many a child has unknowingly wrapped themselves in their own "cord" that resulted in their own death. Your arguments are rudimentary and nonsensical.

There is no choice without cognition. A fetus doesn’t have rational thought. Your assertion is a prime example of “nonsensical”! To believe you is to accuse the unborn child of suicide.

Doug

 

[Rockson]

My argument from Romans logically can mean exactly what I believe it says; that “all” means every human born of Adam’s seed. Including his first two sons and eventually Seth.

Of course and it's nonsensical to even suggest that ones like Abel didn't sin. If we can't take that for a given that would mean we're accepting as a notion he didn't even need a Savior. Such a way of reasoning is esoteric , weird and unusual to say the least

 

[3in1]

Are you saying that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually BECAUSE they lived 500-900 years? So if they had died under 100 years of age, that wouldn't be true?

The longer a person lives in sin the more depraved and wicked they become. It’s spreads like cancer over time. It gets worse not better.

 

[civic]

The longer a person lives in sin the more depraved and wicked they become. It’s spreads like cancer over time. It gets worse not better.

Spot on my friend !!!

 

[TibiasDad]

Of course and it's nonsensical to even suggest that ones like Abel didn't sin. If we can't take that for a given that would mean we're accepting as a notion he didn't even need a Savior. Such a way of reasoning is esoteric , weird and unusual to say the least

It’s very gnostic thinking indeed! Logically speaking, it would seem to me that if everyone is born “Neutral” that at least a few people, even today, would not have sinned. But that would make a mockery of scripture and of the need of Christ.


Doug

 

[brightfame52]

Does the scripture set forth man naturally as Spiritually Dead in sin ? Eph 2:1-3,5

And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins;

2 Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:

3 Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.

5 Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved)

Col 2:13

13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;

Rom 5:15

15 But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.

 

[Rockson]

And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins;

But we all believe this too. But let me ask you something. Before you were quickened or made alive in the spirit were you not alive IN SOME SENSE, where you could hear, respond and were you not conscious to understand and respond to words said to you?

 

[brightfame52]

But we all believe this too. But let me ask you something. Before you were quickened or made alive in the spirit were you not alive IN SOME SENSE, where you could hear, respond and were you not conscious to understand and respond to words said to you?

Before quickening, we are alive physically, but this is about spiritually dead in sin. Thats depravity.

 

[Jeff]

People being deceived by Calvinism often appeal to isolated verses found in the bible taken out of context to support their theological system. In an effort to construct the doctrines of total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistible grace, and the perseverance of the saints.

It amazes me that those who hold to Calvinism take so many passages out of context. Take John 6:44 for example.

No one is able to come to Me unless the Father Who sent Me attracts and draws him and gives him the desire to come to Me, and [then] I will raise him up [from the dead] at the last day.

To the Calvinist the word "draws" does not suggest a wooing or enticement; instead, it suggests an irresistible dragging to Christ as they have no free will. I can't believe that God would want robots to serve him.

Draw Definition​

to be drawn closer to someone: to become fonder of someone, to develop stronger feelings for someone IDIOM
to be drawn to someone: to be attracted to someone IDIOM
to draw (someone's attention): to attract (someone's attention) VERB

• "Your stunning progress in grammar has risen prodigiously over mere months, and you have finally mastered the present perfect tense, which has only drawn me closer to you."

Jesus gives us his own commentary on John 6:44.

“This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled them.” -John‬ ‭6:65‬

Jesus could have clarified His meaning by saying, “This is why I told you no one can come to me unless the Father drags or makes him.”

 

[brightfame52]

@Rockson

were you not conscious to understand and respond to words said to you?

Sure naturally, but not Spiritually,