Theology Club: Total Depravity

[Jerry Shugart]

My motive is stupid. I guess I'm lonely.

In order to take your mind off of your loneliness why don't you look over what I said here and point out any error which you see about what I said about this verse?:

"Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Spirit" (Titus 3:5).​

Here Paul uses the word "regeneration" in regard to his salvation. This word is translated from the Greek word paliggenesia, which is the combination of palin and genesis.

Palin means "joined to verbs of all sorts, it denotes renewal or repetition of the action" (Thayer's Greek English Lexicon).

Genesis means "used of birth, nativity" (Thayer's Greek English Lexicon).

When we combine the meaning of the two words we have a "repetition of a birth."

It is obvious that the reference is not to a "physical" rebirth, or the repetition of one's physical birth. Paul could only be speaking of a repetition of a spiritual birth. And the words that follow make it certain that the "birth" of which Paul is referring to is a "spiritual" birth--"renewing of the Holy Spirit." If a person is "regenerated" by the Holy Spirit then that means that one must have previously been born of the Holy Spirit.

Joseph Henry Thayer says that the Greek word translated regeneration "denotes the restoration of a thing to its pristine state, its renovation" (Thayer's Greek English Lexicon).

Richard C. Trench says that the word has the meaning of "a recovery, a restoration" (Trench, Synonyms of the New Testament).

Therefore, if a person is regenerated and renewed by the Holy Spirit then that must mean that this represents his being brought back to his original condition of being born of the Holy Spirit. That is exactly what the Lord Jesus is referring to here:

"Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God...Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again" (Jn.3:3,5-7).​

 

[intojoy]

Too much work

 

[intojoy]

In order to take your mind off of your loneliness why don't you look over what I said here and point out any error which you see about what I said about this verse?:







Therefore, if a person is regenerated and renewed by the Holy Spirit then that must mean that this represents his being brought back to his original condition of being born of the Holy Spirit. That is exactly what the Lord Jesus is referring to here:

"Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God...Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again" (Jn.3:3,5-7).​

What Jesus just said ruined your argument.

Born of the flesh is the first birth.

Born of the spirit the spiritual birth.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

What Jesus just said ruined your argument.

Born of the flesh is the first birth.

Born of the spirit the spiritual birth.

He never said that being born of the flesh is the first birth.

Besides, that idea contradicts the meaning of the Greek word translated "regeneration."

 

[Saved.One.by.Grace]

I will answer another of your verses in the hope that sometime in the futire you will finally get around to answering my points about "regeneration."

"Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity; And in sin did my mother conceive me" (Ps.51:5).
​

First of all, David was deeply troubled for his sins and wicked behavior and convicted of his guilt:

"For I acknowledge my transgressions: and my sin is ever before me. Against thee, thee only, have I sinned, and done this evil in thy sight: that thou mightest be justified when thou speakest, and be clear when thou judgest. Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me" (Ps.51:3-5).
​

Here we see that David was acknowledging total responsibly for his actions and he was not placing the blame upon Adam or anyone else. He expressed his repentance in an extreme manner, using figurative language to express the idea that he had been sinful ever since he could remember.

After all, not everything that is said in Psalm 51 can be understood literally. Let us look at what else is said in the same Psalm:

"Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me. Behold, thou desirest truth in the inward parts: and in the hidden part thou shalt make me to know wisdom. Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean: wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow. Make me to hear joy and gladness; that the bones which thou hast broken may rejoice" (Ps.51:5-8).
​

If all of these verses are to be taken literally then verse seven can be evidence that men are cleansed from their sins "with hyssop." Verse eight can also be taken in a literal sense to teach that broken bones rejoice!

If we want to know what the Lord Jesus Himself thought of the nature of little children we see something entirely different than what you are trying to prove.

"Then people brought little children to Jesus for him to place his hands on them and pray for them. But the disciples rebuked them. Jesus said, 'Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these'" (Mt.19:13-14).
​

Are we to believe that the Lord believed that infants are brought forth in iniquity but yet He would say that "the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these"? Of course not!

At another place we see the Lord Jesus speaking about children and here the same truth can be seen:

"At the same time came the disciples unto Jesus, saying, Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven? And Jesus called a little child unto him, and set him in the midst of them, And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven" (Mt.18:1-4).
​

If little children come out of the womb sinful then why would the Lord Jesus tell these people that they must become as little children in order to enter the kingdom?



I could not find even one translation which reads "By nature children of wrath from the womb. No, not one. Your position is so weak that you resort to adding words to the Scriptures which are not found in the Bible.



So are we supposed to take the rod to infants to correct them?:

"Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child; but the rod of correction shall drive it far from him" (Prov.22:15).
​

This verse is obviously not speaking of how anyone emerges from the womb. If an infant is conceived in sin then what is said here makes no sense:

"For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother's womb. I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well" (Ps.139:13-14).
​

You can quote all the verses which you want of this kind but they will mean little until you address the verses which I quoted where the Lord Jesus had a very different understanding of the nature of little children than your understanding.

The LXX reads:

(3) For I am conscious of mine iniquity; and my sin is continually before me. (4) Against thee only have I sinned, and done evil before thee: that thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged. (5) For, behold, I was conceived in iniquities, and in sins did my mother conceive me." (Translation from: http://www.ecmarsh.com/lxx/Psalms/index.htm)
​

I don't know where you're getting these explanations of scripture from, but I would suggest you use different sources. You inadequately try to explain away Psalms 51:5 by talking about children walking, unescorted up to Jesus in the NT. You claim to have answered my questions but you haven't done any such thing. You just brush them aside after doing a Google search for anti-Calvinist answers. I'm very disappointed in your response.

<DIR>1 Peter 1:23 - Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.
</DIR>The seed of man is corruptible. No one born is saved, unless they are born again.
<DIR>John 3:3 - Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
John 3:4 - Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?
John 3:5 - Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
John 3:6 - That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
John 3:7 - Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.
John 3:8 - The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit. [KJV]
</DIR>

 

[Jerry Shugart]

You inadequately try to explain away Psalms 51:5 by talking about children walking, unescorted up to Jesus in the NT.

I cannot understand you objection. Are you saying that the nature of the children changed between the time when they emerged from the womb until the time when they were able to walk?

Frankly, I find that impossible to believe. Their nature did not change between those things so it is obvious that children are conceived in iniquities when we consider what the Lord Jesus said about little children here:

"Then people brought little children to Jesus for him to place his hands on them and pray for them. But the disciples rebuked them. Jesus said, 'Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these'" (Mt.19:13-14).​

Are we to believe that the Lord believed that infants are conceived in in inquities but yet He would say that "the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these"? Of course not!

When we look at what the Lord Jesus said in the next passage we can see the same exact truth expressed:

"At the same time came the disciples unto Jesus, saying, Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven? And Jesus called a little child unto him, and set him in the midst of them, And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven" (Mt.18:1-4).​

If little children come out of the womb sinful then why would the Lord Jesus tell these people that they must become as little children in order to enter the kingdom?

Of course I can understand why you continue to refuse to even attempt to address the words of the Lord Jesus in these two passages. But unless you are able to prove that the natures of an infants changed from the time they were born until they were able to walk then you must address what the Lord Jesus said in these two passages. While you are at it you might as well address what is written here:

"For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother's womb. I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well" (Ps.139:13-14).​

 

[Saved.One.by.Grace]

I cannot understand you objection. Are you saying that the nature of the children changed between the time when they emerged from the womb until the time when they were able to walk?

I never implied anything of the sort, but your replies seem to indicate that's what you believe. I am defending the Christian concept of original sin.

Frankly, I find that impossible to believe. Their nature did not change between those things so it is obvious that children are conceived in iniquities when we consider what the Lord Jesus said about little children here:

"Then people brought little children to Jesus for him to place his hands on them and pray for them. But the disciples rebuked them. Jesus said, 'Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these'" (Mt.19:13-14).
​

Once again, you're arguing against yourself. I suggested you were implying that and now you're accusing me of believing that. This argument is becoming tiresome.

Are we to believe that the Lord believed that infants are conceived in in inquities but yet He would say that "the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these"? Of course not!

When we look at what the Lord Jesus said in the next passage we can see the same exact truth expressed:

"At the same time came the disciples unto Jesus, saying, Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven? And Jesus called a little child unto him, and set him in the midst of them, And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven" (Mt.18:1-4).
​

If little children come out of the womb sinful then why would the Lord Jesus tell these people that they must become as little children in order to enter the kingdom?

Of course I can understand why you continue to refuse to even attempt to address the words of the Lord Jesus in these two passages. But unless you are able to prove that the natures of an infants changed from the time they were born until they were able to walk then you must address what the Lord Jesus said in these two passages. While you are at it you might as well address what is written here:

"For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother's womb. I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well" (Ps.139:13-14).
​

It was an analogy Jesus was speaking to teach the Apostles.

 

[intojoy]

He never said that being born of the flesh is the first birth.



Besides, that idea contradicts the meaning of the Greek word translated "regeneration."

No it does not, regeneration re birth in regards to Adam's original state, not yours or mine.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

I never implied anything of the sort, but your replies seem to indicate that's what you believe. I am defending the Christian concept of original sin.

Then why did you even object to the verses which I quoted where the Lord Jesus spoke about little children?

Once again, you're arguing against yourself. I suggested you were implying that and not you're accusing me of believing that. This argument is becoming tiresome

What is getting tiresome is your refusal to deal in an intelligent manner about the words of the Lord Jesus which I quoted. Do you really think that your answer here really proves anything which supports your position?:

It was an analogy Jesus was speaking to teach the Apostles.

That answers nothing about what the Lord Jesus said about little children. If you have an answer then explain how you came to the conclusion that the Lord Jesus was employing an anology.

And so far you have not even given an excuse as to why you refuse to address what I said here:

"For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother's womb. I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well" (Ps.139:13-14).​

 

[Jerry Shugart]

No it does not, regeneration re birth in regards to Adam's original state, not yours or mine.

Paul says that it is us, not Adam, who have been regenerated.

"Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Spirit" (Titus 3:5).​

 

[intojoy]

Paul says that it is us, not Adam, who have been regenerated.

"Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Spirit" (Titus 3:5).​

No you are wrong. Adam stood as the representative head for us. Adam was also regenerated before Christ's atonement on the cross.

All of the Old Testament saints were regenerated, they were born spiritually by grace thru faith in God.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

No you are wrong. Adam stood as the representative head for us.

Prove it.

In fact, Peter makes it plain that it is us who are born again and that happens when we believe the gospel:

" Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God... And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you" (1 Pet.1:23,25).​

And that matches what James said here:

"Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures" (James 1:18).​

Did Adam stand as our representative head when he believed the gospel? Was it really his faith that is responsible for us being born again?

 

[intojoy]

Prove it.



In fact, Peter makes it plain that it is us who are born again and that happens when we believe the gospel:

" Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God... And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you" (1 Pet.1:23,25).​

And that matches what James said here:

"Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures" (James 1:18).​

Did Adam stand as our representative head when he believed the gospel? Was it really his faith that is responsible for us being born again?

Peter makes it plain - amen
James - amen

Did Adam hear the gospel? No

Was Adam's faith responsible for us being born again? No

Peter and James are speaking about our being born again according to our faith in Messiah. Adam was born again by his faith in Jehovah, Adam did not have to hear the gospel to be born again as you and I had to. That is what Pete and Jake mean when they say "we" and then refer our faith to Yeshua. Our content of faith is the cross.

Unfortunately for you to take these statements as your evidence, they can be taken as I take them as I've written just now. You cannot win the argument based on this because Adam stands as our representative head. Adam was created spiritually alive and his death became our death both physically and spiritually by imputation.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

You cannot win the argument based on this because Adam stands as our representative head. Adam was created spiritually alive and his death became our death both physically and spiritually by imputation.

You cannot win an argument about this or even make a good case if you continue to fail to give any evidence that "Adam stands as our representative head."

In fact, the Calvinists say the following:

"They (Adam & Eve) being the root of mankind, the guilt of this sin was imputed, and the same death in sin and corrupted nature conveyed to all their posterity, descending from them by original generation" [emphasis added] (The Westminster Confession of Faith; VI/3).​

According to the Calvinists the "guilt" of the sins of Adam and Eve was imputed to all of their posterity, and their posterity includes their sons Cain and Abel. So the Calvinists teach that the sons are guilty of their father's sins despite the fact God will do no such thing, as witnessed by the following passage:

"The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son" (Ezek.18:20).​

What is said here declares in no uncertain terms that children do not bear the guily for the sins of their parents. On the other hand, it is true that we suffer the consequences for their sins (see Gen.3:17-19).

 

[intojoy]

That's a good example of finding isolated scriptures to support at pet belief.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

That's a good example of finding isolated scriptures to support at pet belief.

Show me where anything is distorted because it is an isolated passage.

 

[intojoy]

Show me where anything is distorted because it is an isolated passage.

Alright, shownuff tuff don't ya know.

Hope you had a good worship service today.

The list of offenses in that passage are what Israel was guilty of breaking against Mosaic law. Abraham nor Moses stood as representative heads for all humanity as did Adam and Noah, they stood as the representative heads for Israel. Well maybe not Moses but Abe for sure.

But more importantly to me is that Adam did not do any of those transgressions listed in Ezekiel, Adam and his sin became ours by imputation.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Alright, shownuff tuff don't ya know.

The list of offenses in that passage are what Israel was guilty of breaking against Mosaic law. Abraham nor Moses stood as representative heads for all humanity as did Adam and Noah, they stood as the representative heads for Israel. Well maybe not Moses but Abe for sure.

But more importantly to me is that Adam did not do any of those transgressions listed in Ezekiel, Adam and his sin became ours by imputation.

So in regard to some things the son will share the Father's guilt but he will not in other cases?

Please show me a verse which demonstrates that the guilt of the father will be shared with the son.

 

[intojoy]

So in regard to some things the son will share the Father's guilt but he will not in other cases?



Please show me a verse which demonstrates that the guilt of the father will be shared with the son.

Just the "one man's sin death entered the world..."

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Just the "one man's sin death entered the world..."

That verse does not say that the guilt of the father is shared by the son. Besides that, I have already shown how Arnold's take on that verse is in error. And you had nothing to say about what I said.