Original Sin

[DHK]

The reason I go right to that text is because of the contextual clarity and direct dealing with the very subject at hand.

Dealing with the point that you like to stress. You ignore other Scriptures to the exclusion that you have only one side of the story, which then becomes a "skewed story."

As you well know, there are a variety of subjects debated on this forum. In order to escape all the useless debating that arises when you select texts that may be more ambiguous than direct, we select a text that deals a decisive blow to the opposition instead of haggering over other texts that are not as decisive.

However, as you know well, the text you have chosen is controversial among many, and is not as clear as you may want it to be.

John 6:29-65 is a very decisive context that deals a death blow to the idea that saving faith is the capability of all men. Jesus says "NO MAN CAN COME" to him in faith, as that is the very subject discussed in John 6:64-65.

John 6:44-45 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day. It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.
--Nowhere in that passage does it even hint that God gives anyone faith. That is your imagination. There is not one word of faith in this passage. There is no death blow to anyone's theology here. The word "draw him" is simply the convicting or urging of the Holy Spirit, and nothing more. It says nothing of faith. You are reading into the Word something that is not there.

I don't neglect them, but you are right that I do not use them in defense of my position because they are more indirect texts that depend upon a series of logical inferences rather than directly addressing the issue.

Not using them is neglecting them.
The Scripture I gave you is clear and yet you rationalized it away.

The second comment is not supported or stated by the text. You are inferring it from your own soteriological perspective. Secondly, the term "us-ward" can be equally applied to the elect rather than to all mankind in general.

You made many inferences from your own soteriological perspective not supported by the text in John 6. That is obvious. Now you accuse me of doing the same thing. I don't think I have, but I do think you have done more injustice to the Scriptures than I have.
"God is not willing that any should perish." That is clear and concise. What is there to argue about. That is God's will.
God's will is thwarted only because of the depravity of man's heart.

Again, the argument between us here boils down to "all men" without distinction or "all men" without exception. You take the latter while I take the former. Mutual stand off.

That's nonsense. All men is all men.

1 Timothy 2:4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.
--Context:
1 Timothy 2:1 I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men;
--And then in verses two and three he lists the various groupings of "all men," which includes kings and governmental officials, obviously not just the elect.

Again, I believe there is contextual support to view this epistle as written to JEWISH believers rather than Gentile believes for several contextual reasons.

John wrote primarily to Jews and Gentiles--the world, as his gospel indicates. "For God so loved the world." There is no reason to think that 1John was written to Jewish Christians, no reason whatsoever. If anything it would have been written to those of a Gentile background.

1 John 4:1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.
--This verse would be evidence that the intended audience are Gentile believers with a pagan background. They were to try or test the spirits. The Jews worshiped Jehovah. The Gentiles were involved in paganism, the worship of many idols or demonic spirits. Now they were admonished to test them.

Second, Acts 1-15 demonstrate fairly clearly that Jewish believers still had reserverations about Gentiles and that many still believed one must become Jewish to be saved (Acts 15). Peter had have the vision repeated three times and still went reluctantly to a gentile house while many at Jerusalem called him in on the carpet for even entering a Gentile house. Galatians 2 demonstrates that Peter continued to have problems along with Barnabas. Hence, my interpretation is that the "whole world" means Jews and Gentiles - all classes and kinds rather than all mankind without exception.

non sequitor.
Peter did not write 1John.
John wrote in 90 A.D. or later, and the decisions made in Acts 15 were well cemented by then.
Nothing in the above paragraph has anything to do with 1John 2:1,2

1 John 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.
--"the sins of the whole world" does not mean "the sins of different classes of people in the known world." You are adding to the word of God, and in so doing eliminating your own salvation.

I have never read the works of Calvin or Augustine. I am not a follower of Calvin. You will never read any post where I quote anyone but Biblical writers to defend my positions.

He is simply one commentary among many. Your position is a Calvinist one. So his should reflect yours, shouldn't it?

I believe the same thing! That is not the issue. The issue is what brings a person to call upon the Name of the Lord. That is the point where we differ not that the Lord will save whosoever will believe or whosoever will call upon the Lord. He will save all who do so but the question remains what brings a person to do that. This is where we differ.

Yes it is. The Bible says:
The gospel is the "power of God unto salvation."
In John 16 the ministry of the Holy Spirit is to convict of sin, of righteousness and of judgment. Thus the Holy Spirit working through His Word brings one to salvation. When I got saved the gospel was presented to me in a logical way. It made sense to me. It was the first time I had ever heard that message. That night I trusted Christ as my savior. I believed, and was saved. It was that simple.

Now, I have read you enough to know that you point out a Greek term or grammar when it affects the text you are discussing. I pointed out a Greek term in Romans 10:17 "Rhema" and noted it can mean a "word of command." That is sound exegetical notation.

A faulty premise results in a faulty conclusion. "Rhema" is a noun. Nouns are not commands. There is no command in Rom.10:17.

I further supported that meaning with other texts that deal explicitly with the impact of the gospel upon the elect noting that in many other places Paul does present the gospel coming "not in word only" as the term "logos" may infer rather than "rhema" but in "power"!

There are many words, synonyms for "word" in the NT. rhema, Biblios, graphe, logos, and others including the word for "gospel" itself. The Word of God is powerful, as is the gospel. There is no dispute. Heb.4:12 testifies of the Word of God as a two-edged sword. That impact has a great impact upon the unsaved who have a will to reject as well as to receive. God does not force them into salvation. The "elect" are not robots for God.

 

[DHK]

Indeed, Paul explicitly and clearly in a context dealing with the preaching of the gospel where Satanic interference is noted (2 Cor. 4:2-4) that the effectual preaching of the gospel is compared to Genesis 1:3 and the very words "For God who COMMANDED the light" (2 Cor. 4:6) thus again confirming the term "Rhema" in Romans 10:17 as a word of command. Romans 10:17 does not say faith cometh from man but from "hearing" and hearing by "the word of Command" as in the command to create light.

That is not what it says. It is not a command.
Romans 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
Man's faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. It is not infused into him by God. Rhema is simply a word for "word." It carries no inherent command in it.
Look at Young's Literal:

Romans 10:17 so then the faith is by a report, and the report through a saying of God,
The word "rhema" is translated here as "saying." There is no command.

I pointed out 1 Thessalonians 1:4-5 where again the idea of "rhema" is confirmed by Paul denying the gospel came to the elect (1 Thes. 1:4) by "word only" but rather in "power and in the Holy Spirit and in much assurance" (1 Thes. 1:5). Again, I pointed out that in connection with "faith" regeneration is inseparably involved (Eph. 2:8) as a CREATIVE act (Eph. 2:10) again confirming the Genesis 1:3 analogy and the "Rhema" meaning of Romans 10:17.

You have read into the Scriptures only what you want to see. You have given the word "rhema" a meaning that it doesn't have.

I don't see how you can legitimaely accuse me of "philosophical" speculation when I am basing everything directly upon specific texts and specific words found in that text.

The specific words that you have found you have given unbiblical definitions, as far as I am concerned. Nouns are not commands.

Jesus explicitly and clearly states the very opposite of your position that demands every man has faith and can believe but when Jesus says in both John 6:44 and 6:65 that "NO MAN CAN" come to him in faithexcept it is "given unto him of the Father." The contextual issue is the difference between unbelief and faith (Jn. 6:64). This is what I am talking about! A flat contradiction between your position and Christ's words regarding coming to him in faith.

That is not what Jesus says. You have to add to the Word in order for it to say that. That is what you want it to say, but it doesn't say that. Why do you twist the Scriptures?

John 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.
--Notice, there is no "in faith" in the verse. That is something that you added. You want the verse to say that, but it doesn't.

Thus except by adding to the Word of God, you have no basis for saying that God gives faith to the unsaved. He doesn't. Nowhere in Scripture does it say that God gives faith to the unsaved. It is an absurd position.

I believe that God gives a NEW HEART which loves light and hates darkness (Ezek 36:26-27) and it is a BELIEVING heart. Just compare Ezekiel 36:26-27 with Deuteronomy 29:4. Both texts are directed toward the very same people. Deuteronomy 29:4 explains why they CANNOT see, hear or come while Ezekiel 26:26-27 explains how they CAN see, hear and do his will.

That is a red herring. Does God give faith, a spiritual gift, the fruit of the Spirit to the unsaved. The above is the answer you gave to that question. It avoids it. When a person comes to Christ by HIS OWN faith, then God gives him a new heart, and it is a believing heart. But that is after he is saved.

Jn. 6:64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.
65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.

Verse 64 points out the problem of unbeleif among those who professed to be disciples including Judas. Many of them left right then. However, verse 65 explains why they were still in unbelief because coming to believe in Christ is something that must be "given unto" a person because "NO MAN CAN COME UNTO ME" except it is given unto them by the Father. However, this is only the beginning of your problem here. The fact that not one single person whom the Father gives fails to come and fails to be ultimately saved provides another gigantic obstacle to your interpetation of election as election is "TO" salvation not because of forseen salvation (2 Thes. 2:13).

The subject there is election which you like to dwell on, but not specifically faith. God does not give faith to the unsaved, and it is not in that passage either. You are straining at a gnat trying to find evidence, but it is not there.

"For it is God that worketh in you both to WILL and to DO of His good pleasure" so, "it is not him that willeth or him that runneth but of God that sheweth mercy." It is the faith of the elect in somuch that God works it in them (Philip. 2:12) and it is by God's power they work it out of them (Philip. 2:13).

These verses speak of sanctification, primarily. They don't speak of salvation or about coming to Christ. Thus they have nothing to do with one "believing with his own faith" as opposed to "the faith of God" again an absurd position.

Romans 9:13 and 17 both deny that election is merely prescience. Foreknowledge is based upon Divine "purpose" in Romans 8:28-29 and election is "TO" salvation (2 Thes. 2:13) rather than because of salvation.

I would disagree.

In Romans 8:28-29 the order is first that God works all things "according to His purpose" (v. 28) and he will fulfill every thing he has purposed (Isa. 49:9-11).

Right, election is directed to the purposes of the saved, as already noted.

Foreknew comes next (v. 29). An archetech has a blue print of a house and therefore before the house is even built he can tell you where every door, every window is going to be placed, because he knows ahead of time because he purposed it before the foundation of the world "according to the good pleasure of His will" and not according to man's will (Rom. 9:13,17).

Again foreknowledge and election have to do with "the good pleasure of his will, or is directed to the will of God for the believer. That is all that you have demonstrated here.

Look at verse 4 and you will see that election is God's determinate choice to make us "holy" and "blameless" not as a result of being holy and blameless. Look at 2 Thessalonians 2:13 where God's choice is "TO" salvation not a consequence of salvation! Your position actually robs the glory from God and gives it to man. 1 Corinthians 1:26-31 completely repudiates your whole interpretative theory about election as election is restricted and it is "OF GOD he is MADE unto us" that no flesh should glory.

I said that election applies only, or at least primarily to the believer.
Why?
God called out a nation for himself in the OT.
God is calling out a nation for himself in the NT.
His purposes in election are tied up in these nations.

 

[The Biblicist]

John 6:44-45 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day. It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.
--Nowhere in that passage does it even hint that God gives anyone faith. That is your imagination.

You cannot isolate John 6:44-45 from its further explanation by Christ in John 6:64-65. That is what you are attempting to do. You cannot deny that John 6:64-65 is a direct further explanation of John 6:44-45. Neither can you deny that it is directly applied to the issue of faith in John 6:64. Neither can you isolate it from John 6:36-40.

The Scripture I gave you is clear and yet you rationalized it away.

I did not rationalize anything away. I gave you a legitimate exegetical explanation.

"God is not willing that any should perish." That is clear and concise. What is there to argue about. That is God's will.

No one denies what it says. We simply disagree as to what it means and how it is to be applied. Many theologions make a distinction between the "revealed" will of God versus His will of purpose which is always effectual (as expressed in prophecy) - See Deut. 29:29.

It is God's revealed will that you be perfect even as your father in heaven is perfect (Mt. 5:46) but even you admit there is no ability to accomplished that will by any man at any time during this life. It is God's revealed will that none sin but there is none but Christ who has ever accomplished that will. It is the revealed will of God that all should repent and believe the gospel and that none should perish but that will not be accomplished.

That's nonsense. All men is all men.

No, that is factual legitimate exegesis that is supported by the Greek text. The Greek term "pas" without the definite article can be legitimately interpreted "all kinds" or "all classes." It is a ligitimate exegetical fact that "all men" can be interpreted all without distinction. There are many cases in scripture where "all men" cannot possibly mean all without exception.

1 Timothy 2:1 I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men;
--And then in verses two and three he lists the various groupings of "all men," which includes kings and governmental officials, obviously not just the elect.

You are proving my point! He is giving "groupings" or classes and kinds which is perfectly consistent with the use of the anarthous contruct "all" classes and kinds and therefore meaning all men without distinction but inclusive of all groupings, classes and kinds.

John wrote primarily to Jews and Gentiles--the world, as his gospel indicates. "For God so loved the world."

You are ignoring the obvious - the immediate context - he is still addressing Nicodemus a teacher of the Jews. You cannot prove he is no longer addressing Nicodemus.

There is no reason to think that 1John was written to Jewish Christians, no reason whatsoever. If anything it would have been written to those of a Gentile background.

There are evidences that he is strictly writing to Jewish believers. For example,

7 ¶ Brethren, I write no new commandment unto you, but an old commandment which ye had from the beginning. The old commandment is the word which ye have heard from the beginning..

1 John 4:1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.
--This verse would be evidence that the intended audience are Gentile believers with a pagan background. They were to try or test the spirits. The Jews worshiped Jehovah. The Gentiles were involved in paganism, the worship of many idols or demonic spirits. Now they were admonished to test them.
non sequitor.

Quite the contrary. 1 John 4:2-4 demonstrates he is most likely dealing with Jewish gnosticism which was quite strong at that time.

Nothing in the above paragraph has anything to do with 1John 2:1,2

1 John 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.
--"the sins of the whole world" does not mean "the sins of different classes of people in the known world." You are adding to the word of God, and in so doing eliminating your own salvation.

I said "Gentiles and Jews" or all mankind without distinction of class. I don't know how you suppose that interpretation eliminates my salvation???

The Bible says:
The gospel is the "power of God unto salvation."

It is the power "OF GOD unto Salvation" not the power of the human will!

A faulty premise results in a faulty conclusion. "Rhema" is a noun. Nouns are not commands. There is no command in Rom.10:17.

Did I say there was a command being given in Romans 10:17???? I never said that at all. I said the term "rhema" can refer to "a word of command" and that fits the noun. I did not say there was a command being given.

I supported the concept "word of Command" by several scriptures all by Paul that characterize the gospel effects when empowered by God as a "Command" (2 Cor. 4:6) and not coming in mere "word only" (1 Thes. 1:5) in direct reference to the elect (1 Thes. 1:4) but a act of CREATION by God (Eph. 2:8,10a; 4:24; Col. 3:10). I don't see how you can possibly ignore 2 Cor. 4:6 and the obvious analogy to a Creative Word of Command in Genesis 1:3.

 

[The Biblicist]

That is not what it says. It is not a command.
Romans 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
Man's faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. It is not infused into him by God. Rhema is simply a word for "word." It carries no inherent command in it.
Look at Young's Literal:

Romans 10:17 so then the faith is by a report, and the report through a saying of God,
The word "rhema" is translated here as "saying." There is no command.

You are misunderstanding what I have said. I did not say there was a command being given in Rom. 10:17. What I said is that the term "Rhema" may be regarded as a "word of command" and that is in keeping with its noun form. 1 Thessalonians 1:4-5 proves that the gospel does not come to the elect in "word (logos) only" but "in power." 2 Cor. 4:6 proves it comes as a "COMMAND" in regard to the elect that is as much as a word of command as when God spoke light out of darkness. What I am saying is as solid as a rock.

John 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.
--Notice, there is no "in faith" in the verse. That is something that you added. You want the verse to say that, but it doesn't.

Again, you are intentionally divorcing John 6:44 from Christ's own application and explanation of it in John 6:64-65. Hence, I am not adding to the word of God but you are clearly subtracting from the word of God by completely ignoring Christ's own contextual application and interpretation of John 6:44 in John 6:64-65.

Look, it is clear to me that you are refusing to be objective with the evidence and we are not going to get anywhere but merely go in circles. You are building a straw man by saying there is no command given in Romans 10:17 when in fact I never said there was, the noun "rhema" can be ligitimately refer to "a word of command" is all that I said and that fits the noun. You are consistently isolating John 6:44 and divorcing it from Christ's own application and interpretation in John 6:64-65 and so we are going nowhere in that discussion.

You simply refuse to acknowledge that the gospel is directly associated with the elect in 1 Thes. 1:4-5 and not in "word only" but as coming to the elect in "power" and in the Holy Spirit and thus affirming the idea of "rhema" in Rom. 10:17. You refuse to acknowledge that the very word "COMMAND" is directly used by Paul in reference to God's application of the gospel in 2 Cor. 4:6.

We will not get anywhere constructively because we have a complete break down in communication.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

You side with someone who has been going against me for speaking against total depravity.

You side with someone who has been going against me when I teach that faith comes from hearing.

I wish you would not side with a person who falsely accuses people and personally attacks.

Well, I don't side with personal attacks or false accusations, and I, too disbelieve total depravity. I was just saying that I like and agree with some of the points DHK was making.

I don't agree with anybody all the time, or disagree with anybody all the time. That seems difficult for some people to comprehend.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

What is a complete misunderstanding of ones position, is to say "I do not believe in total depravity" yet I believe in original sin. Once a sinner there is absolutely nothing one can do righteous. If one is unable to do righteousness, call it whatever floats ones boat, but that is total depravity.

To try to separate one's belief from that of "total depravity" because one feels that one is not "unable " to do good, or that one is not "dead" in what they view as a "Calvinistic" sense, is sheer self deception as to the ends of their beliefs. It matters not whether one mouths the words 'they are not dead', for a sinner is a sinner as a sinner is a sinner. Once a sinner from birth, righteousness is an impossibility, regardless if you coin it in Calvinistic terms or not. The end is precisely the same: guilty and damned from birth.

Necessity is predicated of anyone that claims original sin. Original sin is eliminate any and all possibility of anyone doing anything righteous subsequent to birth and antecedent to salvation. They are necessitated sinners, damned to an eternal hell from birth, for nothing they have done themselves or any choice they have made or could have made. One is only fooling themselves to think they have escaped the necessitated fatalism identical to that of Calvinism, when they accept the notion of inherited guilt via original sin. To give lip service to denying all ability as Calvinists hold to, yet holding to the very notion that necessitates Calvinistic inability as original sin logically mandates, is sheer folly and self deception. Such a one in vain may think they have escaped the ends of the Calvinistic system they claim to despise, but in reality the logical ends or their position is precisely the same: a necessitated sinful nature with associated guilt and that from birth.

The truth is that in all the sophistic terminology employed, those that hold to original sin and inherited guilt thereby, have not left the Calvinistic plantation which is the sole source of the notion of Augustinian original sin.

The only manner in which to escape the necessitated fatalism of original sin, and the logical ends that make God the author of sin, is to center the depravity of man from birth subsequent to the fall, in the realm of depraved natural propensities, NOT in the will itself. When the early Christian fathers spoke of the nature of man from birth, they limited the depravity to the physical realm and in no wise associated any guilt due to such depravity. That is precisely where Augustine strayed from the truths taught not only in Scripture but in the early church as well, and falsely accepted the heathen philosophical notion that sin lied in the Constitution of the flesh and not in the will. Only as one leaves those false philosophical notions which deny freedom of the will, which place sin in the realm of the flesh itself antecedent to any moral activity of the will, and come to the understanding that nothing, strictly speaking, is sin until the will is developed to such a point as to be rightfully be noted as the first cause of its formed moral intents, being able to do something other than what it does under the very same set of circumstances apart from influences of rewards or punishments, can the fatalistic and deterministic ends of Calvinism be logically avoided.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Look, it is clear to me that you are refusing to be objective with the evidence and we are not going to get anywhere buts the noun. You are consistently isolating John 6:44 and divorcing it from Christ's own application and interpretation in John 6:64-65 and so we are going nowhere in that discussion.

You simply refuse to acknowledge that the gospel is directly associated with the elect in 1 Thes. 1:4-5 and not in "word only" but as coming to the elect in "power" and in the Holy Spirit and thus affirming the idea of "rhema" in Rom. 10:17. You refuse to acknowledge that the very word "COMMAND" is directly used by Paul in reference to God's application of the gospel in 2 Cor. 4:6.

What you are now experiencing here Doc is "Preference" vs "Coherent Doctrinal Framework". Let this be a lesson to you.

Just take a look at some of the commentary above. Orthodox Historical theology is, right before our very eyes, being reoriented in order to introduce postmodern perspectives to Christian thought. NOT GOOD!raying:

 

[DHK]

What is a complete misunderstanding of ones position, is to say "I do not believe in total depravity" yet I believe in original sin. Once a sinner there is absolutely nothing one can do righteous. If one is unable to do righteousness, call it whatever floats ones boat, but that is total depravity.

You need to study some theology.
I don't believe in the reformed idea of "Total Inability" (what they call Total Depravity), which also leads to hard determinism.
To put it in simple terms I would rather do away with the term total depravity and use the term "sin nature," sometimes describing man as having a "depraved nature," as is exhibited in the evil that is all around us. You do read the news don't you? Khomenei has one main purpose--to drive Israel into the Sea or to exterminate her completely. He is a depraved individual. Wouldn't you agree?

To try to separate one's belief from that of "total depravity" because one feels that one is not "unable " to do good, or that one is not "dead" in what they view as a "Calvinistic" sense, is sheer self deception as to the ends of their beliefs.

If one does not have proper definitions they will remain forever confused. "Dead" simply means "separated." Sin separates one from God. If one could do "good" to merit heaven then the sacrifice of Christ would be all in vain, and Christianity would be a worthless religion. You might as well be a Muslim or a Hindu. Why be a martyr (Thomas, Stephen, James, etc.) if works could get you to heaven?

It matters not whether one mouths the words 'they are not dead', for a sinner is a sinner as a sinner is a sinner.

And separated from God because of their sin. Sin separates one from God.

Once a sinner from birth, righteousness is an impossibility, regardless if you coin it in Calvinistic terms or not. The end is precisely the same: guilty and damned from birth.

And logically that is true. But for the mercy of God it would be true. But God is merciful. Abraham said: "Shall not the judge of all the earth do right?" David said: "He shall not come to me, but I shall go to him" (concerning the death of his infant son). There is an age of accountability. There was an entire generation that would not enter the Promised Land because they were accountable for their rebellion. But their children, all of them, would enter the Promise Land, because they were not accountable for the rebellion of their parents. They had not reached that age of accountability. Thus God was merciful unto them.

Necessity is predicated of anyone that claims original sin. Original sin is eliminate any and all possibility of anyone doing anything righteous subsequent to birth and antecedent to salvation.

That is right. "We are all as an unclean thing; all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags." There is nothing good that we can do to merit heaven. If there was, it would invalidate Christ's death on the cross. His words "It is finished" would become meaningless.

They are necessitated sinners, damned to an eternal hell from birth, for nothing they have done themselves or any choice they have made or could have made. One is only fooling themselves to think they have escaped the necessitated fatalism identical to that of Calvinism, when they accept the notion of inherited guilt via original sin. To give lip service to denying all ability as Calvinists hold to, yet holding to the very notion that necessitates Calvinistic inability as original sin logically mandates, is sheer folly and self deception. Such a one in vain may think they have escaped the ends of the Calvinistic system they claim to despise, but in reality the logical ends or their position is precisely the same: a necessitated sinful nature with associated guilt and that from birth.

So Christ's death was in vain. He may as well not come at all. We should, like the Muslims and Hindus try and work our way to heaven, and in the end fall at the mercy of God and just hope that we were "good enough" to gain entrance into heaven. Why did Christ have to die, if our works are good enough to make it heaven. You are denying the basic tenets of Christianity, posting as an unbeliever.

The truth is that in all the sophistic terminology employed, those that hold to original sin and inherited guilt thereby, have not left the Calvinistic plantation which is the sole source of the notion of Augustinian original sin.

Bone up on your definitions. There are differences.
I am not a Calvinist, nor am I an Augustinian. If you don't know the differences in terminology then you shouldn't be talking about it. If you don't know that people believed in the depravity of man before Augustine then you should keep quiet about that also.

The only manner in which to escape the necessitated fatalism of original sin, and the logical ends that make God the author of sin,

An illogical conclusion derived from a wrong premise and ignorance.

is to center the depravity of man from birth subsequent to the fall, in the realm of depraved natural propensities, NOT in the will itself.

Like I have told you, I believe in the "depravity of man," but not being a Calvinist I also believe that man has a free will. Live and learn.

When the early Christian fathers spoke of the nature of man from birth, they limited the depravity to the physical realm and in no wise associated any guilt due to such depravity.

You will have a hard time proving that one, just like SBM does. Tell me, how does depravity (in man) exist in Hydrogen, Oxygen, and Nitrogen, the main elements that make up man. You say depravity exists in the flesh, the meat, the physical part of man. You say that the early Christians believed that (they didn't; we are just supposed to take your word). Our nature is not contained within the elements of the Periodic Table. It is in the mind, that which is alive and that which God created, but which was marred at the Fall, but passed down from generation to generation through man. It is our nature--our sinful nature.

That is precisely where Augustine strayed from the truths taught not only in Scripture but in the early church as well, and falsely accepted the heathen philosophical notion that sin lied in the Constitution of the flesh and not in the will. Only as one leaves those false philosophical notions which deny freedom of the will, which place sin in the realm of the flesh itself antecedent to any moral activity of the will, and come to the understanding that nothing, strictly speaking, is sin until the will is developed to such a point as to be rightfully be noted as the first cause of its formed moral intents, being able to do something other than what it does under the very same set of circumstances apart from influences of rewards or punishments, can the fatalistic and deterministic ends of Calvinism be logically avoided.

1. There is nothing of a nature found "in the constitution of the flesh."
2. Our nature is found in the will, the mind.
3. That part of us became corrupted at the Fall, as did everything else. At that time ALL fell under the curse.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

EW&F: Orthodox Historical theology is, right before our very eyes, being reoriented in order to introduce postmodern perspectives to Christian thought. NOT GOOD!

HP: The problem is that orthodox theology prior to Augustine was not orthodox theology subsequent to Augustine. Remember that even Pelagius was exhonerated by at least two councils before Augustine stacked the deck against him the third time around.

Augustine forever changed the truth antecedent to him, and even the truth he himself believed early on, i.e., that man has a freewill. To recognize this fact is not as you suggest, being a 'postmodern perspectives to Christian thought', but is an attempt to return to pre-Augustinian orthodoxy at least in part.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

To say that one believes in a free will, while holding to the dogma of original sin, inherited moral depravity from birth, is paramount to suggesting one can believe in and not believe in something at the same time in the same sense. As I recall that's an illogical absurdity.

If the will is born in a sinful state, there was no will involved in it being what it is. How free is that? What kind of a choice contributed to that necessitated state? What free will of man contributed to the fatalism of his demise being born into this world as a sinner?

What an absolute farce it is to try to think that you can hold to Augustinian original sin and at the same time believe in free will. The two are at direct antipodes with each other. One may believe in a free will, or one may believe in inherited moral depravity, but you can't believe in both at the same time, with any logical consistency that is. The truth is that what some people call free will is no free will at all.

 

[DHK]

To say that one believes in a free will, while holding to the dogma of original sin, inherited moral depravity from birth, is paramount to suggesting one can believe in and not believe in something at the same time in the same sense. As I recall that's an illogical absurdity.

That man is depraved cannot be denied. There are hundreds of Scripture that point to this fact. Unbelief is no excuse. If I remember correctly your theology mirrors that of Charles Finney, a declared heretic. You also sympathize with the beliefs of Moriah, who is a Pelagian. Where does that leave you, but incredibly confused!
Man is depraved; has a sin nature.
That sin nature is passed on. It is called the Adamic nature.
There is no such thing any longer as "innocence."
We all stand guilty before a holy and righteous God.
Yet my believe is that God is his sovereignty has allowed man a free will, that is the ability to choose between good and evil, to reject Christ or refuse him. The fact that you chose to post this post, and no one forced you is an example of that free will. Were you predestined to do so. No, you chose to do so. God gave you the ability to choose. He gave us a mind. That is part of the image of God that he made us in, albeit that image is marred it is still there. It is what makes us different than the animals--the ability to choose, reason, think things out. We are not the robots of God that some Calvinists make us out to be. We do have a will which enables us to choose. We are free to do so.

If the will is born in a sinful state, there was no will involved in it being what it is. How free is that? What kind of a choice contributed to that necessitated state? What free will of man contributed to the fatalism of his demise being born into this world as a sinner?

Your questions are absurd.
What kind of will did I have in being born a man instead of a lion?
What kind of will did I have in being born Caucasian instead of black?
What kind of will did I have in being born a man instead of an angel?
Why the ridiculous questions?
Adam sinned. The curse was put into effect. We all are sinners, not by our choice. There are many things that are not by our choice. That doesn't negate that we have a brain! I hope you have one. Did you have a choice in the matter? What free will necessitated you having a brain? Was it fatalism? You could have been born without one.

What an absolute farce it is to try to think that you can hold to Augustinian original sin and at the same time believe in free will.

Who said anything about Augustine? Do you worship this man or something? Learn some terminology.

The two are at direct antipodes with each other. One may believe in a free will, or one may believe in inherited moral depravity, but you can't believe in both at the same time, with any logical consistency that is. The truth is that what some people call free will is no free will at all.

And what some call Total Depravity is not Total Depravity at all, but rather Total Inability. The two are vastly different.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

There are clearly two realms in which a free will can be spoken of. The first is in the physical realm and the second is in the moral realm. Never the twain shall meet. No man has complete freedom in the physical realm for man is encompassed about by many forces that can either delay, abort, or hinder one carrying out things in the physical world. Man can determine that he's going to do some things that God may say, no way. Satan may even hinder one from completing physical tasks as well as other individuals may stand in one's way, and at times other forces as well. So many actions in the physical realm are but the mere impulses of the sensibilities, not directly related to the will in the least. Man cannot be blamed when he has no direct control over whether or not to carry out some tasks due to these forces spoken of above physically prohibiting the carrying out of certain tasks or desires. No complete freedom exists in the physical realm.

Quite to the contrary in the realm of morals. Freedom of the will in deed must of necessity exist in the realm of morals, for man is to be blamed are praised for formed intents and subsequent actions. So often I hear man confuse these two realms, or ridicule true freedom in one realm because they can show it doesn't exist in another. I times refer to such individuals as moral Neanderthals for their failure to distinguish the physical realm from the moral realm, for their failure to separate the sensibilities from the will itself. They often try to place moral meaning upon mere impulses from the sensibilities, which again is trying to suggest that freedom exists were in reality necessity reigns. Just for a mere example, one might try to remember when was the last time you had the freedom to will the impulse of heat when touching a hot stove with one's finger. As I recall, such action demanded by sensibilities were the results of a relationship between the heat and the will as one of necessity not freedom. The relationship that existed between that impulse of the sensibility and my jerking my hand away from the hot stove was not one of choice nor of free will, but rather was one of sheer necessity, reacting from impulse alone, not freedom in the least. To blame or praise one for a reaction due to necessity, is absurd. Why? No true relationship exists between the doing and the willing. Where no such freedom exists, one can be assured it is also outside the realm of morals.

To suggest that one is born in a state of sin with associated guilt, and yet has a free will to act in a direction other than that necessitated by ones natural state, is simply double talk, trying to hold two opposing ideas at the same time and in the same sense. To suggest that a man born in sin and doomed without exception, yet has a free will, delegates the notion of a free will to the usefulness of tits on a boar hog, to illustrate in plain language.

 

[DHK]

To suggest that one is born in a state of sin with associated guilt, and yet has a free will to act in a direction other than that necessitated by ones natural state, is simply double talk, trying to hold two opposing ideas at the same time and in the same sense. To suggest that a man born in sin and doomed without exception, yet has a free will, delegates the notion of a free will to the usefulness of tits on a boar hog, to illustrate in plain language.

When one speaks of free will, it is the WILL they speak of, not the body.
Your rant about the "physical" is thus a moot point, a red herring. It has nothing to do with the topic. Even Steven Hawkings, with all his disabilities, has a free will--the choice to do good or evil.

When we speak about choices: the things we do every day--there are those that are mundane--choosing to wash the dishes or not.
There are those that are "good works."
There are those that are "good works" intended to please God.
Those in the last category, done by the unsaved are not good works. They are evil. There is nothing that man can do to please God. Everything he does is evil in the sight of God. Nothing but the blood can merit eternal life. When you start saying that keeping the Ten Commandments (which are good) will help him get to heaven, you have denied the work of Christ, and declared the gospel as invalid. Of what worth is your Christianity then?

Jesus said: "I am the way, the truth, and the life; no man comes unto the Father but by me.
--not by works.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: "There is nothing that man can do to please God."

HP: Sure you believe in a free will. Freedom to will ONLY those things contrary to pleasing God, as you clearly indicate by saying they cannot do, nor could they ever do if born in original sin, anything in accordance to pleasing God. Some free will that is.

I would not call such a will free at all, but rather it is a will necessitated to evil and that continually, just as all Calvinists believe.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: Even Steven Hawkings, with all his disabilities, has a free will--the choice to do good or evil. ...................There is nothing that man can do to please God. Everything he does is evil in the sight of God.

HP: Here we see illustrated the absurdity of DHK's positions. In one breath he says man has a free will to do good and evil. In the next breath he says that everything he does is evil in the sight of God and that he can do nothing to please God. I think any reasonable person can see the clear contradiction your position presents against itself. If one cannot do anything to please God, that is the clearest statement of necessity as opposed to freedom as one can get.

So what is it DHK that God has to do to man in order for him to be able to do something to please God? Read your own statement above. Man can only do evil. Where does he get this sudden power or ability from to please God, that you say he has not had up until at least the point of salvation? God must have to do something to man to enable him to do something you say was impossible for him to do up to that point....... or are you going to suggest the first free will choice of man in reality is either choosing a rejecting Christ? If that is true only those who have heard of Christ and had that opportunity would have anything closely resembling a free will, and it could only be said that free will exists in man at the point of having that opportunity of salvation, not before. So what is it that you really believe? At what point does man have this free will you talk about that can do nothing other than evil?

 

[DHK]

HP: Sure you believe in a free will. Freedom to will ONLY those things contrary to pleasing God, as you clearly indicate by saying they cannot do, nor could they ever do if born in original sin, anything in accordance to pleasing God. Some free will that is.

I would not call such a will free at all, but rather it is a will necessitated to evil and that continually, just as all Calvinists believe.

Did Christ die for your sins?
If so, why?
Why, if you can do good in the sight of God, to merit salvation, did Christ have to die?
If you can do good, then the blood of Christ fell short, was not sufficient, and you believe your good works have to make up the short-fall of his insufficient blood--the payment for our sins, Correct?
Or do you just deny the Christian faith all together?

Please answer.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: Did Christ die for your sins?

HP: Certainly He did, but most likely not in the manner you would describe the atonement. You most likely hold to the literal payment theory as most do holding to a necessitated system as you imbibe.

DHK: If so, why?
Why, if you can do good in the sight of God, to merit salvation, did Christ have to die?

HP: The real question is why do you clearly suggest a lie about another's position? Show me one solitary quote where I have ever stated or implied that one can merit their salvation by doing good. Speak of intentionally misrepresenting another's views. The plain truth is that I have gone to great lengths to show that nothing man can or will ever do can merit salvation, but obviously you haven't been listening or simply do not care what I believe. To actually understand what I am saying might interfere with your willing misrepresentation of my views.

DHK: If you can do good, then the blood of Christ fell short, was not sufficient, and you believe your good works have to make up the short-fall of his insufficient blood--the payment for our sins, Correct?
Or do you just deny the Christian faith all together?

HP: You do not have one shred of evidence from anything that I have ever said that would suggest in any way the charges that you are leveling against me. Why don't you try some of your own medicine for change and quote somebody that you're leveling such unwarranted charges against?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: When you start saying that keeping the Ten Commandments (which are good) will help him get to heaven, you have denied the work of Christ, and declared the gospel as invalid. Of what worth is your Christianity then?

HP: Let the listener be reminded once again that I have never said that keeping the Commandments "will help him get to heaven" as DHK tries to act as if though I have said as such. Again it is high time DHK takes of his own medicine and if he wishes to level an accusation against another let him quote me were I have ever said that. If not, according to DHK, he is a self-confessed liar for suggesting I have said something that I have not.

What I will do is remind the listener as to what the Scripture have to say concerning keeping the commandments, and will let the reader make up his own mind before God. It would appear to me that the problem the DHK is having is not with me or what I have said, but with what God has said concerning the keeping of his Commandments.

1Jn 2:3 And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.
1Jn 2:4 He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.
1Jn 2:5 But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him.

 

[DHK]

HP: Certainly He did, but most likely not in the manner you would describe the atonement. You most likely hold to the literal payment theory as most do holding to a necessitated system as you imbibe.

Imbibe? I asked, Did Christ die for your sins? I only know of one way that Christ died--on the cross. I don't believe in a swoon theory. I don't believe his disciples came and stole the body away. He died. That is what I asked you. The purpose--to pay the penalty for our sins.

1 John 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

No theories involved. He died to make a propitiation (an atonement) for our sins. That is what the Bible teaches.

HP: The real question is why do you clearly suggest a lie about another's position? Show me one solitary quote where I have ever stated or implied that one can merit their salvation by doing good.

Your insistence that man can do good in the sight of God is that evidence. You said so in your last to posts, and then ridiculed me for not believing the same. Man has a depraved nature and cannot do good in the sight of God. If he could do good to merit heaven then Christ's death would be in vain. You can't sit on the fence here. It is one or the other. If you don't believe the former then I can only conclude you believe the latter. Is not that a fair conclusion?

Speak of intentionally misrepresenting another's views. The plain truth is that I have gone to great lengths to show that nothing man can or will ever do can merit salvation, but obviously you haven't been listening or simply do not care what I believe.

There is only way to heaven and it isn't good works. Yet you say man's works are acceptable before God. You say man can do good in order to merit salvation, even when I asked you if that was the case. You did not deny it. So, what am I to believe? Only that you believe that good works merit salvation, as you posted.

To actually understand what I am saying might interfere with your willing misrepresentation of my views.

You posted that man can do good. I asked for clarification--in relation to salvation? You never denied that it was in relation to salvation. Thus I assume you believe that works merit salvation. If so, the death of Christ is in vain, isn't it?

HP: You do not have one shred of evidence from anything that I have ever said that would suggest in any way the charges that you are leveling against me. Why don't you try some of your own medicine for change and quote somebody that you're leveling such unwarranted charges against?

Read your own posts.
You say that man is not depraved; that man can do good; that the good an unsaved man does is acceptable before God. If that is true then why did Christ die?

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

HP: The problem is that orthodox theology prior to Augustine was not orthodox theology subsequent to Augustine. Remember that even Pelagius was exhonerated by at least two councils before Augustine stacked the deck against him the third time around.

Augustine forever changed the truth antecedent to him, and even the truth he himself believed early on, i.e., that man has a freewill. To recognize this fact is not as you suggest, being a 'postmodern perspectives to Christian thought', but is an attempt to return to pre-Augustinian orthodoxy at least in part.

IE....Heretical Pelagianism:

1. The sin of Adam affected no one but himself.
2. Those born since Adam have been born into the same condition Adam was in before his fall, that is , into a position of neutrality so far as sin is concerned.
3. Today human beings are able to live free from sin, if they want to.

Again it is pure heresy because it limits the nature and scope of sin & because it leads to a denial of the necessity of God's unmerited grace in salvation. Moreover, even when the gospel is preached to a fallen sinner (according to this view) , what ultimately determines whether he or she will be saved is not the supernatural working of God through the Holy Spirit but rather the persons will, which either receives or rejects the Savior. This gives human beings glory that ought to go to God.