Original Sin vs. Calvinistic Total Depravity

Now Bob,
I hope that both you and HP realize by your post above that people define Total Depravity in different ways--just as you did. The fact is that Total Depravity has only one definition. There is no "Arminian" definition of Total Depravity. It is the first point of the Calvinistic TULIP, and must be defined as such. In other words it is strictly Calvinistic, as you first defined it. Your second definition was wrong.

Thus in HP accusing me of being a Calvinist when he doesn't know the definition of Total Depravity or redefines it, is totally unethical.

 

Point of correction - I provided a definition for "original sin" and show how it drove the RCC to the conclusoin that infant baptism (or else Limbo) was needed for infants to avoid Limbo.

I did not say that I agreed that the doctrine of original sin is Biblically correct.

in Christ,

Bob

 

I see your point, that logically if human will is what causes sin and if all will sin because of human will, then there must be something guilt-causing about human will. I don't know what I want to do with your point yet, but I see it!

 

That's true Bob, but it is the Catholic Church that coined the term Original Sin in the first place. So whether it is actually a Biblically correct definition is moot. We define words according to how they are theologically used, whether right or wrong. Then we may agree or disagree with the concept that they represent. Original Sin is a Catholic doctrine which many Baptists don't agree with, but have redefined, but avoided the use of "original sin" in doing so.

 

Forgive me for intruding out of the void here.

There's something in HP's argument I see, if I'm correctly understanding him, in which I can agree with him. There's no choice without will. We choose what we will or want. Now 'natural man' - that's verybody for as long as he may live be he 'reborn' or 'savage' yet - wills evil and sin ever and always. We - even we the saved - ONLY will sin and to sin of ourselves, no distinction ever!

The only difference between the saved sinner and the not saved sinner is God's Grace through Jesus Christ - whereby the saved sinner is never released of his old man, but is 'infused' - not with any righteousness or holiness his own, but with a strange, new, separate, godly will to will and to do according to the will of God and it spells conflict and victory through conflict. Happy is the man who knows conflict in his soul between good and evil --- only if he be given grace through and in and because of Jesus Christ. Or he shall continue in peace at peace with himself and his own free and willful natural choosing of evil sin and death.

 

I like your answer and hope you will consider further what I am really saying about satan which is an evil spirit and where it originates.

Being we were speaking of Lucifer, consider where the intent came from even him.....

BBob,

 

This is from the Belgic Confession, 1561, a reformed doctrinal statement.

(Empahsis mine)

Article XV
Original Sin
We believe that through the disobedience of Adam original sin is extended to all mankind; which is a corruption of the whole nature and a hereditary disease, wherewith even infants in their mothers womb are infected, and which produces in man all sorts of sin, being in him as a root thereof, and therefore is so vile and abominable in the sight of God that it is sufficient to condemn all mankind. Nor is it altogether abolished or wholly eradicated even by regeneration; since sin always issues forth from this woeful source, as water from a fountain; notwithstanding it is not imputed to the children of God unto condemnation, but by His grace and mercy is forgiven them. Not that they should rest securely in sin, but that a sense of this corruption should make believers often to sigh, desiring to be delivered from this body of death.

Wherefore we reject the error of the Pelagians, who assert that sin proceeds only from imitation.

 

So, infants go to hell if they die, is that what he is saying??

BBob,

 

That was the reason for infant baptism - keeping them out of hell (or later - limbo).

As I said - I don't think the doctrine of original sin is correct.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11312a.htm

 

Advocates of the Belgic confession believe in Covenant Theology which states that the children of believers are saved, but let's not go there or HP won't be happy that the subject is being diverted.:smilewinkgrin: .

 

And from the Canons of Dort 1618

Emphasis mine

Article 3
Therefore all men are conceived in sin, and are by nature children of wrath, incapable of saving good, prone to evil, dead in sin, and in bondage thereto; and without the regenerating grace of the Holy Spirit, they are neither able nor willing to return to God, to reform the depravity of their nature, or to dispose themselves to reformation.

This Total depravity requires Uncondonditional election in order for any to be saved. Since many are called and few are chosen the atonemont was Limited to only those chosen before the foundation of the world. Therefore we need to be saved against our will which made God cause his grace to be Irresistible to those he imposed it on. Later the Canons point out that we stay in this condition and therefore God makes sure the saints Persevere.

No faith needed to be among the elect nor to stay saved.

 

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.

 

That would be "conditional election" where family status determines whether God "elects you to salvation". Not very good Calvinism for Spurgeon or Calvin.

 

God does not "cause" humans to sin - did not cause Adam to sin and does not cause parents to make their children sin.

Sin separates from God - the system goes into decay and breakdown. God does not cause criminals to be evil. Adam chose to "take away" that which enables obedience and freedom from slavery to sin -- this was not God's choice.

But God does choose to supernaturally "RE-ENABLE" that which Adam chose to DISABLE.

One could argue that God made intelligent life the way he did such that it begins to break down and decay "slavery to sin" when in rebellion against God.

 

Works of James Arminius, Vol. 1
Question 5

QUESTION AND.....QUESTION REVERSED

Can God now, in his own right, require faith from fallen man in Christ, which he cannot have of himself? But does God bestow on all and every one, to whom the Gospel is preached, sufficient grace by which they may believe, if they will?

Can God require that man to believe in Jesus Christ, for whom He has determined by an absolute decree that Christ should not die, and to whom by the same decree He has determined to refuse the grace necessary for believing?

ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION

The parts of this question are not opposed to each other; on the contrary, they are at the most perfect agreement. So that the latter clause may be considered the rendering of a reason, why God may require from fallen man faith in Christ, which he cannot have of himself. For God may require this, since he has determined to bestow on man sufficient grace by which he may believe. Perhaps, therefore, the question may be thus corrected: "Can God, now, in his own right, demand from fallen man faith in Christ, which he cannot have of himself, though God neither bestows on him, nor is ready to bestow, sufficient grace by which he may believe?" This question will be answered by a direct negative. God cannot by any right demand from fallen man faith in Christ, which he cannot have of himself, except God has either bestowed, or is ready to bestow, sufficient grace by which he may believe if he will. Nor do I perceive what is false in that reply, or to what heresy it has affinity. It has no alliance with the Pelagian heresy: for Pelagius maintained, that with the exception of the preaching of the Gospel, no internal grace is required to produce faith in the minds of men. But what is of more consequence, this reply is not opposed to St. Augustine’s doctrine of Predestination; "yet this doctrine of his, we do not account it necessary to establish," as Innocent, the Roman Pontiff, has observed.

Any thoughts?

 

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

 

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?