Original Sin

[Thinkingstuff]

Two points: (1) Yes, you surely have. (2) What you say about Augustine is true, no question about it. It is verifiable; all anyone has to do is research it.

Now I don't mean this to be a pejorative comment, but there seems to be a willful ignorance on the part of some when it comes to the history and theology of the church. Why? Because it contradicts what some would like to believe, and it's not easy having the rug pulled out from under your presuppositions.

Augustine was influenced by his Manichaeist past; that's what led to his position on original sin and total depravity.

As for Calvin, the murderer and legalist, well, need I say more.

Though what you say is true I really want to make a distinction. Catholics do not take original sin to the extent of Calvin's view of Total Depravity. So that there is no confusion Catholics hold that

405 Although it is proper to each individual,original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam's descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called "concupiscence".

This is an important distinction.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Though what you say is true I really want to make a distinction. Catholics do not take original sin to the extent of Calvin's view of Total Depravity. So that there is no confusion Catholics hold that This is an important distinction.

I knew that, and it is an important distinction.

I have some agreement with the RC position but none with Calvin. There is no person in the history of Christendom with whom I more vehemently disagree than Calvin -- and on most everything.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I knew that, and it is an important distinction.

I have some agreement with the RC position but none with Calvin. There is no person in the history of Christendom with whom I more vehemently disagree than Calvin -- and on most everything.

I understand. However, give the guy a break he was only 27 when he wrote the Institutes. How many 27 years olds do you know that have writen a disertation of a whole theological system? On the other hand he was that period's version of a nerd who is socially inept and not very good to get along with.

Unlike Martin Luther, Calvin was a reticent man; he rarely expressed himself in the first person singular. This reticence has contributed to his reputation as cold, intellectual, and humanly unapproachable. - http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/90247/John-Calvin/13432/Personality

 

[DHK]

HP: Show us how in your own mind you differ from the standard Calvinistic notion of total depravity. If salvation is all of God and none of man, apart from man exercising some special abilities granted to God to some by grace, I for one would find it very hard to associate your beliefs apart from the run of the mill Calvinist, regardless what one desires to be called.

The Calvinist defines "Total Depravity" as Total Inability." I have already stated this. That means he is totally unable to come to God without any interference from God whatsoever. The Calvinists redefine what the Bible means as "dead" or spiritually separated from God. They think it means lifeless, as a corpse. It doesn't. It means separated from God. A man that is separated from God is still able to seek God. Adam communed with God after he was "dead."

God gave commands such as:
"The times of this ignorance God winked at, but now commands all men everywhere to repent." If God expects all men everywhere to repent it is evident that they must have the ability to seek God in order to repent.
He commanded:
"Seek ye the Lord while he yet may be found."
The unsaved are commanded to seek the Lord.
The unsaved are dead as in separated from God, not dead as a corpse so that they cannot seek God. That is where I differ. However they are still born with a sin nature, so that from their birth onward they do evil by nature. They are not innocent; never were innocent; are born with sin, and need a Savior.

Why you are at it, I cannot remember you documenting the least bit of evidence from the ECF or other sources that whatever it is that you say you beleive, was taught in the early Church. Let's see you do some research and leg work needed to support whatever it is that you believe.

Then you haven't read my posts.

Explain to us the freedom of the will you hold to. Freedom of the will lies at the very heart of the debate over the depravity of man. It was Augustine that mainstreamed the denial of freedom of the will in his view of total depravity, AFTER he had written book(s)s in support of it early on.

I just did. Within the sovereign will of God, he gives man a "free" will to choose to do right and wrong. He did not make man robots. He does not force man to choose what he wants them to choose. He made man originally in his own image though that image has been marred. Man still has that choice to reject Christ or receive him. You have choices to do write or wrong. All has not been pre-determined although God in his omniscience knows the decisions that you will make.

So again, if you desire to distance yourself from the necesssity of Calvinism, establish the free will of man for us in plain terms that a wayfaring man though a fool can understand you. Be sure to document your views with the ECF etc.. or the sources of your choice, so your ideas will not be labeled justly as a novel doctrine of your own without merit. :thumbsup:

Read my previous posts. I have already quoted the ECF. You have simply have not read them. I have clearly given my views in opposition to the Calvinist. I hope that satisfies, once and for all.

 

[DaChaser1]

One of the most important issues noted, was the truth of Augustine as the father of the doctrine of original sin, i.e., guilt being imputed to all on the account of Adam's sin. No such notion was held by the early church prior to Augustine, and no such notion is taught in Scripture.

Guess that "In Adam, all have sinned, all have died" was inserted in there by ole Augustine, Eh?

 

[DHK]

Guess that "In Adam, all have sinned, all have died" was inserted in there by ole Augustine, Eh?

No.
Romans 5:17 For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)

Romans 5:18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.

Romans 5:19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

The Bible taught long before Augustine did. Those teachings are clear right here. Because of Adam death reigned. By Adam all were made sinners. These two truths taught right here, are what you claim to be the inventions of Augustine. How can you be so blind to what the Scriptures teach?

 

[DaChaser1]

No.
Romans 5:17 For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)

Romans 5:18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.

Romans 5:19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

The Bible taught long before Augustine did. Those teachings are clear right here. Because of Adam death reigned. By Adam all were made sinners. These two truths taught right here, are what you claim to be the inventions of Augustine. How can you be so blind to what the Scriptures teach?

remember that I am a calvinist as regarding salvation model, so was saying that tongue in cheek to response to the original poster stating Augustine "invented" this doctrine!

 

[DHK]

remember that I am a calvinist as regarding salvation model, so was saying that tongue in cheek to response to the original poster stating Augustine "invented" this doctrine!

Sorry, misunderstood.

 

[DaChaser1]

Sorry, misunderstood.

hey no problem!

really no need for cals and Non cals to be at blows, as we can disagree among oursleves, like siblings in the same family!

 

[Michael Wrenn]

hey no problem!

really no need for cals and Non cals to be at blows, as we can disagree among oursleves, like siblings in the same family!

True, except for those cals who claim non-cals are teaching another Gospel.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: By Adam all were made sinners.

HP: Many comments need to be addressed, but this one caught my eye. I am sorry, but this comment shows the utter disrespect some have for the Word of God, twisting it at will to say what they desire to invent.

 

[DHK]

HP: Many comments need to be addressed, but this one caught my eye. I am sorry, but this comment shows the utter disrespect some have for the Word of God, twisting it at will to say what they desire to invent.

Romans 5:19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

What do you think this verse means?
I suppose the many are: HP, DHK, Biblicist and SBM, and that is all. All others are not sinners. This is the kind of exegesis you do?

Here again we have "the one" (tou henos) with both Adam and Christ, but "disobedience" (parakoês, for which see 2Co 10:6) contrasted with "obedience" (hupakoês), the same verb kathistêmi, old verb, to set down, to render, to constitute (katestathêsan, first aorist passive indicative, katastathêsontai, future passive), and "the many" (hoi polloi) in both cases (but with different meaning as with "all men" above).

A.T. Robertson's Word Pictures.

Verse 19. As by the disobedience of one man many (that is, all men) were constituted sinners - Being then in the loins of their first parent, the common head and representative of them all. So by the obedience of one - By his obedience unto death; by his dying for us. Many - All that believe. Shall be constituted righteous - Justified, pardoned. (Wesley]

Fourth,

The "all men" of Ro 5:18 and the "many" of Ro 5:19 are the same party, though under a slightly different aspect. In the latter case, the contrast is between the one representative (Adam--Christ) and the many whom he represented; in the former case, it is between the one head (Adam--Christ) and the human race, affected for death and life respectively by the actings of that one. Only in this latter case it is the redeemed family of man that is alone in view; it is humanity as actually lost, but also as actually saved, as ruined and recovered. Such as refuse to fall in with the high purpose of God to constitute His Son a "second Adam," the Head of a new race, and as impenitent and unbelieving finally perish, have no place in this section of the Epistle, whose sole object is to show how God repairs in the second Adam the evil done by the first. (Thus the doctrine of universal restoration has no place here. (Jamieson, Faucett, and Brown

A Greek scholar, An Arminian, and a Calvinist all disagree with you HP.
Go and study your "heresy" some more.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: The Calvinist defines "Total Depravity" as Total Inability." I have already stated this. That means he is totally unable to come to God without any interference from God whatsoever. The Calvinists redefine what the Bible means as "dead" or spiritually separated from God. They think it means lifeless, as a corpse. It doesn't. It means separated from God. A man that is separated from God is still able to seek God. Adam communed with God after he was "dead."

HP: DHK eliminates free will and is obviously unable to comprehend the real ends of his own positions. When sin is attributes to a race apart from any choice of their own, as DHK clearly does as noted by his own words that men are born as sinners separated from God, the will of man has absolutely nothing to do with being the sinners they are. It makes a mockery out of Scripture that teaches that men are responsible for their sins and makes a mockery out of the justice of God, (justice being a word with understandable meanings) showing God blaming men for something they could not have avoided. Like it or not, and change the verbiage as one so desires, the same problems exist in the model DHK proposes as in the Calvinistic model.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: Romans 5:19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

What do you think this verse means?
I suppose the many are: HP, DHK, Biblicist and SBM, and that is all. All others are not sinners. This is the kind of exegesis you do?

HP: What I do is recognize that all and many are two distinctly different words with different meanings. "Many' is NOT a universal term, regardless of if the whole Church world thinks it is.

So salvation is universal?? Is that the kind of consistency you show in your interpretation of this passage? If not whty not? If 'many' means all universally in one place, you must of necessity use it in the same manner concerning those many made righteous in the other. And you have the audacity to chide me as to my exegesis? At least I can distinguish between a clearly limited 'many' and a universal 'all.' Neither do I just twist and write it as I feel I need to to support my position as you did.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: A Greek scholar, An Arminian, and a Calvinist all disagree with you HP.
Go and study your "heresy" some more.

HP: Your personal attack is duly noted.... and "your sources are not good enough." (to put it in your own words)

In reality there are some calling themselves a Calvinist, an Arminian and even some scholars that are deceived as to their own salvation, let alone some doctrinal position they take from this verse that is not stated or implied.

 

[DHK]

HP: Your personal attack is duly noted.... and "your sources are not good enough." (to put it in your own words)

What would you like HP? For me to delete the one offensive word you don't like. I wasn't going to be that blunt except for your unwarranted statement:

HP: Many comments need to be addressed, but this one caught my eye. I am sorry, but this comment shows the utter disrespect some have for the Word of God, twisting it at will to say what they desire to invent.

You certainly are one to talk about personal attacks.

In reality there are some calling themselves a Calvinist, an Arminian and even some scholars that are deceived as to their own salvation, let alone some doctrinal position they take from this verse that is not stated or implied.

You have it wrong. All of those men of God agreed on salvation. Their theological positions on many things were different, but they all agreed on the gospel and salvation. They also all condemned the heresy of Pelagianism--a heresy in which you believe. I can say that HP because it is a heresy, a heresy that has been condemned throughout the centuries by orthodox Christianity.
The quotes I gave you should have helped you to see that Wesley and JFB are opposite ends of the spectrum here. JFB are Calvinists (two Presbyterians and one Church of England); Wesley founded the Methodists.
But they all condemned the position you hold.

 

[DaChaser1]

Though what you say is true I really want to make a distinction. Catholics do not take original sin to the extent of Calvin's view of Total Depravity. So that there is no confusion Catholics hold that This is an important distinction.

classical arminianism?

 

[DaChaser1]

I knew that, and it is an important distinction.

I have some agreement with the RC position but none with Calvin. There is no person in the history of Christendom with whom I more vehemently disagree than Calvin -- and on most everything.

So you would be really upset with Apostle paul , as Calvin himself frew upon the writings of Paul to get his theology from!

 

[DaChaser1]

The Calvinist defines "Total Depravity" as Total Inability." I have already stated this. That means he is totally unable to come to God without any interference from God whatsoever. The Calvinists redefine what the Bible means as "dead" or spiritually separated from God. They think it means lifeless, as a corpse. It doesn't. It means separated from God. A man that is separated from God is still able to seek God. Adam communed with God after he was "dead."

God gave commands such as:
"The times of this ignorance God winked at, but now commands all men everywhere to repent." If God expects all men everywhere to repent it is evident that they must have the ability to seek God in order to repent.
He commanded:
"Seek ye the Lord while he yet may be found."
The unsaved are commanded to seek the Lord.
The unsaved are dead as in separated from God, not dead as a corpse so that they cannot seek God. That is where I differ. However they are still born with a sin nature, so that from their birth onward they do evil by nature. They are not innocent; never were innocent; are born with sin, and need a Savior.

Then you haven't read my posts.

I just did. Within the sovereign will of God, he gives man a "free" will to choose to do right and wrong. He did not make man robots. He does not force man to choose what he wants them to choose. He made man originally in his own image though that image has been marred. Man still has that choice to reject Christ or receive him. You have choices to do write or wrong. All has not been pre-determined although God in his omniscience knows the decisions that you will make.

Read my previous posts. I have already quoted the ECF. You have simply have not read them. I have clearly given my views in opposition to the Calvinist. I hope that satisfies, once and for all.

We hold that manking is indeed born into a state of being seperated by god, but THAT is caused by being spiritually ded in and of ourselves, unable.unwilling to come to god to restablish the spiritual relationship!

 

[DaChaser1]

True, except for those cals who claim non-cals are teaching another Gospel.

NOT IF you hold to man being unable to come to God by himself. as the Lord will either grant faith to His elect, and enable them to get saved, or else he would send to people grace enough to allow them to choose/reject Jesus...

IF you hold to man having faith in himself/apart from God, that is NOT the Gospel!