Original Sin vs. Calvinistic Total Depravity

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

HP: It should be evident to the listener that the main distinction between believer concerning the dogma of original sin lies in whether or not it constitutes guilt or not. The Calvinist would take the position that there is associated guilt, while the Arminian would deny any guilt directly associated with original sin. I would believe that for one to maintain that it does not constitute guilt but is the necessitated impetus from which all sin derives it’s guilt, is simply inconsistent. If guilt is necessitated by original sin, what real distinction is there in that and saying that original sin imputes guilt? If original sin is the ‘cause’ of sin and associated guilt, the proper place of blame, hence all guilt, in fact does lie irrevocably upon that inherited sin.

It would seem to me, that the only real distinction between those that claim to believe in original sin yet not direct associated guilt, and those that believe in original sin and as such inherit guilt, is that the latter is at least logically consistent with his premise while the former is not only inconsistent but is in denial of the true logical implications of his stated beliefs.

DHK has stated that he believes in original sin and yet does not hold to total depravity as the Calvinist affirms. I would ask DHK if in fact he would be so kind as to set forth his stated differences on this thread designed to do so, so we can fairly examine the logical implications of his stated differences. All others are certainly invited and encouraged to share their thoughts and ideas on this topic as well.

 

[DHK]

I'll let you take the first stab at it since it is your thread.
Please make clear what you are speaking about.

1. How do you define "original sin"?

2. How do you define "Total Depravity"?

 

[cowboymatt]

HP, I would make the argument that to believe that original sin carries guilt with it pins sin on God, i.e., makes God the author of sin, something that I am not willing to believe since it stands outside of the biblical tradition. So how does one get God off the hook for sin? Well, by carefully reading Scripture one can easily see that DEATH and not DAMNABLE SIN is passed down genetically (just read Adam's punishment in Genesis). Thus damnable sin must come from somewhere else...I wonder where? From human free will, which James 1 makes perfectly clear. So each human being is the author of his/her own sin; that seems to be consistent with Scripture and keeps God from being the author of sin.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: I'll let you take the first stab at it since it is your thread.
Please make clear what you are speaking about.

1. How do you define "original sin"?

2. How do you define "Total Depravity"?

HP: I see no logical distinction between the two ideas in any camp that adheres to original sin. Again, what I hear many doing is trying to make ‘guilt’ the issue between them, but I find that when they try and disconnect guilt from total depravity or original sin, they simply just become inconsistent with the logical connection that of necessity exists between the ‘cause’ of sin and any and all guilt. Whatever is the cause of sin is the only proper seat of sin thus the proper seat of any and all guilt. It makes no sense whatsoever to say, original sin is the cause or reason why all sin, yet try and disassociate guilt from original sin. If original sin is the cause, original sin of necessity induces guilt.


When I use the words 'total depravity,' I am referring to a state in which all men find themselves having sinned. Sin is a contagion in this sense. When one starts down the path of sin, it will of necessity grow and fester, becoming worse over time. We have all heard the statement that sin will take us farther that we want to go, cost us more than we are willing to pay, and keep us longer than we desire to stay.

All men have sinned, and as such are in a state of total moral depravity antecedent to salvation. As you well know, I do not believe that it is that we are born morally depraved, but rather as Scripture states, we have all as sheep have ‘gone astray’ and have turned everyone to his own way. We are born with a natural proclivity to sin, or a natural tendency to sin via the influences of the sensibilities, but that in and of itself is again not sin. Sin is conceived and guilt is induced only as the will yields itself in voluntary agreement to the influences of selfishness as opposed to benevolence as the Apostle James makes clear.

Please be patient with me as I will try my best to be with all who respond. We are in the process of trying to find ways of placing in writing ideas and concepts not frequently the source of discussion, but lie at the very root of almost every thread I read. It will do us all good to try our best to achieve a better understanding of the others views, especially in this area. It is upon ideas such as we are addressing that every theology finds its foundational principles. To avoid or fail to comprehend these issues correctly will affect almost every other idea that one will develop in their theology. This topic is crucial and as such cannot be avoided if we honestly have truth as our objective.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Cowboy Matt: I would make the argument that to believe that original sin carries guilt with it pins sin on God, i.e., makes God the author of sin, something that I am not willing to believe since it stands outside of the biblical tradition.

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

Cowboy Matt: So how does one get God off the hook for sin? Well, by carefully reading Scripture one can easily see that DEATH and not DAMNABLE SIN is passed down genetically (just read Adam's punishment in Genesis). Thus damnable sin must come from somewhere else...I wonder where? From human free will, which James 1 makes perfectly clear. So each human being is the author of his/her own sin; that seems to be consistent with Scripture and keeps God from being the author of sin.

HP: An excellent point indeed. :thumbs: We must be able to 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.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Cowboy Matt: I would make the argument that to believe that original sin carries guilt with it pins sin on God, i.e., makes God the author of sin, something that I am not willing to believe since it stands outside of the biblical tradition.

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

Cowboy Matt: So how does one get God off the hook for sin? Well, by carefully reading Scripture one can easily see that DEATH and not DAMNABLE SIN is passed down genetically (just read Adam's punishment in Genesis). Thus damnable sin must come from somewhere else...I wonder where? From human free will, which James 1 makes perfectly clear. So each human being is the author of his/her own sin; that seems to be consistent with Scripture and keeps God from being the author of sin.

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?

 

[Brother Bob]

And if there was no Original sin, then where would man go to sin?

Sin did not exist until Adam disobeyed God and brought sin into the world. (Original Sin)

That does not mean we are born with sin, but that we have a nature about us that when we come to know God and glorify Him not as God, we sin. The soul that sinneth shall die. All men of sound mind, except they die as infants, will reach the age of this knowledge and according to his nature will sin, I guess you could say, he loves himself too much to not sin.

I don't see a inconsistancy in that the Original sin, brought sin into the world. If not for the Original sin, there would be no sin.

BBob,

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Brother Bob: Sin did not exist until Adam disobeyed God and brought sin into the world. (Original Sin)

HP: Would it not be better to say that sin did not exist 'as far as man is concerned' until man fell? Sin certainly existed prior to the fall, just not in man. It is evident that the sin that existed prior to the fall indeed had a horrendous effect upon sinless man, yet even that sin was NOT the 'cause' of mans sin nor could it have been.

 

[DHK]

When I use the words 'total depravity,' I am referring to a state in which all men find themselves having sinned. Sin is a contagion in this sense. When one starts down the path of sin, it will of necessity grow and fester, becoming worse over time. We have all heard the statement that sin will take us farther that we want to go, cost us more than we are willing to pay, and keep us longer than we desire to stay.

Here is the problem.
"When I use the words 'total depravity'" You have your definition. But that is not the accepted definition of the Calvinist, and thus you end up falsely accusing me and others of being a Calvinist because you don't know what Total Depravity is. I urge you to study Calvinism before you post on the board your ideas of what it is. You cannot judge one by your ideas of what something is or is not.

Your judgement of my theology is just as ludicrous as the Muslim who judges me of believing in three gods because he doesn't understand the trinity.

Here is a Calvinist's description of Total Depravity:

“The Bible stresses the total inability of fallen man to respond to the things of God.” (Talbot & Crampton, Calvinism, Hyper-Calvinism and Arminianism, p. 20)

It is a statement that I do not agree with.

 

[Brother Bob]

HP: Would it not be better to say that sin did not exist 'as far as man is concerned' until man fell? Sin certainly existed prior to the fall, just not in man. It is evident that the sin that existed prior to the fall indeed had a horrendous effect upon sinless man, yet even that sin was NOT the 'cause' of mans sin nor could it have been.

I do not understand, who did the sin exist in??? or where?

 

[DHK]

I do not understand, who did the sin exist in??? or where?

Its a moot point Bob, and one that needs no answer. We need only to stick with what the Bible says.

Romans 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

Adam was the first man. There was no sin before him. By Adam sin entered into the world, and death by sin. There was no sin before Adam, according to the Word of God.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Originally Posted by Brother Bob
I do not understand, who did the sin exist in??? or where?

HP: The sin existed as a result of Satan's sin and the angels that fell with him. Satan then wielded his sinful influence upon the first pair according to Scripture by the way.

 

[Brother Bob]

HP: The sin existed as a result of Satan's sin and the angels that fell with him. Satan then wielded his sinful influence upon the first pair according to Scripture by the way.

This is where we disagree HP, I have never believe that. I don't even believe Lucifer is Satan. He desired to be as God, but never made it but was cast down, not up.

Job 28:7[There is] a path which no fowl knoweth, and which the vulture's eye hath not seen:

Isa 14:13For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:

Isa 14:14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.

Isa 14:15 Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.

BBob,

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK, how can we rectify and harmonize the facts I presented that are stated in Scripture with the passage you set forth that is indeed in Scripture as well?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Brother Bob: I don't even believe Lucifer is Satan.

HP: Whatever you believe about Lucifer and Satan does not negate that fact that sin was at work in this world prior to the fall of man working through the serpent influencing the first pair to sin. That certainly was no good or heavenly influence. It was an evil sinister influence from Satan himself. Where else could it have had its origins?

 

[Brother Bob]

HP: Whatever you believe about Lucifer and Satan does not negate that fact that sin was at work in this world prior to the fall of man working through the serpent influencing the first pair to sin. That certainly was no good or heavenly influence. It was an evil sinister influence from Satan himself. Where else could it have had its origins?

I wonder:

Gen 6:5 ¶ And GOD saw that the wickedness of man [was] great in the earth, and [that] every imagination of the thoughts of his heart [was] only evil continually.

The serphent could not of done anything to Adam, except Adam was willing. Where did the evil really come from, where does it come from today?

BBob,

 

[BobRyan]

1. How do you define "original sin"?

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).

2. How do you define "Total Depravity"?

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.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Brother Bob: The serpent could not of done anything to Adam, except Adam was willing. Where did the evil really come from, where does it come from today?

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.

 

[DHK]

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).

I accept this definition as correct.

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.

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?

Here is another quote:

“We have no more to do with our spiritual birth than we had with our natural birth.” (Pink, Sovereignty, p. 72)

Do you really believe that? That is Total Depravity, as a Calvinist sees it.

 

[BobRyan]

Calvinism claims that "total depravity" as described in Romans 3 is so devastating that God must first cause "regeneration" (the new birth) in the arbitrarily-selected lost person to overcome the problem of depravity so that the lost can then follow Christ. However in that Calivinist model the lost simply "wakes up one day to discover that they have already been saved, already regenerated, already in fellowship with God, already born-again with a new nature".

Thus in Calvinism it is not a lost person choosing to accept Salvation - rather it is a saved, accepted, born-again saint simply "cointinuing" the saintly walk in newness of the Spirit. The quote you give is combining irresistable grace with unconditional election showing that the person makes no free will choice at all in the matter. They simply "wake up one day" to discover they are "already in at-one-ment with God".

-------------

The Arminian view is that while it is true that depravity does prevent the person from making right choices according to Rom 3 "There is NONE who seeks after God....no not one" and while it is TRUE that the supernatural work of God is "required" to ENABLE what depravity disables -- the supernatural work of God is in "drawing ALL MANKIND unto ME" John 12:32 -- and that drawing does not have to "START with the new birth so that it can ENABLE choice" as Calvinists insist! -- Rather that Drawing "ENABLES choice" disabled by depravity and also presents the gospel alternative to rebellion in a way designed to "draw" the sinner toward the Savior. Then once choice is MADE - the new birth follows as Romans 10 points out.

in Christ,

Bob