The last question we posed, "Can God make a rock bigger than He can lift", is one that cannot be answered with a yes or no. It is what is known as a dilemma. Often times skeptics use such questions in an attempt to discredit arguments of faith. The dilemma can be a useful tool in some cases. A good come-back to the skeptic that asks such a question is "Well did you quit beating your wife yet?" To answer this question with a yes or no would be to admit something which you may have never done. The person who has never, ever, beat his wife would instinctively answer no because he had never started. But without explanation a no answer implies that he still does it. You get the idea.
The new "Batman" movie is out. I happened to see a review on the news the other night and it looked to be somewhat interesting. It has been getting a lot of time on the local talk shows. Seems that some think it is perhaps a satire on the war in Iraq or a commentary on the battle of good and evil.
One show that I rarely get to hear all of is the one with Steve Deace on WHO in the late afternoon. I heard bits and pieces of his show on Monday. I have grown to appreciate a good deal of what Steve says on several subjects. However he frequently presents his "Christian world view" of the nature of man. In his view, man is absolutely, totally depraved. I have never heard him defend this position from the scriptures, only imply that all thinking Christians share this view. Now he may have defended this position on some occasion that I was not a part of the audience.
Your new question then is "Is man totally depraved from birth?" Please defend your position.
Why Does It Matter?
-
He remembers what the squall was, but his mom and dad never even had a
clue. Not even when the event took place. There is nothing quite like the
experience...
5 years ago
4 comments:
Josiah, Good question. I wonder if Christian is going to snooze and lose on this one too. Ha, ha! Deboraw
Dear Josiah, (and Deboraw);
I will answer in the negative.
Reason 1: The Scriptures show that man is innocent at birth begining in Genesis 1:26-28 where man is made in the image of God (one aspect of that image is purity). Genesis 2:15-17 shows us that man had not the awareness of good and evil for that was the effect of eating the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (Genesis 3:7). Seeing as how God created all things to produce offspring after its own kind, man would therefore produce offspring that was man. And as man was created without this awareness/knowledge it stands to reason that at birth man would be without that awareness. Thus no depravity.
Reason 2: One of the Scriptures that those like this Mr. Deace use is found in Genesis 8:21 where God says: "... I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done." Yet they forget that man's youth and man's birth are 2 very different things. As man progresses up the ladder of age, he is taught the difference between good action and bad action. Will he always choose the right action? No. Not because of an "inherent sinful nature" but because of the inherent nature of desire. Desire's nature is to be pleasing to the beholder; on the one hand desire can be good (ie esiring one's spouse) while on the other it can be sinful (ie desiring the spouse of another).
Reason 3: James 1:12-16 describe in detail the process of sin. Man is tempted by his own lust/longing, which, when it is concived or has caught the object lusted after, brings forth sin. Sin then brings forth death. Why is this a reason against man's inherent depravity from birth? Simply stated in the form of a question, "Have you known a child to lust after something?" A child indeed longs for 3 things from birth: sustenance, sleep, and clean diapers. there is no other thought or driving force behind that cute face until they reach between 1-2 years of age when they begin to explore their surroundings. Even then they have no knowledge that it is wrong to stick their finger in the plugin. they are taught it.
Reason 4: It seems to me that the proponents of the "total depravity" world view, forget that Christ Himself, told His followers that they are to become as little children (Matthew 18:1-6). I ask another question; "What is the value of becoming as a little child if a little child is depraved?" In verse 6, Jesus says that the one that offends a little child was better off to have died than to have offended. As I studied this passage, the word offend caught my attention. The Greek word used here means litterally: "To “scandalize”; from G4625; to entrap, that is, trip up (figuratively stumble [transitively] or entice to sin, apostasy or displeasure): - (make to) offend.(Strong's exhaustive Concordance of the Bible with Hebrew and Greek)" So then the answer becomes clear: "The one who entices a child to sin" means that the child would not have sinned (at that point) without that person's influence. Hence the child is innocent of sin.
Finally Reason 5: If man is depraved from birth, what sin would he, as a child without the lust that James describes, be guilty of? Of Adam's? Oh but God specifically addresses that in Deuteronomy 24:16 stating that "The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin" (see also in Ezekial 18). Should man be depraved from birth, he would be guilty of sin(s) that he didn't commit which in turn would make God an unrighteous Judge.
To recap this long apology: Man is not totally depraved because 1. God created man pure and man produces offspring that are like himself. 2. Man learns the difference between right and wrong not has it inherent in him from birth. 3. Sin, and thus depravity, requires lust which a child does not exhibit in its early years. 4. Man can not be totally depraved from birth or else there would be no value in the Christian becoming like a little child. And 5. Man cannot be depraved from birth for that would mean that he was guilty of sin (corruption) which he did not commit.
Christian
P.S. Deboraw, now can I go snooze? LOL - Christian
Christian, You may. I will have to take awhile to fully digest this response, and I fully intend at this moment (after having read it 'totally') to trundle off and 'sleep on it' before rereading and adding my comment ;p). Lol. Deboraw
Josiah, (and Christian, and other readers), Well, I have read (and re-read) the comments. I agree mostly with what has been said. Some things with qualifications. It isn't necessarily 'wrong' for a child to stick their finger in the plug in. It may be 'bad' for them to do,(if the plug in is connected) but unless they have been told not to it isn't 'wrong'.
However, there seem to be two extreme views of children in the world today. One view is as has been stated--they are born totally depraved (which would make them totally evil). Then there is the view that they are sweet little angels.
How many times have you heard new parents asked, "So, is (he/she) a good baby? The answer is, 'of course it's a good baby. It just has it's days and nights mixed up, and we are just adjusting to...' Babies are just that, little people trying to adjust to a really new situation.
So, if there is a bank robbery, and the police nab Joe Bloe who happens to be walking down the street in the same area of the robbery. They might say to him, "Did you just rob the First National Money Grabbers Bank?" If he hasn't done it he can in all honesty say, "No, I'm innocent".
That's kind of what babies are like, 'No, they're innocent'. They haven't done anything yet, but like Christian said, want food, love, and clean diapers. The 'rub' comes in because we do want to do what we want to do, and without proper teaching, generally speaking--that IS what we do. Each person born, it is my observation, comes fully equipped with their personalities, and predispositions. Some are predisposed to tempers, some are predisposed to be more mellow, and as parents it is our duty to help children shape those dispositions into something 'fit' for the King and His kingdom.
A temper is not necessarily evil, (Eph 4:26 Be ye angry, and sin not: let not the sun go down upon your wrath:) but learning how and when to be angry takes great skill and wisdom. Even being kind and benevolent needs to be used correctly, (Mat 7:6 Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast your pearls before the swine, lest haply they trample them under their feet, and turn and rend you.)
Some of the problem with the 'totally depraved' theory is that it leaves God responsible for the evil that a person does. If He would just operate on everyone's heart there would be no evil left in people. Or--some are saved because God wills it and some are lost because he created them to be lost. Some one forgot to take the 'whole council of God'. (Act 20:27 For I shrank not from declaring unto you the whole counsel of God.) As well as an honest 'handling of the scriptures'. (2Ti 2:15 Give diligence to present thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, handling aright the word of truth.) It's the old 'I can't help myself. It's not my fault when I sin.' theory. And in some cases it actually is an encouragement to sin. As in--I'm saved (or lost), there is nothing I can do to gain or lose salvation. But God doesn't WANT anyone to be lost. (2Pe 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some count slackness; but is longsuffering to you-ward, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.)
Therefore, they must be able to choose to do right or wrong, they don't 'inherit' sin from some one else. (Jos 24:15 And if it seem evil unto you to serve Jehovah, choose you this day whom ye will serve;) Deboraw
Post a Comment