Total Depravity

posthuman · Jul 9, 2024

7 verses previous to this we have God shedding blood and making garments to cover Adam and Eve: the first sacrifice in all of scripture.

it is not unrelated that 'in the process of time' - indicating a set period - Abel sheds blood and offers parts of those things which God had likewise sacrificed for his parents sake, probably 33 years beforehand.

if we just look at what is in the immediate context in the text, it is clear they are participating in a commemoration, repeating the example God gave, which is recorded 7 verses previous to this record.

just as Genesis 2 parallels Genesis 1, Genesis 4 parallels Genesis 3 - it is the Hebrew pattern of recurrence in writing, repeating a theme from another perspective, emphasizing repeated details, adding information to the thing being taught.

Jimbone · Jul 9, 2024

PaulThomson said:

That's not at all how I understand it. "TOTAL DEPRAVITY" is our spiritual status when we are born. When Adam and Eve ate the fruit they died, that day. Their spirit died and they were no longer connected to God. Every one of there offspring to this day are born the exact same way. This is how the little newborn that hasn't "sinned" yet is already fallen. We are born spiritually dead in our sin, every one of us. This said, it just so happens we were created by a God who is good and merciful, and loves us like this, He stepped into His creation, lived His life up to His standard, and was then punished in our place so that we might be forgiven while His perfect justice is fulfilled. This is how I know that when the little baby dies they open their eyes again in the presents of our King. TOTAL DEPRAVITY does mean that we are 100% incapable of salvation in and of ourselves. Outside of Him drawing us, His word teaching us, and the very creation testifying of Him, we could never be saved. That's it and that's just truth.

reneweddaybyday · Jul 9, 2024

PaulThomson said:

you are quibbling ... here is what I said:

In a man-to-God scenario, no, you cannot "devise [your] own way". I believe there is only one Way to approach God and that is through the Lord Jesus Christ.

When it comes to man-to-man I believe God has given us enough instruction in His Word for us to live by faith.

so as far as faith in God ... you cannot "devise [your] own way". It is in/by/through the Lord Jesus Christ that we are born again and it is in/by/through the Lord Jesus Christ that the born again believer lives his or her life in the presence of God. The Lord Jesus Christ is the High Priest in the Holy of Holies and outside of Him there is no access to the Father. Abide in the Lord Jesus Christ ... I don't know how to make it any clearer. It sounds simplistic, but it is easier said than done. Here is what Jesus told His disciples:

John 14:23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.

That is fullness of fellowship with the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

as far as faith being revealed in our treatment of our fellow man (unbelievers as wells believers) ... there are many verses in Scripture which indicate what it is to live by faith ... I submitted the parable of the Vine in an earlier post ... here are some other examples:

Matthew 25:31-40 When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory: And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats: And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left. Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me. Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink? When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee? Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee? And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.

Galatians 6:9-10 And let us not be weary in well doing: for in due season we shall reap, if we faint not. As we have therefore opportunity, let us do good unto all men, especially unto them who are of the household of faith.

James 4:13-17 Go to now, ye that say, To day or to morrow we will go into such a city, and continue there a year, and buy and sell, and get gain: Whereas ye know not what shall be on the morrow. For what is your life? It is even a vapour, that appeareth for a little time, and then vanisheth away. For that ye ought to say, If the Lord will, we shall live, and do this, or that. But now ye rejoice in your boastings: all such rejoicing is evil. Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin.

... if we know to do good and don't do it, that is sin (i.e. not walking by faith).

God tells us in Rom 12 that each born again believer has something ("gift(s)") with which to bless fellow man ... not an exhaustive list and the examples are varied ... the last verse says be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good.

Whatever we do, we are to do all to the glory of God. Instead of "what do I want to do" it is "what does God want me to do to bring glory to Him".
.

HeIsHere · Jul 9, 2024

PaulThomson said:

Have you read the context of that verse before? Who was the prophet addressing? What kind of behaviour that that group considered "righteousness" was God calling dirty rags? Does a judgment made of one nation at one time in history mean that that judgment applies to all nations of all times?

Agree!

PennEd · Jul 9, 2024

Magenta said:

There is a common misconception regarding total depravity. Total depravity does not mean that man is as
wicked or sinful as he could be, nor does it mean that man is without a conscience or any sense of right or
wrong. Neither does it mean that man does not or cannot do things that seem to be good when viewed from
a human perspective or measured against a human standard. It does not even mean that man cannot do things
that seem to conform outwardly to the law of God. What the Bible does teach and what total depravity does
recognize is that even the “good” things man does are tainted by sin because they are not done for the glory
of God and out of faith in Him (Romans 14:23; Hebrews 11:6). While man looks upon the outward acts and
judges them to be good, God looks upon not only the outward acts but also the inward motives that lie
behind them, and because they proceed from a heart that is in rebellion against Him and they are not done
for His glory, even these good deeds are like “filthy rags” in His sight. In other words, fallen man’s good deeds
are motivated not by a desire to please God but by our own self-interest and are thus corrupted to the point
where God declares that there is “no one who does good, no not one!” source

Romans 3:10-12
The depraved state of man is not just presented in Calvinism, either, but also in Arminianism, and Molinism.

The Bible teaches that we sin because we are sinners. Of the natural man:
- all our righteous acts are like filthy rags
- there are NONE righteous
- a bad tree cannot produce good fruit
- all are under the control of the evil one
- we need to be rescued
- man’s heart is deceitful and desperately wicked
- man is born dead in transgression and sin
- is held captive by a love for sin
- will not seek God
- he loves the darkness
- does not understand the things of God
- suppress the truth of God in unrighteousness
- continues to willfully live in sin
- sinful lifestyle seems right to men
- rejects the gospel of Christ as foolishness
- hostile toward God in their mind
- does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is unable to do so

Was going to jump in here, but your post covers the whole question of the OP.

TMS · Jul 9, 2024

SonJudgment said:

That is presumption, there is no evidence for that statement.
Sure there is no evidence from this story but the Bible states that all have sinned.
Even Able sinned. He needed Jesus too.

From a look at society today we can surely say that people are born selfish and with a propensity to sin. Innocent at birth but very quickly the sins start to be seen.

We are fallen, but by the Spirit we can overcome.

Why have we degenerated so much since Adam?
Why are we going to get new minds and bodies, and why do we cry out ...
Psa 51:10 Create in me a clean heart, O God; and renew a right spirit within me.

SonJudgment · Jul 9, 2024

TMS said:

Well again it's the world not the people. The people will commit sin because they give into the world. They choose the world over God and this is why they sin. We are all born good and without sin. The correct position is that God is not at fault for our sins, it's our fault for giving into the world and sinning against God since God made us good and God made us with no predisposition to sin, but God made us with intent that we be his children. The theme of the world being at enmity with God and the world being the cause of sin is very recurring throughout all the Bible. Let us consider 1 John 2.

1 John 2:15-17
15 Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him.
16 For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.
17 And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever.

HeIsHere · Jul 9, 2024

SonJudgment said:

Well again it's the world not the people. The people will commit sin because they give into the world. They choose the world over God and this is why they sin. We are all born good and without sin. The correct position is that God is not at fault for our sins, it's our fault for giving into the world and sinning against God since God made us good and God made us with no predisposition to sin, but God made us with intent that we be his children. The theme of the world being at enmity with God and the world being the cause of sin is very recurring throughout all the Bible. Let us consider 1 John 2.

1 John 2:15-17
15 Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him.
16 For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.
17 And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever.

This was the belief of the early church fathers many of whom were martyred for the faith, they did not teach original sin.

PaulThomson · Jul 9, 2024

reneweddaybyday said:

You had stated

reneweddaybyday said:
In Hebrews 11:4 we read by faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain.

In Romans 10:17 we read faith by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

In order for Abel to have brought his offering "by faith", there must have been a "word of God" he had "heard" ... even though Scripture is silent on what he heard.

Cain's offering was not accepted by God because Cain did not bring his offering "by faith".
FOOTNOTE
tn The Hebrew term מִנְחָה (minkhah, “offering”) is a general word for tribute, a gift, or an offering. It is the main word used in Lev 2 for the dedication offering. This type of offering could be comprised of vegetables. The content of the offering (vegetables, as opposed to animals) was not the critical issue, but rather the attitude of the offerer.I

I replied -
PaulThomson said:
Do you agree with me that it is not required that one have a specific command to do X in order to do X by faith? For instance, if I believe God is kind and good and all the good I have is through Him, I can devise my own way to express that faith, without God beforehand prescribing how I must do so.

Then you said-
reneweddaybyday said:
I'm not partial to the term "devise my own way to express that faith" ...

In a man-to-God scenario, no, you cannot "devise [your] own way". I believe there is only one Way to approach God and that is through the Lord Jesus Christ.

When it comes to man-to-man I believe God has given us enough instruction in His Word for us to live by faith.

In John 15 ... the parable of the Vine ... Jesus tells us He is the Vine, we are the branches. The fruit is a result of the Vine working in the branch ... it's not the branch that produces the fruit. The branch merely holds out the fruit to others, but it's the Vine's fruit.

John 15:4-5 Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me. I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing.
.
So then I asked

PaulThomson said:
Are you saying that the only ways we can express faith in God are the ways recorded in the Bible, and any innovation outside of those cannot be valid expressions of a faith that pleases God?

MY RESPONSE TO YOUR PRESENT POST IS -

We are told in Romans 1 that God speaks to all men everywhere of His invisible deity and power through his handiwork (poiEma) so that all are wirhout excuse...

Psalm 19:1 tells us that the hevens declare yh glory of God, and the firmament shows His handiwork...

Ps. 97:6 tells us that The heavens declare his righteousness and all the peoples see His glory...

We do not hear only commandments from God for which responding by faith means obedience. God tells us m,any othet=r things, and our faith response is very much personal to ourselves. We might kneel down in worship or write a song of worship, or give Him a meal of roast lamb when we hear the heavens declare his glory and righteousness., and we recognise that our provisions have all been by His generosity.

There was no law to sacrifice sheep in Abel's day. But Abel was a shepherd and, in his own estimation, offered God a meal of one of His best sheep as a faith response to God. Abel made His offering in a way that God accepted, and God's acceptance was somehow communicated to Abel. Perhaps his flocks prospered as Isaac's flocks later prospered.. Because God accepted Abels offering ,we can infer that it was offered with faitn, and probably out of a lifestyle of faith.

Cain copied Abel some time later, perhaps hoping to have his crops blessed, but his offering was not accepted, presumably becasue it was not out of faith, but out of some other motive: wanting to equal his older brother in productivity maybe? His sacrifice did not gain for him what he had hoped, and he became more jealous and resentful of his brother.

We are told that the things written in the old testament prefiguring Christ were not understood by those who wrote them, but Giod had them recorded for the benefit of those who would come after Christ. So, it seems amiss to me to ascribe to Cain and Anel an understanding that the seed promised shedding His blood and rising again was the way in which satan's head would be crushed. That would undercut the teaching that no one, including satan and his demonic forces, realised that slaying Jesus would assure their defeat.

If the plan of redemption was known by men since Adam, it would be a very badly kept secret by the time Christ came.

I hold still to the opinion that faith is a response to what we hear from and about God, and any positive response to any insight from any experience r part of creation, is an act of faith that pleases God and He reckons to a person as righteousness..

PaulThomson · Jul 9, 2024

posthuman said:

Abel removed the blood and presumably returned it to the ground before offering the flesh. bones and fat. I do not see how anyone can reasonably conclude that Abel offered the blood, when what was offered was what was left after the blood had been removed, so that no blood was offered. That makes no sense to me.

It also seems amiss to read into the motives of old testament persons that they were knowingly with faith prefiguring Christ's death and resurrection, when we are specifically told that they did not understand what the actions and events God had them select and record and curate were supposed to reveal about God's plan. These things they recorded for our benefit who came after Christ.

PaulThomson · Jul 9, 2024

posthuman said:

See #294 and #295

From the time of Adam and Eve, people have lived out their faith and their unbelief in the God who has always made known His deity and power and glory and righteousness through His handiwork, so that all are without excuse. Rom 1 Ps. 19:1 and Ps. 97:6

God curated the gathering together into the sacred scriptures some of that history. The Old Testament believers did not understand exactly what they were recording that pointed to the promised Seed of the Woman, because those details were being recorded for the instruction of those who would come after Christ. So, it seems amiss to attribute to old testament characters motivations that rely on them having revelations reserved by God for new testament saints.

PaulThomson · Jul 9, 2024

PennEd said:

If Total Depravity does not mean "total depravity", "totally depraved", then stop using equivocal language, and come up with a term that fits what you actually believe. Is your objective to have clear discourse and understanding of your actual position? Or is it to keep equivocal terminology, so you can plead "being misunderstood" when you get pinned to the wall during debates? I suggest Pan-aspectual Imperfection (SO TULIP becomes PUPIL). Or Omni-faceted Imperfection (So TULIP becomes LOUPI). You may be able to suggest a better honest terminology.

PaulThomson · Jul 9, 2024

Jimbone said:

Where does it say their spirit died?
Adam was told that in the day they ate it, "to die (MUTh qal infinitive absolute) you are/will be dying. (ThaMMUTh Qal imperfect "
That is they would begin a process (ThaMMUTh) which would inexorably cause them to die completely (MUTh). There is nothing thgere about soiritual death.

Death is separation. In physical death the soul separates from the body. When a hand goes dead, it os disconnected from the control of the brain. In the second death the resurrected body is separated again from the soul, and perhaps the spirit is separated from the soul.

What we know happened was that Adam developed a sense of alienation from God. He hid from God out of his own fear and shame. We are not told that God experienced a sense of separation from Adam. Arguably God is not affected by our sin in such a way that He needs to keep away from us for fear of His holiness becoming contaminated. Jesus touched unclean people all the time. Those who sought His touch we healed. They did not give Jesus their disease or sins. SO, again arguably, propitiation is not about appeasing a turned away God, but is a means by which God shows that he has always been looking lovingly at us and has always been stretching out His hands, even to rebellions and stubborn people. The propitiation is for our benefit, not God's.

reneweddaybyday · Jul 10, 2024

PaulThomson said:

I believe the ones who are without excuse (Rom 1:20) are the ones who suppress the truth in unrighteousness (Rom 1:18).

I do not believe the "whosoevers" who believe the gospel of Christ (Rom 1:16) are included in what is written in Rom 1:18-32.

PaulThomson said:

God's Word tells us so then faith by hearing and hearing by the Word of God (Rom 10:17).

God's Word also tells us by faith Abel offered a more excellent sacrifice than Cain by which he obtained witness that he was righteous (Heb 11:4).

Since faith by hearing and hearing by Word of God, there had to have been a Word of God for Abel to offer a sacrifice by faith.

PaulThomson said:

First of all, Cain was the older brother ... and if you believe the brothers gave offerings at separate times, in reading the text it appears Cain brought his offering first, then Abel also brought his offering:

Genesis 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.

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:

5 But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell.

What do you believe happened here?

Cain brought his offering ... then later Abel brought his offering ... then God accepted Abel's offering ... and then Cain seethed in anger?

I believe they both brought their offerings at the same time in accordance with a Word of God which they heard ...

PaulThomson said:

I do not believe God's redemption was kept secret.

Job said For I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth: And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God (Job 19:25-26).

When Abraham offered Isaac, Abraham believed God would resurrect Isaac from the dead ...

Hebrews 11:17-19 By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son, Of whom it was said, That in Isaac shall thy seed be called: Accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead; from whence also he received him in a figure.
.

Magenta · Jul 10, 2024

reneweddaybyday said:

Job 19:25-27a

PaulThomson · Jul 10, 2024

reneweddaybyday said:

Obviously, those who believe what God reveals do not need an excuse for disbelieving what God has revealed. So I agree with you on that.

reneweddaybyday said:

God's Word also tells us by faith Abel offered a more excellent sacrifice than Cain by which he obtained witness that he was righteous (Heb 11:4).

Since faith by hearing and hearing by Word of God, there had to have been a Word of God for Abel to offer a sacrifice by faith.]/QUOTE]

The word used is an offering. It need not be a blood sacrifice. And Abel's faith in offering a firstling of the flock need not have been obedience to a heard command from God to offer a firstling of the flock. His offering could have been a response to something he heard from God through God's handiwork.

reneweddaybyday said:

The Hebrew grammar disjuncts verse three from verse four and verse four from verse five.

Hebrew narrative uses what is called waw consecutive constructions to indicate temporal order. I can't go into that here, it would take too long. But the Hebrew grammar indicates that v. 3 in consecutive to v 2. It indicates that v 4 is not consecutive to v 3, but happened before v 3. Then the Hebrew grammar of v 5 indicates that verse five is not consecutive to v 4. In other words v 4 is a parenthetical reference to something that happened before v 3. The Hebrew grammar shows that v 6 is consecutive to v 5.

If one sees the events in the order the Hebrew grammar places them, one can then infer what the motives of the players may have been.

Genesis 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.

4 But Abel, had also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the LORD had had respect unto Abel and to his offering:

5 But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell.

6 And the LORD said to Cain, "Why are you angry? And ehy has you countenance fallen?

reneweddaybyday said:

Do you have any evidence that Job and Abraham understood that Christ would die on a cross and shed His blood to bring about their resurrection?

PaulThomson · Jul 10, 2024

posthuman said:

Fair criticism. Yes, I was importing a first fruit terminology into Gen 4. I don't think the offering was rejected because it was not first fruits. I think it was rejected because it was not offered in faith, but as a bribe which Cain had hoped would gain him an abundant next harvest, as Abel's offering (but offered in faith) had blessed Abel's flocks. I think that when his bribe was not effective, he hated his brother.

Evmur · Jul 10, 2024

PaulThomson said:

Cain offered to God the fruit of his labour, the fruit of the sweat of his brow, he is the father of all those who say "no but we must earn our salvation with works"

Cain did not see the necessity for death to self. For the need of miraculous forgiveness. For substitution, the transferral of his sins onto an innocent victim.

... yet he slew innocent Abel.

Evmur · Jul 10, 2024

SonJudgment said:

No, it's just a matter of his sacrifice was not favored and Abel's was. This does however start Cain down the process towards sin though. When Cain sees that his sacrifice is not favored and that Abel's sacrifice is favored he then becomes wroth and his countenance falls. Even this however is not a sin, but it is at this point that God even intervenes to tell Cain that if he does well then he will be accepted, but if he does not then he will sin. At this point Cain could have simply just accepted the Word of God and considered to himself to just strive to do better and found acceptance with God, and if he had done so he would not have sinned. We can see clearly in the episode, as it is very simple and very brief that Cain rejects the Word of God and gives into his earthly emotions of jealousy over his brother and his jealousy fuels his meaningless wrath and so this brings forth his sin which is murdering his brother. Keeping to the topic we see that both Cain and Abel have the same parents, even directly Adam and Eve, and neither one was born guilty of Adam and Eve's sins, neither one was born with a propensity to sin, but they were born sinless albeit into a world that is still corrupted by the original sins. Abel values God over the world. Cain gives into the world and thus Cain becomes a sinner.

this is not correct Abel's sacrifice took away his sins, Cain's sacrifice did not.

PennEd · Jul 10, 2024

PaulThomson said:

If Total Depravity does not mean "total depravity", "totally depraved", then stop using equivocal language, and come up with a term that fits what you actually believe. Is your objective to have clear discourse and understanding of your actual position? Or is it to keep equivocal terminology, so you can plead "being misunderstood" when you get pinned to the wall during debates? I suggest Pan-aspectual Imperfection (SO TULIP becomes PUPIL). Or Omni-faceted Imperfection (So TULIP becomes LOUPI). You may be able to suggest a better honest terminology.

ok

Total Depravity

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Well-known member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Senior Member