Original Sin vs. Calvinistic Total Depravity

HP: It should be evident to the listener that the main distinction between believer concerning the dogma of original sin lies in whether or not it constitutes guilt or not. The Calvinist would take the position that there is associated guilt, while the Arminian would deny any guilt directly associated with original sin. I would believe that for one to maintain that it does not constitute guilt but is the necessitated impetus from which all sin derives it’s guilt, is simply inconsistent. If guilt is necessitated by original sin, what real distinction is there in that and saying that original sin imputes guilt? If original sin is the ‘cause’ of sin and associated guilt, the proper place of blame, hence all guilt, in fact does lie irrevocably upon that inherited sin.

It would seem to me, that the only real distinction between those that claim to believe in original sin yet not direct associated guilt, and those that believe in original sin and as such inherit guilt, is that the latter is at least logically consistent with his premise while the former is not only inconsistent but is in denial of the true logical implications of his stated beliefs.

DHK has stated that he believes in original sin and yet does not hold to total depravity as the Calvinist affirms. I would ask DHK if in fact he would be so kind as to set forth his stated differences on this thread designed to do so, so we can fairly examine the logical implications of his stated differences. All others are certainly invited and encouraged to share their thoughts and ideas on this topic as well.

 

HP: I see no logical distinction between the two ideas in any camp that adheres to original sin. Again, what I hear many doing is trying to make ‘guilt’ the issue between them, but I find that when they try and disconnect guilt from total depravity or original sin, they simply just become inconsistent with the logical connection that of necessity exists between the ‘cause’ of sin and any and all guilt. Whatever is the cause of sin is the only proper seat of sin thus the proper seat of any and all guilt. It makes no sense whatsoever to say, original sin is the cause or reason why all sin, yet try and disassociate guilt from original sin. If original sin is the cause, original sin of necessity induces guilt.


When I use the words 'total depravity,' I am referring to a state in which all men find themselves having sinned. Sin is a contagion in this sense. When one starts down the path of sin, it will of necessity grow and fester, becoming worse over time. We have all heard the statement that sin will take us farther that we want to go, cost us more than we are willing to pay, and keep us longer than we desire to stay.

All men have sinned, and as such are in a state of total moral depravity antecedent to salvation. As you well know, I do not believe that it is that we are born morally depraved, but rather as Scripture states, we have all as sheep have ‘gone astray’ and have turned everyone to his own way. We are born with a natural proclivity to sin, or a natural tendency to sin via the influences of the sensibilities, but that in and of itself is again not sin. Sin is conceived and guilt is induced only as the will yields itself in voluntary agreement to the influences of selfishness as opposed to benevolence as the Apostle James makes clear.

Please be patient with me as I will try my best to be with all who respond. We are in the process of trying to find ways of placing in writing ideas and concepts not frequently the source of discussion, but lie at the very root of almost every thread I read. It will do us all good to try our best to achieve a better understanding of the others views, especially in this area. It is upon ideas such as we are addressing that every theology finds its foundational principles. To avoid or fail to comprehend these issues correctly will affect almost every other idea that one will develop in their theology. This topic is crucial and as such cannot be avoided if we honestly have truth as our objective.

 

HP: I believe you are indeed correct in that assumption.:thumbs:

HP: An excellent point indeed. :thumbs: We must be able to distinguish clearly between a temptation to sin via the corrupt physical propensities we are born with as a result of the fall, and sin itself. You do a great job in making that distinction clear.

 

HP: I believe you are indeed correct in that assumption.

HP: An excellent point indeed. We must distinguish clearly between a temptation to sin via the corrupt physical propensities we are born with as a result of the fall, and sin itself. You do a great job in making that distinction clear.

Cowboy Matt, can you understand why I do not buy into the notion that the Arminians (and some leaning hard towards Calvinism) try an induce into the idea of original sin, in that they, as I point out in the OP, try and disassociate guilt from original sin? Can you see their inconsistency? Can you see the necessitated connection between whatever is the ‘cause’ of sin and any and all associated guilt? Can you see that whatever it is that sustains to the sin the relationship of a cause is indeed the only rightful seat of any and all guilt?

 

HP: Would it not be better to say that sin did not exist 'as far as man is concerned' until man fell? Sin certainly existed prior to the fall, just not in man. It is evident that the sin that existed prior to the fall indeed had a horrendous effect upon sinless man, yet even that sin was NOT the 'cause' of mans sin nor could it have been.

 

HP: The sin existed as a result of Satan's sin and the angels that fell with him. Satan then wielded his sinful influence upon the first pair according to Scripture by the way.

 

DHK, how can we rectify and harmonize the facts I presented that are stated in Scripture with the passage you set forth that is indeed in Scripture as well?

 

HP: Whatever you believe about Lucifer and Satan does not negate that fact that sin was at work in this world prior to the fall of man working through the serpent influencing the first pair to sin. That certainly was no good or heavenly influence. It was an evil sinister influence from Satan himself. Where else could it have had its origins?

 

HP: You are absolutely correct. :thumbs: Man could have refused the temptation from Satan but he did not. The evil, the sin, and all associated guilt on the part of man came as a direct result of the willful intention and formation of their intents to disobey a known commandment of God. Such is the case with any and all sin. If it is sin, and carries with it associated guilt, it cannot have it’s ‘cause’ in any other thing than ones own willful and intentional formation of an intent of selfishness as opposed to benevolence. If anything else can be shown as the ‘cause’ other than ones own will, whatever is the cause is the only rightful seat of sin and any and all associated guilt or blame.