Calvinism's Total Depravity Vs. Romans 5:12-14 (Answering TULIP)

NOTE: I INTENDED TO UPLOAD A LONGER FORM OF THIS VIDEO, BUT HAVE DECIDED THIS IS SUFFICIENT FOR NOW.
In this video we look at what Romans 5:12-14 actually says and not that Augustine's unorthodox doctrine of total depravity is not in the passage at all. In fact, the passage contradicts his doctrine.

Help support the Chapmans' Ministry in Indonesia:

Sign up for our Ministry Newsletter:

Support our ministry by buying a copy of one of our books:

Romans Chapter 9: Calvinism's Proof-Text or Paul's Gospel

Out of Egypt: Temptation & Transformation

Gospel Commission Indonesian Blog
(Free online versions of our books are located under the "Complete Books" section of our blog)

Christopher's Twitter:

[mf]

Great, thanks a lot Brother in Christ !
Lord Jesus Christ bless you

[Berean_with_a_BTh]

As you demonstrated in this video, there is no scriptural support for the Lutheran/Calvinist doctrine of Original Sin (i.e. imputation of Adam's sin/guilt to and the inheritance of Adam's 'sin nature'). For the benefit of others visiting this channel, I've set out the history of the doctrine"s development below. The essence of what follows is that the early church believed infants were born innocent and it was only after infant baptism was introduced that a doctrine of original sin was invented to support the practice.

The earliest post-apostolic documents touching on the state of infants at birth are the _Apology of Aristeides_ (c.125, 15.11), the _Epistle of Barnabas_ (c.130, 6:11), and the _Shepherd of Hermas_ (c.100–c.160, 27:1; 101:1–3), all of which expressed the conviction that children are born innocent of sin. There is also no evidence at this early stage of paedobaptism. Indeed the _Didache_ (aka _The Lord's Teaching Through the Twelve Apostles to the Nations_, c.90–150, 7:1–4) reserved baptism for persons old enough to have received instruction and to have fasted for at least the day before.

Justin Martyr (c.100–c.165) viewed baptism as rendering the Christian "spiritually regenerated as new-born babes" ( _First Apology_ 34) and restricted it to those who "are persuaded and believe that what we teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly, are instructed to pray and to entreat God with fasting, for the remission of their sins" acquired when they were "brought up in bad habits and wicked training" ( _First Apology_ 61). Had Justin believed infants were born in a sinful state, he would hardly have thought that being "spiritually regenerated as new-born babes" was a worthwhile outcome. Note, too, how Justin viewed one's sinful state as resulting from one's upbringing, not as something inherited.

Irenaeus (c.130–202) expressed the view that Christ sanctified infants and children: “becoming an infant for infants, thus sanctifying infants; a child for children, thus sanctifying those who are of this age” ( _Against Heresies_ II, 22.4)  and that faith in Christ was necessary for the remission of sins ( _Against Heresies_ III, 12.2, 7). Concerning the ‘Slaughter of the Innocents’, Irenaeus wrote: _For this cause, too, He suddenly removed those children belonging to the house of David, whose happy lot it was to have been born at that time, that He might send them on before into His kingdom_ ( _Against Heresies_ III, 16.4)
It is difficult to argue these infants were regarded by Irenaeus as being in a sinful state. 

Clement of Alexandria (c.150–c.215) wrote “For so also we lie under Adam’s sin through similarity of sin” (Fragments 2.4, c.195). Note that there is no hint of inherited sin in this allusion to Romans 5:12.

The first steps towards the development of a doctrine of original sin as it later came to be understood were recorded by Tertullian (c.160–220). Writing c.205–210, Tertullian objected to what appears to have been the newly–introduced practice of paedobaptism. His objection was, not only that were infants innocent but also that they were incapable of ‘coming’ of their own volition (cf. Luke 18:16) to express faith or to confess or repent from any supposed sins ( _On Baptism_, 18). Instead, baptism was to be preceded by prayer, fasting, night-long vigils, and the confession of all past sins ( _On Baptism_, 20).

In _The Apostolic Tradition_ (c.215), Hippolytus of Rome (c.170–c.235) endorsed paedobaptism (21.16) but gave no theological justification for the practice.

Origen of Lyons (c.185–254) thought souls had a pre–incarnate existence ( _De Principiis_ 1.7.3–5) and people were born into a state reflecting the relative departure from good done by them during that existence ( _De Principiis_ 2.9.1–7). Hence, everyone was born in a state of sin ( _Homilies on Leviticus_ 8:3, Commentaries on Romans 5:9). Nevertheless,   they shared with Adam only physical descent and the mortality with which he was punished ( _Against Celsus_ 4.40). Quoting Romans 5:12–21, Origen rejected the existence of a sinful state inherited from Adam ( _Commentaries on Romans_ 5:1).

The first Christian theologian to formally posit the inheritance of the sins and guilt therefore from Adam was Cyprian of Carthage (c.200–258). Cyprian said infants were contaminated by descent from Adam and baptism provided forgiveness for any sins thus inherited ( _Epistle_ 58.5; 64.5). Personal repentance (cf. Acts 2:38) was not a prerequisite for paedobaptism: which was considered efficacious for salvation in its own right ( _Epistle_ 73.7).

Gregory of Nazianzus (c.329–390) regarded infants as being born morally neutral but, because salvation required positive righteousness, were eligible to be baptized so as to acquire it; otherwise they would be left in a state of limbo. Conversely, Christians who desired baptism but died beforehand were lost ( _Oration_ 40.17, 22–23). Therefore, baptism was crucial to salvation.

Gregory of Nyssa (c.335–c.395) argued that, not only are infants born innocent, they’re born in a state of grace such that “in the case of infants prematurely dying … they pass to the blessed lot at once” ( _On Infants’ Early Deaths_ ), negating any presumed necessity for paedobaptism.

John Chrysostom (c.349–407) expressed the firm view that infants are born innocent,   writing “the soul of a little child is pure from all the passions” ( _Homilies on the Gospel of St. Matthew_ 62.4). In this context, one might note the qualities of little children are set forth as models for those who would aspire to enter the kingdom (Matthew 18:3; 19:14) and for those already in the church (1 Corinthians 14:20).

The _Apostolic Constitutions_ (c.375-380)  implied that infants are born innocent, saying: _ye have “been baptized into the Lord’s death, ” and into His resurrection, as “new-born babes”._ (5.3.16). The only mention of paedobaptism was in the context of a criticism of those who would delay their own baptism till they were approaching death (so as to avoid compromising the perceived efficacy of their baptism) but would hypocritically baptize their infants, thus denying those infants the same opportunity (6.3.15). Paedobaptism was neither approved or disapproved in this passage. Elsewhere, however, baptism was restricted to those who had fasted and received instruction beforehand (7.2.22, 7.3.34).

Jerome (c.347–420) held the view that all sins are forgiven at baptism ( _Letter_ 64.2, 4, 7; _Letter_ 123.11), which even children require ( _Letter_ 85.6) for inherited guilt – for which he cited Cyprian and Origen as authorities ( _Against the Pelagians III_ 18–19) – and in spite of noting scriptures opposing that stance (e.g. Ezekiel 18:4, 20) ( _Letter_ 39.4).

Augustine of Hippo (354–430) argued that the sin of Adam – including the guilt for it – is inherited by all humans ( _Letter_ 55.8; _Letter_ 164.6, 19; 250.2). Fundamental to Augustine’s hermeneutics was his belief that the practice of paedobaptism necessarily evidenced a tradition based on revelation to the church through Scripture and it was his job to identify the relevant Scriptures. The core of Augustine’s argument supporting paedobaptism was that Adam’s sin was inherited, an argument he largely based on an interpretation of what he _knew_ from Ambrosiatser's _Commentaries on Romans_ to be a Latin mistranslation of Romans 5:12b, which  construed Adam as the one ‘in whom’ all sinned ( _A Treatise Against Two Letters of the Pelagians_ 4.7). Coupling this with an interpretation of poorly-translated texts of Psalm 51:5a and Job 14:4–5a, Augustine argued that even infants are held guilty because of Adam’s transgression ( _On the Merits and Forgiveness of Sins, and On the Baptism of Infants_ I.34, III.13). Hence, according to Augustine, having inherited Adam’s sin, infants needed baptism for its remission ( _Letter_ 158.1).

So, until Augustine, the only early church writers claiming infants were born in an inherited sinful state were Cyprian of Carthage and Augustine’s contemporary, Jerome. Against these three, Aristeides of Athens, the writer of the _Epistle of Barnabas, _ Hermas of Rome, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Gregory of Nazianzus, Gregory of Nyssa, John Chrysostom and the writer of the _Apostolic Constitutions_ all viewed infants as being born innocent.

When we come to the Reformation, we find Luther (an Augustinian monk) uncritically adopting Augustine’s teaching and Calvin endorsing Luther. Calvin openly admitted his theology was entirely Augustinian, writing, _"Augustine is so wholly within me, that if I wished to write a confession of my faith, I could do so with all fullness and satisfaction to myself out of his writings"._

What has passed down to us from Adam is the collateral consequences of his sin. This is no different than if you or I were to be convicted of a crime and imprisoned for it; we would be punished but our dependents would also suffer as a result. What Adam’s descendants inherited from him as a result of his sin was his mortality and what they lost was access to the Tree of Life.

The doctrine of Original Sin is also a plain contradiction of Ecclesiastes 7:29. What Scripture clearly shows is that human sinfulness arises during one’s youth (Genesis 8:21; Jeremiah 3:25) and that children must reach a certain level of maturity before they are able to make moral choices between good and evil (Isaiah 7:15-16). Furthermore, since the human spirit is not inherited from one’s parents, but is given to each person individually by God (Ecclesiastes 12:7; Hebrews 12:9), it is unreasonable to suppose it is any less pure at conception as the source from whence it comes.

[HeavenGuy]

The tree of life was the way to escape death. Losing it confined us into mortality with the certainty of death. Death reigned until Moses because there was no avenue for eternal life until the law.

[millennialocracy]

I'm not even a calvinist, but please explain psalm 14
The fool has said in his heart,
“There is no God.”
They are corrupt,
They have done abominable works,
There is none who does good.

2 The Lord looks down from heaven upon the children of men,
To see if there are any who understand, who seek God.
3 They have all turned aside,
They have together become corrupt;
There is none who does good,
No, not one.
AND
Genesis 6
5 Then the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
ALSO
Genesis 8
21 And the Lord smelled a soothing aroma. Then the Lord said in His heart, “I will never again curse the ground for man’s sake, although the imagination of man’s heart is evil from his youth; nor will I again destroy every living thing as I have done.

[ericbartlett]

I am new to all this, I'm beginning to accept I may actually be saved. Leaning towards Calvinism as the most likely and true of modern Christianity. Before I commit my family and myself to this, Im inviting all critique of the reformed faith. I have to say there has not been one argument against it that I have seen yet that Doesn't push me closer

[jolookstothestars]

Jesus was in all points tempted as we are I think there's only way Jesus could be tempted as if he had a sin nature. Any thoughts Any thoughts

[lawrencestanley]

Sir, at 9:09, you openly reject scripture to maintain a narrative.

Sin is not imputed where there is no Law. In verses 13-14 Paul adds a clarification which confirms that he does indeed have the imputation of Adam's sin in view in the phrase "because all sinned" rather than our individual sins. He states: "For until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come."

In other words, Paul concedes that personal sin was prevalent in the world before Moses ("until the Law sin was in the world..."). But he adds that these personal sins were not the ultimate reason people died in that time period: "But sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses."

People died even though their own individual sins against the Mosaic law were not the reason for dying; they weren't counted. Instead, the reason all died is because all sinned in Adam. Adam's sin was imputed to them.

In fact, Verse 19 provides us with a direct statement of imputation:

“For as through the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous.”

Paul here says that we are made sinners by the sin of Adam.

[Bibliotechno]

In that scenario should there not statistically be one adult that has never ever sinned. (Apart from the One not born by.... human seed). We sin because it's in us to sin (and to die). Living in the outside place as you put is sin. None are born inside the garden of Eden. Since then, in that sense Jesus is the Saviour of the whole world, because it's only in his mercy/grace that anyone takes another breath.

[roelhernandez]

Very informative discussions here..pls join and share your thoughts

[sunlightmiami]

Brother, sincerely you did not prove anything by simply repeating what the passage says. You didn’t disprove the imputation of original sin which is clear from all of scripture. Be wise and careful how you depict your brothers just because they are from a reformed background. Blessings