Original Sin vs. Calvinistic Total Depravity

[DHK]

Now Bob,
I hope that both you and HP realize by your post above that people define Total Depravity in different ways--just as you did. The fact is that Total Depravity has only one definition. There is no "Arminian" definition of Total Depravity. It is the first point of the Calvinistic TULIP, and must be defined as such. In other words it is strictly Calvinistic, as you first defined it. Your second definition was wrong.

Thus in HP accusing me of being a Calvinist when he doesn't know the definition of Total Depravity or redefines it, is totally unethical.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Originally Posted by BobRyan
Adam's willfull deliberate choice in sin - and the associated guilt - being "inherited by the infant". (This is one reaons the RCC decided to promote infant baptism).

DHK: I accept this definition as correct.

HP: Here is a prime example of the confusion I see in the position you and evidently BR are advocating. If it is willful, there must be choice. If the only possibility is to sin, choice is eliminated. Who was it on the list that stated that responsibility only went as far as choice was evident, or something to that effect?

How are you and BR not eliminating choice by stating that the guilt is inherited by the infant? If guilt is inherited, that is precisely the Calvinistic position. Such a position states in essence that the inherited sin and guilt sustains to the individual the relationship of a cause. If it is the cause, then all guilt is directly seated in the inherited original sin prior to any and all choices made by the will. This is in effect the absolute annihilation of choice. It necessities sin and associated guilt, eliminating choice entirely which in turn eliminates responsibility and personal guilt.

Man can only do as one wills. The doing sustains to the will the relationship of a cause. There is not an ounce of freedom lying between the will and the doing. If freedom exists, if choice exists (choice only predicated where there is more than one possible consequent for any given antecedent) it cannot be necessitated by any inherited trait. Inherited traits can be occasions or influences to choice resulting in sin or benevolence, but inherited traits cannot be the ‘cause’ of sin without destroying all choice, freedom, and associated morality. The will of man is the only source of sin and associated personal guilt.

Quote:
BR: Sinful nature inherited by the infant at birth. The inner moral inclination to rebellion against God... a function of inheritance that occurs when a fallen sinful being becomes a parent and passes the same sinful "tendancies" -- weaknesses - inclination to sin -- etc to their offspring.

DHK: The tendency of the non-Calvinist is to re-define Total Depravity in this manner. The Calvinist goes far beyond what you have described. Thus when using the term "Total Depravity," a Calvinistic term, would it not be better to define it according to their definition and then to admit that you don't believe it?

HP: The problem with BR’s statement is that he makes no distinction between the sensibilities and the will. He makes no distinction between that which serves as an influence or tendency to sin, (which can carry no guilt or blame) and sin committed by the will, the very seat of all moral blame and associated guilt. Again, those that DHK states are ‘non-Calvinists” have stated nothing in reality different than the Calvinist. They have simply convinced themselves that they are redefining it when in reality they have not. The reason is that they have still associated the ‘cause’ of sin with the proclivity, and if that is so, it is the proclivity, the nature itself that is indeed the ‘cause’ of sin and as such the seat of all proper blame and associated guilt. There is nothing of substance that separates the Calvinist from the statement of BR in the least. Their attempt to separate themselves from what they see as error is a futile attempt; a mere chimera or sophism.

DHK, if we have something to do with our salvation, tell us what we can do as dead men spiritually from birth? You do believe we are born spiritually dead do you not? Can we repent and do we have the ability to do so? Can one believe when they have not heard, or are you going to take BR’s position that all have heard the gospel, from the youngest to the oldest in every part of the heathen world alike? Does God have to enable sinful man with the abilities to respond to the gospel message, or do men have the abilities to respond as a naturally granted ability given to them by God as moral agents?

 

[BobRyan]

Point of correction - I provided a definition for "original sin" and show how it drove the RCC to the conclusoin that infant baptism (or else Limbo) was needed for infants to avoid Limbo.

I did not say that I agreed that the doctrine of original sin is Biblically correct.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[cowboymatt]

HP: I believe you are indeed correct in that assumption.




HP: An excellent point indeed. We must distinguish clearly between a temptation to sin via the corrupt physical propensities we are born with as a result of the fall, and sin itself. You do a great job in making that distinction clear.

Cowboy Matt, can you understand why I do not buy into the notion that the Arminians (and some leaning hard towards Calvinism) try an induce into the idea of original sin, in that they, as I point out in the OP, try and disassociate guilt from original sin? Can you see their inconsistency? Can you see the necessitated connection between whatever is the ‘cause’ of sin and any and all associated guilt? Can you see that whatever it is that sustains to the sin the relationship of a cause is indeed the only rightful seat of any and all guilt?

I see your point, that logically if human will is what causes sin and if all will sin because of human will, then there must be something guilt-causing about human will. I don't know what I want to do with your point yet, but I see it!

 

[DHK]

Point of correction - I provided a definition for "original sin" and show how it drove the RCC to the conclusoin that infant baptism (or else Limbo) was needed for infants to avoid Limbo.

I did not say that I agreed that the doctrine of original sin is Biblically correct.

in Christ,

Bob

That's true Bob, but it is the Catholic Church that coined the term Original Sin in the first place. So whether it is actually a Biblically correct definition is moot. We define words according to how they are theologically used, whether right or wrong. Then we may agree or disagree with the concept that they represent. Original Sin is a Catholic doctrine which many Baptists don't agree with, but have redefined, but avoided the use of "original sin" in doing so.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Forgive me for intruding out of the void here.

There's something in HP's argument I see, if I'm correctly understanding him, in which I can agree with him. There's no choice without will. We choose what we will or want. Now 'natural man' - that's verybody for as long as he may live be he 'reborn' or 'savage' yet - wills evil and sin ever and always. We - even we the saved - ONLY will sin and to sin of ourselves, no distinction ever!

The only difference between the saved sinner and the not saved sinner is God's Grace through Jesus Christ - whereby the saved sinner is never released of his old man, but is 'infused' - not with any righteousness or holiness his own, but with a strange, new, separate, godly will to will and to do according to the will of God and it spells conflict and victory through conflict. Happy is the man who knows conflict in his soul between good and evil --- only if he be given grace through and in and because of Jesus Christ. Or he shall continue in peace at peace with himself and his own free and willful natural choosing of evil sin and death.

 

[Brother Bob]

HP: You are absolutely correct. :thumbs: Man could have refused the temptation from Satan but he did not. The evil, the sin, and all associated guilt on the part of man came as a direct result of the willful intention and formation of their intents to disobey a known commandment of God. Such is the case with any and all sin. If it is sin, and carries with it associated guilt, it cannot have it’s ‘cause’ in any other thing than ones own willful and intentional formation of an intent of selfishness as opposed to benevolence. If anything else can be shown as the ‘cause’ other than ones own will, whatever is the cause is the only rightful seat of sin and any and all associated guilt or blame.

I like your answer and hope you will consider further what I am really saying about satan which is an evil spirit and where it originates.

Being we were speaking of Lucifer, consider where the intent came from even him.....

BBob,

 

[trustitl]

This is from the Belgic Confession, 1561, a reformed doctrinal statement.

(Empahsis mine)

Article XV
Original Sin
We believe that through the disobedience of Adam original sin is extended to all mankind; which is a corruption of the whole nature and a hereditary disease, wherewith even infants in their mothers womb are infected, and which produces in man all sorts of sin, being in him as a root thereof, and therefore is so vile and abominable in the sight of God that it is sufficient to condemn all mankind. Nor is it altogether abolished or wholly eradicated even by regeneration; since sin always issues forth from this woeful source, as water from a fountain; notwithstanding it is not imputed to the children of God unto condemnation, but by His grace and mercy is forgiven them. Not that they should rest securely in sin, but that a sense of this corruption should make believers often to sigh, desiring to be delivered from this body of death.

Wherefore we reject the error of the Pelagians, who assert that sin proceeds only from imitation.

 

[Brother Bob]

This is from the Belgic Confession, 1561, a reformed doctrinal statement.

(Empahsis mine)

Article XV
Original Sin
We believe that through the disobedience of Adam original sin is extended to all mankind; which is a corruption of the whole nature and a hereditary disease, wherewith even infants in their mothers womb are infected, and which produces in man all sorts of sin, being in him as a root thereof, and therefore is so vile and abominable in the sight of God that it is sufficient to condemn all mankind. Nor is it altogether abolished or wholly eradicated even by regeneration; since sin always issues forth from this woeful source, as water from a fountain; notwithstanding it is not imputed to the children of God unto condemnation, but by His grace and mercy is forgiven them. Not that they should rest securely in sin, but that a sense of this corruption should make believers often to sigh, desiring to be delivered from this body of death.

Wherefore we reject the error of the Pelagians, who assert that sin proceeds only from imitation.

So, infants go to hell if they die, is that what he is saying??

BBob,

 

[BobRyan]

That was the reason for infant baptism - keeping them out of hell (or later - limbo).

As I said - I don't think the doctrine of original sin is correct.

VI. NATURE OF ORIGINAL SIN


This is a difficult point and many systems have been invented to explain it: it will suffice to give the theological explanation now commonly received. Original sin is the privation of sanctifying grace in consequence of the sin of Adam. This solution, which is that of St. Thomas, goes back to St. Anselm and even to the traditions of the early Church, as we see by the declaration of the Second Council of Orange (A.D. 529): one man has transmitted to the whole human race not only the death of the body, which is the punishment of sin, but even sin itself, which is the death of the soul [Denz., n. 175 (145)]. As death is the privation of the principle of life, the death of the soul is the privation of sanctifying grace which according to all theologians is the principle of supernatural life. Therefore, if original sin is "the death of the soul", it is the privation of sanctifying grace.
The Council of Trent, although it did not make this solution obligatory by a definition, regarded it with favour and authorized its use (cf. Pallavicini, "Istoria del Concilio di Trento", vii-ix). Original sin is described not only as the death of the soul (Sess. V, can. ii), but as a "privation of justice that each child contracts at its conception" (Sess. VI, cap. iii). But the Council calls "justice" what we call sanctifying grace (Sess. VI), and as each child should have had personally his own justice so now after the fall he suffers his own privation of justice. We may add an argument based on the principle of St. Augustine already cited, "the deliberate sin of the first man is the cause of original sin". This principle is developed by St. Anselm: "the sin of Adam was one thing but the sin of children at their birth is quite another, the former was the cause, the latter is the effect" (De conceptu virginali, xxvi). In a child original sin is distinct from the fault of Adam, it is one of its effects. But which of these effects is it? We shall examine the several effects of Adam's fault and reject those which cannot be original sin:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11312a.htm

That this doctrine existed in Christian tradition before St. Augustine's time is shown by the practice of the Church in the baptism of children. The Pelagians held that baptism was given to children, not to remit their sin, but to make them better, to give them supernatural life, to make them adoptive sons of God, and heirs to the Kingdom of Heaven (see St. Augustine, "De peccat. meritis", I, xviii). The Catholics answered by citing the Nicene Creed, "Confiteor unum baptisma in remissionem peccatorum". They reproached the Pelagians with introducing two baptisms, one for adults to remit sins, the other for children with no such purpose. Catholics argued, too, from the ceremonies of baptism, which suppose the child to be under the power of evil, i.e., exorcisms, abjuration of Satan made by the sponsor in the name of the child [Augustine, loc. cit., xxxiv, 63; Denz., n. 140 (96)].

 

[trustitl]

So, infants go to hell if they die, is that what he is saying??

BBob,

Advocates of the Belgic confession believe in Covenant Theology which states that the children of believers are saved, but let's not go there or HP won't be happy that the subject is being diverted.:smilewinkgrin: .

 

[trustitl]

And from the Canons of Dort 1618

Emphasis mine

Article 3
Therefore all men are conceived in sin, and are by nature children of wrath, incapable of saving good, prone to evil, dead in sin, and in bondage thereto; and without the regenerating grace of the Holy Spirit, they are neither able nor willing to return to God, to reform the depravity of their nature, or to dispose themselves to reformation.

This Total depravity requires Uncondonditional election in order for any to be saved. Since many are called and few are chosen the atonemont was Limited to only those chosen before the foundation of the world. Therefore we need to be saved against our will which made God cause his grace to be Irresistible to those he imposed it on. Later the Canons point out that we stay in this condition and therefore God makes sure the saints Persevere.

No faith needed to be among the elect nor to stay saved.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Would it be correct to assume that most if not all so far that have commented would see the error in the association of guilt with infants antecedent to any moral choice imbibed within the doctrine of original sin?

There is a first truth of reason, planted within the breast of every moral agent which enables our minds to have a true concept of justice. It is simply this; that in order for any intent or subsequent action to be blameworthy or praiseworthy, one must have choice. One must be able to do something other than what one does under the very same set of circumstances in order for blame or praise to be predicated of an intent and or subsequent action. When we establish dogmas clearly and undeniably contrary to these principles of justice granted to us by God in the form of first truths of reason, we have destroyed our ability to rightfully comprehend and reason in light of the truth God has given to man.

 

[trustitl]

Works of James Arminius, Vol. 1

Sin is the transgression of the law; therefore, God will be the author of sin, if He cause any man to transgress the law. This is done by denying or taking away what is necessary for fulfilling the law, or by impelling men to sin. But if this "determination" be that of a will which is already depraved, since it does not signify the denying or the removing of grace nor a corrupt impelling to sin, it follows, that the consequence of this cannot be that God is the author of sin. But if this "determination" denote the decree of God by which He resolved that the will should become depraved, and that man should commit sin, then it follows from this that God is the author of sin.

 

[BobRyan]

Advocates of the Belgic confession believe in Covenant Theology which states that the children of believers are saved, but let's not go there or HP won't be happy that the subject is being diverted.:smilewinkgrin: .

That would be "conditional election" where family status determines whether God "elects you to salvation". Not very good Calvinism for Spurgeon or Calvin.

 

[BobRyan]

Works of James Arminius, Vol. 1

Sin is the transgression of the law; therefore, God will be the author of sin, if He cause any man to transgress the law.

God does not "cause" humans to sin - did not cause Adam to sin and does not cause parents to make their children sin.

Sin separates from God - the system goes into decay and breakdown. God does not cause criminals to be evil. Adam chose to "take away" that which enables obedience and freedom from slavery to sin -- this was not God's choice.

But God does choose to supernaturally "RE-ENABLE" that which Adam chose to DISABLE.

One could argue that God made intelligent life the way he did such that it begins to break down and decay "slavery to sin" when in rebellion against God.

 

[trustitl]

Works of James Arminius, Vol. 1
Question 5

QUESTION AND.....QUESTION REVERSED

Can God now, in his own right, require faith from fallen man in Christ, which he cannot have of himself? But does God bestow on all and every one, to whom the Gospel is preached, sufficient grace by which they may believe, if they will?

Can God require that man to believe in Jesus Christ, for whom He has determined by an absolute decree that Christ should not die, and to whom by the same decree He has determined to refuse the grace necessary for believing?

ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION

The parts of this question are not opposed to each other; on the contrary, they are at the most perfect agreement. So that the latter clause may be considered the rendering of a reason, why God may require from fallen man faith in Christ, which he cannot have of himself. For God may require this, since he has determined to bestow on man sufficient grace by which he may believe. Perhaps, therefore, the question may be thus corrected: "Can God, now, in his own right, demand from fallen man faith in Christ, which he cannot have of himself, though God neither bestows on him, nor is ready to bestow, sufficient grace by which he may believe?" This question will be answered by a direct negative. God cannot by any right demand from fallen man faith in Christ, which he cannot have of himself, except God has either bestowed, or is ready to bestow, sufficient grace by which he may believe if he will. Nor do I perceive what is false in that reply, or to what heresy it has affinity. It has no alliance with the Pelagian heresy: for Pelagius maintained, that with the exception of the preaching of the Gospel, no internal grace is required to produce faith in the minds of men. But what is of more consequence, this reply is not opposed to St. Augustine’s doctrine of Predestination; "yet this doctrine of his, we do not account it necessary to establish," as Innocent, the Roman Pontiff, has observed.

Any thoughts?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Have I missed DHK’s definition of Original Sin verses Total Depravity? As I go back over the posts I am still in the dark as to exactly the distinction he has made between the two. He states that Arminians do not have a definition of total depravity, but I would disagree with him there. As I have read authors of many persuasions, I see the words original sin and total depravity to carry the same basic meaning. The distinction I have read most often coming from the Arminian side of the aisle is that they try and disassociate guilt in infants even though they consider them as totally morally depraved. I see this as a clear inconsistency, yet I would exclaim, oh those blessed inconsistencies!

I also have not read any explanation from DHK concerning the abilities he believes man has from birth that would be denied by original sin and or total moral depravity. Clear answers to these issues will indeed be helpful in understanding his position better.

 

[trustitl]

That would be "conditional election" where family status determines whether God "elects you to salvation". Not very good Calvinism for Spurgeon or Calvin.

Good point, but they would probably argue that the condition was not one that the individual had any control over.

 

[cowboymatt]

I think what should shift our understanding on these issues is Scripture, and nowhere that I can find does the Bible clearly and unmistankingly say that damnable sin is transmitted genetically, which is what is meant by the term original sin, at least since Augustine.

If Scripture doesn't support it, and logic doesn't require it, then why do we insist on believing in original sin, as defined by Augustine?