Total Depravity

No. From eating of the tree, sin indwelt them, and they became sinners just as everyone else is.

I'm getting tired of discussing this. Do we really need to continue to go through it further?

So Adam and Eve became sinners by sinning, just as everyone else does.

No, they became sinners by eating and having sin indwell them. Done?

The motions of sin are our built-in animosity towards the law that becomes evident when the law appears.

For example, say you are walking in the park. You are inclined to walk along the pathway, but you notice a sign that says...don't walk on the grass. What was your first thought? Well? You want to walk on the grass. Why? Because the law activated the motions of sin within you.

This was my example. Paul uses the example of coveting. Before he knew what coveting was, no problem. He was dead to the law. But the moment the law came, the motions of sin brought all kinds of problems.

I say all this to say this: where did this propensity in us come from?

It comes from our constant tendency to put "SELF" on the throne of our lives instead of God.

No. It came as a result of our fallen nature.

Eating was disobedience/sin. They weren't sinners until they ate/sinned. Why is the truth so hard for you to confess?

At first glance, I thought I agreed exactly with what you said here, but I actually think the last statement would be clearer if you said simply that "we are counted as having sinned when Adam sinned." In Romans 5:12, Paul says, "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: " I think he means simply that when Adam was in the garden we were all genetically (actually) there IN him and thus when Adam sinned, we also sinned and so we died (spiritually).

There's another take on this, but it gets complicated. I don't really want to derail the thread.

Is sin a choice ?
Are we guilty even if we have not choosen to sin?

Am I guilty for the sin of Adam?

1Jn 3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

Sin is a choice...
Rom 5:12 KJV Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
It states all have sinned, all have choosen to sin and all are guilty of sinning.

Jesus was born as a human, the seed of the woman, but Jesus did not choose to sin. And Jesus was not a sinner.

The reason we all sin is because we inherit a selfish nature, or a sinful nature.

When Adam and Eve sinned they lost access to the tree of life and began to die. This heightened their instinct for survival, and introduced a fight or flight response to danger and threats. Hence, after the fall they hid from God (flight) and blamed others (fight). The instinct for survival is not sinful, but it is not appropriate to follow that instinct in every situation. All humans are born mortal and have a survival instinct to fight against or to flee from perceived threats. But these responses are not evil in themselves. They become evil when they are the options chosen instead of doing what is morally good by staying and loving.

When the law says, "Do not murder, for there will be consequences for the one who murders," this law does not make my flesh want to murder. When the law says, "When driving keep to the right of the centre line, my flesh does not automatically want to drive on the left, because I see that law as enhancing my chances of survival.
If I see laws as enhancing my chances of survival, there is no fight or flight response to those laws. But in situations where keeping those laws could get me killed, my flesh finds it expedient to break those laws, even if to love would require compliance to them. And alternatively, I may stick to the letter of the law when I think it is to my advantage, when to love would require that I break that law. The flesh judges based on what will maximise my own survival, The spirit judges based on what is more noble, true, loving and good.

So, based on my own experience, I disagree with you. When I see a sign saying "Keep off the grass" I don't automatically want to walk on it. I want to walk on it when my instinct thinks doing so will save me some of my limited mortal time, or will fit more pleasure into my limited mortal time. Otherwise, I am quite relaxed about keeping the command. Paul"s coveting was his flesh thinking the coveted thing would inject more pleasure into his limited life-span. The commandment not to do it exposed his propensity to do it in certain cases and exposed the way he felt pressured into sinning by the fear of death and the sense of having limited time to accumulate desirable things. But it did not make him into a continuously covetous person.

Your basic argument is that your experience dictates the meaning of scripture rather than having scripture inform your experience. This is incorrect. The opposite is actually true.
Adam and Eve's responses after sin are indicative of a corruption of their nature, and not an alternative response acceptable to God. In fact, their responses were sinful because they sought to live independently of God in their choices. This marks a profound difference in their thinking, in their hearts, and in their wills. In fact, mankind began to experience a myriad of emotions that were new. Not only did they begin to fear, they also felt shame. The thing that changed in the equation was their sin. God hadn't changed as a result of sin. At this point, creation itself had not changed. The only thing that explains their responses is a change in them.
It is this change that has been passed to all men. You can deny the motions of sin in you that become evident at the knowledge of the law, but we see it all the time. When sex education is taught in schools, the incidence of sexual activity increases. It's the fallen human nature at work.

PaulThomson said:
When Adam and Eve sinned they lost access to the tree of life and began to die. This heightened their instinct for survival, and introduced a fight or flight response to danger and threats. Hence, after the fall they hid from God (flight) and blamed others (fight). The instinct for survival is not sinful, but it is not appropriate to follow that instinct in every situation. All humans are born mortal and have a survival instinct to fight against or to flee from perceived threats. But these responses are not evil in themselves. They become evil when they are the options chosen instead of doing what is morally good by staying and loving.

When the law says, "Do not murder, for there will be consequences for the one who murders," this law does not make my flesh want to murder. When the law says, "When driving keep to the right of the centre line, my flesh does not automatically want to drive on the left, because I see that law as enhancing my chances of survival.
If I see laws as enhancing my chances of survival, there is no fight or flight response to those laws. But in situations where keeping those laws could get me killed, my flesh finds it expedient to break those laws, even if to love would require compliance to them. And alternatively, I may stick to the letter of the law when I think it is to my advantage, when to love would require that I break that law. The flesh judges based on what will maximise my own survival, The spirit judges based on what is more noble, true, loving and good.

So, based on my own experience, I disagree with you. When I see a sign saying "Keep off the grass" I don't automatically want to walk on it. I want to walk on it when my instinct thinks doing so will save me some of my limited mortal time, or will fit more pleasure into my limited mortal time. Otherwise, I am quite relaxed about keeping the command. Paul"s coveting was his flesh thinking the coveted thing would inject more pleasure into his limited life-span. The commandment not to do it exposed his propensity to do it in certain cases and exposed the way he felt pressured into sinning by the fear of death and the sense of having limited time to accumulate desirable things. But it did not make him into a continuously covetous person.

I would say that I worded the intro to my final paragraph badly. I had set out my take on the origin of our motivations to sin based on scripture in paragraph one. I had described how that biblically based dynamic plays out in my experiential response to laws in paragraph two. And my thord paragraph was, in reality, based on the arguments of both preceding paragraphs. The biblical description of the fall and my experience of my reaction to laws. So, I should have began paragraph three with -

"So, based on the biblical description of the fall and my own experience, I disagree with you. When I see a sign saying "Keep off the grass" I don't automatically want to walk on it. I want to walk on it when my instinct thinks doing so will save me some of my limited mortal time, or will fit more pleasure into my limited mortal time. Otherwise, I am quite relaxed about keeping the command.

I disagree with your assertion that my basic argument is that my experience dictates the meaning of scripture rather than having scripture inform my experience. In reality, I am citing my actual experience as a confirmation of my exegesis of the biblical description of the fall and its consequences. I am saying that my experience conforms to this exegesis of the biblical text.

I also disagree with your assertion that "Adam and Eve's responses after sin are indicative of a corruption of their nature." Their response to their sin was something novel for them. They had never experienced shame and fear before. But these responses were appropriate responses to falling short of glorifying God, through denigrating Him and disobeying Him. Their responses were not a change in their nature, but an outworking of their original nature, made in the image of God, when the innate God-like will chooses lies, unbelief and disobedience. The thing that explains their responses is not a change in their nature; you don't develop a nature, a habit, by making one novel choice. The one novel change in their behaviour (disobedience) elicited from them novel emotional response (fear, shame, blame-casting).

The factor that actually worked to habituate self-reliance and God-aversion in their practice was their newly acquired mortality which limited the time they had to achieve their goals and multiply their pleasures and drove them to take moral short-cuts to achieve these.

Romans 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, upon which (eph'On) all [who sinned] sinned.

That is "upon death passing to everyone, everyone [who sinned] sinned.
I understand "everyone sinned" in the same way we use "everyone" when we say "Because they heard there were free cellphones being distributed, everyone converged on the Apple store at the mall." This is not meant to be taken as a claim that that everyone in the world converged on Apple store at the mall; nor that everyone in the mall at the tome converged on the Apple store.
It is supposed to be taken as a claim that "Because they heard there were free cellphones being distributed, everyone [who had converged on the Apple store at the mall at that time] had converged on the Apple store at the mall at that time."

We are born with a sinful nature. We are also born spiritually dead in trespass and sin. (Ephesians 2:1)

Total depravity? Depends on what is meant. The forbidden fruit is both good and evil. The problem is not, "is it good or bad?" The problem is "Is this God's will or not"? Sin means to miss the mark, literally an archery term in the days of Jesus.

People are not 100% evil or 100% good. However, they are spiritually dead and so separated from God. Good works will save no one. Psalm 51:5 (Amplified)
I was brought forth in [a state of] wickedness; In sin my mother conceived me [and from my beginning I, too, was sinful].

@Nehemiah6

TOTAL DEPRAVITY makes the false claim that the unsaved are totally incapable of understanding and believing the Gospel.

Click to expand...

No its true. Though the unsaved can hear the Gospel in their unregenerate dead condition, it cant be with Spiritual understanding and love for it, but to them Paul says its a savor of death unto death 2 Cor 2;14-16

14 Now thanks be unto God, which always causeth us to triumph in Christ, and maketh manifest the savour of his knowledge by us in every place.

15 For we are unto God a sweet savour of Christ, in them that are saved, and in them that perish[UNSAVED]:

16 To the one[unsaved] we are the savour of death unto death; and to the other the savour of life unto life. And who is sufficient for these things?

So because of mans natural depravity of being dead in sin, the Gospel spiritually speaking is fooliheness to him and he cant spiritually discern it 1 Cor 2:14

14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

There is alot there, but I've dealt with most of it so I'll just deal with your closing statement. If things are as you have proferred, then why the comparison of the first Adam with the second Adam. In other words, why compare Christ to Adam? How are the two linked? And why?

My view is that the covenant of circumcision in the Old Testament gives a picture of this. It was not the child's fault that he was born into uncircumcision, but the parents had to address it or he would be separated from God and God's people.

Our hearts are similarly uncircumcised at birth with our sinful nature, and this needs be addressed to make us right with God.

In the Old Testament, the circumcision was done by the parents at 8 days old, but if neglected, the child would come to an age of understanding where he could make the decision himself. Ideally, we are introduced to our need for Christ as children, but if our parents neglect this (perhaps they were non-believers), we reach an age where we come to some understanding there is a God and we need to be made right with Him. God's will is that none should perish, so I believe He calls all men to Him.

By my closing statement, I take it you mean this -

PaulThomson said:
"I also disagree with your assertion that "Adam and Eve's responses after sin are indicative of a corruption of their nature." Their response to their sin was something novel for them. They had never experienced shame and fear before. But these responses were appropriate responses to falling short of glorifying God, through denigrating Him and disobeying Him. Their responses were not a change in their nature, but an outworking of their original nature, made in the image of God, when the innate God-like will chooses lies, unbelief and disobedience. The thing that explains their responses is not a change in their nature; you don't develop a nature, a habit, by making one novel choice. The one novel change in their behaviour (disobedience) elicited from them novel emotional responses (fear, shame, blame-casting).

The factor that actually worked to habituate self-reliance and God-aversion in their practice was their newly acquired mortality which limited the time they had to achieve their goals and multiply their pleasures and drove them to take moral short-cuts to achieve these.

Romans 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, upon which (eph'On) all [who sinned] sinned.

That is "upon death passing to everyone, everyone [who sinned] sinned.
I understand "everyone sinned" in the same way we use "everyone" when we say "Because they heard there were free cellphones being distributed, everyone converged on the Apple store at the mall." This is not meant to be taken as a claim that that everyone in the world converged on Apple store at the mall; nor that everyone in the mall at the time converged on the Apple store.
It is supposed to be taken as a claim that: Because they heard there were free cellphones being distributed, everyone [who had converged on the Apple store at the mall at that time] had converged on the Apple store at the mall at that time. "

You appear to be asking, "If falling short of glorifying God through denigrating Him and disobeying Him was not a change in Adam and Eve's nature, but was an outworking of their original innate nature, as beings created in the image of God, then why the comparison of the first Adam with the second Adam. In other words, why compare Christ to Adam? How are the two linked? And why?

The only change that Genesis actually states was the result of Adam and Eve eating the forbidden fruit was that they became mortal: subject to death, along with all their future descendants. Clearly, according to their innate created nature, they were already capable of sin, otherwise they would have had to have been degenerated by God before they could distrust and disobey Him. Hebrews 2:14-15 tells us that it was the imposition of mortality and the fear of impending death that brought mankind into bondage to sin. Nowhere does Genesis say that mankind inherited a sinful nature from Adam. It says mankind inherited mortality. Romans 5:12 and Hebrews 2:14-15 say that our mortality, not a sinful nature is what pressures us into sin.

1 Cor. 15:56 says "The sting of the death [is] the sin, but the power of the sin [is] the law."

People seem to read the popuar presupposition of original sin into 1 Cor. 15:56. They think it is saying that "the sting that causes death is sin and the means/bait that sin uses to entrap us is the law. But this does not actually make sense, if one considers the parallel case of a scorpion and its sting.

"A scorpion sting is caused by the stinger in a scorpion's tail. When a scorpion stings, its stinger can release venom. The venom contains a complex mix of toxins that affect the nervous system. These are called neurotoxins."https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/scorpion-stings/symptoms-causes/syc-20353859

So, we could say:
"The sting of the scorpion is the tail, but the power of the tail is the venom the scorpion produces."

This is definitely not saying that "The sting that causes the scorpion is the tail, and the means/bait by which the tail entraps us is the venom."

No. In fact, the scorpion is the actual enemy; not the tail nor the venom. The instrument that the scorpion uses to produce the toxin and deliver the toxin into the body to produce pain (stinging) is its tail. What invades the body and causes stinging pain is the venom the scorpion produces.
So what Paul is actually alluding to is that death/mortality is the actual enemy, not sin or the law. The instrument that death uses to produce a toxic version of law and deliver that law into the soul to cause painful guilt and shame is sin. The powerful agent that enters the soul and brings about pain, fear and causes us to keep our distance from God/Life, is a toxic version of law (maybe, that the law is given to make us righteous; or maybe , that the law is given to shackle us and keep desirable things out of our reach; or there may be other false reasons).

So, again we see not that sin produces death, but that death produces sin, by using a toxic version of law. Satan is not actually looking to produce death, but to produce disobedience. Satan believes that our active disobedience toward God while we could obey Him, hurts God far more than our inability to obey Him after our death ever will.

So, why is Paul contrasting Adam to Jesus Christ in Romans 5?
Satan offered Adam a toxic version of God's command/law, which Adam accepted, and it poisoned Adam's mind against God and it drove Adam into sin.
Jesus rejected Satan's toxic versions of God's commands/law, and chose to walk in obedience by trusting in God's grace through His faith in God's goodness. This kept Jesus from moving into disobedience.
Paul then provides a range of comparisons between the results of Adam's accepting one poisonous mischaracterisation of God's law vs. the results of Jesus rejecting all poisonous mischaracterisations of the God's law to highlight the superabounding excellence and results of Christ's M.O. over the pathetic quality and results of Adam's M.O. This is to encourage us to follow our Lord Jesus Christ's M.O. and not to continue in the failing footsteps of Adam.

So what sin were you guilty of when you were born.
Sin is to transgress the law.
What law did you disobey when you were born.

If you were taken before the judge and accused of being a sinner that is guilty.
What sin are you guilty of?

We all choose to sin at some point so we all end up being guilty.

We need a saviour from the day we are born because Jesus wants to free us from the evil tendencies.
Salvation is justification, sanctification, and glorification.
All come from Jesus.
We are broken when we are born but we have not choosen to sin.