No, Not One. #bible #truth #shorts

[timothy]

Warren has a presupposition that the righteous being contrasted with the wicked that you see in Psalm 58:10-11 somehow have a righteousness based on their own nature in the flesh. He's assuming this, but this is the imputed righteousness based on faith.

He is trying to negate the clear cut truth of all being under sin in Romans 3:9-12. And interestingly enough, the word "under" in verse 9 is the Greek word hypo, which means (in the context of this verse) to be subject to the power of any person or thing. That thing is sin. That's the reason no one is righteous; no one understands; no one seeks after God; and no one does good. They are slaves to their nature of sin (John 8:34) and sin is defined lawlessness (1 John 3:4) and that's the reason all fall short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23) because we miss the mark.

This is what open theists do; they find Bible verses and ascribe an objection to those that disagree based on a faulty premise. They dig in their heels and find any verse they can to elevate the nature of man and lower the attributes of God. Sadly, many folks follow this heretical teaching because it is slyly presented, but Warren is someone that needs to be marked and avoided (Romans 16:17-18).

[HipolitaofZion]

Total depravity is seen all over scriptures. Check this out:

John 9:34 They answered him, “You were born entirely in sins, and yet you are teaching us?” So they put him out.

This is the blind man in whom Jesus healed by mixing his own saliva and mud together and putting it into his eyes, and then telling him to bathe in the pool of Siloam. Even the Pharisees and Jews knew themselves that all have sinned by telling him he was born in sin.

[Galidor_Storyteller]

What about all the times the Bible calls people righteous, like Noah, Enoch or Abraham?

[davevandervelde]

So...Warren is righteous? How humble of him.

[smgale]

I'd argue that McGrew makes a couple of significant mistakes in his exegesis of Psalm 58:

1) He insists that words like "astray" "deviate, " and "erred" (v. 3) necessarily imply a progressive and/or delayed period of moral corruption that follows an initial/prior period of innocence and righteousness. In other words, he sees the "deviation" or "erring"/"straying" as a reference to the ACT or PROCESS (itself), of straying.

Of course, it CAN mean that, but not necessarily so. "Deviation, " "erring"/"straying" can also refer to the mere violation of a STANDARD (or "rule"), without reference to the timing of it. In other words, it can refer to the FACT of the violation ITSELF, without implying anything at all about timing - and, more importantly, also not implying anything at all about any better prior state.

For example, if Jim makes an illegal move to start a chess match, we may say Jim "deviated" or "strayed" right out of the gate. But that phrasing does not imply that he initially played fairly for some time, but THEN strayed, over time, later on. That's because the "straying" or "deviation" language here is not in reference to "changing course" (one type of straying), but rather to "violating a standard" (another type of straying).

2) McGrew's other misstep here is to ignore the unavoidable implication of verse 3's reference to the womb. He spends a lot of time arguing what Psalm 58, on the whole, supposedly ISN'T saying, but doesn't really drill down on the import of the "womb" reference in verse 3.

That reference is exactly analogous to the chess example: there is an "erring" or "straying" that is referenced, AND it is pinpointed as being from the beginning. Jim cheated "out of the gate, " and the evil err "from the womb." If we take that phrasing about Jim to mean that he played fair for 8 or 9 turns and THEN started cheating, then the phrase "out of the gate" quite literally evaporates without any meaning at all. Same for verse 3 ... if straying from one's very origin (i.e. "womb") implies straying only after a significant period of time spent on a better, prior course (and, ostensibly, straying at some age of accountability well past the womb), then verse 3's "womb" reference evaporates into virtual meaninglessness.

Again, to be fair, "going astray, " "deviating, " "erring, " and similar language CAN, indeed imply the kind of meaning McGrew refers to (something like "changing course"), including in contexts of moral assessment. I'm happy to acknowledge that when it's there, and not try to force total depravity into that if it isn't in there. And INDEED there ARE certainly biblical references to progressive moral corruption over time. But in this case, there's also direct language pinning the problem back to the point of origin.

[JayReacio]

Romans 3 is a direct reference to psalm 14 or Psalm 53 take your pick. Both of those make explicit that lack of any righteous is not a universal claim made about the ontological state of humanity but rather about THE FOOL who denies God’s existence.

Please have enough respect for the Bible to quote in context, not just one liners you think suit your paradigm

[psychoelf]

Why dont you think Jesus was righteous?

[ChristianFacts]

What about Abel, Noah, Job, Lot, Zacharias and Elisabeth who Scripture calls righteous... and of course those in Psalm 58:3 called righteous?