Which happens first, regeneration or justification?

[Red Baker]

Are you aware that the doctrine in total depravity is not uniquely a Reformed view? It is one of the foundational doctrines of traditional Christianity. The T in the doctrine is simply to make an acronym. It is the doctrine of original sin----the result of Adam's fall that affects all humanity. This has been a foundational doctrine of Christianity from the beginning.

This is so true, it is neither Reformed, not is it Baptistic, it is strictly a teaching that godly men of different faith believe~the list is long if you desire to know a few of them. But, mostly of the Calvinist family of believers.

 

[Red Baker]

And let me say here, and I think you know, that I do not hold that those of the reformed theology are not godly men. I do not hold that being wrong constitutes being ungodly. And I thank God for that, simply because there are none that are not wrong in something. Even me, imagine that.

I agree, and even more with this...."Even me, imagine that." But I can imagine....just like I know that I'm still learning this great book called the word of God, a book that I truly love with all of my being.

 

[JIM]

Jim, please read a little of church history, and see if this is not so.

I have. Original Sin was introduced fairly early. Total Depravity is from Augustine's teaching on Original Sin.

 

[Arial]

Neither Total Depravity nor Original Sin are foundational doctrines of Christianity from the beginning.

Yes they are and they were taken straight out of the Bible. Don't rewrite history and declare it as fact. Prove what you say.

 

[JIM]

Yes they are and they were taken straight out of the Bible. Don't rewrite history and declare it as fact. Prove what you say.

No, they are not. They are interpretations from you or someone else, perhaps many in concert. But neither are "taken straight out of the Bible".

 

[Arial]

No, they are not. They are interpretations from you or someone else, perhaps many in concert. But neither are "taken straight out of the Bible".

PROVE YOUR POSITION! Because they are not in the Bible according to your interpretation of a few passages does not mean they are not in the Bible.

 

[Eleanor]

No that is not the usage of the Greek pognosis in the NT.

Please present the usage of prognosis other than in reference to God's foreknowledge of what he is going to do.

God is omniscient. It is complete. It is perfect. It is not limited. Foreknowledge is simply His compete, perfect and unlimited omniscience of the future. It is independent of His decrees, pronouncements, etc. It is one of God's attributes.

The Greek word prognosis (foreknowledge) is used only of God's foreknowledge (Ac 2:23, 1 Pe 1:2) of what he is going to do, which is necessarily based on his decrees before the foundation of the world.

Ac 15:18 - Known to the LORD (foreknowlege) are his works from the beginning of the ages.

Do some study on God's decrees.

 

[Eleanor]

Neither Total Depravity nor Original Sin are foundational doctrines of Christianity from the beginning.

Au contraire. . .

All mankind is born with the guilt of the (original) sin of Adam (Ro 5:12-14, 18-19).
That's why they all died between Adam and Moses when there was no law to sin against, therefore, personal sin was not charged to anyone ( Ro 5:12-14) and yet they all died ("sin was in the world," whose sin? Adam's sin inherited/imputed to all).

"Original sin" is the sin of Adam imputed to all mankind (Ro 5:12-14, 18-19) with which guilt of sin all mankind is born.

"Total depravity" is our being "by nature (with which we are born), objects of wrath" (Eph 2:3).

 

[Eleanor]

Greetings Eleanor,

We will be very close to each other, so, I'm thinking is it even worth discussing, because this is a classic equifinality of a doctrine.

While I whole heartily agree God Is Omniscient. He knows everything; everything possible, everything actual; all events, all creatures, of the past, the present, and the future. He is perfectly acquainted with every detail in the life of every being in heaven, in earth, and under the earth. "He knoweth what is in the darkness" (Dan. 2:22). Nothing escapes His notice, nothing can be hidden from Him, nothing is forgotten by Him. Well may we say with the psalmist, "Such knowledge is too wonderful for me; it is high, I cannot attain unto it" (Ps. 139:6). His knowledge is perfect. He never errs, never changes, never overlooks anything. "Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight: but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do" (Heb. 4:13). Such is the God with whom we "have to do"!

I'm very much aware that some pseudo Bible teachers pervert His foreknowledge to set aside His unconditional election unto eternal life.

When the blessed subject of divine foreordination is expounded, when God’s eternal choice of certain ones to be conformed to the image of His Son is set forth, the enemy sends along someone to argue that election is based upon the foreknowledge of God. This foreknowledge is interpreted to mean that God foresaw certain ones who would be more pliable than others and they would respond more readily to the strivings of the Spirit. So, because God knew they would believe, He predestinated them unto salvation. It is a perversion of God's word. It repudiates the truth of total depravity, for it argues that there is something good in some men. It takes away the independency of God, for it makes His decrees rest upon what He discovers in the creature, as if many have some good, power to love and serve God, apart from God causing them to do so.

It completely turns things upside down, for in saying God foresaw certain sinners who would believe in Christ, and because of this He predestinated them unto salvation, is the very reverse of the truth. Scripture affirms that God, in His sovereignty, singled out certain ones to be recipients of His distinguishing favors (Acts 13:48); therefore He determined to bestow upon them the gift of faith. False theology makes God’s foreknowledge of our believing the cause of His election to salvation. However, God’s election is the cause, and our believing in Christ the effect.

It should, however, be pointed out that God’s knowledge, or His cognition of the future, considered simply in themselves, does not mean His foreknowledge has nothing to do with his decrees as not the causative~as I said above, God knew that unless he had an election by grace, before anyone had done any good or evil, then no one would have ever come to love, serve God by their own power when left to themselves, none, including the angels.

God's foreknowledge and His decrees are not one and the same,

Agreed. . .

The issue here is the word prognosis (foreknowledge) as it is used in the NT.
Prognosis is used only of God, and always refers to God's foreknowledge of his actions (foreknowledge is not the action itself), which actions were determined by his decrees before creation; e.g., the decree of election (Eph 1:4) of some, which is then executed in time.
God's prognosis (foreknowledge), as used in the NT, is of his actions according to his decrees before creation.
Prognosis (foreknowledge), as used in the NT, does not refer to God's foreknowledge of man's actions, etc., but of his actions (according to what he has decreed).

even though they may be very close~God did not decree the wicked to do evil, but knew that he would, base on his infinite knowledge of all things, and knowing that He alone is immutable, an attribute that he alone possess~as I said above: "God Is Omniscient. He knows everything; everything possible, everything actual; all events, all creatures, of the past, the present, and the future, nothing can escape his perfect knowledge, not one single thing, impossible.

 

[JIM]

PROVE YOUR POSITION! Because they are not in the Bible according to your interpretation of a few passages does not mean they are not in the Bible.

It is up to you to prove that either Original Sin or Total Depravity is biblical. Neither is ever stated in the Bible. So obviously, they both have been developed based on an interpretation. Similar to the concept of the Trinity. I believe the usual concept of the Trinity can be established on a biblical basis. I do not believe that is true for Original Sin or Total Depravity. Anyone wanting to profess the truth of either is obligated, since neither is stated in the bible, to present the argument for them.

 

[JIM]

Please present the usage of prognosis other than in reference to God's foreknowledge of what he is going to do.

The Greek word prognosis (foreknowledge) is used only of God's foreknowledge (Ac 2:23, 1 Pe 1:2) of what he is going to do, which is necessarily based on his decrees before the foundation of the world.

Ac 15:18 - Known to the LORD (foreknowlege) are his works from the beginning of the ages.

Do some study on God's decrees.

The meaning of the word foreknowledge is quite independent of God's decrees. Moreover, in 1 Peter 1:1-2 there is no statement about what God is going to do. There is only a statement of the addressees of the letter. Peter says there that he is writing to the elect, the saints, in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia. He goes on to say how the, elect, the saints, were chosen, how they became the elect. He says how they were chosen, namely, according to God's foreknowledge, through sanctification of the Spirit, and why they were chosen, namely, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ. But there is no "God shall" statement there. There is no statement there about what God is going to do. Whether or not such choosing was decreed is all rather beside the point.

The most important thing to understand about God's foreknowledge is not limited to what He will accomplish. And please don't give me that erroneous open theology nonsense that God only foreknows that which He will do. God foreknows your every sin. He did not do it or cause it. You did.

 

[JIM]

Au contraire. . .

All mankind is born with the guilt of the (original) sin of Adam (Ro 5:12-14, 18-19).
That's why they all died between Adam and Moses when there was no law to sin against, therefore, personal sin was not charged to anyone ( Ro 5:12-14) and yet they all died ("sin was in the world," whose sin? Adam's sin inherited/imputed to all).

"Original sin" is the sin of Adam imputed to all mankind (Ro 5:12-14, 18-19) with which guilt of sin all mankind is born.

Au @Eleanor .... There is always law, even if there was not law of Moses.

Rom 2:14 For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, 15 in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them,

But perhaps more to the point, you are terribly confused about Romans 5:12-14. It says there that sin is not imputed when there is no law. And yet it says there that sin was imputed from Adam to Moses. They had not sinned the same way that Adam did, namely, against a direct command from God. Nevertheless, as Paul said in Romans 2, there was law and therefore there was sin, personal sin. And as a result, death, spiritual not physical, resulted from that personal sin.

If you are going to claim Romans 5:18-19 establishes original sin, then by the very same argument, I will claim that Romans 5:18-19 establishes universal salvation. Of course, I will say that neither original sin nor universal salvation results from those two verses.

"Total depravity" is our being "by nature (with which we are born), objects of wrath" (Eph 2:3).

If anyone managed to live a life having committed only a single sin, he would be "by nature the object of God's wrath" (James 2:19). And that having nothing whatsoever to do with anything Adam did, or conditions in his birth. Nothing about man's nature condemns man. Rather it is what man does by nature that condemns him. By nature, man sins. It is not his nature that condemns him, but rather, it is his sin that condemns him. I would point out that man's nature does not change in being regenerated. That is well described by Paul in Romans 7.

As I have said before, the very notion of "Total Depravity" is a malicious affront to God from whom each one receives his own spirit (Zech12:1; Eccl 12:7). That spirit received from God was not dead in trespasses and sins --PERIOD, neither in the sins of Adam nor in the sins of his parents. He was born with a spirit from God that was pure and clean. He becomes dead in trespasses and sins only once he commits a sin. And in fact, that is the message of Romans 5:18-19. The message there is that whatever might have resulted for all men from Adam's disobedience was completely negated for all men by the results of Jesus' obedience. Therefore, what Romans 5:18-19 teaches is not Original Sin but rather Original Righteousness. We can discuss that if you like.

 

[Arial]

It is up to you to prove that either Original Sin or Total Depravity is biblical. Neither is ever stated in the Bible. So obviously, they both have been developed based on an interpretation. Similar to the concept of the Trinity. I believe the usual concept of the Trinity can be established on a biblical basis. I do not believe that is true for Original Sin or Total Depravity. Anyone wanting to profess the truth of either is obligated, since neither is stated in the bible, to present the argument for them.

JIM, you have been shown that the Bible teaches Original Sin and Total Depravity, by many people and any number of scriptures. You simply say that that is not what they are teaching and then give your own interpretation of those scriptures and add to it completely human analogies as further proof.

Since God is omniscient, and since he is omniscient not because he has the ability to learn all things, but because he created and governs and is sovereign over all things; and also because he is outside of time and all things already exist and occur, and always according to his purpose, and he simply enters into time in the history of redemption; it is already established by him that all men are sinners by virtue of being the descendants of their father, Adam, who God declared to be the federal head of all humans.

You say that Jesus undid that federal headship of Adam on the cross and now humans are born innocent and at some unspecified age become sinners by sinning. Which would mean that Jesus paid for the sin of everyone on the cross but not really. He would in effect be paying twice. Once for all men being born in Adam, and again for the sins they committed after they had been born. It would mean that if what you say is true, that on the cross Jesus redeemed all mankind from Adam's transgression and made them to be born clean---born in Christ instead of in Adam---that was a 100% failure. Every single one of those born in Christ---as you say---became a sinner anyway. It would mean that Jesus did not really pay a debt for anyone.

 

[Eleanor]

The meaning of the word foreknowledge is quite independent of God's decrees. Moreover, in 1 Peter 1:1-2 there is no statement about what God is going to do. There is only a statement of the addressees of the letter. Peter says there that he is writing to the elect, the saints, in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia. He goes on to say how the, elect, the saints, were chosen, how they became the elect. He says how they were chosen, namely, according to God's foreknowledge, through sanctification of the Spirit, and why they were chosen, namely, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ. But there is no "God shall" statement there. There is no statement there about what God is going to do. Whether or not such choosing was decreed is all rather beside the point.

The most important thing to understand about God's foreknowledge is not limited to what He will accomplish. And please don't give me that erroneous open theology nonsense that God only foreknows that which He will do. God foreknows your every sin. He did not do it or cause it. You did.

Non-responsive to my request to present the usage of prognosis other than in reference to God's foreknowledge of what he is going to do.

Au @Eleanor .... There is always law, even if there was not law of Moses.

Seems you do not know the Bible, e.g., Ro 12:12-14.

 

[JIM]

JIM, you have been shown that the Bible teaches Original Sin and Total Depravity, by many people and any number of scriptures. You simply say that that is not what they are teaching and then give your own interpretation of those scriptures and add to it completely human analogies as further proof.

No, I have not been shown that the Bible teaches Original Sin and Total Depravity. What I have been shown is some scriptures that some people interpret as implying Original Sin and Total Depravity. I reject their interpretations. I do not reject them outright but do so explaining why they are wrong.

Since God is omniscient, and since he is omniscient not because he has the ability to learn all things, but because he created and governs and is sovereign over all things; and also because he is outside of time and all things already exist and occur, and always according to his purpose, and he simply enters into time in the history of redemption; it is already established by him that all men are sinners by virtue of being the descendants of their father, Adam, who God declared to be the federal head of all humans.

Again, that is simply an interpretation. There is no declaration by God that Adam is the federal head of all humans. There isn't even anything that speaks about a "federal head". Someone made that up and others apparently accept it. The only thing that the Bible really says about Adam was that he was the first human being and that he was the first person to have sinned. God says that Adam was the first and everyone after him, except Jesus, has also sinned.

You say that Jesus undid that federal headship of Adam on the cross and now humans are born innocent and at some unspecified age become sinners by sinning. Which would mean that Jesus paid for the sin of everyone on the cross but not really. He would in effect be paying twice. Once for all men being born in Adam, and again for the sins they committed after they had been born. It would mean that if what you say is true, that on the cross Jesus redeemed all mankind from Adam's transgression and made them to be born clean---born in Christ instead of in Adam---that was a 100% failure. Every single one of those born in Christ---as you say---became a sinner anyway. It would mean that Jesus did not really pay a debt for anyone.

No that would mean that on the cross Jesus paid for the sins of everyone, which He did. And that was retroactive back to the very beginning, including even Adam. It means that having paid for Adam's personal sin, there was really nothing to pass on to anyone else. And he paid for the personal sins of everyone else as well. That doesn't mean that everyone has been saved, because in order to be saved, one must believe in God. Unfortunately, most do not and will not believe.

I would add here that is in complete harmony with God's declaration in Ezekiel 18 that one is held responsible only for his own sins and not for the sins of anyone else EVER. The father is not charged for the sins of the son and the son is not charged for the sins of the father. That has to have included Adam and his children, Cain, Able, Seth, and any others and Adam's children's children, etc.,etc., right down to today and beyond to the very end. Arial, God would not punish you with eternal condemnation because Adam ate some fruit that he was told by God not to eat.

 

[Eleanor]

Au @Eleanor .... There is always law, even if there was not law of Moses.

Rom 2:14 For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, 15 in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them,

You have set Ro 2:15 against Ro 5:12-14.

But perhaps more to the point, you are terribly confused about Romans 5:12-14. It says there that sin is not imputed when there is no law.
And yet it says there that sin was imputed from Adam to Moses. They had not sinned the same way that Adam did, namely, against a direct command from God.

And that is the conundrum which Paul resolves in Ro 5:12-14, which resolution you do not understand.

Nevertheless, as Paul said in Romans 2, there was law and therefore there was sin, personal sin. And as a result, death, spiritual not physical, resulted from that personal sin.

If you are going to claim Romans 5:18-19 establishes original sin, then by the very same argument, I will claim that Romans 5:18-19 establishes universal salvation. Of course, I will say that neither original sin nor universal salvation results from those two verses.

If anyone managed to live a life having committed only a single sin, he would be "by nature the object of God's wrath" (James 2:19). And that having nothing whatsoever to do with anything Adam did, or conditions in his birth. Nothing about man's nature condemns man. Rather it is what man does by nature that condemns him. By nature, man sins. It is not his nature that condemns him, but rather, it is his sin that condemns him. I would point out that man's nature does not change in being regenerated. That is well described by Paul in Romans 7.

As I have said before, the very notion of "Total Depravity" is a malicious affront to God from whom each one receives his own spirit (Zech12:1; Eccl 12:7). That spirit received from God was not dead in trespasses and sins --PERIOD, neither in the sins of Adam nor in the sins of his parents. He was born with a spirit from God that was pure and clean. He becomes dead in trespasses and sins only once he commits a sin. And in fact, that is the message of Romans 5:18-19. The message there is that whatever might have resulted for all men from Adam's disobedience was completely negated for all men by the results of Jesus' obedience. Therefore, what Romans 5:18-19 teaches is not Original Sin but rather Original Righteousness. We can discuss that if you like.

 

[JIM]

Seems you do not know the Bible, e.g., Ro 12:12-14.

Seems I know the Bible a lot better than you.

 

[JIM]

You have set Ro 2:15 against Ro 5:12-14.

No, I have not. You do not understand. Where is there no law? As I stated, there is always law as Paul pointed out in Romans 2:14-15. So what could he possibly mean with Romans 5:13. I would submit to you that for the very young and for the very mentally limited, those not capable of knowing and understanding the law, there is, in fact, no law. And for those there is no sin. Sin after all, is the choice, the decision, not to obey the law.

 

[Eleanor]

No, I have not. You do not understand. Where is there no law?

Law in the NT refers to God's explicit commands to which punishment is attached for disobedience.
There was no law between Adam and Moses (Ro 5:12-14).

As I stated, there is always law as Paul pointed out in Romans 2:14-15. So what could he possibly mean with Romans 5:13. I would submit to you that for the very young and for the very mentally limited, those not capable of knowing and understanding the law, there is, in fact, no law. And for those there is no sin. Sin after all, is the choice, the decision, not to obey the law.

 

[Arial]

No, I have not been shown that the Bible teaches Original Sin and Total Depravity. What I have been shown is some scriptures that some people interpret as implying Original Sin and Total Depravity. I reject their interpretations. I do not reject them outright but do so explaining why they are wrong.

As I said---you simply say they mean something else. Use all of Scripture on the subject to verify your interpretation. Your explanation of them simply interprets them according to either what you want to believe, in order to fit with what you do believe, or what you have always been taught and so still believe. Your counter illustrates exactly what you apply to those who disagree with you. And it is more than some people who disagree with you. It is historical Christianity that does. Even those who oppose Reformed theology. Where they differ from TD is on the issue of grace, not original sin.

Again, that is simply an interpretation. There is no declaration by God that Adam is the federal head of all humans.

Again, your view is also an interpretation. That is a lame argument. There is a declaration by God that Adam is the federal head of all humans. Every time it says "as in Adam all" or "born in Adam", "as in one man all". The entire Bible shows the effect of Adam's fall and it is juxtaposed against "in Christ." Christ too is a federal head of all who are in him through faith. He is the "head" of the church. And there is no declaration in Scripture that God is triune either, yet you say the evidence within the Bible shows it to be the case so you believe it, as well you should. Why then do you discard the evidence of the federal headship of Adam? Surely you acknowledge the federal headship of Christ over believers.

No that would mean that on the cross Jesus paid for the sins of everyone, which He did. And that was retroactive back to the very beginning, including even Adam.

Then everyone who died before the crucifixion and resurrection would be saved. Who died for all those who were born after the crucifixion and resurrection?

It means that having paid for Adam's personal sin, there was really nothing to pass on to anyone else

What religion or denomination teaches such a thing? Why do the Apostles still speak of humanity as being in Adam?

And he paid for the personal sins of everyone else as well. That doesn't mean that everyone has been saved, because in order to be saved, one must believe in God. Unfortunately, most do not and will not believe.

That is a contradictory statement. Either something is paid for or it is not. And you say Jesus did pay for all of the sins of everyone. Jesus paid by dying. If what you say were true, then the Father did not accept the payment until and unless a certain obligation is met by the one Jesus died for (everyone as you say). And yet Jesus died anyway to pay their debt. You have added a caveat to salvation that cannot exist if, as the Bible says, salvation is by grace.

I would add here that is in complete harmony with God's declaration in Ezekiel 18 that one is held responsible only for his own sins and not for the sins of anyone else EVER. The father is not charged for the sins of the son and the son is not charged for the sins of the father. That has to have included Adam and his children, Cain, Able, Seth, and any others and Adam's children's children, etc.,etc., right down to today and beyond to the very end. Arial, God would not punish you with eternal condemnation because Adam ate some fruit that he was told by God not to eat.

God isn't charging anyone with someone else's sins. Humanity is not being charged with Adam's sin but their own sins. They are sinners, a creature that is sinful and therefore sins, by virtue of being human---the children of Adam.