Original Sin as it Pertains to Total Depravity

[Arial]

First we must give an accurate definition of the doctrine of Original Sin and from there we will see how the doctrine of Total Depravity is a necessity when the doctrine of Total Depravity is also correctly defined.

Original sin does not refer to the first sin of Adam but rather to the result of it for the entire human race. Adam stood as the federal head, (representative) of all mankind. He was created very good---that is, perfect, knowing and doing only good. Good is defined by the goodness of God. Anything less, is not good (as being sin and evil). Here, we must be careful to not use our own definitions of good and evil, particularly in defining evil as what we would see as evil based on social norms. Evil is the absence of perfect good. Or defining good as good deeds we do. Good is God's definition of perfect as he is perfect. We were created to bear this image.

When Adam fell from that state of perfect goodness, he corrupted the entire human race. That is what original sin refers to. We are born in the condition of being a corrupted sinner. It extends to all people born everywhere and at all times. That is who we are in Adam. Sinners.

It is this that sets the stage for the Doctrine of Total Depravity. It describes the extent to which sin has affected human nature. It reaches to every aspect of a human being. His mind, will, emotions, body, and soul, rendering him incapable of reconciling himself to God. Man is totally reliant on God's grace for salvation, and only God, himself can do the reconciling. That is why the "T" is the first doctrine in what is known as the Doctrines of Grace.

If man is totally reliant of God's grace for reconciliation, that means that nothing man does will bring it about. It can't be just grace offered and the choice of accepting or rejecting held out to the sinner. The minute they decided to accept, grace became nullified. And such a view implies that grace offered is what changes a person from a sinner at enmity with God into one who is no longer at enmity with God, who reconciles himself to God, by doing what it is impossible for him to do. Choosing to be reconciled while still dead in his sins. And if the offer is rejected, the grace that supposedly gave him the ability to be what he is not, didn't actually do what it is claimed (in this view) to have done. That being, to have changed the person from one thing to another. He is still the same as he was. The "change" would not have been a change at all, but a momentary blip in the condition in which all humans are born. A momentary, imaginary, offer of reconciliation that was not a reconciliation at all.

 

[Odë:hgöd]

Original sin does not refer to the first sin of Adam but rather to the result of it for the entire
human race.

One of the results of Adam's disobedience was that it made everyone a sinner-- the
entirety of mankind from infants to senior citizens; no exceptions.

● Rom 5:19 . .Through the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners

FAQ: Did Jesus' virgin conception isolate him from the results of Adam's
disobedience?

REPLY: The results of Adam's disobedience aren't inherited. For example: Eve was
fully formed with material taken from Adam's body prior to his eating the forbidden
fruit, so it was impossible for him to pass the results of his disobedience to her by
means of heredity.

FAQ: Well; if Jesus was made a sinner the same as everybody else by means of
Adam's disobedience, then how can 1Pet 1:19 honestly say he was a lamb without
blemish or spot?

REPLY: Jesus committed no sins of his own to answer for. (John 8:29, 2Cor 5:21,
Heb 4:15, 1Pet 2:22)
_

 

[Arial]

REPLY: The results of Adam's disobedience aren't inherited. For example: Eve was
fully formed with material taken from Adam's body prior to his eating the forbidden
fruit, so it was impossible for him to pass the results of his disobedience to her by
means of heredity.

That Eve was formed from Adam's body has nothing to do with anything. That was pre-fall. Neither Adam or Eve had become sinners. It would be very easy to respond to your post and immediately completely derail the thread by taking up the subject of how Jesus was not a sinner if his mother was. Is that why you posted it?

 

[Odë:hgöd]

That Eve was formed from Adam's body has nothing to do with anything. That was pre-fall.
Neither Adam or Eve had become sinners.

The primary point of my comment is that the results of the original sin are not
inherited from one's parents. The chronology of Eve's construction with material
taken from Adam's body is very key to establishing my point as a fact rather than
fiction.

It would be very easy to respond to your post and immediately completely derail the thread by
taking up the subject of how Jesus was not a sinner if his mother was. Is that why you posted it?

I threw Jesus into the mix for the benefit of the many folks that I encounter online
from time to time who are exceedingly curious to know where and how the original
sin fits into Jesus' human experience.

* For the record; I have no interest in discussing his mom's spiritual condition.
_

 

[Odë:hgöd]

That Eve was formed from Adam's body has nothing to do with anything. That was pre-fall.
Neither Adam or Eve had become sinners.

According to 1Tim 2:13-14 Eve and her husband were a sort of tag team in the
forbidden fruit incident. However, according to Rom 5:19 it wasn't until Adam
tasted it that she became a sinner.

Apparently the command "you shall not eat from the tree of the knowledge of
good and evil" was intended for Adam only. In point of fact, chronologically, he
was given that command before Eve was constructed.
_

 

[Arial]

According to 1Tim 2:13-14 Eve and her husband were a sort of tag team in the
forbidden fruit incident. However, according to Rom 5:19 it wasn't until Adam
tasted it that she became a sinner.

Apparently the command "you shall not eat from the tree of the knowledge of
good and evil" was intended for Adam only. In point of fact, chronologically, he
was given that command before Eve was constructed.
_

Do you agree with the doctrines of Original Sin and Total Depravity?

If so, do you agree with the OP or have any expansion on it?

If not, (with either or both) why not and what is your scriptural support for your position?

 

[John Bauer]

[Adam] was created very good—that is, perfect, knowing and doing only good. Good is defined by the goodness of God. Anything less is not good (as being sin and evil).

I agree with your post overall and have nothing substantive to contribute other than addressing this particular bit. It is ironic that you said "we must be careful to not use our own definitions of good and evil" here, because the definition you used is not found in the relevant texts.

It is not talking about moral goodness, as indicated by Genesis 2:18 where the text refers to something that is not good. "It is not good for the man to be alone," God said—but he didn't mean sinful or evil. The term good (and its negation) must be understood in a covenantal and teleological context, referring not to moral goodness or intrinsic value but functional fitness, harmony, and appropriateness within God's ordered creation. In other words, something is "good" when it conforms to God's sovereign design and purpose.

But your argument overall would remain intact, because the original sin plaguing mankind is still "not good" especially in this sense. Fallen humanity is not functionally fit, out of harmony, and at odds with God's ordered creation. We look to Christ to see what a very good humanity looks like, who perfectly conformed to God's sovereign design and purpose for man and to whom believers are being conformed.

 

[Arial]

I agree with your post overall and have nothing substantive to contribute other than addressing this particular bit. It is ironic that you said "we must be careful to not use our own definitions of good and evil" here, because the definition you used is not found in the relevant texts.

It is not talking about moral goodness, as indicated by Genesis 2:18 where the text refers to something that is not good. "It is not good for the man to be alone," God said—but he didn't mean sinful or evil.

Technically, sure. In relation to my topic and why I was defining "good" in the way I did, however, for the sake of brevity and not veering off into a peripheral topic, I defined it according to the God/man relationship. Not the God/God, perspective. But there is a lesson to be learned from the critique and I appreciate it. It is my own private lesson and I will take it to heart. "Self, don't always be in such a hurry and neglect looking closely in order to be more accurate in the details."

It is not talking about moral goodness, as indicated by Genesis 2:18 where the text refers to something that is not good. "It is not good for the man to be alone," God said—but he didn't mean sinful or evil. The term good (and its negation) must be understood in a covenantal and teleological context, referring not to moral goodness or intrinsic value but functional fitness, harmony, and appropriateness within God's ordered creation. In other words, something is "good" when it conforms to God's sovereign design and purpose.

Agreed, though I am not sure "understand it in a covenantal way" in the context of the OP is necessary and possibly not correct. It would need to be explained as to how it is covenatanlly understood. Which would also veer off into another topic. Which I don't mind, and you are welcome to do so. Teleological is a good word, and new to me, but expresses exactly the response I was going to give pertaining to the "is not good" spoken by God regarding the aloneness of Adam, before I looked it up.

Since it is likely to be unfamiliar to some readers, I will give the definition.

Teleology is the doctrine of design.
Teleological is showing the evidence of design or purpose.

 

[Arial]

I respectfully request that my comments, all of them, be deleted from this topic.

Thank You.
_

Before doing so, I will DM you.
Thanks

 

[Odë:hgöd]

Do you agree with the doctrine of Original Sin

I agree that Adam's disobedience is the source of his posterity's mortality.

Do you agree with the doctrine of Total Depravity?

I agree that Adam's disobedience is the source of his posterity's moral and
spiritual imperfections.

If so, do you agree with the OP or have any expansion on it?

My agreements/disagreements and/or expansions are pretty much expressed in
posts #2, #4, & #5

If not, (with either or both) why not and what is your scriptural support for your
position?

Posts #2, #4, & #5 contain a number of useful scripture quotes. That's not to say
that my application of those quotes can be guaranteed 100% correct, but they work
for me.
_