Original Sin vs. Calvinistic Total Depravity

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

I still have not read any explanation from DHK concerning the abilities he believes man has from birth that would be denied by original sin and or total moral depravity. Clear answers to these issues will indeed be helpful in understanding your position DHK.

 

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

 

Originally Posted by Heavenly Pilgrim


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

 

(PART 2)

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

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

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

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

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

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