Original Sin

[DHK]

Those links do not say what you say I said. Now post the words I said and post what you said I said. Post it now or repent.

What do you not get about this post:

Total depravity (also called absolute inability, radical corruption, total corruption, or Augustinianism[citation needed]) is a theological doctrine that derives from the Augustinian concept of original sin. It is the teaching that, as a consequence of the Fall of Man, every person born into the world is enslaved to the service of sin and, apart from the efficacious or prevenient grace of God, is utterly unable to choose to follow God or choose to accept salvation as it is offered.

You deny the depravity of man. If one believes in the depravity of man, then he must believe in Original sin. The two are inseparable, even as the above quote explains, which you quoted. This is your quote. You cannot say you don't believe in the depravity of man and then turn around and say you believe in original sin. You have been denying original sin all along.

You have also been saying that man is basically good, and can do good before he is saved. This also is evidence of a denial of the depravity of man, and of original sin, for the two go hand in hand.

 

[Moriah]

What do you not get about this post:

You deny the depravity of man. If one believes in the depravity of man, then he must believe in Original sin. The two are inseparable, even as the above quote explains, which you quoted. This is your quote. You cannot say you don't believe in the depravity of man and then turn around and say you believe in original sin. You have been denying original sin all along.

Post where I said what you said I said. Post it now or repent.

 

[DHK]

Post where I said what you said I said. Post it now or repent.

I just did, and I have given the link.

 

[Moriah]

I just did, and I have given the link.

Your link proves you are at least---wrong. Where is your confession?

 

[DHK]

Your link proves you are at least---wrong. Where is your confession?

How does my link prove me wrong?
If you believe in the depravity of man, you believe in Original sin.
Both go together.

 

[Moriah]

How does my link prove me wrong?
If you believe in the depravity of man, you believe in Original sin.
Both go together.

Prove I said what you said I did.

 

[DHK]

Prove I said what you said I did.

Pay attention Moriah. Go back to the link I provided. It goes back to your post. In that post this is what you quoted:

Total depravity (also called absolute inability, radical corruption, total corruption, or Augustinianism[citation needed]) is a theological doctrine that derives from the Augustinian concept of original sin. It is the teaching that, as a consequence of the Fall of Man, every person born into the world is enslaved to the service of sin and, apart from the efficacious or prevenient grace of God, is utterly unable to choose to follow God or choose to accept salvation as it is offered.

Now you quoted that as a definition, not because you agreed with it. In fact you were replying to Biwald at the time and said this right before you gave that definition:

You are greatly confused.

Total depravity
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1817503&postcount=7

You were correcting him on his definition, not that you agreed on total depravity yourself.

But according to the definition you gave, a very good one I must admit, it ties total depravity to original sin, doesn't it? Study the definition that you gave.
It is a theological doctrine that derives its from the Augustinian of original sin. You can't have the depravity of man without original sin. And the third point not mentioned here is that depravity is passed down through the seed of man. A denial of all three of those doctrines is Pelagianism. And that is what you believe. You have promoted this, just like another poster here, on this board. There are three of you that actively promote this heresy.
A denial of original sin.
A denial of the depravity of man.
A denial that that depravity is passed on from one generation to the next.

That is Pelagianism.

 

[Moriah]

Pay attention Moriah. Go back to the link I provided. It goes back to your post. In that post this is what you quoted:
Now you quoted that as a definition, not because you agreed with it. In fact you were replying to Biwald at the time and said this right before you gave that definition:

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1817503&postcount=7

You were correcting him on his definition, not that you agreed on total depravity yourself.

But according to the definition you gave, a very good one I must admit, it ties total depravity to original sin, doesn't it? Study the definition that you gave.
It is a theological doctrine that derives its from the Augustinian of original sin. You can't have the depravity of man without original sin. And the third point not mentioned here is that depravity is passed down through the seed of man. A denial of all three of those doctrines is Pelagianism. And that is what you believe. You have promoted this, just like another poster here, on this board. There are three of you that actively promote this heresy.
A denial of original sin.
A denial of the depravity of man.
A denial that that depravity is passed on from one generation to the next.

That is Pelagianism.

Post what you falsely claimed I said.

 

[DHK]

Post what you falsely claimed I said.

Moriah, the link is there. The quote is there. What have I falsely said?

 

[Moriah]

Moriah, the link is there. The quote is there. What have I falsely said?

You have been exposed. For all who still cannot see it, does it matter?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: A denial of the depravity of man.
A denial that that depravity is passed on from one generation to the next.

HP: Here are just two of many things you have lied about. I indeed do believe in the total depravity of man. Show me one time I have denied the depravity of man. I have never denied that the depravity of man is passed on from one generation to the next.
Get your facts straight DHK before you go lying about another.
It is a very narrow mind, and arrogant as well, for one to assume if I do not describe depravity in Calvinistic terms you demand, that such a one is denying the depravity of man or that depravity is passed on from generation to generation. I have every right according to Scripture and reason to believe that depravity is not as the Calvinist or those leaning hard towards Calvinism define it as.


When DHK insists as he does that if one believes in depravity he must accept his definition of it, show us in Scripture one place where depravity is described and defined universally as being a sinner from birth, and show us one solitary Scripture that says that all men are guilty due to the sins passed down to them from their fathers.

The facts are that I do indeed believe in the depravity of man, and that depravity is indeed passed onto each successive generation, just not in the way the Calvinistic philosophy demands it to be understood.

 

[DHK]

You have been exposed. For all who still cannot see it, does it matter?

Yes, it matters Moriah. You keep posting this false allegation without evidence. You won't point out any false thing that I have said. Until you do my post stands as true and unedited. You meet the characteristics defined as a Pelagian, a known heresy from the fifth century. You have given no information that would lead me to believe otherwise. You have not denied my post or given any evidence to lead me to believe otherwise.

 

[The Biblicist]

HP: Here are just two of many things you have lied about. I indeed do believe in the total depravity of man. Show me one time I have denied the depravity of man. I have never denied that the depravity of man is passed on from one generation to the next.
Get your facts straight DHK before you go lying about another.
It is a very narrow mind, and arrogant as well, for one to assume if I do not describe depravity in Calvinistic terms you demand, that such a one is denying the depravity of man or that depravity is passed on from generation to generation. I have every right according to Scripture and reason to believe that depravity is not as the Calvinist or those leaning hard towards Calvinism define it as.


When DHK insists as he does that if one believes in depravity he must accept his definition of it, show us in Scripture one place where depravity is described and defined universally as being a sinner from birth, and show us one solitary Scripture that says that all men are guilty due to the sins passed down to them from their fathers.

The facts are that I do indeed believe in the depravity of man, and that depravity is indeed passed onto each successive generation, just not in the way the Calvinistic philosophy demands it to be understood.

You and Moriah have been thoroughly exposed and proven wrong so many times it is simply just tiring to keep hearing your nonsense. Moriah has lied and falsely accused DHK so many times that for him to say he lives above sin is a absolute joke.

You do not believe in the Biblical doctrine of sin or the Biblical doctrine of depravity and your errors have been repeatedly been exposed and rightly condemned. You need to go to a subject where you have some credibility.

 

[DHK]

HP: Here are just two of many things you have lied about. I indeed do believe in the total depravity of man. Show me one time I have denied the depravity of man. I have never denied that the depravity of man is passed on from one generation to the next.

I don't know what you believe, only what you don't believe. You have your own definitions, your own philosophy. You change definitions at the drop of a hat. You don't believe in justification of the believer. Why? You have changed the meaning of "Justification." So not many know what you believe, and when you say you do believe in depravity, it is only on your terms and your definition, which who knows what it may be, that one has to figure out what you believe. You change the meanings of words. Whether or not you believe in depravity is all relative--according to your definition, isn't it?

 

[Moriah]

Yes, it matters Moriah. You keep posting this false allegation without evidence. You won't point out any false thing that I have said. Until you do my post stands as true and unedited. You meet the characteristics defined as a Pelagian, a known heresy from the fifth century. You have given no information that would lead me to believe otherwise. You have not denied my post or given any evidence to lead me to believe otherwise.

I suggest all reading this to go to the administrator of this site and demand that DHK prove I said what he claims I said.

DHK is badgering me about something he knows I did not say.

 

[DHK]

I suggest all reading this to go to the administrator of this site and demand that DHK prove I said what he claims I said.

DHK is badgering me about something he knows I did not say.

Please quote me. What have I said that is not true. If you cannot do that, then do not post about it again.

 

[Moriah]

Please quote me. What have I said that is not true. If you cannot do that, then do not post about it again.

This is your first link you gave:


http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost...0&postcount=77


Note the difference.
1. I believe that all mankind is born with a sin nature. You don't.
The difference between me and the Calvinist is that I don't believe in Total Inability but the depravity of mankind, thus say sin nature.

2. I believe that that sin nature is passed on. It is called the Adamic nature and is inherited--passed on by one generation to another. You don't.

3. I don't believe that man is born inherently good. You do.

The difference between you and I, that is the difference in these three major points of doctrine is what makes you a Pelagian. You believe in the heresy of Pelagianism, denounced as a heresy in the fifth century. Those are the three major point stated above, the ones that you DO believe in.



.............................................



This is just some of your false accusations you said about me. Show me where I said these things.
1. Show me where I said mankind is born without a sin nature. Prove it now!
2. Show me where I said the sin nature is not passed on to one generation to the next. Prove it now!
3. Show where I said man is born inherently good. Prove it now!

 

[Moriah]

Please quote me. What have I said that is not true. If you cannot do that, then do not post about it again.

This is the second link you gave where you claim I said something that I did not. You prove it now where I deny the sin nature of man. Prove it now where I asserted man is basically good. Prove it now where I said the things you claim I said! You post links to more of your false accusations about me, as if you were proving I said those things! I ask all readers to message the administrator and demand that DHK prove I have said what he claims I believe by quoting me.

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost...7&postcount=85

There are three sources. The last one by Carm, is an evangelical apologetical site. Note that all three state the same thing--the same beliefs that you hold to:
1. A denial of original sin, or the sin nature of man.
2. The assertion that man's nature is basically good.
3. The denial that we inherit from Adam a sinful nature.

Those are the fundamental beliefs of one who holds to the heresy of Pelagianism. That is what you have been spreading on this board. These are your beliefs, and they have been outside the realm of Christianity now for how long? At least the fifth century, if not before then.

 

[DHK]

This is your first link you gave:


http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost...0&postcount=77


Note the difference.
1. I believe that all mankind is born with a sin nature. You don't.
The difference between me and the Calvinist is that I don't believe in Total Inability but the depravity of mankind, thus say sin nature.

As I have quoted before:

You are greatly confused.

Total depravity
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Total depravity (also called absolute inability, radical corruption, total corruption, or Augustinianism[citation needed]) is a theological doctrine that derives from the Augustinian concept of original sin. It is the teaching that, as a consequence of the Fall of Man, every person born into the world is enslaved to the service of sin and, apart from the efficacious or prevenient grace of God, is utterly unable to choose to follow God or choose to accept salvation as it is offered.

This is the quote that you were replying to Biwald and defining depravity for him, the depravity that you don't believe.

More evidence:

You say the passage has nothing to do with the depravity of man. There is no total depravity of all men.

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1817150&postcount=69

And yet more:

I do not believe in Total Depravity in any way the reformed believe. I do believe that someone can be called totally depraved when someone comes to Jesus, and then later rejects Jesus.

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1816155&postcount=50

2. I believe that that sin nature is passed on. It is called the Adamic nature and is inherited--passed on by one generation to another. You don't.

According to point #1, if you don't believe a person has a sin nature, then you don't believe it can be passed on, do you? This is a no-brainer.

3. I don't believe that man is born inherently good. You do.

You have said that unsaved people do good. You say that not all men are depraved. Here is the way you put it in one post:

The Bible tells us that humans are evil, but this still does not say that humans cannot believe in God after learning of Him.
No one can give me a scripture that says all are totally depraved, because there is no such scripture.

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1815686&postcount=16

Your belief here seems to indicate that a person can believe without the help of God or the Holy Spirit, that they have some innate goodness that will help them believe. You say very clearly that there is no scripture that says all are totally depraved. If you believe that, then you must believe the opposite. The opposite of depraved is good. If no one is depraved, then naturally all are good. Is not that what you would believe then?

The difference between you and I, that is the difference in these three major points of doctrine is what makes you a Pelagian. You believe in the heresy of Pelagianism, denounced as a heresy in the fifth century. Those are the three major point stated above, the ones that you DO believe in.

I think I have defended my position.

This is just some of your false accusations you said about me. Show me where I said these things.
1. Show me where I said mankind is born without a sin nature. Prove it now!
2. Show me where I said the sin nature is not passed on to one generation to the next. Prove it now!
3. Show where I said man is born inherently good. Prove it now!

I just did.

 

[Moriah]

As I have quoted before:

[/SIZE][/B]This is the quote that you were replying to Biwald and defining depravity for him, the depravity that you don't believe.

More evidence:
[/b]
http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1817150&postcount=69

And yet more:

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1816155&postcount=50

According to point #1, if you don't believe a person has a sin nature, then you don't believe it can be passed on, do you? This is a no-brainer.

You have said that unsaved people do good. You say that not all men are depraved. Here is the way you put it in one post:

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1815686&postcount=16

Your belief here seems to indicate that a person can believe without the help of God or the Holy Spirit, that they have some innate goodness that will help them believe. You say very clearly that there is no scripture that says all are totally depraved. If you believe that, then you must believe the opposite. The opposite of depraved is good. If no one is depraved, then naturally all are good. Is not that what you would believe then?

I think I have defended my position.


I just did.

The only thing you have proven is that you do not quote me where I have said what you have claimed. God knows.