Babababa Bad to the Bone, Naturally or Not?

[Iconoclast]

JL Dagg;
Depravity is natural to man; it is born with him, and not acquired in the progress of life. It is not to be ascribed to evil habit, or evil example. Evil habits are formed by evil doing; and evil doing would not be, if there were no evil propensity. Evil example would not everywhere exist, if human nature were not everywhere corrupt; and the tendency to follow evil example would not be so common, and so much to be guarded against, if it were not natural to man. The Scriptures clearly teach this doctrine. "Behold, I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me."[16] The psalmist did not mean to charge his mother with crime in these his humble confessions, but manifestly designs them to be an acknowledgment that his depravity was in-woven in his nature, and bore date from the very origin of his being. The Saviour taught, that which is born of the flesh, is flesh.[17] The term flesh, which is here opposed to spirit, signifies, as it does in other places, our depraved nature. It traces human depravity up to our very birth.

As every individual of our race is born of depraved parents, and brings depravity with him into the world, we are led to conceive of it as propagated from parent to child. This accords with the representations of Scripture; "Adam begat a son in his own likeness."[18] It accords also with analogies to which we are familiar.



http://www.founders.org/library/dagg_vol1/bk4c3.html

 

[percho]

Winman, I am not arguing against your position.

Me either I just believe man will always choose to do evil things and to the degree of just what evil is even infants choose to do evil in the concept of disobedience.


Just had a thought.

Do we learn to be obedient or do we learn to be disobedient. Is one a natural concept and the other a learned concept?

Think about this verse.

Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered;

Now I believe Jesus being conceived by the Spirit God was born obedient, so did he learn obedience or did he through sufferings learn what obedience is?

 

[Winman]

Me either I just believe man will always choose to do evil things and to the degree of just what evil is even infants choose to do evil in the concept of disobedience.


Just had a thought.

Do we learn to be obedient or do we learn to be disobedient. Is one a natural concept and the other a learned concept?

Well, all I can say is that Isa 7:16 shows that even a child can refuse evil and choose good. I didn't say that, God did.

Mat 12:33 Either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by his fruit.

I had a big debate over this verse with Aaron a week ago or so, but I believe Jesus is clearly teaching that we have both the option (either, or else) and the ability (make) to choose whether we are a good tree that brings forth good fruit, or a corrupt tree that brings forth corrupt fruit.

The words "either" and "or else" clearly indicate option, the word "make" clearly indicates ability.

So I do not agree with you that man will ALWAYS choose evil, man has the ability to refuse evil and choose good according to scripture.

 

[Winman]

JL Dagg;
Depravity is natural to man; it is born with him, and not acquired in the progress of life. It is not to be ascribed to evil habit, or evil example. Evil habits are formed by evil doing; and evil doing would not be, if there were no evil propensity. Evil example would not everywhere exist, if human nature were not everywhere corrupt; and the tendency to follow evil example would not be so common, and so much to be guarded against, if it were not natural to man. The Scriptures clearly teach this doctrine. "Behold, I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me."[16] The psalmist did not mean to charge his mother with crime in these his humble confessions, but manifestly designs them to be an acknowledgment that his depravity was in-woven in his nature, and bore date from the very origin of his being. The Saviour taught, that which is born of the flesh, is flesh.[17] The term flesh, which is here opposed to spirit, signifies, as it does in other places, our depraved nature. It traces human depravity up to our very birth.

As every individual of our race is born of depraved parents, and brings depravity with him into the world, we are led to conceive of it as propagated from parent to child. This accords with the representations of Scripture; "Adam begat a son in his own likeness."[18] It accords also with analogies to which we are familiar.



http://www.founders.org/library/dagg_vol1/bk4c3.html

And yet the scriptures continue to say we are made in the likeness or similitude of God well after the fall.

Gen 9:6 Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.

This was spoken by God well after "the fall".

Jam 3:9 Therewith bless we God, even the Father; and therewith curse we men, which are made after the similitude of God.

This was said well after "the fall" and I would say your view of Total Depravity is actually a fulfillment of this verse, saying evil and cursing men who are made after the similitude or likeness of God.

We do not "make ourselves" as Dagg erroneously teaches.

Psa 100:3 Know ye that the LORD he is God: it is he that hath made us, and not we ourselves; we are his people, and the sheep of his pasture.

God does not make evil. And this verse was also written well after "the fall".

 

[psalms109:31]

Double post

 

[humblethinker]

JL Dagg;
Evil habits are formed by evil doing; and evil doing would not be, if there were no evil propensity.

Did God make an "evil propensity" in Adam?

 

[psalms109:31]

Originally Posted by psalms109:31
Genesis 3:22
And the LORD God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.”

Adam did not have the knowledge of good and evil pre-fall and sinned, Jesus had the knowledge of good and evil and did not sin.

What does that mean to you?

WInman saId

Well, whatever this knowledge is, it cannot be evil, because scripture confirms that God has this knowledge. So, this does not prove that man became depraved.

Before the fall, man had only knowledge of good, after the fall he had knowledge of evil also.

The scriptures say as soon as they ate their eyes were opened and they knew they were naked. So, I believe this shows for the first time they became aware of themselves, self-conscious. We all know a little baby can walk around the house completely naked and not feel shame or embarrassment. But in a few short years a child becomes aware of himself and wants to be clothed.

So, I believe this shows man became self aware, especially of his own faults. Some have argued this is when man gained a conscience, and this may well be true. The conscience knows between good and evil and commends a man when he does good, but condemns a man when he does evil.

Jhn 8:9 And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.

Here, the conscience of these men convicted them.

Acts 23:1 And Paul, earnestly beholding the council, said, Men and brethren, I have lived in all good conscience before God until this day.

Here Paul says he lived in all good conscience before God. Paul could not be saying he lived his whole life without sin, but was speaking of his preaching the gospel, that he did not feel guilty or wrong for doing so, he knew he was teaching the truth.

So, I believe this self awareness and the ability to judge one's self whether they have done good or evil is what the knowledge of good and evil is. Before this, Adam and Eve were like little children who were completely unaware of themselves or their actions.

I say
The point I was making is Adam was never in total image of the Father and Jesus has always been!

 

[Aaron]

:applause:

This is what the Pharisees believed about themselves and Jesus sharply rebuked them for it, calling them white washed sepulchres and hypocrites.


Matthew 5:27-28 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

Fleshly lusts are most certainly sins.

This actually brings up another question. Did Eve sin before she ate the fruit? According to you she did. The pride of life is sin. It is putting the world and self before God.

:applause:

 

[Aaron]

Did God make an "evil propensity" in Adam?

Nope. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit. A corrupt tree cannot bring forth good fruit.

God made Adam good, but not incorruptible, so the question is: What corrupted Adam?

 

[Cypress]

Quote:
Originally Posted by psalms109:31
Genesis 3:22
And the LORD God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.”

Adam did not have the knowledge of good and evil pre-fall and sinned, Jesus had the knowledge of good and evil and did not sin.

What does that mean to you?


I say
The point I was making is Adam was never in total image of the Father and Jesus has always been![/QUOTE]

I say it means he disobeyed the only law we know existed for men. A direct command from God.

 

[percho]

Well, all I can say is that Isa 7:16 shows that even a child can refuse evil and choose good. I didn't say that, God did.

Mat 12:33 Either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by his fruit.

I had a big debate over this verse with Aaron a week ago or so, but I believe Jesus is clearly teaching that we have both the option (either, or else) and the ability (make) to choose whether we are a good tree that brings forth good fruit, or a corrupt tree that brings forth corrupt fruit.

The words "either" and "or else" clearly indicate option, the word "make" clearly indicates ability.

So I do not agree with you that man will ALWAYS choose evil, man has the ability to refuse evil and choose good according to scripture.

I am not saying we can't do anything that is good, I'm saying all will do just enough evil to justify death. It don't take but one little lie and I can't remember my first one.

 

[Winman]

WInman saId


I say
The point I was making is Adam was never in total image of the Father and Jesus has always been!

Yes, but when Jesus became flesh he took on the complete nature of the seed of Abraham. He had to defeat sin and Satan as a man to atone for us.

The scriptures say he was made like his brethren (the Jews) in ALL THINGS. He suffered being tempted. God cannot suffer being tempted, he cannot be tempted (Jam 1:13). The scriptures say he could be "touched with the feeling of our infirmities", he felt our temptations and weaknesses just as we do. The scriptures say he was tempted in ALL POINTS like as we are, not just hunger, or thirst, or being tired, yet without sin.

1 John 4:1-3 warns that if any man denies Jesus came in the flesh, that is the spirit of antichrist.

 

[percho]

Nope. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit. A corrupt tree cannot bring forth good fruit.

God made Adam good, but not incorruptible, so the question is: What corrupted Adam?

I vote for Satan.

 

[Winman]

I am not saying we can't do anything that is good, I'm saying all will do just enough evil to justify death. It don't take but one little lie and I can't remember my first one.

Correct, it only takes one sin to condemn us. Saying that man can do good does not argue man can earn salvation, he would have to be 100% perfect as Jesus was to earn salvation.

It is no different from our laws, you could live all your life as a model citizen, but if one day you walk in a bank and rob it, all your good deeds are not mentioned, but you are convicted for the one crime you committed and must pay the penalty under the law.

Many folks have the concept it is like a balance, if you do more good than bad you will be saved, if you do more bad than good you will be lost. This is total error, man's law does not work like this, and neither does God's.

So saying a man has the ability to do good in no way implies he can merit salvation.

 

[humblethinker]

Nope. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit. A corrupt tree cannot bring forth good fruit.

God made Adam good, but not incorruptible, so the question is: What corrupted Adam?

What does it mean to consider a corrupt tree? Is it not the case that there can never and will never be a fruit that can be considered good from a corrupt tree? That's easy....

But, if you mean to say that there cannot be a tree thatproduces good fruit and bad fruit then I say let's research the issue and see if this is observably and demonstrably correct. Let's see... what horticulture websites can we consult... Does anyone have any real life observations they've been able to make (I don't have any fruit trees). Would you say that if such an event, even if it only happened once, would pose a problem for your interpretation for which your current understanding could not explain?

 

[percho]

Quote:
Originally Posted by psalms109:31
Genesis 3:22
And the LORD God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.”

Adam did not have the knowledge of good and evil pre-fall and sinned, Jesus had the knowledge of good and evil and did not sin.

What does that mean to you?


I say
The point I was making is Adam was never in total image of the Father and Jesus has always been!

I say it means he disobeyed the only law we know existed for men. A direct command from God.[/QUOTE]

Methinks the first man Adam was made corruptible subject to death so that the Lamb could die and be raised from the dead incorruptible with eternal life.

I understand that all others here do not believe the Son of God died in the concept of needing to be given eternal life, but if he did not I see no way according to the word of God that the penalty for our sin has been paid.

Adam was created subject to death because it had been determined before he was created the Lamb, a man conceived by the Spirit God with the woman taken from the first man would die. Somebody was going to be deceived, sin and bring death to all men.

The first man Adam was the figure of him to come. Jesus the Son of Man, the Son of God.

 

[humblethinker]

Correct, it only takes one sin to condemn us. Saying that man can do good does not argue man can earn salvation, he would have to be 100% perfect as Jesus was to earn salvation.

It seems that here is where I have a problem... I don't think even then man would be able to earn salvation... what does it mean for someone to earn something for which he has no need of it? For that matter what does it mean for God to graciously give man salvation that he does not need and which is therefore useless? In your view what need is there for redemption for such a man? If there is no need then how could it make sense to even talk as though it is a significant thing that he earned or was gifted salvation?

<I've really got to get to work! West Texas here I come! Gonna download some podcasts and audiobooks for the trip!>

 

[percho]

Correct, it only takes one sin to condemn us. Saying that man can do good does not argue man can earn salvation, he would have to be 100% perfect as Jesus was to earn salvation.

It is no different from our laws, you could live all your life as a model citizen, but if one day you walk in a bank and rob it, all your good deeds are not mentioned, but you are convicted for the one crime you committed and must pay the penalty under the law.

Many folks have the concept it is like a balance, if you do more good than bad you will be saved, if you do more bad than good you will be lost. This is total error, man's law does not work like this, and neither does God's.

So saying a man has the ability to do good in no way implies he can merit salvation.

Amen brother I am happy you and me agree on something.

 

[Cypress]

Nope. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit. A corrupt tree cannot bring forth good fruit.

God made Adam good, but not incorruptible, so the question is: What corrupted Adam?

A: Good cannot bring forth evil
B: Adam was good
C: Adam cannot bring forth evil.

So, by your chain, the question would be who brought forth evil.
Your question of "what corrupted Adam" follows from

A: Evil comes from corrupted humans
B: Adam brought forth evil
C: Adam was corrupted

Now, I give up, what corrupted Adam?

 

[Winman]

It seems that here is where I have a problem... I don't think even then man would be able to earn salvation... what does it mean for someone to earn something for which he has no need of it? For that matter what does it mean for God to graciously give man salvation that he does not need and which is therefore useless? In your view what need is there for redemption for such a man? If there is no need then how could it make sense to even talk as though it is a significant thing that he earned or was gifted salvation?

I see what you are saying, a man who has never sinned does not require salvation, which is to be "saved".

This was what I saw in Luke 15;

Luk 15:7 I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance.

When the Pharisees criticized Jesus for keeping company and eating with sinners, Jesus told the parable of a shepherd who originally had 100 sheep. One went astray and became lost. He searched for it and recovered it, then rejoiced more over this one lost sheep than the 99 who never went out and became lost and required no repentance.

Who are these 99 persons who need no repentance? This cannot possibly be the Pharisees as many teach. Jesus could not be saying they were sinless and required no repentance.

Jesus also showed these terrible "sinners" at first belonged to God and were of great value to him. The Pharisees despised these sinners as in the parable of the publican and the Pharisee.

Then Jesus told of a woman who had 10 pieces of silver, one became lost, she searched and recovered it, and rejoiced over this one lost coin.

But who are the 9 silver coins that were never lost? This cannot be the Pharisees.

Then Jesus told of the prodigal son. He was not originally lost, but at home with his father. He decided to leave his home of his own free will and went out and became lost in sin, he joined himself to a citizen of that far country (Satan, I believe). When he repented and returned home, his father twice said he was alive AGAIN, which would be impossible if men are born lost.

But then we are told of the elder brother who NEVER left home, and never transgressed his father's commandment at any time. The father did not correct the elder son, but called him "Son" and said that he was "ever with me".

So, who are the 99 that need no repentance? Who are the 9 silver pieces that were never lost? Who is the elder son who never left home or transgressed his father's commandments at any time?

The only possible answer in my opinion is that this is speaking of little children who died before they could ever commit sin. Romans 9:11 clearly shows us that neither Esau nor Jacob had committed sin while they were in their mother's womb. If they had died in this state, they would need no repentance because they had never sinned.

There have been many billions of children who have died before birth or when they were very young, this could easily be the 99 sheep who were never lost, the 9 coins that were never lost, or the elder son who was never lost.

Folks read this parable, but they overlook the details. Jesus did not mention the 99 sheep, the 9 coins, and the elder son without reason. We should study to find out who these persons are.