Total Depravity

[Carbon]

And I'd like to see that from you as well. The point being you can't prove anything and neither can I. Proof is not available. That is why faith is the key. And that should be obvious to all. All one can do is quote verses, passages, chapters, even whole books. But what they mean is up to interpretation. The minute we post an interpretation, then it ceases to be God's word and it is an opinion and that is not proof of anything.

Of course, scripture can prove it. Whether you deny the proof or not is another story.

 

[Lees]

No you didn't give me any proof at all. You just gave me your interpretation of a verse or two. I don't consider your interpretation any better than mine.

Do you honestly think your interpretation is proof of anything? That's hilarious.

Well, showing you what Scripture says has always been proof for me. You disagree, not with me, but with what Scripture says. Which is why you haven't tried to refute it. You show me nothing. All you can do is say 'I am wrong'.

I think you showing me nothing is proof you are wrong. I think your interpretation is null and void because you can't address posts #(22) and (25). And that is hilarious.

Lees

 

[JIM]

The wages of sin are both, physical and spiritual death.

Physical death is an integral fact of creation. If that were not so, the tree of life would have no reason for being in the Garden of Eden.

If you believe that regeneration cures the problem of being dead in trespasses and sins, I.e., cures the problem of spiritual death, then why doesn't it cure the problem of physical death?

Heb 9:27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment....

 

[JIM]

And yet all the writers of the OT and NT declared absolute truths. One would assume it is possible to interpret it correctly right?

Yes, of course. but you do not have the power and authority to interpret it for me not do I have the power and authority to interpret it for you./

However I have never claimed that what I say is absolute truth. When it comes to an interpretation of scripture I don't just declare it as truth, I demonstrate it truthfulness from context and the full counsel of God---

I am sure that you believe that but it still only your interpretation of what is truthfulness from context and the full counsel of God.

which is the opposite of what you have been doing on this particular subject.

Again, that is all only by your interpretation of things.

The fact that you don't indicates that you can't, which is what shows it to be an unsupported and unsupportable interpretation. Learn the difference and put into practice the proper way of interpretation, instead of getting angry and making accusations.

Oh my, @Arial, what can I say. I have been studying the proper way of interpretation for a very long time. And I would bet, even much longer than you. And some of that was as formal study and training.

And I would offer you the very same exact advice: Learn and put into practice the proper way of interpretation, instead of getting angry and making accusations of unsupported and unsupportable interpretation as you have just done here against me.

 

[JIM]

Not that some who read it trying to reconcile it to Reformed tenets don't do exactly what you are supposing they do, here, it seems to me you misunderstand, or, rather, even ignore or fail to consider, the several ways to look at this that do make sense. I'll present just one here, that to my understand happens on a regular basis in the Greek (and particular the Jewish society's Greek) manner of speaking and thinking back then. The force of the argument has little to do with the word, "all". "All" is only a principle, not even stated as necessarily absolute, but general, understood by the readers and assumed for the sake of argument. The force of the argument is about the effect of Adam's sin vs the effect of Christ's righteousness. I could render it like this, for the sake of making the point: Just as no man escapes the fact of condemnation via Adam, even so no one is justified except via the righteousness of Christ.

Of course you would trivialize the word for "all" simply to make it comply with your own view of things. And yet the precise meaning of the word is the critical aspect of the interpretation. In your soteriology, it is mandatory that the word "all" does not really mean the same throughout the sentence.

If you want to prove that your use of this verse is correct, you should show your exegesis, and disprove other uses of the verse, instead of making continual repetitive vehement statements regarding the motivations of those who disagree with you.

As I have stated elsewhere, it is not possible to prove any interpretation to be the correct one. The Bible was not given as proof of anything. It was given as a basis for coming to faith in God. If God wanted to give proof of His written revelation, He could certainly have done that such that there could be no disagreement of its content. But in that case, the need for faith would disappear completely.

 

[JIM]

Of course, scripture can prove it. Whether you deny the proof or not is another story.

I think you really don't really understand the concept of proof. The problem with that is it then means you don't really understand faith either and that is not good. Where there is proof, there is no need for faith.

 

[JIM]

Well, showing you what Scripture says has always been proof for me. You disagree, not with me, but with what Scripture says. Which is why you haven't tried to refute it. You show me nothing. All you can do is say 'I am wrong'.

I think you showing me nothing is proof you are wrong. I think your interpretation is null and void because you can't address posts #(22) and (25). And that is hilarious.

Lees

@Lees, sorry to break it to you, but you are not God. Your statement, "You disagree, not with me, but with what Scripture says", is such a tired old bunch of bologna as to be pitiful. It displays a level of arrogance to be avoided at all costs.

 

[Lees]

@Lees, sorry to break it to you, but you are not God. Your statement, "You disagree, not with me, but with what Scripture says", is such a tired old bunch of bologna as to be pitiful. It displays a level of arrogance to be avoided at all costs.

Don't be sorry, just address the posts #(22) and (25).

No, what is pitiful is your refusal to answer to Scripture.

I give you Scripture, you accuse me of playing God. You give nothing but your empty statement, without answering to the Scripture, as though your word is final. Yet you accuse me of playing God.

"to be avoided at all costs". Oh, I see, your avoiding answering my posts becuase of my 'arrogance'. Sure you are. Doesn't take much to read between that line. You have nothing to refute what I have said. What the Bible says.

Lees

 

[Arial]

Let's all take a deep breath and calm down. Remember whose name we bear and how what we do and say reflects on that name. Take a moment to ask that He would lead us in paths of righteousness for His name's sake. Listen to the counsel of the Holy Spirit in His word and submit to His sanctifying work in us, when our flesh desires to run ahead of Him.

Thank you.

 

[Arial]

Of course you would trivialize the word for "all" simply to make it comply with your own view of things. And yet the precise meaning of the word is the critical aspect of the interpretation. In your soteriology, it is mandatory that the word "all" does not really mean the same throughout the sentence.

It can in a sense---but that "sense" must be compatible with and in agreement with the rest of Scripture on the same subject. Let's look again.

18.Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men.

One way this could mean all without exception when we consider the previous words of Paul is that all without exception were condemned by the one act of trespass by Adam, (without exception) the all men being justified by the one act of righteousness (Christ) all men who are in Christ, without exception, are justified.

It can mean by "all" all men everywhere and always are condemned by the one act of trespass and all men everywhere can be justified but only in one way---Christ.

What it cannot mean is that all men without exception are condemned in Adam and justified in Christ. For one thing, in the very next sentence Paul no longer uses "all" but "many" and for both Adam and Christ.

And look at what Paul has already said in verse 1. Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. 2. Through him we have also obtained access by faith into this grace in which we stand, and we Rejoice in hope of the glory of God.

Paul has already qualified the "many" and the "all" by faith. The "we" and "our", he is writing to are believers. Those who are in Christ and are justified through faith. Not all men without exception. We are justified through faith. Christ's death on the cross did not justify everyone so that all are born already justified.

And what about Paul's use of "many"? He uses "many" in verse 15 But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man's trespass, much more has the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many.

Since we all know that all men without exception die, so many must be a numerical quantity. And also in the case of the "many" who receive grace. However, the second cannot mean without exception, except in the sense that all who receive this grace without exception, receive this same grace They receive faith (Eph 2:8) and through this faith salvation and justification.

Paul concludes this discussion: Now the law came in to increase the trespass, but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, so that as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through righteousness Leading to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

 

[Arial]

Of course you would trivialize the word for "all" simply to make it comply with your own view of things. And yet the precise meaning of the word is the critical aspect of the interpretation. In your soteriology, it is mandatory that the word "all" does not really mean the same throughout the sentence.

The long version with exegesis is in post #90

The short version is "all" is qualified as all without exception regarding Adam since all without exception are descendants of Adam.

The "all" without exception is qualified regarding Christ, with all those without exception who are in Christ through faith. The context of the entire chapter qualifies this.

 

[Eleanor]

It kept any of posterity out of the Garden. But then, no one would have been any better at not sinning than was Adam; no one would have lasted very long in the Garden anyway.

I will reiterate what I have said here a couple of times, Romans 5:12-19 says, against what so many claim, that the effect of Jesus' obedience negated any such effect as original sin that Adam's disobedience might have had.

Jesus' salvific work applies only to the born again, those of saving faith in the person (Jn 3:18) and work (Ro 3:25) of Jesus Christ.

Consider verse 18.
(KJV)Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.
Let A be "the offence of one judgment" and let B be "the righteousness of one ". Then verse 18 reads
(KJV)Therefore as by A came upon all men to condemnation; even so by B the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.
I think there is no doubt that in reading that, one would have to conclude that the effect of B is upon the very same group as the effect of A.

Taken apart from the rest of Scripture, that might be the case. But in the light of all Scripture, that would be incorrect, for the word of God does not contradict itself.
Scripture is to be understood in the light of all Scripture, which light shows your error in justification for all mankind.
In the light of all Scripture, "all" is to be understood to mean "all without distinction" (Gentile and Jew), not "all without exception" (all mankind).

And since it is generally interpreted that the "all men" effected by A is indeed the whole of mankind, then that is the same group as the "all men" effected by B. There is no rational analysis, other than a misguided preconceived view of things, that would change the group designated all men in the first half of that sentence to some other group designated all men in the second half. It must be talking about the same group, the same all men.
And since the effect of A is taken to be the condition of the spirit of a person at conception (or birth if you prefer), the effect of B must be taken to be also the condition of the spirit of a person at conception. This has nothing to do with anything that the person does after birth. It is dealing strictly with the condition at conception.
Those who profess the soteriology of the Reformed Theology like tout and spout the Doctrines of Grace the subject of the OP. And from my view, they ignore the very first doctrine of Grace that God gives to each and every human being. That of Original Grace. Every child comes into this world as a child of God. He loses that position when he commits his first sin.

Not according to the NT.

We are by nature objects of wrath (Eph 2:3). We are born with our nature; i.e., we are born sinners, objects of wrath by nature (Eph 2:3).

One either believes the NT, and one does not.

 

[Eleanor]

The wages of sin are both, physical and spiritual death.

"Dying (spiritually), you shall die (physically). (Ge 2:17)

 

[CrowCross]

I will reiterate what I have said here a couple of times, Romans 5:12-19 says, against what so many claim, that the effect of Jesus' obedience negated any such effect as original sin that Adam's disobedience might have had.

The Mormons make a similar claim...Jesus died on the cross to forgive us of Adams sin...then they pretty much stop there making the forgiveness of our own sins pretty much up to "works".

Are you making the same claim?

 

[JIM]

The Mormons make a similar claim...Jesus died on the cross to forgive us of Adams sin...then they pretty much stop there making the forgiveness of our own sins pretty much up to "works".

Are you making the same claim?

Did you read anywhere that I did?

 

[JIM]

The long version with exegesis is in post #90

The short version is "all" is qualified as all without exception regarding Adam since all without exception are descendants of Adam.

The "all" without exception is qualified regarding Christ, with all those without exception who are in Christ through faith. The context of the entire chapter qualifies this.

That is your interpretation, not what the Bible actually says. I will treat it accordingly.

 

[Eleanor]

That is your interpretation, not what the Bible actually says. I will treat it accordingly.

A verse without a context is a pretext.

 

[Arial]

It kept any of posterity out of the Garden. But then, no one would have been any better at not sinning than was Adam; no one would have lasted very long in the Garden anyway.

Thus God's intentional federal headship of Adam. The usual argument against federal headship is that it is a made up thing and is nowhere found in the Bible. The same argument that is used against the Trinity by those who deny the Trinity. And yet the above post describes the necessity of federal headship perfectly.

I will reiterate what I have said here a couple of times, Romans 5:12-19 says, against what so many claim, that the effect of Jesus' obedience negated any such effect as original sin that Adam's disobedience might have had. Consider verse 18.

(KJV)Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.

Not so for the "all" was qualified as to those who are justified in verses 1-11. Paul is writing to believers, not unbelievers. (See post #90 and #91 and while you are there #89.)

I think there is no doubt that in reading that, one would have to conclude that the effect of B is upon the very same group as the effect of A. And since it is generally interpreted that the "all men" effected by A is indeed the whole of mankind, then that is the same group as the "all men" effected by B. There is no rational analysis, other than a misguided preconceived view of things, that would change the group designated all men in the first half of that sentence to some other group designated all men in the second half. It must be talking about the same group, the same all men.

See posts #90 and 91.

And since the effect of A is taken to be the condition of the spirit of a person at conception (or birth if you prefer), the effect of B must be taken to be also the condition of the spirit of a person at conception. This has nothing to do with anything that the person does after birth. It is dealing strictly with the condition at conception.

There is no discussion of the spirit of a person anywhere in chapter 5. That is what would be an obvious, and unrelated to the passages, view concerning a person's spirit and what it is, brought into the passages. So it has no bearing on the interpretation of Romans 5. What they are about is the two conditions of mankind before God. One is unjustified, the other is justified. Without faith unjustified. With faith justified.

Those who profess the soteriology of the Reformed Theology like tout and spout the Doctrines of Grace the subject of the OP. And from my view, they ignore the very first doctrine of Grace that God gives to each and every human being. That of Original Grace. Every child comes into this world as a child of God. He loses that position when he commits his first sin.

The doctrine of original sin is not unique to Reformed theology or the doctrines of grace. It is under the whole umbrella of the Christian Faith. There is no theology or doctrine in the entire Bible that mentions Original Grace or that presents the concept. And if there were, it would imply the existence of original sin. Grace is the prerogative of God alone and everything we have of him and from him is only by grace. None is deserved or can be earned. But a concept of Original Grace pertaining to salvation or man's standing before God is unheard of in Scripture. Salvation is by grace but through faith. All men who have this faith, without exception, are justified before God. Not all men without exception apart from faith. Ever. Not at birth, and nowhere else. All men are still born in Adam. They are still descendants of Adam.

What did Paul say? He said, " I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin came alive and I died . the very commandment that promised life proved to be death to me. For sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, deceived me and through it killed me."

Don't leave out Romans 5:12-14 when interpreting that passage. 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.

And I would here remind you that Romans 5:12 does not say that death spread to all men because of Adam. It says, "death spread to all men because all sinned--". And here death is spiritual death.

The death Paul is speaking of in Romans 5 is physical death. All die because all sin. All sin because all are the descendants of a sinner, therefore are like him. Federal headship. Back to the beginning of my post. Adam the head of all born by natural birth. Christ the head of all re-born in him.

 

[Arial]

That is your interpretation, not what the Bible actually says. I will treat it accordingly.

It is not my interpretation JIM. It is the scriptures interpreting the scriptures. It is the only way of getting at the truth. The battle cry of the Reformation. "Sola scriptura!"

 

[Carbon]

Physical death is an integral fact of creation. If that were not so, the tree of life would have no reason for being in the Garden of Eden.

If you believe that regeneration cures the problem of being dead in trespasses and sins, I.e., cures the problem of spiritual death, then why doesn't it cure the problem of physical death?

Heb 9:27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment....

It's obvious you lost track of things friend.

If Adam didn't sin, they would have never been removed from the garden. They would have had the Tree of Life and would not have experienced physical death. But since he did sin, he died both physically and spiritually.