Featured Why are We Totally Depraved?

Mark 13, you are closer than you think to understanding Romans 5, you are asking the right questions.

Rom 5:12 says death passed upon all men because that all men have sinned. This is speaking of spiritual death, and it is speaking of personal sin. As Albert Barnes the theologian asked, how is it possible that men sin any other way?

In verse 13 and 14 Paul is proving that all men between Adam and Moses had law. Now, there was only one law, not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and these men could not possibly break this law as the tree was secured by an angel.

Nevertheless, men died. Why? Because they broke the law written on their hearts that Paul explained in Romans 2. You saw this, and you are correct. Paul said they were "without" law, but then said they were a law unto themselves.

So, Paul is not saying that Adam's sin was unconditionally imputed to us, he was saying all men conditionally die because all men have sinned whether there is a written law or not. And their death proves this.

Scripture says that God never imputes the sin of the father to the son.

Eze 18:20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

Now, once you see that Paul is saying death is conditional (and it is, the wages of sin is death) then you will understand this passage quite differently.

Adam is the example, or father of sin and death. If we follow his example and sin as he did, the penalty of death will be imputed to us.

Jesus is the example, or father of faith and life. If we trust God as he did, we will have righteousness imputed to us.

Some folks say God cannot have faith, but they are mistaken. Jesus willingly died and entrusted his spirit into his Father's hands to raise him up as he had promised in the scriptures.

Luk 23:46 And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost.

Look up the word "commend", it means to entrust. So, Jesus had faith, he trusted his Father to raise him up as promised.

So, both death and life are conditional. You must sin as Adam did to die, you must believe as Jesus did to live. That is basically what Paul is showing in this passage.

Where folks go wrong is assuming that Adam's sin is imputed to us. Therefore you do not have the exact like/unlike design in this passage. Once you see that both life and death are conditional, there is no contradiction. God does not impute anyone's sin to another as shown in Eze 18:20.

As far as Eve, we do not have any evidence that God directly commanded her not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, so it is not a stretch to believe she was taught by Adam. The fact that she made an error when repeating this law seems to imply she was not taught well. The scriptures also say she was deceived, where Adam was not. Adam knew exactly what he was doing and was therefore accountable.

There are other possible answers, both Adam and Eve are called "Adam" in Gen 5:2. This is possible, but I think unlikely.

And though this may be politically incorrect, scripture seems to imply that women do not have as much spiritual discernment as men, and are forbidden to teach men. I don't know if this is what scripture is really saying, but it does seem to hint at this.

1 Tim 2:12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

That said, there are many women who are much more spiritually mature and knowledgeable than men, Timothy himself was instructed in the scriptures by his grandmother and mother. So perhaps I am off base here.

You are on the right track. I do not claim to be infallible, simply compare what I have said to scripture and ask God to give you understanding.

 

Show us Aaron, is this "Aarons Conjecture"? Following God's creative acts we are informed that God saw things as "good" and "very good". Seems to me that about the only thing you can speculate with any degree of certainty is that God created Adam with the potential to rebel. Oh, but I forget to read your quote......."simply right". So I guess we should just all accept that bit of sage wisdom.

 

Again, from a universal, non-optional principle cited by Christ, a good tree cannot bring forth bad fruit. A good man, as Christ defines good, neither can nor will sin.

Corruption precedes disobedience.

 

Jesus did not say our nature is determined.

Mat 12:33 Either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by his fruit.

Whether we are a good tree that produces good fruit, or a corrupt tree that produces corrupt fruit is within our own power. It is a choice.

 

Guys, putting my moderator hat on for minute.

I've noticed that it is becoming more common to rename other posters as a subtle method of insult. Please don't do this. I know Aaron started this by renaming me "Scandal," but I gave him permission to do that as it is the root meaning of my screen name. A scandal is bringing something that is wrong to light, thus I consider this to be a compliment not an insult. I'd change my screen name to that if it were possible.

 

Are you assuming that all trees are corrupt?
He did say a good tree brings forth good fruit. And the fruit of Adam was good. It was good up until he sinned. As far as we know it was even good after he sinned. He lived 930 years. But God created him good. In fact God looked upon all that he created, including Adam, and said that it all was very good.

 

To Iconclast and WinMan:

I did read both of your posts, so thanks. Not in the frame of mind to debate at the moment, will consider both your responses. Icon thanks for mentioning I Cor 15 - it does help a lot.

Winman, just one brief observation in passing, do you have an answer for the following (I imagine you do):

(Exo 34:7 NKJV) maintaining love to thousands, and forgiving wickedness, rebellion and sin. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children and their children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation."

(In comparison to Ezekiel 18:20 which you quoted.)

---------------

Also, to winman, re Genesis 5:2 which refers to Adam and Eve collectively as "Man". I think that may be relevant. Also it says in Genesis that Adam and Eve were one flesh, that is really emphasized. To me that indicates that Adam may be receiving imputed guilt for what Eve did, in that she came directly from him. But I also want to reiterate, I don't see at all how it was a matter of Eve just being tricked or deceived as if she was just a little child. You look at what the Serpent, Satan, enticed her with, "to be like God". That is what she was responding to. That is what she wanted. That is what Satan originally wanted for himself and for which he was eternally condemned. The serpent didn't make her believe that God didn't forbid the fruit. She never doubted that God forbade it, so in what way was she tricked. It was knowing rebellion on her part. That is why somehow I am inclined to think that Paul has misconstrued the nature of the Genesis story. I can hardly believe I am saying that. But at multiple points Paul talks about naive little Eve, the babe in the woods in so many words. In one passage he admonishes his readers, "for just as the Serpent deceived Eve, I fear you have been led astray from a sincere devotion to Christ". And then of course in the passage in 1 Timothy 2, once again Paul says she was deceived. But that was Eve's own rationalization for what she did. Of course she is going to put the best spin on it. But she desired what Satan desired for himself, to be like God.

------------

Also, eating the fruit did make Adam and Eve like God, and the reason they were kicked out of the Garden of Eden is to prevent them from eating from the tree of life, which God says would have completed the formula that would make both Adam and Eve gods.

 

The Westminster Confession has some good points and some points I might disagree with.

My slight departure from the Westminster Confession concerns the imputation of guilt, something mentioned in our discussion here.
Perhaps it is a mere misunderstanding of the Westminster doctrine on my part.

I’m not entirely convinced that the scriptures say we carry Adam’s guilt.
We carry Adam’s nature; we are condemned because we are sinners by nature (the nature we inherited from our forefather Adam).

With this way of thinking I am not condemned because of Adam’s sin; I am condemned by my own sin.

Rob

 

We have enough of our own "guilt' for sure.....But romans 3:23 indicates we sinned in him...at that point in time...i will look into the guilt question....
the confessions and cathechisms are only guides.and not infallible..agreed!

 

These are some of God's disobedient children. We are all disobedient at times. The natural (unregenerate) man will not seek a spiritual God, 1 Cor 2:14.

 

Eph 2:2-3, Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience; 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. Sounds pretty depraved to me. 1 Cor 2:14, But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God; for they are foolishness unto him; neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. Sopunds like the natural man is without any righteousness. The wicked, through the pride of his countenance, will not seek God. Ps 10:4.

 

This passage doesn't say one word about being BORN depraved. It says "Wherein in time past ye walked". This is speaking of an active walk in sin.

Babies have not committed sin, they have not "walked" in sin.

Rom 9:11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth; )

Paul shows that babies have done neither good or evil. They have not sinned, neither have they done anything good. Esau and Jacob were very much alive in their mother's womb when this was said of them.

The scriptures do not show that babies are sinners, in fact they clearly say they are not. Men go astray and become sinners AFTER they are born.

 

Babies do not "commit sin" in the sense of the koine Greek present participle. They do not lust or meditate on sin, neither do they plan their sin or have sinful practices because the sin nature has not matured in them.

Babies (I am the father of 11 children) are self centered and selfish from the outset with selfish behavior building to match (grabbing things, striking out at others their siblings and even their parents).

Things which their mother and I never taught them but tried to inhibit which became increasingly difficult as they grew. We loved them nonetheless, taught them and disciplined them in the word of God.

Before an apple tree matures to the point of bearing apples it is still an apple tree. The apples prove it's nature passed on to it from the progentor apple tree.

The first wilfull sin with understanding committed by a child proves he/she is the offsping of a progenitor that was a wilfull sinner.

Romans 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:​

Sin is universal and unlearned, there are no exceptions (save Christ of course). ALL have sinned.​

Total depravity is our potential:
Genesis 6:5 And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.​

After the flood, governments came into being which have the effect (but not completely of course) to hold in check or restrain this depravity and keep us in fear of reprisal (For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil).​

That is not to say unregenerate mankind is incapable of "good works" as a class of a social good work and law keeping. ​

Romans 13 shows that government has been ordained to keep our depravity in check as well as to do well to one's neighbor.​

Romans 13:1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:
4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.​

HankD​

 

HankD,
I dont remember if you participated in an earlier thread asking the question of what Adams children would have been like had he and Eve not sinned. Do you really think that they would be any different than your children? Yes, imagine them just laying there silently waiting for people to give them food, clothing, comfort, toys, entertainment, etc. Wouldn't happen imo. They would have made the same progression that your and my children made, without any inherited "sin nature". Whatcha think?

 

Hanks comparison of a sinner to an apple tree is not accurate as sinner describes a human in the way "apple maker / producer" describes an apple tree. Nobody would say an apple tree produces apples until it has done so, same applies to the label sinner (or rapist, liar, abducter, etc.)

 

It isn't sin for a baby to cry when hungry. It is sin when he hits his sister. Hitting is the fruit of the sinful tree. It proves what kind of tree he is.

 

good post....you follow scripture:thumbs:

 

you missed Hanks point....missed it completely....or...you got it, but will not admit it

an apple tree does not produce watermelons...it produces apples

 

If they have not sinned, then they are not a sinner. Are you a bank robber? No, because you have not robbed a bank (that I know of). This applies to anything. Are you a skydiver? I'm not, because I have never jumped out of a plane with a parachute. You have to sin to be a sinner.

And this describes Eve in the garder BEFORE she ate the forbidden fruit. She desired it, the scriptures say so.

Gen 3:6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

According to your definition, Eve was created with a sin nature, but the scriptures say she was VERY GOOD.

I agree, having 8 children, but they also know good.

Then how do you explain that Adam and Eve sinned? They were the offspring of God.

This verse says DEATH passed upon all men, it does not say SIN passed upon all men. When you teach that this verse says sin passed upon all men you misrepresent the Word of God. ​

You cannot sin until you are born. Paul was not saying unborn persons have sinned, he was saying all men that had been born to the present time HAVE sinned. How do I know this? Because in the next verse he says without law, there is no trangression. Then in verse 14 he says that all men (up to his present day) have died nevertheless. Why? Because they had broken the law written on their hearts he spoke of in chapter 2. ​

Now, I agree that it is implied that all men WILL sin. But Paul was speaking of the past and present in these verses, not the future. ​

Rom 5:13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.​

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.

Paul is speaking of the past here, not the future.

Free will enables sin. Adam and Eve were very good by God's own standard, yet they both had the potential to sin. Having the potential to do something does not equate with actually doing it. I have the potential to jump off a tall building, but I have never done so. I have the potential to rob a bank, but I have never done so (yet). ​

If men are utterly enslaved by a sin nature, there would be no such thing as "good" works. Calvinism contradicts itself, saying men are "enslaved" to sin, then freely admits men often do good. This is a contradiction. If men are truly enslaved to sin, then EVERYTHING they did would be evil.

See what I mean, you just contradicted yourself. ​

I agree that govenment is to keep evil in check, but not all unregenerate persons are evil. Many unregenerate people behave better than Christians and are good citizens. ​

We are all born with free wills and have the potential to do either good or bad. It is a choice.​

​

 

Your response is an excellent one; I very much enjoyed reading it!