Total Depravity

 

Total Depravity

The doctrines known by the acronym TULIP are gaining favor among many within Protestant and Evangelic churches. This teaching finds favor with established churchgoers more than those who are searching for Jesus Christ. An example of the difference between the efficacy of the TULIP doctrines, and the churches that hold to these teachings, can be seen evidenced by what happened in Korea beginning in the 1950s, when those churches are compared with another that rejects the man-made philosophy.

Paul Yongi Cho started a congregation that was Pentecostal. At the time, there was a church in Korea that had a congregation of around forty thousand people. The congregation that Cho headed grew and eventually had over one million people. The church that held to TULIP teachings had a congregation that remained the same in number; it retained its numbers by members producing offspring. The original growth of the church was the product of missionary efforts largely due to the financial aid that the overseas congregations provided. These people believed in the Bible, and some even found faith in Jesus, but did not believe in the power of God to heal or the need for the baptism of the Holy Spirit.

The underlying reason why the church that held to the TULIP teachings did not grow, once it reached a certain critical number, is its members believed (and still do) that they were especially chosen before the foundation of the world to be saved. They also believe Jesus died to save only those chosen before the foundation of the world, whose names were in the Lamb’s book of life. They believe people do not have freewill to choose salvation, but are held captive by the Devil to do his work. Of course, they themselves are exempt because they are the ones God has chosen to be saved. With a theology like this, we can easily see why the members of the congregation see no reason to be active soul winners. Why bother to win souls when those chosen for salvation have already been named and numbered before the foundation of the world.

The doctrines of TULIP are Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace and Perseverance of the Saints. These are not all of the doctrines that are peculiar to those who adhere to these teachings. Another doctrine is Double Predestination, which is most notably a damnable and blasphemous heresy, and it is this teaching that appears to be at the base of TULIP.  We have discussed some aspects of these teachings in the chapter about the salvation process as understood from the systematic method of using biblical truths for understanding salvation. The TULIP doctrines are essentially propositional truths created by taking a verse (sometimes two) from the Bible and then selecting texts throughout the Old and New Testament for support to the exclusion of other Scripture that contradicts the claims being made. As one would expect, this method of developing doctrines would have to produce bigots and hypocrites, who are liars that have seared their consciences. It definitely produces cognitive dissonance among adherents. This is especially so when the teaching produces conflicting beliefs within individuals. For instead of producing souls who are free from sin, adherents find themselves struggling with sin and wondering why they are not experiencing the freedom from sin that is promised to Christians. For according to the Apostle Paul, those who are members of the body of Christ are set free from sin. We read:

For freedom Christ has set us free; stand fast therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery. (Gal. 5:1)

As we shall discover in the following discussion, the claims for the doctrines that form the overall concept of TULIP, although based on texts from Scripture, actually distort the truths of the Bible and lead people astray from obtaining the freedom that rightfully belongs to every person who calls upon the name of the LORD.

TOTAL DEPRAVITY

Total depravity as understood by those who subscribe to TULIP is the second foundational doctrines upon which the others rest. For without the doctrine of total depravity being based upon double predestination (that is, the election of the saved and condemnation of unsaved before Creation), the other four heresies of unlimited election, limited atonement, irresistible grace and perseverance of the saints become absolutely nonsensical.

The doctrine of total depravity teaches that we are born as the vilest creatures ever to have existed as a result of the sin of Adam in the Garden of Eden. According to this teaching, we could not become anymore depraved, and because of our inherent wickedness, we are fit for no good thing and cannot do anything of worth. Since Adam sinned, we have lost our freewill. We are conceived in our mother’s womb bearing the guilt of Adam’s sin and need to be punished by God. We are born depraved, dead in sin, and enslaved to sin. Not only are we are not willing to return to God, we are incapable of doing so because we prefer evil rather than good. This inherent wickedness means we are born in a depraved state deprived of the knowledge of right and wrong, and our wickedness has left every one of us spiritually blind and in utter darkness, perverted of mind and distorted in our judgments, with a hardened heart towards God, we are thereby possessed of a recalcitrant will, having forsaken all goodness. Our corruption has riddled us so much that any emotion that might be otherwise of a positive nature is impure. Our attitudes are like hardened steel, immovably set towards an eternity of torment.

What the doctrine of total depravity states that Scripture claims about our mothers—who gave of themselves, fed us, clothed us, comforted us, and cared for us as newborns—can lead us to think that our Creator is akin to the Devil. Can we really believe this is what a loving God thinks of people?  Does this sound like the God who showers loving kindness on people in the hope that they might repent (cf. Romans 2:4)? Could a righteous loving God have thought this of all mothers since the birth of Cain? Yet, unbelievably, this is the heartless attitude and belief system that is fostered by religionists who claim they are only expounding what the Bible teaches. To question this, as far as they are concerned, a person is worthy of death. Actually, the man who championed this doctrine of total depravity, as part of what became known as the Reformation, was a murderer, just as the Apostle Paul was a murderer before he became a Christian. Only this man consented to have people murdered after he had claimed to be a Christian for many years.[1] Any who defend this man, are just as guilty of his sins, as Jesus said concerning the Pharisees and scribes of His day, that they too were guilty of killing the prophets because they identified with those who did (Matthew 23:29-33).

The Bible teaches that if we believe in Jesus we are saved (1 John 5:13). If we hate another person, we are a murderer (1 John 3:15). No murderer has a place in Heaven; for such a person is destined for the second death (Revelation 21:8), unless, of course, the person repents. Now there are many principles in the Bible, and they hold true. One of these principles is if we honor sinners, we are endorsing their sins, for this is what Jesus said:

Woe to you! For you build the tombs of the prophets, and your fathers killed them.  So you testify and consent to the works of your fathers. For they killed them, and you build their tombs. Therefore also the wisdom of God said, ‘I will send to them prophets and apostles; and some of them they will kill and persecute.’ (Luke 11:47-49)

The idea that honoring a murderer by giving him a burial is to consent to his sin, when fully understood, condemns many people in this world. Who would have thought that merely honoring someone is to participate in the person’s sin? Holiness, the standard of God, far exceeds what we might perceive to be the right thing to do. What Jesus said in respect to honoring the fathers, who were murderers, extends further than what Saul of Tarsus, who became the Apostle Paul did in honoring the fathers (of the Pharisees). He told King Agrippa, that by consenting to the death of Stephen, he was just as guilty of murder as those who stoned him to death:

I said, ‘Lord, they themselves know that I imprisoned and beat in every synagogue those who believed in you. When the blood of Stephen, your witness, was shed, I also was standing by, and consenting to his death, and guarding the cloaks of those who killed him.’ (Acts 22:19-20).

Now you might think that what you are reading about total depravity could not possibly be true, but this is what those who adhere to these TULIP doctrines believe, with many simply accepting them as the truth because it suits their itching ears.  Worse still, they defend those who created them and, if the father of Calvinism, John Calvin consented to the deeds that are attributed to him, then those who defend him are identifying with his murderous, vengeful sins, just as Jesus said that those in his day, wore the guilt of their fathers who hated and killed the prophets.

Canons of the Synod of Dort

The following articles are from the Canons of the Synod of Dort[2]. The articles have an element of truth that seems like correct teaching, but you will find there is also inconsistency. This will become evident when you realize that the teachings claim, on the one hand, man is responsible for his sin but, on the other hand, he has no freewill to choose freedom from sin.

Article 1: All Mankind Condemnable before God

Forasmuch as all men have sinned in Adam, and are become guilty of the curse, and of eternal death (Rom 5:12); God had done wrong unto no man, if it had pleased him to leave all mankind in sin, and under the curse, and to condemn them for sin: according to those words of the apostle: All the world guilty before God (Rom 3:19). And: All have sinned, and come short of the glory of God (Rom 3:23). And: The wages of sin is death (Rom 6:23).

For the most part, there seems nothing wrong with this article, apart from the suggestion of injustice in the words: “God had done wrong unto no man, if it had pleased him to leave all mankind in sin, and under the curse, and to condemn them for sin.” For many Christians this seems to be acceptable, because this is what the verses seem to be saying. However, although Adam chose to sin: Why are all guilty of Adam’s curse? Why should every child born thereafter be condemned to sin? Would not God have been more just to deal with Adam and create a new race?  On the face of it, the answer to the last question would be, yes! But, since God did not create a new race, there must be a very good reason for allowing children to be born into sin and show the Creator is just. If the teaching of TULIP doctrines, which permeate the thinking of those who hold to them, is not false, then this should become evident throughout the Bible and there should not be any contradiction at all.

Article 5: The Cause of Unbelief,

The cause, or fault of this unbelief, as of all other sins, is no wise in God, but in man (Heb 4:6).

This article is about belief and faith. Unbelief is sin, so since we are discussing the subject of sinful depravity of humans, we will look at its relevance. The claim is clear: each person is responsible for any unbelief that he might possess. Adam looked at Eve in unbelief when he saw her not die after eating of the forbidden fruit.  The reference to the book of Hebrews below does not refer to Adam, but to those who had disobeyed and, because of this, did not enter the Promised Land at the time of Joshua, and also to us—which makes this a different matter.

Seeing therefore it remains that some should enter therein, and they to whom the good news was before preached failed to enter in because of disobedience, he again defines a certain day, today, saying through David so long a time afterward (just as has been said), “Today if you will hear his voice, don’t harden your hearts.” (Hebrews 4:6-7)

The Bible teaches the cause of unbelief is disobedience. Now disobedience implies freewill. Although, some will disagree with this, because they take their dog to obedience classes and, because a dog is trained to be obedient, this is evidence animals and humans do not possess freewill. For an animal to be obedient, it has to be trained first.  Likewise, children are trained up in the way they should go, and the Bible tells us, when they are old, they will not depart from it (Proverbs 22.6). This gives the impression children are like dogs—but, can dogs harden their hearts?

Humans, unlike dogs, possess the ability to think critically and creatively. The differences between humans and dogs are vast, particularly when it comes to decision-making. Humans have the capacity to evaluate situations based on moral considerations, such as determining what is good or evil. Every day, individuals face choices that reflect these moral dilemmas, such as “Should I tell this person a lie?” or “Should I take something without asking?” These decisions can lead to habitual behaviors, where lying, stealing, or disobeying parents becomes automatic for some. However, many teenagers still grapple with these choices, as they have not yet formed these habits.

In contrast, dogs, once trained at obedience school, follow their master’s commands without question. A dog will not talk back to its owner, whereas a child may challenge or question a parent's authority. This highlights a fundamental difference in obedience: training a dog to be obedient and guiding a child to follow rules are two distinct scenarios with little in common. While both involve the concept of obedience, the underlying thought processes and moral considerations in humans set them apart from dogs.

We train dogs in a different way to humans. Initially, parents might be able to train children using reward and punishment methods. However, there comes a time when other influences will cause children to question whether they should do as parents say. Parents may find themselves having to give reasons for children to obey requests, rather than treating them as dogs, when expecting them to do as told.

Children might be merely curious and, like little mice, begin to play when the cat is away. Children, left alone to play with each other, often get up to mischief. Yes, it is true: dogs do the same thing as well, when let off their leash. The difference is owners do not explain to dogs the reasons why certain behavior is not acceptable and other behavior is acceptable, owners simply put them back on the leash, growl at them, and the dog puts its tail down and looks at its owner, knowing that a bigger dog has won the day. A child will want to know the reason why this is so.

Interestingly, Scripture states the following in the second book of Peter:

But these, as unreasoning creatures, born natural animals to be taken and destroyed, speaking evil in matters about which they are ignorant, will in their destroying surely be destroyed, receiving the wages of unrighteousness; people who count it pleasure to revel in the daytime, spots and defects, reveling in their deceit while they feast with you; having eyes full of adultery, and who can’t cease from sin; enticing unsettled souls; having a heart trained in greed; children of cursing; forsaking the right way, they went astray, having followed the way of Balaam the son of Beor, who loved the wages of wrongdoing. (2 Peter 2:12-15)

Here is a comparison of humans with animals. This speaks of children who refuse to reason and prefer to do what is wrong, rather than what is right. Now we know we cannot reason if we have no freewill to make the appropriate decisions after having considered the facts. Some people refuse to reason and prefer to revel in wrongdoing. However, we cannot say that when a twelve-month-old child is placed on a rug on the floor and told to sit there, but instead crawls off, the child has reasoned that this is the best thing to do, and is therefore willfully disobedient. We can say that the child disobeyed. But then to suggest this is disobedience is highly questionable; because, for any of us to disobey a command, we need to have an understanding of the command before we can disobey. Children disobey when they have been told what they are to do, but do not comply. However, if children do not understand what it is they are supposed to do, there is no culpable disobedience (cf. Romans 7:7), even though, as in the case of dogs, their action will be referred to as being disobedient.

In the above quoted Scripture from the second book of Peter, we see Balaam as an example of an accursed child—but Balaam was a man who spoke and reasoned with God. Balaam knew what he was doing, and he chose to do what God had told him not to do (Numbers 22:4-32). Balaam is an accursed man. Yet here is a man who was not preordained to be disobedient by God; he is a prophet of God, for this is what he is in the account. By choosing to be disobedient, as we learn in these additional verses of Scripture, Balaam is now consigned to eternity in darkness (Hell):

…but he was rebuked for his own disobedience. A mute donkey spoke with a man’s voice and stopped the madness of the prophet. These are wells without water, clouds driven by a storm; for whom the blackness of darkness has been reserved forever. (2 Peter 2:16-17)

As is clear, Balaam was depraved, and yet we learn he was able to reason with God, make his own decisions [contrary to predestination] and defy God. Consequently, he has a place reserved for him in Hell.

The doctrine of total depravity informs us that man does not have the ability to make freewill choices; the evil that a man like Balaam did was going to happen because he was never regenerate; his will was always defective, controlled by sin and this was preordained by God Himself. Yet after having disobeyed God initially, we learn that Balaam decides to do what was right. He told his employers, who were paying him to curse Israel, that he would only prophecy what God permits:

Balaam said to Balak, “Didn’t I also tell your messengers who you sent to me, saying, ‘If Balak would give me his house full of silver and gold, I can’t go beyond Yahweh’s word, to do either good or bad of my own mind. I will say what Yahweh says’? (Numbers 23:12-13)

Balaam disobeys God. Then God permits him to go and earn his money, but tells Balaam, that he can only say the words that He gives him. If Balaam had no freewill in the matter, then where is the justice in God sending him to eternal punishment?  The doctrine of total depravity opposes the idea that Balaam or anyone else has freewill—including you! Regarding freewill, this is what the council of Dort stated:

This is a novel idea and an error and has the effect of elevating the power of free choice, contrary to the words of Jeremiah the prophet: The heart itself is deceitful above all things and wicked (Jer. 17:9); and of the words of the apostle: All of us also lived among them (the sons of disobedience) at one time in the passions of our flesh, following the will of our flesh and thoughts (Eph. 2:3).

We will now consider the two texts that are used by the Council of Dort to justify their claims:

The heart is deceitful above all things, and it is exceedingly corrupt: who can know it? (Jeremiah 17:9)

…in which you once walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit who now works in the children of disobedience; among whom we also all once lived in the lust of our flesh, doing the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest (Ephesians 2 :2-3)

The Council of Dort claim those two texts say that we have no freewill and are unable to exercise freewill. According to this council of men, these two texts are authoritative and conclusive evidence that we have no freewill to choose good; or even to choose life, rather than death. We are trapped in the sin of Adam and we cannot escape his sin by making any choices.

Based on these claims, the irony becomes, if the heart is deceitful, then how can we trust those who form the Council of Dort to tell us what is true? They are probably twisting scriptural truth—which they are!

There is no mention of freewill in either Jeremiah 17:9 or Ephesians 2:2-6, just an allusion to it. By stating the heart is deceitful, this implies that man has the capacity to make decisions. When talking about the desires of the mind, this is an implication that humans may have freewill because they choose to be disobedient, but it does not mean we have no freewill and are like robots.

In effect, the doctrine of total depravity suggests that humans lack true free will, functioning more like robots or instinct-driven animals. According to this view, we disobey God’s commands because we are born to do so. And as strange as it may seem, even though humans are incapable of exercising free will, personal responsibility is imputed for actions taken.

This is taught in the following article:

Article 15: Reprobation Described

Moreover, the holy scripture herein chiefly manifests and commends unto us this eternal and free grace of our election, in that it further witnesseth, that not all men are elected, but some not elected, or passed over in God’s eternal election (Rom 9:22): whom doubtless God in his most free, most just, unreproachable and unchangeable good pleasure hath decreed to leave in the common misery (whereinto by their own fault they precipitated themselves [1 Pet 2:8]), and not to bestow saving faith and the grace of conversion upon them; but, leaving them in their own ways, and under just judgment (Acts 14:16), at last to condemn and everlastingly punish them, not only for their unbelief, but also for their other sins, to the manifestation of his justice. And this is the decree of reprobation, which in no wise makes God the author of sin, (a thing blasphemous once to conceive,) but a fearful, unreproveable, and just judge and revenger.

The contradiction within the doctrine of total depravity is magnified when the logical outcome of the argument is that God is the author of sin. This is acknowledged in the article of Dort, which states that the very suggestion that God is the author of sin is blasphemous. Even though the Council of Dort makes a clear statement that accuses God of evil, they claim they do not; because, as they basically admit, those developing this doctrine know that this would make the Creator look like a fiendish imp who suffers from an inferiority complex—something akin to what we would expect of the god of this world.

The argument put forward is God has decided that some should suffer a common misery of everlasting punishment—which they brought upon themselves (being personally responsible implies freewill)—while the elect will not. Yet this has nothing to do with any decision made by anyone, it is simply a matter of God’s will. No reason is required for God to punish or excuse, for as Creator of the Universe He can do as he likes. Note how they say this “in no wise makes God the author of sin”—tell a lie repeatedly and the deceitful of heart will believe it.

In their argument, as they prosecute God as unjust (although claiming they do not), the creators of this devilish teaching (for this is what it is), overlooked the argument that is made in Romans, chapter nine. They only selected the first two verses of the text and excluded the rest. For although God is willing to demonstrate His righteous displeasure towards the unrighteous behavior of the Jews, who as a nation had been elected to receive His favor, He, nevertheless, has suffered their impudence so that He could also justify Gentiles who believe in Jesus Christ.

What if God, willing to show his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath made for destruction, and that he might make known the riches of his glory on vessels of mercy, which he prepared beforehand for glory, us, whom he also called, not from the Jews only, but also from the Gentiles?  As he says also in Hosea, “I will call them ‘my people,’ which were not my people; and her ‘beloved,’ who was not beloved.”

“It will be that in the place where it was said to them, ‘You are not my people,’ There they will be called ‘children of the living God.’”

Isaiah cries concerning Israel, “If the number of the children of Israel are as the sand of the sea, it is the remnant who will be saved; for He will finish the work and cut it short in righteousness, because the LORD will make a short work upon the earth.”

As Isaiah has said before, “Unless the Lord of Armies had left us a seed, we would have become like Sodom, and would have been made like Gomorrah.”

What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, who didn’t follow after righteousness, attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith; but Israel, following after a law of righteousness, didn’t arrive at the law of righteousness. Why? Because they didn’t seek it by faith, but as it were by works of the law. They stumbled over the stumbling stone; even as it is written, “Behold, I lay in Zion a stumbling stone and a rock of offense; and no one who believes in him will be disappointed.” (Romans 9:22-33)

The argument from the above text can be summarized: If the number of the children of Abraham is to be as the sand of the sea, those who were not numbered among the elect nation of Israel will need to be included. A remnant will be saved from the elect nation, but it is only those who seek righteousness by faith and believe in Jesus Christ, who will find the promised salvation—both Jew and Gentile alike. This God has brought about with patience.

The argument developed in the text from Romans, chapter nine, is much different to the doctrine of double predestination. The doctrine of double predestination is based on a couple of verses taken out of context to support the argument that an unjust Creator consigns all men to a state of sin, and then only delivers those whom he has decided (for no particular reason) to favor before the foundation of the world.  Unlike the Calvinists, when we include the fullness of the argument that is developed by the Apostle Paul in this passage, we find ourselves not having to create convoluted reasons for dismissing other Scripture such as “God so loved the world that all who believe in Him may be saved” (John 3:16), or “God desires all men to be saved” (1 Timothy 2:4).  They all fall into place.

The argument of the Apostle Paul in Romans, chapter nine, is that the stumbling stone is Jesus Christ. He is a stumbling stone because people who seek to lay hold of eternal life through any other means, have to demonstrate that they have not sinned and have the power over death. Lord Jesus Christ has become a stumbling stone because no sinner can now claim a righteousness of his own, since the Son of God, in the flesh, has demonstrated that the Law can be kept unto death; therefore, He holds the key to the door that opens to eternal life.  Jesus is the way, the truth and the life; no person can have access to the Father except through Him (John 14:6). As we have seen, the Apostle has argued in this chapter that access is only granted to those who are righteous by faith and not by their own righteousness based on works of the law—or any other form of self-righteousness, for that matter. However, instead of following the logical argument of Romans, chapter nine, the Calvinists prefer to take an idea out of context from another passage. This is because they can incorporate into a plausible theology (concerning reprobation) their heresy of God predestinating people for eternal punishment before they were born and not giving them freewill. The key word in the text (1 Peter 2:8) they use for their heretical interpretation is “appointed”, which is found in the sentence: “they stumble at the word, being disobedient, to which also they were appointed.” Notice, once again, that this is the deceptive sleight of hand of the deceiver at play, taking Scripture out of context, for Scripture states:

Putting away therefore all wickedness, all deceit, hypocrisies, envies, and all evil speaking, as newborn babies, long for the pure milk of the Word, that with it you may grow. If indeed you have tasted that the Lord is gracious: coming to him, a living stone, rejected indeed by men, but chosen by God, precious. You also, as living stones, are built up as a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. Because it is contained in Scripture:

“Behold, I lay in Zion a chief cornerstone, chosen, and precious: he who believes in him will not be disappointed.”

For you who believe therefore is the honor, but for those who are disobedient, “The stone which the builders rejected, has become the chief cornerstone,” and, “a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense.”

For they stumble at the word, being disobedient, to which also they were appointed. But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God’s own possession, that you may proclaim the excellence of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light: who in time past were no people, but now are God’s people, who had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy. 

(1 Peter 2:1-10)

The argument of the deceivers is that those who reject Jesus Christ, the Living Stone, did not reject Him at all—as this requires freewill. Instead, they were appointed to be disobedient before time began, so they could be punished forever.  This is why the complete argument in Romans, chapter nine, is not permitted in their discussion on election and predestination of the wicked. For Calvinists to present the texts used to justify the doctrine of “No Freewill” within the full context of the argument, would mean the scriptural truth that we possess freewill would become obvious. Instead, the argument is overlooked and another text is plucked out of context to hide the truth about freewill, so the doctrine of Double Predestination can have support at the expense of the truth.

Important to our discussion is the fact that those who are now chosen, had not previously obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy, after having been called out of darkness, unlike the disobedient who [by freewill] rejected the call and the cornerstone. Whereas those who believe in Jesus will not be disappointed for what reason? Because they have made the decision to follow Jesus, having reasoned out that unless the dead are raised, there is no hope for those who are born. Why are the disobedient appointed to disobey the word? Because they prefer to sin rather than obey the word of righteousness. This is how the Mounce Interlinear Greek New Testament translates the verse regarding being appointed to stumble because of disobedience, which is lifted out of context by the Calvinists:

and, a stone that makes people stumble and a rock that makes them fall: They stumble, as they were destined to do since they do not obey the word. (1 Peter 2:8 Mounce)

When we see both these passages of Scripture and the context of the Scripture, it is clear that WE POSSESS FREEWILL to reject or accept the inheritance that is available through faith in Jesus Christ. In the passages we have quoted there is no mention of the word “inheritance” but when taken in context of the reason for which Jesus died, this is what is meant by inheriting a righteousness that is not our own.

The third Scripture used to support this article is once again taken out of context; so that in reading the designated texts together, they say something different to what is written in the Bible. For when we consider the following passage, once more we see a plea to the listeners to exercise their freewill:

“Men, why are you doing these things? We also are men of like passions with you, and bring you good news, that you should turn from these vain things to the living God, who made the sky and the earth and the sea, and all that is in them;  who in the generations gone by allowed all the nations to walk in their own ways.  Yet he didn’t leave himself without witness, in that he did good and gave you rains from the sky and fruitful seasons, filling our hearts with food and gladness.” (Acts 14:15-17)

There would be no need for Apostles to preach the Gospel to others if all those who were going to be saved had been appointed before the foundation of the world and people had no choice in the matter. Yet once more, we see an appeal to reason and an invitation to the listeners to turn (repent) from the vanity of their ways and acknowledge the Creator of the Universe for Who He really is. For it is by God’s grace that the nations have not been destroyed; instead, through the witness of the Creation, He has made Himself known to all who have sought to know the truth about life.  We even read that God allowed the people to walk in their own ways—and did not appoint them to walk in their own ways as if they had no choice to seek Him and find Him. Yet according to the Calvinist’s doctrine of total depravity, God’s grace only extends to the elect, who were chosen before the foundation of the world. However, we know the god of this world would not want anyone to believe that salvation comes through faith in Lord Jesus Christ (2 Timothy 3:15).

Another Scripture that is taken out of context, and used by those who subscribe to the TULIP doctrines of the Calvinists, speaks of having been captured by the Devil to do his will.  According to their philosophical reasoning, this fits in nicely with the idea of following the power of the prince of the air in acts of disobedience (Ephesians 2:2). However, when we look at this verse within the context of the whole passage, we see that the Apostle Paul is speaking to Timothy to exercise his will to flee from lusts and to teach others to do so too. If people have no freewill, how is Timothy to teach them to exercise it? This is what the Apostle writes:

Flee from youthful lusts; but pursue righteousness, faith, love, and peace with those who call on the Lord out of a pure heart.  But refuse foolish and ignorant questionings, knowing that they generate strife.  The Lord’s servant must not quarrel, but be gentle towards all, able to teach, patient, in gentleness correcting those who oppose him: perhaps God may give them repentance leading to a full knowledge of the truth, and they may recover themselves out of the Devil’s snare, having been taken captive by him to his will. But know this, that in the last days, grievous times will come. For men will be lovers of self, lovers of money, boastful, arrogant, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, without natural affection, unforgiving, slanderers, without self-control, fierce, not lovers of good, traitors, headstrong, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God; holding a form of godliness, but having denied its power. Turn away from these, also. (2 Timothy 2:22-3:5)

We see in this text the words perhaps, may, repentance and taken captive. These words suggest the possibility of change. Perhaps and may both express uncertainty and have no difference in meaning in that something may happen or perhaps it will not. When it comes to repentance, in this instance, if the people are genuine in seeking God, He might grant them to be born from above (John 3:3-7). As for having been taken captive by the Devil, people are not taken captive unless it is against their will.

The idea of fleeing from the Devil or his influences is resident in what James, the Lord’s brother has to say regarding resisting the Devil. We cannot really run away from the Devil by going to another country, state or city; rather we might flee from sinful activists and, in doing so, submit ourselves to God as we resist the Devil. This is what the book of James has to say:

Be subject therefore to God. But resist the Devil, and he will flee from you. (James 4:7)

We cannot resist the Devil if we do not first submit to God. This requires an act of the will. Calvinists claim that because we are in bondage to sin we cannot resist the Devil, and neither can we be subject to God. Yet Scripture states in the book of James that we are encouraged to submit ourselves to God, and in doing this, the Devil has no power over us, because we have chosen life rather than death.

One of the reasons, Calvinists, and even people who hold to a belief in Lord Jesus Christ, do not understand freewill and predestination and election and what being born into sin means, has to do with a lack of understanding of ourselves as individual human beings. Now the key to understanding the truth lies in understanding the truth of the incarnation. When this truth about the Son of God is not understood, all manner of evil persists, guided by the power of the prince of the air, who is the god of this world. Calvin followed Augustine’s teaching in respect to the passing down of sin from one generation to another through the male line. This sin would have been passed down through the female line as well, since all women are formed from the union of the male and the female. Sin therefore cannot be passed down through what is known as traducianism, the passing down of the soul with a sinful nature, for if it is, then the Son of God had a sinful nature; which is contrary to what the Bible teaches concerning Jesus of Nazareth—as he knew no sin. A child may be conceived in sin and even born into sin, but this does not mean that sin is inherent in the child, rather that the world is governed by sin. The distinction when overlooked creates false ideas.

The Son of God entered at birth the baby born of Mary, while she was still a virgin. Unfortunately, many insist that Mary carried the Son of God in her womb and point to a particular passage in Luke (1:35-45) to justify this doctrine. The plausibility of the heresy that Mary is the mother of God rests on that Scripture. However, the Bible is clear, that a body (not a woman’s womb or ovum) was to be prepared for the Son of God to enter. For Scripture states:

Therefore when he comes into the world, he says, “Sacrifice and offering you didn’t desire, but you prepared a body for me.  You had no pleasure in whole burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin. Then I said, ‘Behold, I have come (in the scroll of the book it is written of me) to do your will, O God.’” Previously saying, “Sacrifices and offerings and whole burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin you didn’t desire, neither had pleasure in them” (those which are offered according to the law), then he has said, “Behold, I have come to do your will.” He takes away the first, that he may establish the second, by which will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. (Hebrews 10:5-10)

Some might like to argue that the body that was prepared was the woman Mary, who was still a virgin. However, we know this does not make sense and could not possibly be the case, since the body that was prepared for the preexistent Son of God to enter, was also the body that was offered on the Cross. The Virgin Mary was not offered as the sin offering, only that of Jesus. The body that was prepared for the Son of God to enter, was the body that came forth from the womb of Mary, while she was still a virgin; for we know she had other children (Mk.3:31-2; Mt 12:46; Lk 8:19). This body was human, but possessed no inherent sinful nature—no child does.

In respect to us as individuals, God creates spirits, and puts them in children born of the flesh; which is a criterion for being born into the Kingdom of God (John 3:5). Just as the Son of God entered the body that was born of the woman Mary at birth, so too does God place an individual spirit within each baby at birth. This spirit is distinct from the soul and the body (1 Thessalonians 5:23).  The following are some of the texts from the Bible that clearly state we have spirits and God is not only the God of the spirits, but also the Father (Creator) of spirits

Zechariah 12:1 A revelation, Yahweh’s word concerning Israel. Yahweh, who stretches out the heavens, and lays the foundation of the earth, and forms the spirit of man within him says…

John 4:23-24 But the hour comes, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father seeks such to be his worshipers. God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.

1 Corinthians 2:11 For who among men knows the things of a man, except the spirit of the man, which is in him? Even so, no one knows the things of God, except God’s Spirit.

Numbers 16:22 They fell on their faces, and said, “God, the God of the spirits of all flesh, shall one man sin, and will you be angry with all the congregation?”

Numbers 27:16 Let Yahweh, the God of the spirits of all flesh, appoint a man over the congregation.

Hebrews 12:9 Furthermore, we had the fathers of our flesh to chasten us, and we paid them respect. Shall we not much rather be in subjection to the Father of spirits, and live?

Isaiah 26:9 With my soul have I desired you in the night. Yes, with my spirit within me will I seek you earnestly; for when your judgments are in the earth, the inhabitants of the world learn righteousness.

Ecclesiastes 12:7 and the dust returns to the earth as it was, and the spirit returns to God who gave it.

Isaiah 26:19 Your dead shall live. My dead bodies shall arise. Awake and sing, you who dwell in the dust; for your dew is like the dew of herbs, and the earth will cast out the departed spirits.

Psalm 88:10 Do you show wonders to the dead? Do the departed spirits rise up and praise you? Selah.

Isaiah 26:14 The dead shall not live. The departed spirits shall not rise. Therefore you have visited and destroyed them, and caused all memory of them to perish

Isaiah 14:9 Sheol from beneath has moved for you to meet you at your coming. It stirs up the departed spirits for you, even all the rulers of the earth. It has raised up from their thrones all the kings of the nations.

Proverbs 2:18 For her house leads down to death, her paths to the departed spirits.

Proverbs 9:18 But he doesn’t know that the departed spirits are there, that her guests are in the depths of Sheol.

Proverbs 21:16 The man who wanders out of the way of understanding shall rest in the assembly of the departed spirits.

1 Peter 3:18-19 Because Christ also suffered for sins once, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring you to God; being put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit;  in which he also went and preached to the spirits in prison.

Clearly, we are conscious beings because we possess a spirit. We possess are a body, a soul and a spirit (1 Thessalonians 5:23). However, it is because we possess a spirit each, we possess also the ability to worship God in spirit and truth. God is not only the God of all spirits, but the Father of us all, and there are those who choose to be saved and those who go to the eternal prison. This is why God is called our Father in Heaven. Those who recognize Him as Father will be saved through Lord Jesus Christ. Those who do not acknowledge the Heavenly Father, or Lord Jesus, will have to give an account for every careless word they have uttered, when on Earth, on the day of the judgment before the Ancient of Days, while under the gaze of all the angels, saints, and those who have been resurrected unto eternal condemnation.

When we understand that we are spirits, and our spirit enables us to be thinking, conscious beings, capable of making decisions, we can appreciate that the Son of God was a pre-existing Spirit, distinct from the Father. For we learn that through Him life was made manifest and all things were created. When it comes to Jesus being born of Mary (a virgin), the pre-existent Son of God, through whom everything was created, had no need to reside in her womb as the fetus within grew. When Mary had given birth to the body that was prepared for the pre-existent Son of God to enter, upon being born into this world, at that point of time, the Word became flesh (John 1:14).

The doctrine of total depravity incorporates the teaching of people being born merely to be thrown into everlasting punishment. Central to this belief of total depravity is the doctrine of Traducianism. Traducianism is the doctrine that the soul originates with the male parent and every one born carries the sin and nature of Adam. Furthermore, the guilt of Adam’s original sin and condemnation has also been passed down from Him by every male progenitor through the ages. This is in effect the false doctrine of being held accountable for the guilt of the sins of the fathers.

Because the authors and teachers of the Calvinist doctrine of total depravity have no understanding of a person possessing a spirit, a soul and a body, and think only in terms of souls. Their ensuing doctrines are predicated on the concept of the sin of Adam being passed down through the soul, where they believe the faculty of each individual’s will resides. The following paragraph, on the effect of the fall, forms the basis of the argument put forward for the TULIP doctrine of total depravity using three passages of Scripture.

The Effect of the Fall[3]

Man, in the beginning, being made according to God’s image, was adorned in his mind with true and saving knowledge of his Creator, and of things spiritual; in his will and heart with righteousness; in all his affections with purity; and so was in all his parts and faculties holy (Gen 1:26-27). But he, by the Devil’s instigation, and liberty of his own will, revolting from God, bereaved himself of these excellent gifts (Gen 3:1-7), and contrariwise, in lieu of them, gat in his mind horrible darkness, vanity, and crookedness of judgment; in his heart and will, malice, rebellion, and obduration; and in all his affections, impurity (Eph 4:17-19).

God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the sky, and over the livestock, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” God created man in his own image. In God’s image he created him; male and female he created them. (Gen. 1:26-27)

Now the serpent was more subtle than any animal of the field which Yahweh God had made. He said to the woman, “Has God really said, ‘You shall not eat of any tree of the garden?’”

The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat fruit from the trees of the garden, but not the fruit of the tree which is in the middle of the garden. God has said, ‘You shall not eat of it. You shall not touch it, lest you die.’”

The serpent said to the woman, “You won’t surely die, for God knows that in the day you eat it, your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

When the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took some of its fruit, and ate; and she gave some to her husband with her, and he ate it, too. Their eyes were opened, and they both knew that they were naked. They sewed fig leaves together, and made coverings for themselves. (Genesis 3:1-7)

This I say therefore, and testify in the Lord, that you no longer walk as the rest of the Gentiles also walk, in the futility of their mind, being darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God, because of the ignorance that is in them, because of the hardening of their hearts;  who having become callous gave themselves up to lust, to work all uncleanness with greediness. (Ephesians 4:17-19)

Discussion of Argument

The effect of the fall was for the eyes of both the man and the woman to be opened, as sinners, rather than having their eyes opened as saints, which would have been the case had they eaten of the tree of life. Now they both became conscious of their nakedness in a manner unknown to them before their disobedience. This does not mean that the two humans were not conscious beings prior to having had their eyes opened, just that they were now conscious of their sin and aware of lustful feelings towards each other. Adam and Eve had become aware of the lusts of the world: the pride of life, the lust of the eyes and lust of the flesh (1 John 2:16). Prior to disobeying God, they had no consciousness of these desires, but since they had listened to the guardian angel (Ezekiel 28:13-15), he had claimed dominion over them and mankind was now subject to the prince of disobedience (Ephesians 2:2).

While the statement “being darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God” is true within context, forming a basis for an argument upon its implication becomes one of those leaps of supposition that are not fully supported by Scripture. Too many people have a habit of expounding ideas and half-quoting texts, pulling Scripture out of its context to support another pretext, and placing events from the New Testament into the Old Testament. Besides this, often a lack of understanding of what the Gospel message really means, God’s true purpose, and the constitution of man, also contribute to wrongly interpreting Scripture. What the Council of Dort is saying here is partly true, but not entirely true, and this is where we encounter a problem; for a little error leads into greater error, which then becomes a major stumbling block for elucidating truth.

For it is true that Adam disobeyed God, and in doing so alienated himself. But it is also true that God did not cast Adam into prison. Adam was removed from the Garden of Eden, but not the presence of God. We also know that Adam and Eve had children; but one of their children, Cain, after he had murdered Abel, left the presence of God to live in the land of Nod, east of Eden (Genesis 4:16). This indicates there are assumptions being made in this doctrine of total depravity that are not necessarily supported by the very Bible that is claimed to support their proposition and how they define it. If Adam were totally depraved, along with everyone else from that time forth, it is rather odd that he and Eve were still in the presence of God. In fact, God even went to the trouble to clothe them (Gen. 3:21. cp. Rev. 3:18).

The effect of the fall was to hand over the reins for governing the world of humans on Earth to Satan; the guardian cherub, who sinned from the beginning. Satan obtained the right to rule over the world by deceiving Eve and causing Adam to disobey God. Instead of Adam and his descendants having the right to rule over Earth, this right had been transferred to Satan. Adam’s disobedience towards God effectively meant obedience to Satan and sin. Satan became the god of this world. His desire is for everyone to worship him, rather than acknowledge God the Creator. The evidence is that He attempted to beget a race of his own when the sons of Gods (angels) took as wives the daughters of men (Genesis 6:1-4). As a consequence of this attempt to create a mixed race of angels and men, wickedness began to reign on Earth to such extent that God was grieved in having created Man. This is what the Bible records:

The Nephilim were in the earth in those days, and also after that, when God’s sons came in to men’s daughters and had children with them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown. Yahweh saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of man’s heart was continually only evil. Yahweh was sorry that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him in his heart (Genesis 6:4-6)

For God to be grieved, suggests that this was not what He had intended. Yet the total depravity doctrine of the Calvinists depends on God having predestined men to be born into eternal punishment. The dilemma for adherents of TULIP is in trying to demonstrate these abovementioned texts from the Bible are incorrect. Are the Calvinists correct with their doctrine of total depravity and double predestination of the elect unto salvation and the wicked for condemnation? If this were so, then God would not be grieved by anything a man or a woman would do. There would be no need for God to grieve over people having an evil heart, since this, as Calvinists claim, is what he planned. (Remember reading the following in the statement from the Council of Dort about reprobation: “that not all men are elected, but some not elected, or passed over in God’s eternal election whom doubtless God in his most free, most just, unreproachable and unchangeable good pleasure hath decreed to leave in the common misery …to condemn and everlastingly punish them.”)

Now if the Calvinists are incorrect and the truth is their TULIP doctrines are of the Devil, then there should be evidence in the Bible to demonstrate that this is so. There should be evidence of freewill being a faculty that God expects to be used, even though we are all born into a world governed by sin. If God hoped that men and women might seek after Him but instead they did evil and disregarded Him, contrary to His will, then we would expect our Heavenly Father to feel grief and be grieved of heart.

Grief occurs when death occurs against our will—planned deaths do not produce grief because they are not unintended.

From the account that is written in the book of Genesis at the time of Noah, evidently God grieves when men do not seek Him but prefer to do evil and follow after the prince of the power of the air, which is the spirit of disobedience luring people into a false freedom; one that creates distrust and fear, rather than faith and peace. In fact, the Apostle Paul actually made the claim that the reason God created humans was in the hope that they seek Him out. This is what the Apostle said:

The God who made the world and all things in it, he, being Lord of heaven and earth, doesn’t dwell in temples made with hands, neither is he served by men’s hands, as though he needed anything, seeing he himself gives to all life and breath, and all things. He made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the surface of the earth, having determined appointed seasons, and the boundaries of their dwellings, that they should seek the Lord, if perhaps they might reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us. ‘For in him we live, and move, and have our being.’ As some of your own poets have said, ‘For we are also his offspring.’ (Acts 17:24-28)

As we have already discussed concerning the idea resident within the words “perhaps” and “maybe”; when Scripture states “perhaps they (we) might reach out”, this is indicative of freewill. Furthermore, this also suggests that we are consigned to sin, unless we recognize that there has to be something better. Other translations have “in the hope they might feel after? (or grope for), with the generic meaning of the Greek being if then feeling for God,[4] they might find Him”. The general idea is that God is waiting to see what each person will do. Who will seek after Him? Who will reject Him?

God obviously created each one of us so that we might seek Him out and find Him. Our Heavenly Father did not just want us to be robots. Originally, God was obviously hoping that Adam and Eve would choose to have fellowship with Him, because they loved Him, rather than disobey Him. Indeed it is one thing to be treated as an animal and be told what to do (or programmed as a robot); but it is another matter to decide what to do from freewill. Only freewill allows love to exist in its highest form of virtue. We can love things. We can love animals. Animals can be trained and afterwards prove to be loyal. Unfortunately, animals cannot think and decide to love us because they appreciate who we are. However, this is something that God can do. Also, humans have the capacity to appreciate each other, as they display love, because we have been made in the image of God. Humans have the capacity to love and appreciate our Heavenly Father. In fact, our Creator was hoping for something precious to occur. Instead, He felt sorrow; for once the women had given birth to children by the angels, evil and violence became commonplace (Genesis 6:11). One man, however, found favor with the Almighty. This was Noah (Gen. 6:8).

In the New Testament, we learn that Noah was a righteous man (2 Pet. 2:5; Heb. 11:7). This can only be because Noah sought God out and hated the evil that he saw around him. From the Old Testament we also learn reasons why Noah may have found favor with God. The following Scripture indicates the difference between the wise and the foolish:

Proverbs 1:7 The fear of Yahweh is the beginning of knowledge; but the foolish despise wisdom and instruction.

Proverbs 8:13 The fear of Yahweh is to hate evil. I hate pride, arrogance, the evil way, and the perverse mouth.

Job 28:28 To man he said, “Behold, the fear of the Lord, that is wisdom. To depart from evil is understanding.”

Proverbs 9:10 The fear of Yahweh is the beginning of wisdom. The knowledge of the Holy One is understanding.

Psalm 111:10 The fear of Yahweh is the beginning of wisdom. All those who do his work have a good understanding. His praise endures forever!

Jeremiah 9:23-24 Yahweh says, Don’t let the wise man glory in his wisdom, neither let the mighty man glory in his might, don’t let the rich man glory in his riches; but let him who glories glory in this, that he has understanding, and knows me, that I am Yahweh who exercises loving kindness, justice, and righteousness, in the earth: for in these things I delight, says Yahweh.

The Bible has a message to all humans that if we seek the Lord God, we will discover our Father in Heaven is full of loving kindness, and executes justice in righteousness, which is without partiality. Adam sinned and, even though God drove him and his wife out of the Garden of Eden, He had clothed them and still permitted them to dwell in His presence. Why did God clothe Adam and Eve and still permit them to live in His presence?  Could God have loved Adam and Eve, in the same way as he so loved the world into which He sent His Son to be the propitiation for sin? If Adam and Eve were totally estranged from God and living in the futility of a fallen state, then they would not have been still in the presence of God. Cain would not have been born in the presence of God. Yet we know Cain was in God’s presence (Genesis 4:16), and by implication, so were his parents and brothers and sisters. Those who proclaim the doctrine of total depravity would have us believe that this was not the case. They claim that at the time of Noah, because the hearts of men were said to be evil, this had been preordained by God. But if these people were like pieces in a chess game, there would be no need for God to grieve over having created man. Although, the Bible does not exactly say how Noah found favor with God, Scripture states the following in the New Testament:

Without faith it is impossible to be well pleasing to him, for he who comes to God must believe that he exists, and that he is a rewarder of those who seek him. By faith, Noah, being warned about things not yet seen, moved with godly fear, prepared a ship for the saving of his house, through which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is according to faith. (Hebrews 11:6-7)

What we do know about the doctrine of double predestination is it states that people, who are destined for everlasting punishment, had no say in the matter, because they were preordained to be cast into Hell. Those who are predestined to be part of the elect were preordained to be saved. According to this doctrine, this is a matter of grace, least any person should boast. However, we learn in the book of Hebrews that Noah was saved by faith, not grace. Faith is essential if we are to find favor in God’s sight. Therefore, Noah had to have believed God existed and that he rewards those who seek Him and feel after Him. Noah’s salvation was not a matter of grace alone, rather it was the outcome of his faith and personal desire to seek God, rather than do evil.

Let us look further into what the Council of Dort has to say about the corruption that came into the world as a result of the fall of Adam and how it has affected every human being since.

The Spread of Corruption[5]

And such as man after the fall, such children he begat; namely, a corrupt issue from a corrupt father (Job 14:4; Ps 51:5): this corruption being by the just judgment of God derived from Adam to all his posterity (Rom 5:12) (Christ only excepted [Heb 4:15]), and that not by imitation (as of old the Pelagians would have it), but by the propagation of nature with her infection.

Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? Not one.... (Job 14:4)

Behold, I was born in iniquity. In sin my mother conceived me.... (Psalm 51:5)

Therefore as sin entered into the world through one man, and death through sin; and so death passed to all men, because all sinned. (Romans 5:12)

For we don’t have a high priest who can’t be touched with the feeling of our infirmities, but one who has been in all points tempted like we are, yet without sin. (Hebrews 4:15)

Discussion of Argument

The argument here about the spread of corruption is based largely upon the idea that Adam was a corrupt Father, evil in fact. Adam sinned and, in doing so, he had become unclean—as did Eve. Every child thereafter had to be born unclean, because Scripture states the references from Job, Psalm and Romans and we learn that there appears to be a continuation of sin and death as the result of the sin of Adam. The proposition is unmistakably clear, we are riddled to the core with sin and corruption, absolutely rotten, the same as Cain would have been. Yet Scripture states of Cain that there was a time when he had not sinned; because sin was couching at his door, only he had to master it. This is how the account reads:

As time passed, Cain brought an offering to Yahweh from the fruit of the ground. Abel also brought some of the firstborn of his flock and of its fat. Yahweh respected Abel and his offering, but he didn’t respect Cain and his offering. Cain was very angry, and the expression on his face fell. Yahweh said to Cain, “Why are you angry? Why has the expression of your face fallen?  If you do well, won’t it be lifted up? If you don’t do well, sin crouches at the door. Its desire is for you, but you are to rule over it.”

Cain said to Abel, his brother, “Let’s go into the field.” While they were in the field, Cain rose up against Abel, his brother, and killed him.

Yahweh said to Cain, “Where is Abel, your brother?”

He said, “I don’t know. Am I my brother’s keeper?”

Yahweh said, “What have you done? The voice of your brother’s blood cries to me from the ground.  Now you are cursed because of the ground, which has opened its mouth to receive your brother’s blood from your hand.  From now on, when you till the ground, it won’t yield its strength to you. You will be a fugitive and a wanderer in the earth.”

Cain said to Yahweh, “My punishment is greater than I can bear. (Genesis 4:3-13)

The idea that sin desired Cain, but was only at his door, and he had to take authority over it, means that sin did not have authority over him. Cain had not been taken captive by the Devil to do his will at this particular time (cf. 2 Timothy 2:26). This means that Cain had not yet sinned. Cain was angry, but he had not sinned.—The Apostle Paul admonishes the Ephesians that they can be angry, as long as they do not sin (Ephesians 4:26). —Now if Cain was already alienated from God because he had been conceived in sin within his mother’s womb, we are left to question the reason for which he is being told that sin desires him. Surely, having been conceived in sin, he was already sold to sin, and sin had him. Of course, if this was not the case, and sin is not passed down from father to son, then each must not be born sinners, even if we are born into sin—there is a big difference!

If we are born sinners, then we are not just born into sin or conceived in a world that is bound by sin, we are born sinful and rotten to the core. However, if we are conceived in sin and born into sin, but our spirits are placed into the souls of our bodies by God at birth, then we have not made a conscious choice to sin, and do not inherit the sin of our father. This is different to what the doctrine of total depravity teaches. It teaches that we are totally depraved, which means corrupt and unable to make a decision, because we are born captive to the will of the Devil. However, in the case of Cain, we see this is not what happened, and his father’s sins were not passed down to him that he should bear the guilt. Cain was guilty because he sinned; not because his father sinned. The Bible does not teach that we are guilty of our father’s sin. This is what the Lord God has to say:

The soul who sins, he shall die: the son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son; the righteousness of the righteous shall be on him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be on him. (Ez. 18:20)

Just because death has passed down to all men, and all men sin, this does not mean that the sins of the parents pass on down to the children, so they bear their parent’s guilt. What this means is sin reigns on this Earth; therefore, all things are subject to death and we are born into sin and death, even though, as new born baby, we have yet to sin.  Nevertheless, every child sins when coveting something that belongs to someone else, bears false witness, takes something without permission and disobeys a parent. From that point on, once one of those commandments has been broken, the child is guilty of having committed sin.  Even though we are conceived in sin and born into sin, what this means is we are not guilty of sin until we actually commit sin.  Our spirits are untainted by sin until we are guilty of having sinned. As spiritual beings made in the image of God, like Cain, we are not guilty of sin until we have actually sinned as an act of our own volition; regardless of the fact our souls are passed down from our parents, as are our physical characteristics, and we may have a proclivity towards sin.

In respect to humans being subject to death and not living as long after the flood, as they did before the flood, there are three reasons why this could be so. Firstly, sin affected the blood, of which the DNA passes down via the male of the species—the Blood of Jesus was not the blood of man. Secondly, our own sins contribute to our inability to ward off cell-death. Thirdly, the atmosphere has changed to such an extent since those days that the environment is no longer conducive to the longevity of individuals approaching ages of one thousand years duration. The longest living person verifiably documented in the modern era has only lived one hundred and twenty-two years, one hundred and sixty-four days.[6]

This is what the Bible has to say about death being passed to all men and how through one man’s disobedience death reigns, but through one man’s obedience eternal life is attainable:

Therefore as sin entered into the world through one man, and death through sin; and so death passed to all men, because all sinned. For until the law, sin was in the world; but sin is not charged when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those whose sins weren’t like Adam’s disobedience, who is a foreshadowing of him who was to come. But the free gift isn’t like the trespass. For if by the trespass of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God, and the gift by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many. The gift is not as through one who sinned: for the judgment came by one to condemnation, but the free gift came of many trespasses to justification.  For if by the trespass of the one, death reigned through the one; so much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one, Jesus Christ. So then as through one trespass, all men were condemned; even so through one act of righteousness, all men were justified to life. For as through the one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the one, many will be made righteous.  The law came in besides, that the trespass might abound; but where sin abounded, grace abounded more exceedingly; that as sin reigned in death, even so grace might reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. (Romans 5:12-21)

The idea that death passed down to all men because of one man’s sin, and we inherit his sin as well as death, ignores the fact death is the result of each one’s own sin. The Apostle argues that even without the law, sin occurred, but the law was necessary to point out sin and compare it with grace. What confuses many when reading this text is that physical death does not mean spiritual death (similarly, neither does a righteousness of works mean eternal life). Sin came into the world because of Adam, but if a person were not to sin, then that person would have eternal life. However, the Apostle argues that since all men died, all men had to have sinned. Being born into a world governed by sin, many were made sinners, but not all (John the Baptist is considered by some to be one). The exception, of course, was Jesus Christ our Lord. Since Jesus did not commit sin, when he died, not just some, but all men, can now be justified by his righteousness. This righteousness is presented as a gift to be received by faith. In the Gospel of John, Scripture states concerning Jesus:

He came to his own, and those who were his own didn’t receive him.  But as many as received him, to them he gave the right to become God’s children, to those who believe in his name. (John 1:11-12)

Not all receive the gift. The gift can be rejected. In the above text from the gospel of John, we see that even those who were Jesus’ own did not receive Him. To reject Jesus is to reject the gift of righteousness and eternal life. To receive Jesus is be given the right to be born into the Kingdom of God and be adopted by God as His children; that is, sons of God, who possess the same righteous nature as He Himself possesses. To receive or reject the gift is an exercise of our freewill.

The argument for the validity of the doctrine of total depravity is a faulty argument. The Calvinist’s claim is all men have died (as in every man that has ever lived) because of Adam’s sin and death is passed down from generation to generation because of this alone. The claim is false because Enoch (Gen. 5:24; Heb. 11:5) did not die and neither did Elijah (2 Kgs. 2:11; Mk. 9:4). Both of these men did not see death but were taken to be with God. This means the argument that all men died because of the sin of Adam is false and this was not what the Apostle Paul was really saying; rather, he was saying that although we are born into sin because of Adam’s forfeiture of his right to reign, we can now reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

The argument for the guilt of Adam being passed down the male line to every human has no warrant from Scripture. Although, there is an argument that, because of Adam’s sin, death has passed down the male line to every human. This is not the same as having the human soul being passed down the male line and carrying the guilt of Adam. The blood is tainted by sin and therefore is subject to death. Since the life of biological beings is in the blood (Leviticus 17:11) and death came in because of sin, somehow the blood is affected.

The Son of God entered a human soul, which He obtained from the body that came from Mary. His blood was not human and therefore could not die. Jesus’ blood could never be subject to death, because it is the blood of God (Acts 20:28). The child born of the virgin Mary did not possess human blood, because the egg within her ovaries that formed the fetus was not fertilized by a human. Jesus was sinless. Jesus of Nazareth was the pre-existent Son of God in a human soul and body that came from the womb of Mary and had the blood of God coursing through his arteries and veins.

The soul is not sinful of itself, even though possessing the desires of the flesh that come from the body and instincts of survival as a biological being. Sin is the actual breaking of one of the Ten Commandments. The Apostle Paul states, humanly speaking, that sin does not exist, except for the Ten Commandments. The Ten Commandments are the only words written by God Himself. They are also the standard that defines and measures sin. This is what the Apostle wrote:

What shall we say then? Is the law sin? May it never be! However, I wouldn’t have known sin, except through the law. For I wouldn’t have known coveting, unless the law had said, “You shall not covet.” But sin, finding occasion through the commandment, produced in me all kinds of coveting. For apart from the law, sin is dead. I was alive apart from the law once, but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.  The commandment, which was for life, this I found to be for death; for sin, finding occasion through the commandment, deceived me, and through it killed me.  Therefore the law indeed is holy, and the commandment holy, and righteous, and good. Did then that which is good become death to me? May it never be! But sin, that it might be shown to be sin, by working death to me through that which is good; that through the commandment sin might become exceedingly sinful. (Romans 7:7-13)

In this passage of Scripture, the Apostle is saying that he was alive before he knew the commandments of God. The Law here is a reference to the Ten Commandments written by God. According to the doctrine of total depravity, the Apostle had to have been dead in his sins, not alive, as he claims here. He even claims he would not have known sin if it were not for the Law, which suggests he was righteous (as was Cain before he succumbed to sin). But we are informed that all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, so we cannot build a doctrine that people are righteous, if they do not know the Ten Commandments. Instead, the Apostle is arguing that while we might think we have no need to acknowledge God, the Law points out our shortcomings in a way that our conscience does not bear witness—because we can sear it—whereas, what is written remains to accuse us, regardless of what sins we commit. This is covered in the second chapter of Romans, and points to the fact that we possess freewill to choose to do what we know to be right. As James says:

To him therefore who knows to do good [this is, right], and doesn’t do it, to him it is sin. (James 4:17)

Calvinists delight in lifting texts out of context to justify their doctrine that we are all condemned to being wicked, and we, being wicked, have no say in a matter—except themselves, of course, as they falsify the truth with their deceitful hearts, unlike the pure heart possessed by Nathanael.

Jesus saw Nathanael coming to him, and said about him, “Behold, an Israelite indeed, in whom is no deceit!” (John 1:47)

One text used to justify the belief we have no say in a matter is found in the book of Proverbs. First, we will look at the verse in question, then some other verses lifted out of Proverbs before placing the first-mentioned Scripture—that Calvinists lift out of context—back into context.

Proverbs 16:4 Yahweh has made everything for its own end— yes, even the wicked for the day of evil.

Proverbs 28:4 Those who forsake the law praise the wicked; but those who keep the law contend with them.

Proverbs 21:7 The violence of the wicked will drive them away, because they refuse to do what is right.

Proverbs 17:15 He who justifies the wicked, and he who condemns the righteous, both of them alike are an abomination to Yahweh.

Proverbs 16:3-5 Commit your deeds to Yahweh, and your plans shall succeed. Yahweh has made everything for its own end— yes, even the wicked for the day of evil. Everyone who is proud in heart is an abomination to Yahweh: they shall certainly not be unpunished.

As is evident, the text (Pr 16:4) used to justify the belief that the wicked do not possess freewill, on its own, does seem to indicate that this may be the case. But when we take three other verses mentioned above that are found in Proverbs, we see that people can forsake the law, instead of keeping it; by refusing to do what is right, they become violent in nature; and those who justify the wicked (including those who suggest the Lord has created them to be wicked) are an abomination to our Heavenly Father.

Following this, when Scripture states in context, the Scripture used to justify the idea that God creates the wicked to do evil that He might punish them, we learn people are informed that they ought to commit their deeds to God, so He can help them, but those who are proud in heart will not go unpunished. This is because everything has its own end, those who choose to be righteous commit to God, while those who choose to be wicked, because they are too proud to commit to God, are an abomination. Jesus picks up the same theme, when he talks about those who hate the truth and those who love the truth. In fact, we could say that Jesus was merely rephrasing what we have just read in the three verses from the sixteenth chapter of the book of Proverbs. For Scripture states:

This is the judgment, that the light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the light; for their works were evil. For everyone who does evil hates the light, and doesn’t come to the light, lest his works would be exposed. But he who does the truth comes to the light, that his works may be revealed, that they have been done in God. (John 3:19-21)

The verses of Scripture that we are discussing here all point to freewill. The failure of those who contrived the doctrine of total depravity to consider that we are tripartite beings (spirit, soul and body) and not dipartite (soul and body) could be the reason for this heresy of possessing no freewill, even though we have been made in the image of God.

In respect to this doctrine of total depravity, when we start to consider the context of the verses from where the proof texts have been taken to justify the pretext that all men are inherently evil and have no freewill, we note that the Bible does not teach what the exponents of this false teaching claim. By considering the context of the texts that are used to justify the falsehood that humans do not possess freewill and are born as beings of total depravity, who are unable to make choices between good and evil, we actually see the Bible teaches men have freewill, and those who hate evil and seek God are saved through faith. Even Cain could have overcome sin, had he resisted the Devil and drawn near to God. For Cain to have drawn near to God, he would have had to have been like Noah and believed that he would have been rewarded. Being rewarded for exercising faith is contrary to the doctrine of total depravity. Upon the doctrine of total depravity that forms the foundation of Calvinism’s teachings, rest the other articles of belief found in the doctrines known by the acronym of TULIP.

Regarding the belief that the original sin of Adam is passed down through the blood inherited from the fathers, because the life is in the blood, bear in mind that a decision is not a biological matter, rather it is spiritual, and originates in the spirit of each person. If we isolate the following three Scriptures, the doctrine of original sin seems to fit our experience:

For the life of the flesh is in the blood; and I have given it to you on the altar to make atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that makes atonement by reason of the life. (Leviticus 17:11)

Behold, I was born in iniquity. In sin my mother conceived me. (Psalm 51.5)

The heart is deceitful above all things, and it is exceedingly corrupt: who can know it? (Jeremiah 17:9)

From these three texts taken out of context, numerous people calling themselves Christians believe the following deception. The life of the flesh is in the blood, and atonement for sins is made through the blood. Every person is born a sinner, because each person is conceived in iniquity, by virtue of the parents’ blood, being sinful. The heart is where the blood is pumped around the body, therefore it is deceitful, and exceeding corrupt from when it is created within the fetus.

While the blood comes from the union of male sperm with a female egg, what needs to be understood, the blood comes neither from the father or the mother, but from the union of the two reproductive cells (gametes).—The concept of two becoming one is a very important principle about life that is overlooked, yet it permeates everything from origins to computer technology and concerns Lord Jesus Christ and the bride (cf. Ephesians 5:31).—What this means is no one receives blood from either parent. Each person has blood that is unique to them, even if each person’s DNA can be identified as coming from the father and the mother.

The heart to which Jeremiah refers is not the physical organ that pumps blood, rather the spirit of each individual, from where all thought originates and the volition exists. The book of Hebrews clearly states that the thoughts and intentions of the heart can be separated by God, along with the spirit from the soul (Heb. 4:12-13; cf. 1 Cor. 2:11-12).

The air we breathe is also known as the breath of life in the Bible. Moreover, the Hebrew word for spirit is also used for the word breath. This is evident in the following:

Who knows the spirit [ruach] of man, whether it goes upward, and the spirit [ruach] of the animal, whether it goes downward to the earth?” (Ecclesiastes 3:21)

Pairs from all flesh with the breath [ruach] of life in them went to Noah into the ship. (Genesis 7:15)

What we learn is that when man became a living soul, the breath of life was breathed into him by his Creator. The Hebrew word that is used for breath of life is different in the Creation account, but it also used interchangeably to refer to animals.[7]

Yahweh God formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath (neshamah) of life; and man became a living soul. (Genesis 2:7)

All on the dry land, in whose nostrils was the breath of the spirit of life, died. (Genesis 7:22)

If he set his heart on himself,  if he gathered to himself his spirit (ruchov—from ruach) and his breath (venishmatov—from nasham) all flesh would perish together, and man would turn again to dust (Job 34:14).

The ancients did not possess the knowledge that we have today. Understanding that life is in the blood and that this came from the male progenitor would have been evident to any who farmed chickens. Hen’s eggs that are not fertilized have no blood. Eggs that are fertilized by a rooster have blood in them. This would have become apparent when eggs were eaten from hens separated from a rooster, and those from hens accompanied by a rooster.  The life was in the blood. However, this did not mean that life is passed down through the blood, because no blood cells pass from mother or father to the offspring, only the reproductive cells—the female ovum being the largest of human cells and the male spermatozoon, the smallest of human cells, carrying the activating agent. The life (neshamah) does not enter the blood of the child until it breathes and becomes an independent living being, whereupon God gives each child a spirit, for He is the Father of spirits (Hebrews 12:9; cf. Numbers 16:22; 27:16). Prior to becoming a new born child that breathes on its own accord, oxygen and nutrients are passed to the fetus through the placenta, which does not permit any blood cells to cross into the developing baby.

For the life [nephesh—soul] of the flesh is in the blood; and I have given it to you on the altar to make atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that makes atonement by reason of the life. (Leviticus 17:11)

The Bible teaches that the life—“nephesh” Hebrew word for soul—is in the blood. Even though a child is not yet born, it has its own blood and receives oxygen from its mother. Without oxygen a breathing creature cannot function. In the case, of humans, babies develop within the womb of the mother, whereas creatures like birds are able to breathe through their porous shell, as they develop from an embryo into a chick.[8] Oxygen and nutrients are what gives us life and blood is the means by which they are transported throughout our body. Therefore, without the blood, humans cannot live. The blood is not passed on to a child by the mother or the father. We are told DNA is though. This DNA is tainted because of sin, and cell death is the reason why organs fail and people die, if they do not succumb to disease.

Each ovum within a woman is effectively the future body of a child waiting to be activated by a human spermatozoon. If the ovum is not activated, then it is flushed out of the womb, and does not become a soul.

In the case of Jesus, He did not enter Mary until the body had been prepared. Unlike every other person, Jesus did not have a biological father, but the Spirit of God activated the ovum with Mary, to become a living soul. The Creator, the pre-existent Son of God, through whom all things have been created, entered the body that had been prepared the day Mary gave birth.

Sacrifice and offering you didn’t desire, but you prepared a body for me….by which will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all (Hebrews 10:4-7)

The body that had been prepared to become the sacrificial offering to make atonement for sin, the Son of God entered at the birth of Jesus of Nazareth. The ovum of the woman was dead until made alive by the Spirit of God, but did not become the Son of God until He who was with the Father entered it. Similarly, every child does not become fully human until the Father of spirits places a spirit within the body at birth. Nevertheless, the life is in the blood and every developing fetus within an embryo is essentially designated to become a child of God

---

[1] Within five years fifty-eight sentences of death and seventy-six of exile, besides numerous committals of the most eminent citizens to prison, took place in Geneva. The iron yoke could not be shaken off. In 1555, under Ami Perrin, a sort of revolt was attempted. No blood was shed, but Perrin lost the day, and Calvin's theocracy triumphed. 

"I am more deeply scandalized", wrote Gibbon "at the single execution of Servetus than at the hecatombs which have blazed in the autos-da-fé of Spain and Portugal". He ascribes the enmity of Calvin to personal malice and perhaps envy. The facts of the case are pretty well ascertained.  “John Calvin”,  Catholic Encyclopedia, New Advent https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03195b.htm —retrieved April 29, 2025

[2] Peter Hall, The Harmony of Protestant Confessions (London: John F. Shaw, 1844), 539–73. This translation is in the public domain. The titles of the articles, not part of the original, are added from the edition of the Canadian and American Reformed Churches, see “The Canons of Dort,” pages 1–26. http://www.esvbible.org/resources/creeds-and-catechisms/article-the-canons-of-the-synod-of-dort-1619/--retrieved —retrieved Dec. 1 2014.

[3] Article 1 Third and Fourth Main Points of Doctrine - Of the Corruption of Man, His Conversion to God, and the Way It Occurs.

[4]   psēlapháō comes from a root meaning, "to rub, wipe"; hence, to feel on the surface HELPS Word Studies copyricht 2011. Used with permission

[5] Article 2 Third and Fourth Main Points of Doctrine - Of the Corruption of Man, His Conversion to God, and the Way It Occurs.

[6] http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/oldest-person/

[7][7] And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. "Then Jehovah God formed man from dust of the ground." עפר is the accusative of the material employed (Ewald and Gesenius). The Vav consec. imperf. in Genesis 2:7, Genesis 2:8, Genesis 2:9, does not indicate the order of time, or of thought; so that the meaning is not that God planted the garden in Eden after He had created Adam, nor that He caused the trees to grow after He had planted the garden and placed the man there. The latter is opposed to Genesis 2:15; the former is utterly improbable. The process of man's creation is described minutely here, because it serves to explain his relation to God and to the surrounding world. He was formed from dust (not de limo terrae, from a clod of the earth, for עפר is not a solid mass, but the finest part of the material of the earth), and into his nostril a breath of life was breathed, by which he became an animated being. Hence the nature of man consists of a material substance and an immaterial principle of life. "The breath of life," i.e., breath producing life, does not denote the spirit by which man is distinguished form the animals, or the soul of man from that of the beasts, but only the life-breath (vid., 1 Kings 17:17). It is true, נשׁמה generally signifies the human soul, but in Genesis 7:22 חיּים נשׁמת־רוּח is used of men and animals both; and should any one explain this, on the ground that the allusion is chiefly to men, and the animals are connected per zeugma, or should he press the ruach attached, and deduce from this the use of neshamah in relation to men and animals, there are several passages in which neshamah is synonymous with ruach (e.g., Isaiah 42:5; Job 32:8; Job 33:4), or חיים רוח applied to animals (Genesis 6:17; Genesis 7:15), or again neshamah used as equivalent to nephesh (e.g., (Joshua 10:40, cf. Joshua 10:28, Joshua 10:30, Joshua 10:32). For neshamah, the breathing, πνοή, is "the ruach in action" (Auberlen). Beside this, the man formed from the dust became, through the breathing of the "breath of life," a חיּה נפשׁ, an animated, and as such a living being; an expression which is also applied to fishes, birds, and land animals (Genesis 1:20-21, Genesis 1:24, Genesis 1:30), and there is no proof of pre-eminence on the part of man. As חיּה נפשׁ, ψυχὴ ζῶσα, does not refer to the soul merely, but to the whole man as an animated being, so נשׁמה does not denote the spirit of man as distinguished from body and soul. On the relation of the soul to the spirit of man nothing can be gathered from this passage; the words, correctly interpreted, neither show that the soul is an emanation, an exhalation of the human spirit, nor that the soul was created before the spirit and merely received its life from the latter. The formation of man from dust and the breathing of the breath of life we must not understand in a mechanical sense, as if God first of all constructed a human figure from dust, and then, by breathing His breath of life into the clod of earth which he had shaped into the form of a man, made it into a living being. The words are to be understood θεοπρεπῶς. By an act of divine omnipotence man arose from the dust; and in the same moment in which the dust, by virtue of creative omnipotence, shaped itself into a human form, it was pervaded by the divine breath of life, and created a living being, so that we cannot say the body was earlier than the soul. The dust of the earth is merely the earthly substratum, which was formed by the breath of life from God into an animated, living, self-existent being. When it is said, "God breathed into his nostril the breath of life," it is evident that this description merely gives prominence to the peculiar sign of life, viz., breathing; since it is obvious, that what God breathed into man could not be the air which man breathes; for it is not that which breathes, but simply that which is breathed. Consequently, breathing into the nostril can only mean, that "God, through His own breath, produced and combined with the bodily form that principle of life, which was the origin of all human life, and which constantly manifests its existence in the breath inhaled and exhaled through the nose" (Delitzsch, Psychol. p. 62). Breathing, however, is common to both man and beast; so that this cannot be the sensuous analogon of the supersensuous spiritual life, but simply the principle of the physical life of the soul. Nevertheless the vital principle in man is different from that in the animal, and the human soul from the soul of the beast. This difference is indicated by the way in which man received the breath of life from God, and so became a living soul. "The beasts arose at the creative word of God, and no communication of the spirit is mentioned even in Genesis 2:19; the origin of their soul was coincident with that of their corporeality, and their life was merely the individualization of the universal life, with which all matter was filled in the beginning by the Spirit of God.

On the other hand, the human spirit is not a mere individualization of the divine breath which breathed upon the material of the world, or of the universal spirit of nature; nor is his body merely a production of the earth when stimulated by the creative word of God. The earth does not bring forth his body, but God Himself puts His hand to the work and forms him; nor does the life already imparted to the world by the Spirit of God individualize itself in him, but God breathes directly into the nostrils of the one man, in the whole fulness of His personality, the breath of life, that in a manner corresponding to the personality of God he may become a living soul" (Delitzsch). This was the foundation of the pre-eminence of man, of his likeness to God and his immortality; for by this he was formed into a personal being, whose immaterial part was not merely soul, but a soul breathed entirely by God, since spirit and soul were created together through the inspiration of God. As the spiritual nature of man is described simply by the act of breathing, which is discernible by the senses, so the name which God gives him (Genesis 5:2) is founded upon the earthly side of his being: Adam, from אדמה (adamah), earth, the earthly element, like homo from humus, or from χαμά, χαμαί, χαμᾶθεν, to guard him from self-exaltation, not from the red colour of his body, since this is not a distinctive characteristic of man, but common to him and to many other creatures. The name man (Mensch), on the other hand, from the Sanskrit mânuscha, manuschja, from man to think, manas equals mens, expresses the spiritual inwardness of our nature. Commentary on the Old Testament: Carl Friedrich Keil and Franz Delitzsch [1857-78].

[8] Porous Science. 2012. Scientific America https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/bring-science-home-chick-breathe-inside-shell/ —retrieved Dec. 2, 2014``