Total Depravity Explained Without Reference to the Human Will

[JIM]

You need to show that "in Adam" has no meaning other than that we all die like Adam.

No, I don't. I showed you that there is only one place where even the phrase, "in Adam", appears. And I noted what it was saying.

That we are all sinners in Adam is just as much a part of theology as is we all die like Adam. They are one and the same thing.

Scripture doesn't say that

They were not created with a nature to sin,(which would be internal) but with the ability to do so (able to be corrupted.) What they lost was access to the tree that would keep them alive---therefore sin entered by one man and through that one man, to all men, and the penalty for sin is death. All sin because of Adam and all die because of Adam, though it is for our own sins that we are judged.

That is not true. Scripture does not say that we sin because of Adam nor does it say we all die because of Adam. That is what you say, not God.

 

[JIM]

How can you say that? Maybe you should read the OP again. Total Depravity establishes the need for grace and that only by the grace of God can any be redeemed.

It is true that it is only by the grace of God that any are saved. But that is totally unrelated to Total Depravity which is a false doctrine. Grace is real, grace is true, but Total Depravity is not.

Grace is the central issue in all of the TULIP also known as the doctrines of grace in Reformed theology.

Grace is indeed a key issue in soteriology. But TULIP is not.

Does whatever theology you are following, or any other, bother to search out grace and find out why the Bible says by grace we are saved?

Yes, of course.

Does it go to the trouble of following all the issues through in a systematic biblical way in order to find out the truth of the matter and then teach it?

Yes. I can give you a source that does just that with no reference at all to TULIP, except maybe to note that it is false doctrine.

I do not think any less of you for holding to your belief in Reformed Theology. I do think that you are wrong for doing so. I think you are misguided for doing so. But I don't think you are lost for doing so.

 

[Arial]

It is true that it is only by the grace of God that any are saved. But that is totally unrelated to Total Depravity which is a false doctrine. Grace is real, grace is true, but Total Depravity is not.

That is your opinion of it and that is fine. But statements like that without biblical confirmation help no one. They might reinforce an opinion already held, but what good is that if the opinion is not worked out side by side with what has been done in the OP with Total Depravity. By holding to the belief that the doctrine that is in Total Depravity----which is man's relationship with God and the need for grace---is untrue without examination, simply leaves room for either a diminished grace, a diminished God, and something needed for redemption besides grace or in addition to it.

Address the OP iow.

Grace is indeed a key issue in soteriology. But TULIP is not.

Then present your case. Give your soteriology and the role that grace plays.

Yes, of course.

Then let's hear it. Let it stand alongside TD and lets see if what you say is the case.Lets see it worked through biblically step by step. Perhaps you can reduce it to five major points as the TULIP does and as the Arminius remonstrance was able to do.

Yes. I can give you a source that does just that with no reference at all to TULIP, except maybe to note that it is false doctrine.

All fine and good. But this is a forum of back and forth, person to person, communication. Did I simply give a source? No I was able to use my own words. I would expect the same. And that is reasonable.

I do not think any less of you for holding to your belief in Reformed Theology. I do think that you are wrong for doing so. I think you are misguided for doing so. But I don't think you are lost for doing so.

I am not concerned with what you think about it. I would just like a mutual discussion where both parties do more than just make claims without any supportive content.

 

[Arial]

No, I don't. I showed you that there is only one place where even the phrase, "in Adam", appears. And I noted what it was saying.

Since it is an issue of the discussion, and there is overwhelming evidence in both Scripture and the real world, that in Adam means we are like Adam in all our ways, and that it refers to Adam as the first man stands as the head of all men, you do need to. Otherwise you are just making statements. The fact that Scripture only once uses the expression "in Adam" is not relevant to the point. Everytime it says "in" Christ it is contrasting what we are in Adam---fallen human beings,---- and what we become in Christ----born again into the kingdom of God.

Scripture doesn't say that

Sure it does. One place is Romans 5:12-14 Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned---for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.

That is not true. Scripture does not say that we sin because of Adam nor does it say we all die because of Adam. That is what you say, not God.

See above. But show me what God says about it, since you believe it was me who said it and not God. Even though I just showed you God saying it through Paul.

 

[makesends]

Personally, I would posit that God's imputing the sin of one to another, and especially to the unborn, would seriously violate who He is.

Why? To you it is unjust? Read Romans 9 again.

 

[JIM]

Since it is an issue of the discussion, and there is overwhelming evidence in both Scripture and the real world, that in Adam means we are like Adam in all our ways, and that it refers to Adam as the first man stands as the head of all men, you do need to.

You get that from the one and only statement that uses that phrase? Amazing.

Otherwise you are just making statements.

No, you are the one that is just making statements.

Sure it does. One place is Romans 5:12-14 Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned---for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.

There is not one thing in all of that and even suggests Total Depravity.

 

[JIM]

Why? To you it is unjust? Read Romans 9 again.

There is not one word in Romans 9 that says that God ever did or ever would impute the sin of one to another.

 

[Arial]

You get that from the one and only statement that uses that phrase? Amazing.

Read the post this is responding to again.

Since it is an issue of the discussion, and there is overwhelming evidence in both Scripture and the real world, that in Adam means we are like Adam in all our ways, and that it refers to Adam as the first man stands as the head of all men, you do need to. Otherwise you are just making statements. The fact that Scripture only once uses the expression "in Adam" is not relevant to the point. Everytime it says "in" Christ it is contrasting what we are in Adam---fallen human beings,---- and what we become in Christ----born again into the kingdom of God.

No, you are the one that is just making statements.

Not true. I have backed my statements up. Do you suppose we can get back to an actual discussion and according to the OP?

There is not one thing in all of that and even suggests Total Depravity.

I was not relating it to the doctrine of Total Depravity. This is what it was responding to:

Scripture doesn't say that

And this is what you said Scripture didn't say:

That we are all sinners in Adam is just as much a part of theology as is we all die like Adam.

Moving the goalposts and throwing in red herrings; refusing to support claims made; not dealing with the content of my posts and addressing them with legitimate counters and instead shifting into other territory, or ignoring it altogether is not productive. It is what produces circular conversations, frustration, arguments that go way beyond the OP topic.

 

[Arial]

There is not one word in Romans 9 that says that God ever did or ever would impute the sin of one to another.

Uh Jim. He imputed our sin to Christ and if He hadn't there would be no substitution and there would be no redemption.

 

[makesends]

There is not one word in Romans 9 that says that God ever did or ever would impute the sin of one to another.

I didn't say it did, though there are many things there, that taken in the immediate context of Paul's reasoning, and in the larger context of Scripture as a whole, such things as "God's will in salvation"; "Salvation" within the Gospel necessarily includes the fact of Christ taking our sins upon himself, according to the will of God. IMPUTED


11 Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God’s purpose in election might stand: 12 not by works but by him who calls—she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” 13 Just as it is written: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”

14 What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! 15 For he says to Moses,

“I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,
and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”

16 It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy.

In other words, God can (and will) do as he has the right to do, without being unjust. AND, the human's feeble attempts at self-accomplished obedience or good works can never procure God's mercy.

By God's mercy, Christ was put in our place. Our sin IMPUTED to him.

 

[Ladodgers6]

That is not speaking of regeneration, but rather the resurrection at the end of the age and everyone, lost and saved, will be made alive, that is resurrected to their final state.

Did you have a choice being dead in Adam?

 

[JIM]

Did you have a choice being dead in Adam?

I am not dead in Adam.

 

[Carbon]

I am not dead in Adam.

Maybe your not Jim. But you were born dead in Adam.

 

[JIM]

Uh Jim. He imputed our sin to Christ and if He hadn't there would be no substitution and there would be no redemption.

Are you referring to 2 Corinthians 5:21?

 

[Carbon]

Did you have a choice being dead in Adam?

Just like everyone else. No

 

[JIM]

Maybe your not Jim. But you were born dead in Adam.

No I was not. And neither were you.

I became dead in my trespasses and sins when I sinned. There was nothing wrong with my spirit when God gave it to me when I was born.

 

[Carbon]

Are you referring to 2 Corinthians 5:21?

Are you a Pelagian?

 

[Carbon]

No I was not. And neither were you.

I became dead in my trespasses and sins when I sinned. There was nothing wrong with my spirit when God gave it to me when I was born.

So, you are a Pelagian.

 

[Carbon]

No I was not. And neither were you.

I became dead in my trespasses and sins when I sinned. There was nothing wrong with my spirit when God gave it to me when I was born.

Pelagius insisted that death and condemnation find their ground solely in the personal voluntary sin of the individuals.

 

[JIM]

Are you a Pelagian?

Are you a Manichaeist?