Total Depravity vs. Freewill

[crossnote]

I'm so depraved I choose not to participate.

 

[RickShafer]

can I ask you a few questions.

can you show me in scripture where Esau ever bowed down to jacob?
Can you show me where Esau ever served jacob?
Can you show me where in scripture it says Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated, and give us the context of that passage (ie, who God was talking about)?
God told Moses, i will have mercy on who I have mercy. Can you show us what he meant?
Can you tell us what the term. "harden" means??

See Hebrews 11 E.G.
The message is clear.
The birth right of Esau was passed on to Jacob, who was afraid of his brother when it was told him that Esau was coming to meet him.
What happened when they met?
Who blessed who?
Who asked "why do you send all these things to me before you my brother"? Was it not Esau?
Who changed the heart of Esau? God or Jacob?

 

[eternally-gratefull]

You know, the fact that Jacob was pretty fearful of his brother most all his life only makes the meaning of that passage more sure, to me, anyway.
You're right, Esau didn't serve or bow to Jacob so I'm left to conclude Malachi's prophecy refers to something greater than those two men.

What do you think about it?

yes, this should make us think.

If Esau NEVER BOWED or NEVER SERVED JACOB. and malachi was speaking of th enations which came from the two children. Then was Paul really refering to the fact one child was condemned to hell, and one was given eternal life even before they were born. And did God really hate the Child Esau (remember, Esau was blessed and did have a fear of God.. There is nothing to make us believe he was not saved and is not in heaven today)

 

[psychomom]

I take you to romans 1 and eph 4. Truth can enslave you. for hiding truth from yourself enslaves you to a life of sin, of disappointment, of a lifelong search to find happiness and satisfaction where you will never find it. Hopefully these things bring you to christ. So you can know truth, and it can set you free. but unfortunately. for many, that will never happened, because they have become callous to truth by the hardening of their own hearts.

Yes, we are each of us either slaves to sin,
or slaves to Christ.

Is that what you mean?
I agree, if so, I just don't think scripture supports the idea that I can, of my 'free will', become a slave to Christ.
(though I am, like you, so thankful God has made me so!)

love you, EG.
back in a while.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

So what does that say about mankind E.G.?
We can see the truth, we can know the truth, but yet somehow forget it. -

No, it does not say we forget it. it says we harden ourselves to it.. Like when you lie, the more you lie, the more you believe your lie is really the truth.. Or the more you ignore truth,, the more you ignore truth put in front of you, the easy it is to believe it is not realy true (the true meaning of becoming hardened or calloused)

Romans 1:28 - "and even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them
over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient:"
And again - "For when gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law,
these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves." - Romans 2:14
Who put the law into their hearts?

God did

Was it themselves?

Nope. it was god, they hide the truth, because they loved self more than anything else.

Having this pseudo law, will it save them?
Of course not!

Psuedo law? Who said anything about psuedo law? The passage does not say this. so I am not sure what your point is.

For by the law is no man saved: Romans 3:20 - "Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight:
for by the law is the knowledge of sin."
It is all a work of God through Jesus Christ on our souls and consciousnesses.

You just proved my point. They know the law. Thus know they are rightly condemned (as paul said) thus they already have the choolmaster which should lead them to christ. So why do they not see it?

1. Christ is the light, they hide from the light because it would expose the truth of their sin (spoken by jesus)
2. They have hidden the truth, and become hardened to the truth, as they suppress it in sin and unrighteousness.

It does not mean everyone does this. We can use the schoolmaster to bring us to christ. the sad part is if being depraved, we can not know anything about God. then the law can not be a schoolmaster. because it would only lead us possibly to religion, but never to god.. Which means scripture has deceived us into thinking Gods provision to draw us to him can work, but it is powerless.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Yes, we are each of us either slaves to sin,
or slaves to Christ.

Is that what you mean?
I agree, if so, I just don't think scripture supports the idea that I can, of my 'free will', become a slave to Christ.
(though I am, like you, so thankful God has made me so!)

love you, EG.
back in a while.

lol. Your right, We can not make ourselves slaves to Christ. We can not do this unless we are saved and brought back to a relationship with God. otherwise we are all but hopless and slaves to self.

The thing is. I can know I am lost without hope. and seek the truth.. And the schoolmaster can lead me to that truth, so my sin can be removed, and I am ABLE to make myself a slave to christ.

We are not saved by law. we do not be good first. We do not commit to being good. We only admit our hoplessness because of the law. and cry out to God for help.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

I have to run for a bit. But am enjoying this conversation. Be back soon!!

 

[mark54]

And again - "For when gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law,
these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves." - Romans 2:14
Who put the law into their hearts?
Was it themselves?
es.

If we read verse 15, it states:

Since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts their consciences also bearing witness and their thoughts now accusing , now even defending them

Who wrote the law on their hearts?

This is the covenant I will make with them after that time declares the Lord
'I' will put my laws in their hearts and write them on their minds
Heb10:16

I would say that is the new Coveannt where God removes the herart of stone and replaces it with a heart of flesh(Ezekiel36:26&27)


Incidentally, wouldn't verse 15 apply to Christians today? confirmation the law is written on their conscinces?

 

[RickShafer]

It comes back to first cause.
What is the first cause?
Who is the first cause of your faith?
You, or God?
(Please don't separate thoughts anymore.)
To separate sentences from their paragraph form is to change the meaning.
Example: "To be, or not to be, that is the question"
"To be" - Yes I want to be
"Or not to be" - No I don't want to be
"That is the question" - What is?
See how the meaning is lost when you parse the thought?
Please judge the entire thought as a whole.
Thanks

 

[Skinski7]

I'll start.
I believe in election; due to the total depravity of man.
Total depravity does not mean totally depraved in the moral sense, - as in Hitler, or a serial murderer, or a reprobate.
It means the nature of mankind is towards sin-(falling short).
It means the nature of man is not towards righteousness-(God likeness).

The scriptures clearly teach that the nature of man can go both ways.

This is one way...

Eph 2:2 Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:
Eph 2:3 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.

This is another way...

Rom 2:14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
Rom 2:15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another
Rom 2:16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.

The term NATURE (PHUSIS in the Greek) is clearly used to describe a natural state towards either lawfulness or lawlessness.

All men have been given a measure of light.
Joh 1:9 That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.

God has given this light to all men by his grace.

Tit 2:11 For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men,
Tit 2:12 Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world;

It is up to men to choose whether to yield to the light or reject the light. If one yields to the light then they rule over sin, if they do not yield to the light then the sin rules over them. Here is a clear example of this taught in the Bible...

Gen 4:7 If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.

Which agrees perfectly with what Paul taught in Romans...

Rom 6:16 Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?

Human beings are living souls in a fleshly body. The fleshly body has natural passions and desires like hunger and sex (lusts of the flesh). These desires are not evil, they are simply the natural base desires of a human being. James clearly states that it is these natural desires which draw people into sin.

Jas 1:14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.
Jas 1:15 Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.

We see these natural desires at work in the garden BEFORE the sin of Adam. Eve was drawn away by her own lust and sin was conceived.

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.

This temptation of the lusts of the flesh are common to man.

1Co 10:13 There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it.

Jesus Christ was tempted in exactly the same manner but he ruled over these desires in perfect righteousness.

Heb 4:15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

Augustine of Hippo spoke of "concupiscence" which is defined as...

Concupiscence (from the Latin: con-, with + cupi, cupid - desire + -escere - suffix denoting beginning of a process or state) is often defined as an ardent, usually sensual, longing or lust.

Here is what Augustine wrote in Chapter 24 of Book 13 of his confessions...

If the motion of concupiscence in the unruly members of our first parents arose out of their sin, and only when the divine grace deserted them; and if it was on that occasion that their eyes were opened to see, or, more exactly, notice their nakedness, and that they covered their shame because the shameless motion of their members was not subject to their will,— how, then, would they have begotten children had they remained sinless as they were created?

CHURCH FATHERS: City of God, Book XIII (St. Augustine)

Here Augustine clearly states that the motion (or action) of concupiscence arose as a result of the first sin. Yet Augustine has erred because he does not apply Genesis 3:6 to his thinking and thus understand that the natural desires of the flesh have nothing to do with a sin nature. To Augustine concupiscence was proof of being born with a sin nature.

Original Sin is a fourth century doctrine that teaches that Adam's sin is propogated to all his offspring through natural reproduction of divine imputation.

The view that it is propogated through natural reproduction is called Seminal Identity or Traducianism and is also known as the Natural Head Theory. This is the view that Augustine held to. Augustine used Romans 5:12 and Hebrews 7:10-11 as proof texts to support his contention.

Augustine was not very comfortable with Greek and thus used the Latin Vulgate as opposed to the Greek texts. The Latin Vulgate translates Rom 5:12 like this...

Rom 5:12 Wherefore as by one man sin entered into this world and by sin death: and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned. [propterea sicut per unum hominem in hunc mundum peccatum intravit et per peccatum mors et ita in omnes homines mors pertransiit in quo omnes peccaverunt]

"In Quo" = In Whom

By reading Heb 7:9-10 and combining it with Rom 5:12 "in whom" Augustine concluded that all of humanity was actually present in the loins of Adam and thus was directly implicated in his sin.

Heb 7:9 And as I may so say, Levi also, who receiveth tithes, payed tithes in Abraham.
Heb 7:10 For he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchisedec met him.

Thus Augustine taught that sin was actually somehow propgated to posterity through the flesh. This doctrine was in perfect agreement with the Manichaen philosophy he had previously subscribed to before converting to the Catholic faith. Augustine did not invent this doctrine because it can be found being alluded to by Tatian in the Second Century. What Augustine did was bring it into acceptance in Orthodox Christianity.

Pastor John MacArthur is a strong adherant to the Augustinian view (Traducianism) and here is a quote which I often use to illustrate this fact...

God ordained it as a symbol, as a sign, a very important one. Not just for physical benefit but as a spiritual reminder. And the reminder is simply this, and I'll see if I can give you a full understanding of it. Nowhere or at no point is a man's depravity more manifest than in the procreative act. You say, "Why do you say that?" Well, we know man is a sinner by what he says, we know man is a sinner by what he does. We know man is a sinner by the attitude, the bearing that he carries. We can see on the outside sinful deeds. But how do we know man is a sinner at the base of his character? How do we know man is a sinner at the root of his existence? The answer, by what he creates. Whatever comes from the loins of man is wicked because man is wicked. So I say to you, nowhere then in the anatomy of a man or in the activity of a man is depravity more manifest than in the procreative act because it is at precisely that point which he demonstrates the depth of his sinfulness because he produces a sinner. And I would remind you that Jesus Christ had no human father because there was no human father who could produce a perfect person. The Spirit of God had to plant a perfect seed in Mary and bypass a human father.
The male organ then is the point at which human depravity is most demonstrated. You see not the deeds of sin but the nature of sin passed on to the next generation.

Source:- The Distinctive Qualities of the True Christian, Part 1

Other theologians reject Traducianism/Natural Head Theory and instead believe that sin is imputed to the soul by God at birth. This view is called the Federal Head Theory or Creationism. This view teaches that Adam was the covenantal representative of all mankind and that when he sinned he broke a covenant that he had with God and that all his descendents are thus imputed guilty by God.

It really does not matter which view one holds pertaining to the doctrine of Original Sin. Original Sin by necessity brings with it an understanding of the base nature of man.

The problem with all this is that it sin is redefined from being the result of a natural choice to that of being a result of being the result of the natural birth state. Those who believe in this doctrine MUST put the ultimate blame for sin on their birth and not on the choices they made. Due to this perspective the nature and work of repentance is completely redefined. It is practically impossible to be truly broken and contrite over your sin if you truly believe that the at the base level IT IS NOT YOUR FAULT.

Here is what the Westminster Confession states...

Chapter VI

Of the Fall of Man, of Sin, and the Punishment thereof

I. Our first parents, being seduced by the subtilty and temptations of Satan, sinned, in eating the forbidden fruit.[1] This their sin, God was pleased, according to His wise and holy counsel, to permit, having purposed to order it to His own glory.[2]
II. By this sin they fell from their original righteousness and communion, with God,[3] and so became dead in sin,[4] and wholly defiled in all the parts and faculties of soul and body.[5]
III. They being the root of all mankind, the guilt of this sin was imputed;[6] and the same death in sin, and corrupted nature, conveyed to all their posterity descending from them by ordinary generation.[7]
IV. From this original corruption, whereby we are utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good,[8] and wholly inclined to all evil,[9] do proceed all actual transgressions.[10]
V. This corruption of nature, during this life, does remain in those that are regenerated;[11] and although it be, through Christ, pardoned, and mortified; yet both itself, and all the motions thereof, are truly and properly sin.[12]
VI. Every sin, both original and actual, being a transgression of the righteous law of God, and contrary thereunto,[13] does in its own nature, bring guilt upon the sinner,[14] whereby he is bound over to the wrath of God,[15] and curse of the law,[16] and so made subject to death,[17] with all miseries spiritual,[18] temporal,[19] and eternal.[20]

Westminster Confession of Faith

Under this doctrine all human beings are born already guilty and evil. Sin has nothing to do with free-will or the choices that human beings make under this doctrine. Under this doctrine human beings can only choose evil.

This is why those who teach it will NEVER point to Gen 3:6, Gen 4:7, Jam 1:14-15 and connect them together to show that the reason people sin is because they yield to the lusts of their flesh in disobedience to God which is A CHOICE.

This is why those who teach this doctrine will NEVER point to Gal 5:24, Rom 6:4-17, 1Pet 4:1-2, 2Pet 1:3-4 and connect them together and show that a Born Again Christian DOES NOT WALK ACCORDING TO THE FLESH. The possibility of ruling over the flesh by the power of God (through His grace) IN THIS LIFE has been totally NEUTRALISED. Due to this these people, while preaching a seemingly moral message, will ALWAYS defend the continued dominion of sin over a believer. Original Sin is a DEADLY HERESY.

all under sin[/b]. As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one."

It is VERY DANGEROUS to ISOLATE and PROOF TEXT verses out of context in support of a doctrine. This is what you have done here.

The whole context of Romans 1-3 is the conclusion that both the Jews and the Gentile people have sinned and are thus guilty before God and thus need the Saviour.

Rom 3:9-10 is not a proof text for Original Sin. You are injecting your doctrine into the text because you already believe it because that is what you have been taught.

Rom 3:9-10 is an allusion to Psalm 14, Isa 53:6 and Jer 50:6. Go read them.

The Bible is replete with examples of righteous people. Righteous people are simply those who have submitted their wills to God and thus walk in the light they know by doing the right thing (1Jn 3:7).

Those who use Rom 3:10 to teach that there is none righteous EVER do not point out these verses...

Gen 4:3 And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the LORD.
Gen 4:4 And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the LORD had respect unto Abel and to his offering:
Heb 11:4 By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous,God testifying of his gifts: and by it he being dead yet speaketh.

Luk 1:5 There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth.
Luk 1:6 And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.

Eze 14:14 Though these three men, Noah, Daniel, and Job, were in it, they should deliver but their own souls by their righteousness, saith the Lord GOD.

Now this is not to say that they do not need a Saviour because the context of those verses is the present state. Past sin cannot be undone by present obedience which is why we all need the blood of Christ.

Nor is a present state of righteousness "self righteousness" as many falsely assert because true righteousness is simply wrought in submitting oneself to the Creator who sets the standard of righteousness. Hence...

Rom 10:3 For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.
Rom 10:4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.

Hence...

Rom 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
Rom 8:2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.
Rom 8:3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
Rom 8:4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

The natural state of a man can go either way. No-one is born naturally inclined to sin, they are born with a natural inclination to fulfill the lusts of the flesh. Sin is only manifested when these lusts are yielded to unlawfully in violation of a direct command of God or as a violation of the conscience.

Repeated habitual sinning certainly becomes natural as the brain forms pathways and thus the bondage of sin increases. No-one is BORN in bondage to sin.



I'll try and write more later as I have work to do now.

God bless.

 

[unclefester]

The following verses are of no minor significance in understanding and trusting in God's wisdom, sovreignty and fairness.

John 6:65-67

65 And he said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.”
66 After this many of his disciples turned back and no longer walked with him. 67 So Jesus said to the Twelve, “Do you want to go away as well ?"

Matthew 16:16-17

16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”
17 Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven.

 

[RickShafer]

Well, I guess the request to keep the posts somewhat brief has been cast aside.
So since it has I will react accordingly - (please suffer my long post in answer to Skinski).

Skinski said - The natural state of a man can go either way. No-one is born naturally inclined to sin, they are born with a natural inclination to fulfill the lusts of the flesh. Sin is only manifested when these lusts are yielded to unlawfully in violation of a direct command of God or as a violation of the conscience.

Repeated habitual sinning certainly becomes natural as the brain forms pathways and thus the bondage of sin increases. No-one is BORN in bondage to sin.

He says the natural state of man(mankind) can go either way.(Righteousness-God likeness; or sin, iniquity.)
He says not one soul is born naturally inclined to fall short(sin).
Then he says they are born with a natural inclination to fulfill the lusts of the flesh(fall short, sin).
Then he states that sin is only manifested when these lusts (which may or may not be naturally
inclined to, are yielded to).

As I see it he is concerning himself and his argument with the doing or not doing of God's said commandments. - (Am I right Skinski)
As I read him, he is saying the creature has both the power and the will to obey all of God's laws within the creature's self. - (Correct me if I'm wrong Skinski)
So he is stating the creature is totally responsible for reacting to the impetus of God's call in it.
(Correct me if I'm wrong Skinski)

This is your claim, correct?

 

[eternally-gratefull]

See Hebrews 11 E.G.
The message is clear.
The birth right of Esau was passed on to Jacob, who was afraid of his brother when it was told him that Esau was coming to meet him.
What happened when they met?
Who blessed who?
Who asked "why do you send all these things to me before you my brother"? Was it not Esau?
Who changed the heart of Esau? God or Jacob?

well first. I would look to the OT, where it actually happened. Second. this proves my point. Esau never bowed to Jacob. in fact it was jacob who called esau his lord.And it was jacob who called himself the servant of Esau

Genesis 32:4 And he commanded them, saying, “Speak thus to my lord Esau, ‘Thus your servant Jacob says: “I have dwelt with Laban and stayed there until now.

this is the exact opposite of what romans says, if it concerns the children.

however. the nation of edom (Esau) did serve the nation of Isreal (jacob) thus, by interpreting romans 9 to be speaking of two nations. and not two kids, we would be interpreting it in Context would we not?

In doing this, we see Paul is speaking about God choosing Isreal as a nation, who were chosen to bring in the Savior, and it was done not by the will of men, Or by the righteousness of the men, but by the will of God, even before the two nations were born. (which I believe to be context of romans 9)

 

[eternally-gratefull]

The following verses are of no minor significance in understanding and trusting in God's wisdom, sovreignty and fairness.

John 6:65-67

65 And he said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.”
66 After this many of his disciples turned back and no longer walked with him. 67 So Jesus said to the Twelve, “Do you want to go away as well ?"

Matthew 16:16-17

16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”
17 Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven.

This is all good. But in John 6. Jesus tells them. They have seen and not believed, thus God, in showing the nation of Isreal christ. revealed it to them also. They chose to ignore it though. why? Because they were looking for a handout, (temporal things) and not for the truth (spritual things)

Also. Peter knew Jesus was the christ. And he was saved, But he still did not understand the full gospel until after the death of Christ. this again brings us to problems.. God saved him (and OT Saints) before they new the whole truth..

 

[mark54]

The scriptures clearly teach that the nature of man can go both ways.

1Co 10:13 There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it.

Jesus Christ was tempted in exactly the same manner but he ruled over these desires in perfect righteousness.

Heb 4:15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

Augustine of Hippo spoke of "concupiscence" which is defined as...

Concupiscence (from the Latin: con-, with + cupi, cupid - desire + -escere - suffix denoting beginning of a process or state) is often defined as an ardent, usually sensual, longing or lust.

Here is what Augustine wrote in Chapter 24 of Book 13 of his confessions...

CHURCH FATHERS: City of God, Book XIII (St. Augustine)

Here Augustine clearly states that the motion (or action) of concupiscence arose as a result of the first sin. Yet Augustine has erred because he does not apply Genesis 3:6 to his thinking and thus understand that the natural desires of the flesh have nothing to do with a sin nature. To Augustine concupiscence was proof of being born with a sin nature.

.

Hi Skinski
I'm afraid my attention span doesn't allow for responses to long posts, so I've chosen this part of your post if I may, as you mention the word concupiscence.

However a person wants to theologise the sinful nature, sin is according to the bible defined as transgression of the law 1John: 3:4

Do we all have a basic sin nature?

What happens if you give a child a list of rules/comands for their own good once they are old enough to take some responsibility?
A huge excitement is stirred in them to break the rules. If they did not have the rules, they would sometimes be drawn to that which they should not do, but the allure would not be so great. So even a young child has a natural, inbuilt desire to rebel.

But let's use the Apostle Paul as an example:

What shall we say then? Is the law sin? Nay, I had not known sin but by the law: for I had not known lust except the law had said. 'Thou shalt not covet'
But sin, taking occasion by the commandment(one of the ten Commandments) wrought in me all mannnr of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead.
Once I was alive without the law, but when the commandment came sin sprang to life and I died.
And the commandment which was ordained to life I found to be unto death
For sin taking occasion by the commandment deceived me, and by it slew me
Rom7:7-11

So when the commandment came to Paul, sin sprang to life and he died. Notice that sin, the natural desire to rebel, used what was good and Holy to arouse/wrought all manner of concupiscence in Paul, just as the child is aroused to break the good rules a parent gives them. I'd call that a basic human nature to rebel/break the rules/sin.
And sin, the natural nature to rebel expresses itself in opposition to that which is good, perfect and Holy-God's laws.

Because that is the natural state of man, Paul had to die to the law where sin enslaved him in respect of knowing it could not condemn him. For their is no power in any law, unless it can bring punishment/death'/condemnation
Hence
The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law 1Cor15:56

Now I don't disagree with everything you write, but the problem comes if what we write can be construed that the bottom line for a Christian is obediance to the law. That cannot be, and for many who have gone to church and believed, through what is preached that is the case, they have often ended up in a worse mess than when they came to Christ. Your bottom line has to be faith, or law/personal goodness, it cannot be both.

Now you correctly say that the righteous requirements of the law might be fully met in us who do not walk asfter the flesh but after the Spirit
Absolutely, and if you are ledv by the Spirit you are not under law
Gal5:18

That is pure, doctrinal truth

But we should add to that. How many people do you know who constantly, 24/7 follow after the Spirit and never the flesh?

If a person did they would obviously be perfect and never err/sin. I do not make such a claim
At the end of the day, the higher points of the law, according to Christ are, mercy, faithfuilness and compassion, I am sure the woman caught in adultery and placed before Christ was grateful for that, as ultimately we all must be.
Lets not crush people under demands we ourselves cannot fukly keep ourselves

 

[RickShafer]

As Mark54 has eloquently shown, the weightier matters of the law are judgement, mercy and faith. - Matt.23:23
But my question is how are we able to fulfill them?
How are we made able to love our neighbor as ourselves?
Is it a conscious decision?
If it is, does it come from within us?

 

[eternally-gratefull]

As Mark54 has eloquently shown, the weightier matters of the law are judgement, mercy and faith. - Matt.23:23
But my question is how are we able to fulfill them?
How are we made able to love our neighbor as ourselves?
Is it a conscious decision?
If it is, does it come from within us?

that question seems odd. As "loving our neighbor" does not have anything to do with how one is saved or not. Thus would not particularly go with this thread.

The answer would be no, it can;t come from us. It would come from love, and as scripture says, we love, because (as a result of) his first loving us. Until we feel his love, we have no capacity to love anyone but yourself.

I did not read Skinski's cut and past. they get old. so I am not sure what Mark was responding to. I will take a look at what mark said.

 

[RickShafer]

Don't worry about what seems odd O.K. E.G.?
I'm trying to keep this thread on tangent.
Believe it or not "loving your neighbor" is the truest outward sign of Christianity.
Please try not to derail it.
Skinski has a place here.
We are trying to show our views of total depravity vs. freewill.
And everyone's outlook is welcome for discourse sake.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Don't worry about what seems odd O.K. E.G.?
I'm trying to keep this thread on tangent.
Believe it or not "loving your neighbor" is the truest outward sign of Christianity.
Please try not to derail it.
Skinski has a place here.
We are trying to show our views of total depravity vs. freewill.
And everyone's outlook is welcome for discourse sake.

lol, Its all Good. I know what Skinski's deal is. thats why I don't read his cut and pasts anymore. Mark had a perfect response to him.

As for this thread. I think it would relate more to "how" one is born again, not what happens after we are saved. That is why I thought it was odd. Forgive me

 

[RickShafer]

I'll forgive you E.G. if you'll forgive me, I value your posts.
(I know, conditional acceptance is no acceptance at all)
All I am saying is let's here each other out.
Then weigh the matter using scripture.
Perhaps we can learn from each other instead of descending into tribal warfare.
There is infact a right answer to this question.
I want us all to find it together.
Or at least respect each others differences while we joust back and forth.