Original Sin vs. Calvinistic Total Depravity

[trustitl]

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?

"WE" don't, but some do.

My question is, what should we do with those on the opposite side of the aisle?
Can these two serve God side by side? Historically they haven't.

 

[BobRyan]

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

That would be like me as an Arminian saying God has elected me for salvation because I am born a member of the lost human race and "God is not willing for any to perish".

Not a very good calvinist statement. Spurgeon and others have argued that no attribute "about the person" (hair color, nationality, family status, geography etc) determines that one person is to be saved and another lost.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[cowboymatt]

"WE" don't, but some do.

My question is, what should we do with those on the opposite side of the aisle?
Can these two serve God side by side? Historically they haven't.

Can we, sure. Do we, nope. And that is sad. Since when did theological propositions become more important than unity in worship? Ugh.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

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.

HP: Does anyone on this list really understand what Arminius is saying here? If the will of man is ‘already depraved’ choice is mute for all is predetermined, responsibility is non existent, and blame is completely unjust. If there is one truth from Scripture, it is that God blames men for their sins. There is not one passage in Scripture that ever blames man for the nature or state he is born with, but everywhere condemns the selfish choices his will makes termed sin.

I cannot see Arminius’s statement above freeing himself from the absurdity of God holding men accountable for an unavoidable fate. Neither can I see his theory freeing his desire to eliminate God as being seen as the author of sin. If man’s will is determined as depraved prior to any choice, how can it be seen as anything other than a “corrupt impelling to sin?”

As far as grace goes, I see Arminius’s statemnent as misconstruing the whole meaning of grace. Grace is NOT the granting of the necessary abilities of moral agency. If God is going to hold men accountable for their action, God is compelled by justice, not grace, to grant to men all that is needed for choice. If men are held accountable by God, yet God does not allow for their possession of the needed abilities of moral agency due to allowing or creating them as already depraved prior to the first light of moral agency, it is again absurd and unjust for God to hold them morally accountable for a fate they could not have avoided in the least.

It would seem to me that Arminius confuses grace with necessary granted abilities of moral agency, and uses the term incorrectly.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Cowboy Matt: Since when did theological propositions become more important than unity in worship?

HP: Part of worship should be the dissemination of gospel truth. There is most likely always those present that are in need of saving grace. How can two worship together, at least for any prolonged period, when we cannot even decide the instructions we are to give to a seeker? One side is trying to explain to the sinner that if they say these simple words and believe that God hath raised Jesus from the dead, that they not only are saved now but in all actuality have been saved from the foundations of the world, today just happens to be the day when they came to that realization.

On the other side one is trying to get the sinner to see his need of repentance, and believes that if they do not repent and thereby fulfill the condition of salvation to do so, no amount of words or belief will save the individual any more than believing in Christ would save the devil himself.

Besides, how can we worship together when one side denies the other the same rights and privileges they desire based upon a doctrinal manual or adherence to stated beliefs or creeds? It is a reality that fellowship is gained in most of our congregations by adherence to theological positions as opposed to ones personal relationship with God. As long as you will raise your right hand to a set of doctrinal statements, you are in. Fail to do so and you simply cannot be used or treated as those that do.

What makes you think that any denominational unity in worship is paramount to theological propositions? I believe Wesley honestly had that as his goal, but it certainly did not outlive his direct lifespan that I can see. Wesley laid far more emphasis on the life one lived than the doctrines one would hold their right hand up in agreement over.

 

[cowboymatt]

HP: Part of worship should be the dissemination of gospel truth. There is most likely always those present that are in need of saving grace. How can two worship together, at least for any prolonged period, when we cannot even decide the instructions we are to give to a seeker? One side is trying to explain to the sinner that if they say these simple words and believe that God hath raised Jesus from the dead, that they not only are saved now but in all actuality have been saved from the foundations of the world, today just happens to be the day when they came to that realization.

On the other side one is trying to get the sinner to see his need of repentance, and believes that if they do not repent and thereby fulfill the condition of salvation to do so, no amount of words or belief will save the individual any more than believing in Christ would save the devil himself.

Besides, how can we worship together when one side denies the other the same rights and privileges they desire based upon a doctrinal manual or adherence to stated beliefs or creeds? It is a reality that fellowship is gained in most of our congregations by adherence to theological positions as opposed to ones personal relationship with God. As long as you will raise your right hand to a set of doctrinal statements, you are in. Fail to do so and you simply cannot be used or treated as those that do.

What makes you think that any denominational unity in worship is paramount to theological propositions? I believe Wesley honestly had that as his goal, but it certainly did not outlive his direct lifespan that I can see. Wesley laid far more emphasis on the life one lived than the doctrines one would hold their right hand up in agreement over.

I agree with you that it is difficult to disagree with one another and to live and worship in unity. This used to be a hallmark of good Baptist churches. The key phrase is "used to" because this is not the case anymore.

So I can continue my idyllic hope that we can get past our differences, despite how negative all the evidence is. Obama is right: hope is audacious!

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

CM: Obama is right: hope is audacious!

HP: If we only really knew what is the substance of that ‘hope’ he speaks of, it may seem more like treachery than hope.

 

[cowboymatt]

HP: If we only really knew what is the substance of that ‘hope’ he speaks of, it may seem more like treachery than hope.

I was just riffing on his book title, I have no idea what he means by hope.

I meant the hope (not biblical hope, but hope like I hope the Cubs will with the World Series this year) that we can all get along despite our theological differences!

 

[DHK]

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.

How about I give you definitions of:
sin, the fall, how sin was passed on to man, how and why man has a sin nature, etc.
These are the questions and answers that the Bible gives.
I do not find the name of Calvin or Arminius in the Bible.
I do not find the term "Original Sin" in the Bible.
I do not find the term "Total Depravity" in the Bible.

I noticed that when I made the dogmatic assertion that I did not believe in the Calvinistic view of Perseverence of the Saints but I did believe in the eternal security of the believer, and then demonstrated my belief through Scripture, that ended up to be the last post on the thread. You ended it and started this thread. Is your theology so weak that you must discuss it within the confines of another man's framework and cannot use the Bible?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

I still 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 your position DHK.

 

[DHK]

I still 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 your position DHK.

In the beginning God told Adam not to eat of the fruit of the tree of good and evil. Adam rebelled against God and ate of that fruit. Because of that sin, sin entered into the world, and death by sin:

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:

When Adam sinned God placed a curse upon the earth. Not only did the ground yield forth thorns, thistles and weeds from then on, but all mankind would inherit a sin nature. That nature, called the Adamic nature, comes through Adam, as referenced in Romans 5:12.

Also we see that all men have a sin nature from birth.

Psalms 58:3 The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.
--An infant is a sinner. Why? He or she is born with a sin nature. As soon as he is born he has the propensity to sin. I have four children. I never had to teach them to lie, but I did have to teach them to tell the truth. Why is that? They all have inherited a sin nature through Adam, the Adamic nature (Romans 5:12,18,19).

Jeremiah 13:23 Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots? then may ye also do good, that are accustomed to do evil.
--Can a black man make his skin white? Can a leopad become a tiger? Neither can a man with a sin nature (born that way) do good. It is impossible because he is born with that nature. He needs a new nature. That nature can only come from Christ.

Ecclesiastes 7:20 For there is not a just man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not.
--The veracity of this statement is true because a man is born with a sin nature inherited by Adam.

Romans 3:10-12 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
--Why is there no one that does good? Because he has an inherited sin nature, inherited from Adam. It is a curse that started from Adam and was passed down from him ever since. But Christ died to redeem us from that curse.

Galatians 3:13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:
--This verse is self-explanatory

Galatians 3:19 What then is the law? It was added because of transgressions, until the seed should come to whom the promise has been made. It was ordained through angels by the hand of a mediator. (WEB)

Scofield says about this verse:

Galatians 3:19 What then is the law? It was added because of transgressions, until the seed should come to whom the promise has been made. It was ordained through angels by the hand of a mediator.
1 Wherefore then

The answer is sixfold:

(1) The law was added because of transgressions, i.e. to give to sin the character of transgression.

(a) Men had been sinning before Moses, but in the absence of law their sins were not put to their account. Ro 5:13. The law gave to sin the character of "transgression," i.e. of personal guilt.
(b) Also, since men not only continued to transgress after the law was given, but were provoked to transgress by the very law that forbade it Ro 7:8, the law conclusively proved the inveterate sinfulness of man's nature Ro 7:11-13.

(2) The law, therefore, "concluded all under sin" Ro 3:19-20,23.

(3) The law was an ad interim dealing, "till the seed should come". Ga 3:19.

(4) The law shut sinful man up to faith as the only avenue of escape. Ga 3:23.

(5) The law was to the Jews what the pedagogue was in a Greek household, a ruler of children in their minority, and it had this character "unto" i.e. until Christ Ga 3:24.

(6) Christ having come, the believer is no longer under the pedagogue. Ga 3:25

Margin: because of for the sake, i.e. in order that sin might be made manifest as transgression. See, Ro 4:15; 5:20; 7:7,13.

He answers the question: Why the law?

Man always has a choice. No one forces him to sin. He has the moral choice to choose or reject Christ. If he rejects Christ eternal punishment awaits him; if he receives Christ eternal life is a gift given to him.
Salvation is by grace through faith, and faith alone.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: Man always has a choice. No one forces him to sin. He has the moral choice to choose or reject Christ.

HP: Let the reader note carefully his chosen words. Man “ALWAYS” has a choice. Then note carefully what this choice entails. DHK states, “He has the moral choice to CHOOSE OR REJECT CHRIST.” He states that no one forces him to sin, but we shall examine that in a moment
How is this ‘ALWAYS’ having a choice? Have you bought into BR’s false notion that all have received the gospel message and that without fail? Do infants have the light and knowledge to make this choice? How about young children, especially in lands where they have not heard about Christ? How about adults raised in foreign lands that the message has not gone out? How can one have a choice to choose something they do not even understand exists? Ro 10:14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?”

In order for choice to be present there of necessity must be two or more possible consequents for a given antecedent. If they have not heard, nor can they hear without a preacher, tell us what choice those that have not and cannot yet hear honestly have?

Now carefully note the words again of DHK. He sates, “No one forces him to sin.” He above tells us, (though wrongfully so) that Romans 5:12 indicates that all have inherited a sin nature that no one can escape. DHK clearly indicates that it is our inherited sin nature that causes all men to sin. If man is born with a sin nature that of necessity insures that all without question will sin, is he now to tell us that men have a choice in sinning? What kind of double talk is that? He makes sin a necessity and then talks of men having a choice. The choice he depicts could be likened to the ‘choice’ a rock makes to hit the ground after being kicked off a cliff. Some choice that in reality is.

DHK has given me no indication whatsoever in this post or any other that he does not hold to the same original sin, total depravity, or whatever else you desire to call it, than that which was foisted upon the Church by Augustine. (Or does he? I will address this in a moment)

There is not one word in Romans 5:12 that speaks of any constitutional moral depravity as being passed on to mankind as the results of the fall of Adam as he and Calvin would like us to believe, neither is there any indication of a constitutional moral depravity from birth in any of the other passages he mentions. Simply to list a litany of Scriptures and then to put ones own Augustinian presuppositional twist upon the verses, in that sin lies in the constitution of the flesh and not in the will, serves only to satisfy the minds of them that choose to buy into Augustine’s dogma and does nothing in reality to prove their point by the text itself.


Your duty, DHK, is to show us in clear Scriptural terms, without reading into it your presupposition of the notions constitutional depravity, where it clearly and plainly sets forth the notion that men are born with a sin nature that necessitates all to sin and that from birth. I am awaiting that text.

Now, here comes the twist I spoke about earlier.
Whether or not DHK desires to admit it, he is exhibiting a Pelagius side as well. Here is yet another interesting side note concerns DHK’s post. In telling us that no one forces man to sin, is he not clearly suggesting that all men always have all the requisite abilities from birth to not only obey every command from God and to accept salvations offer once heard as well? Is he denying that God must first do something to man, grant some special grace and ability to man in order for man to obey God or accept His salvation once he sins? If man “always” has the abilities to obey, is that not from birth? Is not DHK suggesting that within mans nature that he is born with he has been granted by God all the abilities and grace he needs to comply with any and all of God’s demands, whether or not to obey or to accept salvation by his clear statement that “Man always has a choice. No one forces him to sin. He has the moral choice to choose or reject Christ?” Is he not suggesting, as Pelagius did, that God does not need to grant to man any special grace to obey and believe due to the fact that God has always granted men those abilities from birth, and nothing ever forces man to sin, again as DHK seems at least in one way suggest from his statements?

If this is not true, how can DHK state that mankind is free to choose anything? How can DHK claim that man is not forced to sin and has “always’ the abilities to accept Christ? Is DHK not suggesting that all men are granted from God all the requisite abilities as an intrinsic part of his inherited nature? Would this not infer that if DHK really believes what he says, that he is suggesting that man does NOT need any special grace to obey the law or accept the gospel message, and that all men from birth have the natural ability to obey not only God’s commands but every ability necessary not only to obey God’s law but to accept salvation as well once they have heard?

Is this not precisely the issue that precipitated Augustine charging Pelagius with heresy, claiming that Pelagius denied the need of special enabling grace in salvation and that he stated that the possibility existed that a man had all the requisite abilities to obey the law IF he would?

 

[DHK]

HP:
I truly feel sorry for people that are bound by other people's theological systems and cannot have a decent discussion about the Bible.
Pelagius? Who is he? I don't want to know. I don't care. It doesn't matter to me. I can easily refute your response. But you use terms that are foreign to the Bible. "Constitutional depravity"? What is that? Never mind explaining it. It is not Biblical. It is not found in the Bible. If you want to have a Biblical discussion say so. But I prefer not to discuss man-made systems of theology. I would rather discuss the Bible. It is my final authority in all matters of faith and doctrine--not Calvin!

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: I truly feel sorry for people that are bound by other people's theological systems and cannot have a decent discussion about the Bible.

HP: Oh please DHK. Your personal attacks and demeaning comments have a way of over shadowing your attempt at showing sorrow.

DHK: I can easily refute your response.

HP: By all means show us with sound debate and logic that you can easily refute my response. I am still awaiting your reasoned response to my post.

DHK: But you use terms that are foreign to the Bible. "Constitutional depravity"? What is that?

HP: If ones mind is limited to only terms used in Scripture, it is indeed limited. Have you ever paused to read your own posts and examine your own words to see how often you express yourself in theological terms not found in Scripture? Try a little fair play DHK.

DHK: But I prefer not to discuss man-made systems of theology. I would rather discuss the Bible. It is my final authority in all matters of faith and doctrine--not Calvin!

HP: That is indeed invoking high sounding platitudes, but lacks substance. Every mans interpretation of Scripture is subject to the scrutiny of others, mine included. Why don’t we cut out these meaningless sophisms and focus on the substance of the debate? Again, I await your reasoned response to my last post.

 

[DHK]

HP: Let the reader note carefully his chosen words. Man “ALWAYS” has a choice. Then note carefully what this choice entails. DHK states, “He has the moral choice to CHOOSE OR REJECT CHRIST.” He states that no one forces him to sin, but we shall examine that in a moment
How is this ‘ALWAYS’ having a choice?

Romans 10:13 For, "Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved."
--Did Paul lie? Does the Word of God lie? Whoever, or Everyone who will call on the name of the Lord will be saved. That includes all.

John 5:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.
--Did Jesus lie? That would be quite an accusation!
"He that...shall not come into condemnation. Jesus was including all that believed on him.
The Bible gives enough evidence that whosoever beleives on Him shall be saved. Scripture after Scripture, dozens of them testify of this wonderful fact. And every man has this choice. A choice to choose or reject. No one is forced.

Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord, involves a choice. No one forces anyone to call upon the name of the Lord. Christians are not Muslims nor follow the Islamic faith where we are forced to believe at the point of the sword. If that is your belief then so be it, but it is not mine. In true Christianity no one is forced to believe.

Have you bought into BR’s false notion that all have received the gospel message and that without fail?

The Bible states that God has revealed himself to all men.

Titus 2:11 For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men,
--You may not understand the meaning of this verse but you must believe it by faith.

Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
--Man is without excuse.

Psalms 19:1-3 <<To the chief Musician, A Psalm of David.>>
The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork. Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge. There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard.
--There is no excuse for not believing.
Any person wanting to know about Christ, God will reveal Himself unto that person.

Do infants have the light and knowledge to make this choice? How about young children, especially in lands where they have not heard about Christ?

"What must I do to be saved"
"Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved"
--An infant cannot believe and therefore is not "saved"
But rather they are taken to heaven by the mercy of God, just as David expected to see his child in Heaven. He said in full confidence that "he would go to him."

How about adults raised in foreign lands that the message has not gone out? How can one have a choice to choose something they do not even understand exists? Ro 10:14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?”

If you were truly concerned about the lost in other nations you would go to them (I do). God has promised that any person willing and desiring to know about Christ, He would make a way that they would be able to know Him. I accept that promise as true.

In order for choice to be present there of necessity must be two or more possible consequents for a given antecedent. If they have not heard, nor can they hear without a preacher, tell us what choice those that have not and cannot yet hear honestly have?

"For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men."
Do you believe the Word of God?

Now carefully note the words again of DHK. He sates, “No one forces him to sin.” He above tells us, (though wrongfully so) that Romans 5:12 indicates that all have inherited a sin nature that no one can escape. DHK clearly indicates that it is our inherited sin nature that causes all men to sin. If man is born with a sin nature that of necessity insures that all without question will sin, is he now to tell us that men have a choice in sinning? What kind of double talk is that?

Can a leopard change its spots?
Can an Ethiopian change its skin?
So how can you being evil do good?
You are born with a sin nature, inherited from Adam.
The answer is you cannot do good, until you first choose Christ. All our righteousnesses are as filthy rags in His sight. But once we choose Christ, then they begin to count for something. Good works follow salvation, are not a means to salvation.
"Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord" necessitates a decision made of the will, of the heart.

Romans 10:9-10 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

He makes sin a necessity and then talks of men having a choice.

Adam brought sin into this world. Because of Adam sin was passed onto all man.
Man has the choice to believe or not to believe Christ. That is an obvious fact.

The choice he depicts could be likened to the ‘choice’ a rock makes to hit the ground after being kicked off a cliff. Some choice that in reality is.

You said that, not I. Is that your religion? One that makes no sense?

 

[DHK]

DHK has given me no indication whatsoever in this post or any other that he does not hold to the same original sin, total depravity, or whatever else you desire to call it, than that which was foisted upon the Church by Augustine. (Or does he? I will address this in a moment)

I am not bound to give you anything. I don't care about Augustine, and I don't have much use for Catholic teaching. I left that long ago when I got saved. The same is true for Calvinism. So what is your point? Leave your Augustinianism and your Calvinism at home in their books and come and discuss the Word of God.

There is not one word in Romans 5:12 that speaks of any constitutional moral depravity as being passed on to mankind as the results of the fall of Adam as he and Calvin would like us to believe, neither is there any indication of a constitutional moral depravity from birth in any of the other passages he mentions. Simply to list a litany of Scriptures and then to put ones own Augustinian presuppositional twist upon the verses, in that sin lies in the constitution of the flesh and not in the will, serves only to satisfy the minds of them that choose to buy into Augustine’s dogma and does nothing in reality to prove their point by the text itself.

I don't know, and I don't care what Augustine teaches.
I don't care what Calvin teaches.
What does Romans 5:12 teach:

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:
1. One man sinned, and that man was Adam.
2. By that one man, Adam, sin entered into the world.
3. Not only did sin enter the world because of Adam, but also death entered into the world.
4. Death passed upon all men, because of Adam.
5. The wages of sin is death (Romans 6:23)
6. Sin was passed down by Adam. The consequence of sin is death. If sin was not passed down there would be no death. Use a little logic here. Sin results in death.

James 1:15 Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.
--We have wrongful desires because of the sin nature that is passed down to us. That results in sin. The consequence of sin is death. This theme is taught all throughout the Bible.
There are two reasons why we sin:
1. We are prone to sin because we have a sin nature--a propensity to sin.
2. We sin because we choose to sin.
Every man is a sinner (Romans 3:23), and thus under the condemnation of God.

Your duty, DHK, is

to teach the Word of God, not refute the Calvinism that you set forth. I am not really interested in this.

to show us in clear Scriptural terms, without reading into it your presupposition of the notions constitutional depravity, where it clearly and plainly sets forth the notion that men are born with a sin nature that necessitates all to sin and that from birth. I am awaiting that text.

For he that hath ears let him hear.

Psalms 58:3 The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.
--The Psalmist speaks of the sin nature. It is there as soon as the infant is born. He comes forth speaking lies.

Psalms 51:5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.
--David is not speaking of his mother; he is speaking of himself and his own sin nature that he was born with.

Jeremiah 13:23 Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots? then may ye also do good, that are accustomed to do evil.
The Ethiopian is born a black man.
The leopard is born with spots.
Man is born with a sin nature.

Those Scriptures in themselves should be enough.

Now, here comes the twist I spoke about earlier.

Whether or not DHK desires to admit it, he is exhibiting a Pelagius side as well.

I doubt it. But I have never met Pelagius and he has never met me. Give him my greetings will you?

Here is yet another interesting side note concerns DHK’s post. In telling us that no one forces man to sin, is he not clearly suggesting that all men always have all the requisite abilities from birth to not only obey every command from God and to accept salvations offer once heard as well?

You only read what you want to into my posts don't you? All "men" have choice to choose or reject Christ. Men as in mankind, and to have choice meaning the ability to choose which excludes infants. But I thought you were able to understand the English language. I know a couple of others. Do you want me to write in another language? Will it help you?

Is he denying that God must first do something to man, grant some special grace and ability to man in order for man to obey God or accept His salvation once he sins? If man “always” has the abilities to obey, is that not from birth?

Do you go from the sublime to the ridiculous? Does this really warrant an answer?

Is not DHK suggesting that within mans nature that he is born with he has been granted by God all the abilities and grace he needs to comply with any and all of God’s demands, whether or not to obey or to accept salvation by his clear statement that “Man always has a choice. No one forces him to sin. He has the moral choice to choose or reject Christ?” Is he not suggesting, as Pelagius did, that God does not need to grant to man any special grace to obey and believe due to the fact that God has always granted men those abilities from birth, and nothing ever forces man to sin, again as DHK seems at least in one way suggest from his statements?

When you have a reasonable question to ask then I will consider answering it.

 

[BobRyan]

In my opinion Rom 3 defines a kind of depravity "there is none that seeks after God no not one" that for the infant - is specific to the "inclination to sin" that is contained within the sinful nature.

But it does not leave the infant in a state needing "forgiveness" - rather the infant needs "salvation" it needs something other than a sinful nature.

if the infant dies - it may have "nothing to forgive" but we certainly don't want it taking it's sinful nature to heaven.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Originally Posted by Heavenly Pilgrim


HP: Let the reader note carefully his chosen words. Man “ALWAYS” has a choice. How is this ‘ALWAYS’ having a choice?

DHK: Romans 10:13 For, "Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved."
--Did Paul lie? Does the Word of God lie? Whoever, or Everyone who will call on the name of the Lord will be saved. That includes all.

HP: Can you distinguish between who and when. The point is that you say ‘always’ which denotes time from the beginning to the end. The reference you cite simply states the universal nature of the call, not the duration of the call. Take for instance Scripture that states, “My Spirit will not always strive with man.” Your ‘all’ just got fewer and shorter in time for some at least. Again, you have not provided any evidence that man always has a choice. Scripture states that some men have outlived their time for a choice, for the Spirit has been withdrawn from them.

Back to the issue at hand, I want to pay close attention to the implications of all men having a choice, and not being forced or coerced to sin as you clearly indicate. If all men have a choice and are not forced to sin, they must possess the requisite abilities naturally to do something other than what they do. If they are born with a nature that seals their fate, and no other possibility exists for them but to sin, sin is indeed necessitated contrary to your statement that no one is forced to sin. You cannot have it both ways. Are you admitting to the possibility of men not having to sin? Are you admitting that some could in fact choose benevolence from first light of moral agency? Who cannot see that if there is no possibility of doing anything other than to sin that sin is necessitated and as such man is indeed forced to sin?

DHK: John 5:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.
--Did Jesus lie? That would be quite an accusation!

HP: You are beating against the wind here DHK. It does not say that all hear, ort that all always hear, it simply states in this verse that whoever hears and responds in repentance and faith will indeed have a hope of eternal life. That is how we ‘have’ eternal life in this world, by faith not sight.

No. Jesus did not lie, but neither does this verse support either of your implications:1. That men always have the opportunity to choose salvation 2.That nothing forces man to sin. So what is your point in bringing up this verse??


DHK: "He that...shall not come into condemnation. Jesus was including all that believed on him.
The Bible gives enough evidence that whosoever beleives on Him shall be saved. Scripture after Scripture, dozens of them testify of this wonderful fact. And every man has this choice. A choice to choose or reject. No one is forced.

HP: The question IS NOT whether or not men have a choice. The question surrounds your statement that all man ALWAYS have a choice, a statement that is clearly refuted by the one Scripture I just gave. “My Spirit will not always strive with man.” I believe reason refutes it as well in that no man has a choice to believe in that which he has yet to hear about. All men have NOT heard the gospel.

DHK: Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord, involves a choice. No one forces anyone to call upon the name of the Lord.

HP: Once again you do not even speak to the question at hand. Will you simply try one time to show us a Scripture that backs up your position that all men always have a choice of salvation? What good does it do to put up paper ducks that are not even part of this discussion, and then try to act as if though I might believe it???

DHK: The Bible states that God has revealed himself to all men.

HP: Revealing Himself in some fashion, and revealing salvation are two entirely separate issues. No where does Scripture state that all me have heard the gospel. That is a false assumption. Scripture affirms that all men have some idea as to God’s existence, but again that is far from stating that all men have heard or even will hear the gospel message.

DHK: Titus 2:11 For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men,
--You may not understand the meaning of this verse but you must believe it by faith.

HP: I believer that this verse is simply stating the universal call to all men as a product of the NT as opposed to the call the chosen race of Israel in the OT. Listen to this quote in Amos. Am 3:2 You only have I known of all the families of the earth: therefore I will punish you for all your iniquities.” So much for a universal call to salvation in the OT.
(End of part 1)

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

(PART 2)

DHK: Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

--Man is without excuse.

HP: Being without excuse simply means that God has given all men enough knowledge of right and wrong that he can rightfully hold them accountable for their actions. This says nothing all hearing salvations meesage. Again, yet another verse that has nothing to do directly with the questions at hand. Need I remind you that you are to be proving by Scripture that all men ALWAYS have a choice to accept the gospel? We need to stay focused.

DHK: Psalms 19:1-3 <<To the chief Musician, A Psalm of David.>>

The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork. Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge. There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard.
--There is no excuse for not believing.

HP: Here we go again. Yet another verse that says nothing about salvation, but rather is simply speaking of the universal light of the existence of God.

HP: Do infants have the light and knowledge to make this choice? How about young children, especially in lands where they have not heard about Christ?

DHK: "What must I do to be saved"
"Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved"
--An infant cannot believe and therefore is not "saved"

HP: Here we are finally focused. If infants cannot believe, then there must be a time when they do not ‘ALWAYS’ have the choice of salvation, and there must be a time and a place that they come into that light. Possibly now would be a great time to restate your premise, leaving out the word ‘always.’
Quote:
HP: How about adults raised in foreign lands that the message has not gone out? How can one have a choice to choose something they do not even understand exists? Ro 10:14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?”

DHK: If you were truly concerned about the lost in other nations you would go to them (I do).

HP: Here is yet another example of an uncalled for personal attack in the form of an insinuated smear. You have no idea as to what I have done or am doing to win the lost to the Lord. God will be my judge not you. I would say that any that do not have a heart for missions has a heart far from the Lord.

Quote:
HP: In order for choice to be present there of necessity must be two or more possible consequents for a given antecedent. If they have not heard, nor can they hear without a preacher, tell us what choice those that have not and cannot yet hear honestly have?

DHK: "For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men."

Do you believe the Word of God?

HP: If you are trying to say that this verse proves that all men universally have already heard the gospel message, I would tell you that I do not, neither do I believe that Scripture makes any such claim. If it does, you can stop your efforts to evangelize, because it has already been done if you take that verse literally.

HP: Now carefully note the words again of DHK. He sates, “No one forces him to sin.” He above tells us, (though wrongfully so) that Romans 5:12 indicates that all have inherited a sin nature that no one can escape. DHK clearly indicates that it is our inherited sin nature that causes all men to sin. If man is born with a sin nature that of necessity insures that all without question will sin, is he now to tell us that men have a choice in sinning? What kind of double talk is that?

DHK: Can a leopard change its spots?
Can an Ethiopian change its skin?
So how can you being evil do good?
You are born with a sin nature, inherited from Adam.

HP: No one is telling you that you cannot believe in Augustinian original sin DHK, what I am telling you is that if what you are saying here is true in the context you are saying it, sin is indeed necessitated, and choice to sin is a chimera. I thought you said nothing or no one forces any to sin? Now you are telling me that it is impossible for one not to sin. You are trying to take two opposing positions. Either sin is forced by ones nature, or it is not. Which is it??

As far as the Scriptures you present concerning the Ethiopian, it has nothing to do whatsoever with this discussion, nor does it in any way teach the constitutional depravity you are embracing. It simply states that once one sins and becomes guilty before God, one cannot cleanse that stain of sin by any act of his own. We need a Redeemer, a Substitute, and Advocate. We need Christ’s atonement to satisfy the demands of the law that otherwise will do nothing but condemn us.

DHK: The answer is you cannot do good, until you first choose Christ.

HP: Finally! Here we have it. Sin IS in fact necessitated upon man and we do not have a choice as he tried to state we did earlier, for he now tells us that we ‘CANNOT” do good. That is about as necessitated and as opposed to choice as you can get. Now that is the Augustinian position of original sin in a nutshell. Would you please apologize for saying that I slandered you or misrepresented your position?

HP: He makes sin a necessity and then talks of men having a choice.

DHK: Adam brought sin into this world. Because of Adam sin was passed onto all man.

Man has the choice to believe or not to believe Christ. That is an obvious fact.

HP: You say that man “cannot do good until you first choose Christ” so I must assume that choosing Christ cannot be good because I cannot do good until subsequent to choosing Christ, right? If choosing Christ is the first thing I can do good, where does the power to choose Him come from? If I am necessitated as you say to do evil and CANNOT do good, does God, as Calvin would tell us, have to regenerate your soul first, enabling you to accept Him? Does God have to enable you to repent as Calvin tells us, or does sinful man have the ability to repent as a natural part of his moral makeup given to all by God?

 

[DHK]

Originally Posted by Heavenly Pilgrim


HP: Let the reader note carefully his chosen words. Man “ALWAYS” has a choice. How is this ‘ALWAYS’ having a choice?


HP: Can you distinguish between who and when. The point is that you say ‘always’ which denotes time from the beginning to the end. The reference you cite simply states the universal nature of the call, not the duration of the call. Take for instance Scripture that states, “My Spirit will not always strive with man.” Your ‘all’ just got fewer and shorter in time for some at least. Again, you have not provided any evidence that man always has a choice. Scripture states that some men have outlived their time for a choice, for the Spirit has been withdrawn from them.

IMO, you are grasping at straws.