What Changed?

[Lafftur]

Well...
Jesus was the Second Adam. (Read it in Hebrews I think)

Yes, the 2nd Adam WITHOUT sin! Woohooo! I’m born again without sin IN CHRIST JESUS!

In the 1st Adam, all die.
In the 2nd Adam, all live!

Jesus Christ saved me… I am forever His and He is forever mine! He is worthy of all my love…

 

[PaulThomson]

Then the onus is on you to show from scripture the moral-spiritual environment in which the rest of the world was born.

Why?

 

[Rufus]

Why?

Why? Because you reject the bible's teaching on Anthropology.

And I find your reluctance to share your beliefs about this subject more than a little odd. Since you reject the doctrine of Total Depravity as being man's spiritual-moral environment, then why wouldn't you be eager to share the the better news with us about what you believe is man's true spiritual condition?

 

[PaulThomson]

Why? Because you reject the bible's teaching on Anthropology.

And I find your reluctance to share your beliefs about this subject more than a little odd. Since you reject the doctrine of Total Depravity as being man's spiritual-moral environment, then why wouldn't you be eager to share the the better news with us about what you believe is man's true spiritual condition?

The rest of the world's population is born into the same world as King David was born. Being born into a sin-infected external environment does not equate to being born with sin inside the newborn's body, soul and spirit.

Scripture says that the wicked go astray away from (apo) the womb, that is after spending some time outside the womb; not that they go astray while (kathOs) in the womb; nor that they go astray between being in the womb and leaving it (ex the womb).

Romans 9 says that children in the womb have not yet done anything good or evil. Sin enters some time after birth, according to Paul in Romans 7, after the child becomes aware that there are laws to be kept and they break a law they know they should keep.

 

[Rufus]

The rest of the world's population is born into the same world as King David was born. Being born into a sin-infected external environment does not equate to being born with sin inside the newborn's body, soul and spirit.

Scripture says that the wicked go astray away from (apo) the womb, that is after spending some time outside the womb; not that they go astray while (kathOs) in the womb; nor that they go astray between being in the womb and leaving it (ex the womb).

Romans 9 says that children in the womb have not yet done anything good or evil. Sin enters some time after birth, according to Paul in Romans 7, after the child becomes aware that there are laws to be kept and they break a law they know they should keep.

So, David and the rest of the world's population are not born sinners? They do not come into this world with sinful natures?

Has it ever occurred to you that Ps 51:5 is teaching that David (and, therefore, the rest of mankind) came into this world with a sinful nature? Man cannot not sin because we ARE (inherently, intrinsically EVIL). Didn't Jesus teach us that all men are evil!? He said "no man is good"! Only God alone is good!

So...when Ps 58:3-4 is says that the "wicked are estranged from the womb" or that "these who speak lies go astray from birth", the psalmist isn't saying that infants sin immediately after birth. Rather he is saying that they ARE SINNERS in their essence at birth! Job teaches the same thing in Job 25:4 by asking a rhetorical question: "Or how can he [man] be clean who is born of a woman?" And Isaiah essentially taught the same truth when he wrote about Israel: "And you have been called a rebel from birth" (Isa 48:8). Did he mean that all the Jews come into this world with swords or daggers hanging from their sides literally doing battle with God -- or did he mean they all had rebellious, sinful natures that invariably manifested itself over time?

And Rom 9 does not teach what you say. The topic in this chapter is Unconditional Election, which is totally dependent on God's sovereign choice, according to the counsel of his own will, and not contingent on any person's conduct.

 

[Nehemiah6]

The rest of the world's population is born into the same world as King David was born. Being born into a sin-infected external environment does not equate to being born with sin inside the newborn's body, soul and spirit.

Every human being has a human nature, and that nature includes within it a "sin nature" (the flesh). Every baby at birth therefore has "the flesh" within the soul.

 

[PaulThomson]

Every human being has a human nature, and that nature includes within it a "sin nature" (the flesh). Every baby at birth therefore has "the flesh" within the soul.

The flesh is not the sin nature. Sin is in the flesh of the sinner once s/he becomes a sinner.

[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 flesh belonging to sin (en homoOmati sarkos hamartias) , and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh (en tEi sarki) : [4] That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

 

[PaulThomson]

So, David and the rest of the world's population are not born sinners? They do not come into this world with sinful natures?

Has it ever occurred to you that Ps 51:5 is teaching that David (and, therefore, the rest of mankind) came into this world with a sinful nature? Man cannot not sin because we ARE (inherently, intrinsically EVIL). Didn't Jesus teach us that all men are evil!? He said "no man is good"! Only God alone is good!

So...when Ps 58:3-4 is says that the "wicked are estranged from the womb" or that "these who speak lies go astray from birth", the psalmist isn't saying that infants sin immediately after birth. Rather he is saying that they ARE SINNERS in their essence at birth! Job teaches the same thing in Job 25:4 by asking a rhetorical question: "Or how can he [man] be clean who is born of a woman?" And Isaiah essentially taught the same truth when he wrote about Israel: "And you have been called a rebel from birth" (Isa 48:8). Did he mean that all the Jews come into this world with swords or daggers hanging from their sides literally doing battle with God -- or did he mean they all had rebellious, sinful natures that invariably manifested itself over time?

And Rom 9 does not teach what you say. The topic in this chapter is Unconditional Election, which is totally dependent on God's sovereign choice, according to the counsel of his own will, and not contingent on any person's conduct.

I have heard it said that "Ps 51:5 is teaching that David (and, therefore, the rest of mankind) came into this world with a sinful nature? Man cannot not sin because we ARE (inherently, intrinsically EVIL). Didn't Jesus teach us that all men are evil!? He said "no man is good"! Only God alone is good!

According to you. But not according to the original text of scripture; nor according to the on its face meaning of the English translation of the text, of which you are blissfully and crassly ignorant. Because it has been explained simply to you several times now and you still won't acknowledge the facts.

 

[Rufus]

I have heard it said that "Ps 51:5 is teaching that David (and, therefore, the rest of mankind) came into this world with a sinful nature? Man cannot not sin because we ARE (inherently, intrinsically EVIL). Didn't Jesus teach us that all men are evil!? He said "no man is good"! Only God alone is good!

According to you. But not according to the original text of scripture; nor according to the on its face meaning of the English translation of the text, of which you are blissfully and crassly ignorant. Because it has been explained simply to you several times now and you still won't acknowledge the facts.

"...not according to the original text of scripture"? Shirely U. Jest? Every single translation I have, all of which were compiled by different teams of original language scholars say differently. You see...in your horizontal world "under the sun" you think there are gradients between Good and Evil -- you know like on the scale of 1 to 10, for example. And that is true to some extent. But Jesus wasn't comparing men with other men. He was comparing them to Absolute Good -- God alone! And all men fall far short of that glory, don't you know? On the vertical, theological level all men ARE EVIL compared to God. And how often did Jesus refer to his Jewish contemporaries as being "this evil generation"? I suppose "the original text of scripture" refutes this fact, as well?

Even the most literal translations disagree with you!

Mark 10:18
18 But Jesus said to him, Why callest thou me good? no one is good but one, [that is] God.
Darby

Mark 10:18
18 And Jesus said to him, 'Why me dost thou call good? no one [is] good except One — God;
YLT

Mark 10:17-18
18 And Jesus said to him, "Why do you call Me good? No one is good except God alone.
NASB

Mark 10:18
8 And Jesus said to him, "Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone.
ESV

Mark 10:18
18 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.
KJV

But you're smarter and wiser than all these teams of language scholars, right? I'm sure you think you run circles around them all...

 

[Rufus]

The flesh is not the sin nature. Sin is in the flesh of the sinner once s/he becomes a sinner.

[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 flesh belonging to sin (en homoOmati sarkos hamartias) , and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh (en tEi sarki) : [4] That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

So then why are sinners children of wrath by NATURE (Eph 2:3)?

But if you still insist that man isn't a sinner by nature, what is he, then?

 

[JohnRH]

Being born into a sin-infected external environment does not equate to being born with sin inside the newborn's body, soul and spirit.

If newborns weren't born in sin, they would never die until they were old enough to commit their first sin.

 

[Rufus]

If newborns weren't born in sin, they would never die until they were old enough to commit their first sin.

Excellent point! They do not "become" sinners, as PT posits -- which, of course, is all backwards. They come into this world BEING sinful humans by nature -- which is why they eventually and inevitably and invariably will sin. Going by PT's theory, he could have just as well have said, "newborns become human when they utter their first word." Or...does a lion become a carnivore when it first kills and tastes flesh and blood -- or does the beast kill for its food because it came into this world with a carnivorous nature?

Also, newborns are born into Adam's sin, since his sin and, therefore, his guilt are imputed to all his progeny (Rom 512ff.) There is no such thing as an innocent newborn, for all have participated in Adam's sin; therefore, the newborn, too, are included in Rom 3:23.

And this brings me to this final point: If it weren't for Unconditional Election, how could anyone young, and not yet having the knowledge of good and evil, die and go to heaven if it weren't for God's sovereign electing grace, which is what you seem to be intimating in your post.

 

[PaulThomson]

So, David and the rest of the world's population are not born sinners? They do not come into this world with sinful natures?

Has it ever occurred to you that Ps 51:5 is teaching that David (and, therefore, the rest of mankind) came into this world with a sinful nature? Man cannot not sin because we ARE (inherently, intrinsically EVIL). Didn't Jesus teach us that all men are evil!? He said "no man is good"! Only God alone is good!

So...when Ps 58:3-4 is says that the "wicked are estranged from the womb" or that "these who speak lies go astray from birth", the psalmist isn't saying that infants sin immediately after birth. Rather he is saying that they ARE SINNERS in their essence at birth! Job teaches the same thing in Job 25:4 by asking a rhetorical question: "Or how can he [man] be clean who is born of a woman?" And Isaiah essentially taught the same truth when he wrote about Israel: "And you have been called a rebel from birth" (Isa 48:8). Did he mean that all the Jews come into this world with swords or daggers hanging from their sides literally doing battle with God -- or did he mean they all had rebellious, sinful natures that invariably manifested itself over time?

And Rom 9 does not teach what you say. The topic in this chapter is Unconditional Election, which is totally dependent on God's sovereign choice, according to the counsel of his own will, and not contingent on any person's conduct.

I have heard it said that "Ps 51:5 is teaching that David (and, therefore, the rest of mankind) came into this world with a sinful nature? Man cannot not sin because we ARE (inherently, intrinsically EVIL). Didn't Jesus teach us that all men are evil!? He said "no man is good"! Only God alone is good!

According to you. But not according to the original text of scripture; nor according to the on its face meaning of the English translation of the text, of which you are blissfully and crassly ignorant. Because it has been explained simply to you several times now and you still won't acknowledge the facts.

If newborns weren't born in sin, they would never die until they were old enough to commit their first sin.

The universal penalty for Adam's sin in Genesis was mortality, toil, adversity, and pain; a sin nature is not mentioned as part of the judgment. Children are conceived mortal, not sinful. A sinless child of Adam can die. Jesus was sinless and was killed. Babies are sinless but can be, and many are, killed.

 

[PaulThomson]

So then why are sinners children of wrath by NATURE (Eph 2:3)?

But if you still insist that man isn't a sinner by nature, what is he, then?

Your nature is developed by reason of practice. We develop good or bad habits that become natural to us. Man is born a creature made in God's image. We are born with faculties that reflect God's nature. These get perverted by outside forces, the world and the devils: "Sin is crouching at the door. It wants to master you, but you must master it." Once sin gets in then the flesh also, under sin's sway, becomes another agent distorting God's image. These three lead us into repetitive ungodly responses that create ungodly habits, what the Bible calls sin.

 

[PaulThomson]

So, David and the rest of the world's population are not born sinners? They do not come into this world with sinful natures?

Has it ever occurred to you that Ps 51:5 is teaching that David (and, therefore, the rest of mankind) came into this world with a sinful nature? Man cannot not sin because we ARE (inherently, intrinsically EVIL). Didn't Jesus teach us that all men are evil!? He said "no man is good"! Only God alone is good!

So...when Ps 58:3-4 is says that the "wicked are estranged from the womb" or that "these who speak lies go astray from birth", the psalmist isn't saying that infants sin immediately after birth. Rather he is saying that they ARE SINNERS in their essence at birth! Job teaches the same thing in Job 25:4 by asking a rhetorical question: "Or how can he [man] be clean who is born of a woman?" And Isaiah essentially taught the same truth when he wrote about Israel: "And you have been called a rebel from birth" (Isa 48:8). Did he mean that all the Jews come into this world with swords or daggers hanging from their sides literally doing battle with God -- or did he mean they all had rebellious, sinful natures that invariably manifested itself over time?

And Rom 9 does not teach what you say. The topic in this chapter is Unconditional Election, which is totally dependent on God's sovereign choice, according to the counsel of his own will, and not contingent on any person's conduct.

I have heard it said that "Ps 51:5 is teaching that David (and, therefore, the rest of mankind) came into this world with a sinful nature? Man cannot not sin because we ARE (inherently, intrinsically EVIL). Didn't Jesus teach us that all men are evil!? He said "no man is good"! Only God alone is good!

According to you. But not according to the original text of scripture; nor according to the on its face meaning of the English translation of the text, of which you are blissfully and crassly ignorant. Because it has been explained simply to you several times now and you still won't acknowledge the facts.

"...not according to the original text of scripture"? Shirely U. Jest? Every single translation I have, all of which were compiled by different teams of original language scholars say differently. You see...in your horizontal world "under the sun" you think there are gradients between Good and Evil -- you know like on the scale of 1 to 10, for example. And that is true to some extent. But Jesus wasn't comparing men with other men. He was comparing them to Absolute Good -- God alone! And all men fall far short of that glory, don't you know? On the vertical, theological level all men ARE EVIL compared to God. And how often did Jesus refer to his Jewish contemporaries as being "this evil generation"? I suppose "the original text of scripture" refutes this fact, as well?

Even the most literal translations disagree with you!

Mark 10:18
18 But Jesus said to him, Why callest thou me good? no one is good but one, [that is] God.
Darby

Mark 10:18
18 And Jesus said to him, 'Why me dost thou call good? no one [is] good except One — God;
YLT

Mark 10:17-18
18 And Jesus said to him, "Why do you call Me good? No one is good except God alone.
NASB

Mark 10:18
8 And Jesus said to him, "Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone.
ESV

Mark 10:18
18 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.
KJV

But you're smarter and wiser than all these teams of language scholars, right? I'm sure you think you run circles around them all...

This has been explained to you at least three times. But you have been too blinded by your ideology to reason through the explanations. Allyou do is hand wave and reassert your ideology.

If I have a box of apples to sell all of which are bruised and marred except the one royal gala apple, and I tell you they are all good apples, you could say, " None of them is good, except one, the royal gala."

This does NOT mean that none of them are any good. There may be good parts to each of the apples, but each apple as a whole is not good, except the royal gala. The apples are not TOTALLY DEPRAVED. I could make a good apple pie from the good parts of the apples.

Try doing some actually thinking, friend.

 

[Cameron143]

I have heard it said that "Ps 51:5 is teaching that David (and, therefore, the rest of mankind) came into this world with a sinful nature? Man cannot not sin because we ARE (inherently, intrinsically EVIL). Didn't Jesus teach us that all men are evil!? He said "no man is good"! Only God alone is good!

According to you. But not according to the original text of scripture; nor according to the on its face meaning of the English translation of the text, of which you are blissfully and crassly ignorant. Because it has been explained simply to you several times now and you still won't acknowledge the facts.

This has been explained to you at least three times. But you have been too blinded by your ideology to reason through the explanations. Allyou do is hand wave and reassert your ideology.

If I have a box of apples to sell all of which are bruised and marred except the one royal gala apple, and I tell you they are all good apples, you could say, " None of them is good, except one, the royal gala."

This does NOT mean that none of them are any good. There may be good parts to each of the apples, but each apple as a whole is not good, except the royal gala. The apples are not TOTALLY DEPRAVED. I could make a good apple pie from the good parts of the apples.

Try doing some actually thinking, friend.

Paul said in his flesh dwelleth no good thing. Don't all unsaved people operate according to the flesh? How would you address this?

 

[PaulThomson]

Paul said in his flesh dwelleth no good thing. Don't all unsaved people operate according to the flesh? How would you address this?

I would point you to my post to Rufus #55, to see what I think we mean when we say "No one is good, except God". I would say that the same principle applies to Paul's comment here.

Romans 7: 18 oida gar (For I perceive) hoti (that) ouk oikei (is not dwelling) en emoi (in me) tout'estin (that which is) en tEi sarki (in the flesh) mou (of me) agathon (a good thing).
to gar thelein (for to will/desire) parakeitai (is present) moi (in me) to de katergazesthai (to perform) to kalon (the good thing) ouch euriskO (I am not finding).

Firstly, Paul is describing his own experience, and we cannot ascribe this same perception as true to every person, including every Christian, or every child in the womb, or every infant who has no understanding of good and evil.

Secondly, asserting that there is no good thing, is not necessarily asserting that there is nothing good. That is, his instincts may be warped by sin having invaded his person, but there may be positive/good aspect of his instincts nevertheless. I am not denying Pan-aspectual Imperfection of unbelievers after their eventual infection with sin. I am, however, rejecting the concepts of Total Depravity and Original Sin as being unbiblical.

Christians have been given a newed perfect purified spirit upon justification through faith. So there is one aspect of those humans that is not depraved or defiled.
Until children knowingly choose sin sin is crouching at their door, sleeping/dead, but when moral law comes to the child, and the world and the devil deceive the child into sin, sin wakes up/revives and becomes an inner force the child must contend with.

The unsaved have a spirit that is not good, in the sense of aspectually imperfect, but not totally depraved, with no good working parts. An unsaved sinner can set their mind on spiritual things and God will assist them if they do, so that they can direct their body to follow a morally good path at times. But this is intermittent due to the severe handicap of having sin in the flesh. "No one keeps on doing good, no not one." No aspect of man's divine image is totally depraved and without some good functional parts. Even those who are evil can give some good gifts to their children.

 

[Magenta]

Jesus replied. “No one is good except God alone."

 

[Mem]

No aspect of man's divine image is totally depraved and without some good functional parts. Even those who are evil can give some good gifts to their children.

I noticed that the reader of the Strong's Greek for agathos is directed to compare it to kalos and vis versa, each being translated into English as "good" but agathos, which is found in Mark 10:18 is "properly intrinsic" and kalos is, " properly, beautiful, but chiefly (figuratively) good (literally or morally), i.e. Valuable or virtuous (for appearance or use, and thus distinguished from agathos, which is properly intrinsic) -- X better, fair, good(-ly), honest, meet, well, worthy.
So, there does seem to be some measure of an otherwise unrecognized nuance in the general (English) definition of 'good.'

 

[JohnRH]

Excellent point! They do not "become" sinners, as PT posits -- which, of course, is all backwards. They come into this world BEING sinful humans by nature -- which is why they eventually and inevitably and invariably will sin. Going by PT's theory, he could have just as well have said, "newborns become human when they utter their first word." Or...does a lion become a carnivore when it first kills and tastes flesh and blood -- or does the beast kill for its food because it came into this world with a carnivorous nature?

Also, newborns are born into Adam's sin, since his sin and, therefore, his guilt are imputed to all his progeny (Rom 512ff.) There is no such thing as an innocent newborn, for all have participated in Adam's sin; therefore, the newborn, too, are included in Rom 3:23.

And this brings me to this final point: If it weren't for Unconditional Election, how could anyone young, and not yet having the knowledge of good and evil, die and go to heaven if it weren't for God's sovereign electing grace, which is what you seem to be intimating in your post.

A newborn doesn't have the law. Sin is not imputed when there is no law. Therefore every sinner who dies before they have the law goes to heaven - no exceptions, no "sovereign choosing" of one over another.
The newborn is personally innocent of Adam's specific transgression, but physically dies because he's Adam's seed - a sinner.