Proof-texting is a lot different than exegeting passages and interpreting the Bible via the analogy of faith method.
That is, drawing understanding from the clearer passages, not the vague passages.
It seems to me that the above post is nothing
but proof-texting, and has
zero actual exegesis.
But I feel like biting
A. Genesis 6:5.
1. The argument: Every intent of mans heart was evil continually, therefore, all men were born totally depraved.
2. In the context, Noah was a just man, perfect in his generations. (v. 9)
3. The text states that all flesh had corrupted their way on the earth (v.12), not that they were born corrupt.
4. If this verse depicts Total Hereditary Depravity, then why was it not the same in the
generations before that of Noah?
a. Why did not God destroy mankind sooner?
b. How is it, if all men were depraved, that in Genesis 4:26, men began to call on
the name of the Lord?
2) Convenient to ignore the very prior verse which says that God had mercy/grace on Noah. An innocent man doesn't need mercy, only a sinner does.
3) the statement doesn't suddenly undo Paul's teaching in Romans 5, nor does it even
logically contradict the idea that mankind is born corrupt
4) Who says it wasn't?
a) Dunno, ask God when you get to heaven.
b) Because God converts sinners all the time, it's how we are saved?
B. Psalm 51:1-5.
1. The argument: Being conceived in sin and born in iniquity David was a sinner at birth.
2. Nothing in the text or context says David was born a sinner.
a. David asks God to forgive his sin not his mothers sin.
b. The mother could have conceived in sin but it does not logically follow, neither
does it state that the child inherits that sin.
3. Davids parents were simply like all other men and womensinners themselves who
lived in a world of sin.
2) A bold lie. - Psa 51:5 Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.
a) Exactly....
b) Huh? David is talking about himself, not his mother, as you said in point A.
3) And?
C. Psalm 53:1-3.
1. The argument: If no one does good, we must be born sinners.
2. The context states otherwise.
a. Why corrupt? They have done abominable iniquity. (v. 1)
b. Is it speaking of babies? A baby cannot seek God. (v. 2)
c. These have turned aside to sin (v. 3). They were not born in it.
d. These have become corrupt (v. 3). They were not born that way.
2) Show us how, don't just assert it.
a) Yes and?
b, c, d) when the baby grows up, he will do the same. that implies it is in his nature to do it. If it's a 100% certainty that every single infant will grow up into a sinner, that proves that the problem is more than surface-level actions of sin, but it is a problem with the nature. Jesus' words: "A bad tree bears bad fruit". The fruit doesn't make the tree bad, the tree makes the fruit bad. A human sins because he's a sinner, he doesn't become a sinner by sinning. The pharisees had the same mindset you have, cindy, that sin is only outward physical actions of sin. But Jesus was constantly trying to correct them. He told them that even if they think of lust, they are guilty of adultery. It does't just take the physical act of adultery to be guilty of adultery. Yet that seems to be your belief: that you are only guilty of sin for actually physically committing sin, not that sin is a condition. It seems you would have fit in well with the Pharisees who believed sin was a problem that only lied on the surface level of the person, when Jesus was trying to teach them that the sin problem was down deep in the person. "Mat 15:18 But what comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart, and this defiles a person." It's the heart that is the problem, not the outward sins that the heart produces. If sin is simply something that exists on the surface, then why did Jesus tell us that he Pharisees were like empty tombs, beautiful on the outside (they were moral on the outside, they didn't actually commit sins), but inside they were full of dead men's bones (the problem is on the INSIDE, not the OUTSIDE). That's the doctrine of original sin/depravity
The rest doesn't need to be responded to, because this answers all of it.
Congrats...you didn't refute...a single thing.
