Featured Original Sin

Though what you say is true I really want to make a distinction. Catholics do not take original sin to the extent of Calvin's view of Total Depravity. So that there is no confusion Catholics hold that

This is an important distinction.

 

I understand. However, give the guy a break he was only 27 when he wrote the Institutes. How many 27 years olds do you know that have writen a disertation of a whole theological system? On the other hand he was that period's version of a nerd who is socially inept and not very good to get along with.

 

The Calvinist defines "Total Depravity" as Total Inability." I have already stated this. That means he is totally unable to come to God without any interference from God whatsoever. The Calvinists redefine what the Bible means as "dead" or spiritually separated from God. They think it means lifeless, as a corpse. It doesn't. It means separated from God. A man that is separated from God is still able to seek God. Adam communed with God after he was "dead."

God gave commands such as:
"The times of this ignorance God winked at, but now commands all men everywhere to repent." If God expects all men everywhere to repent it is evident that they must have the ability to seek God in order to repent.
He commanded:
"Seek ye the Lord while he yet may be found."
The unsaved are commanded to seek the Lord.
The unsaved are dead as in separated from God, not dead as a corpse so that they cannot seek God. That is where I differ. However they are still born with a sin nature, so that from their birth onward they do evil by nature. They are not innocent; never were innocent; are born with sin, and need a Savior.

Then you haven't read my posts.

I just did. Within the sovereign will of God, he gives man a "free" will to choose to do right and wrong. He did not make man robots. He does not force man to choose what he wants them to choose. He made man originally in his own image though that image has been marred. Man still has that choice to reject Christ or receive him. You have choices to do write or wrong. All has not been pre-determined although God in his omniscience knows the decisions that you will make.

Read my previous posts. I have already quoted the ECF. You have simply have not read them. I have clearly given my views in opposition to the Calvinist. I hope that satisfies, once and for all.

 

Guess that "In Adam, all have sinned, all have died" was inserted in there by ole Augustine, Eh?

 

No.
Romans 5:17 For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)

Romans 5:18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.

Romans 5:19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

The Bible taught long before Augustine did. Those teachings are clear right here. Because of Adam death reigned. By Adam all were made sinners. These two truths taught right here, are what you claim to be the inventions of Augustine. How can you be so blind to what the Scriptures teach?

 

remember that I am a calvinist as regarding salvation model, so was saying that tongue in cheek to response to the original poster stating Augustine "invented" this doctrine!

 

Sorry, misunderstood.

 

hey no problem!

really no need for cals and Non cals to be at blows, as we can disagree among oursleves, like siblings in the same family!

 

HP: Many comments need to be addressed, but this one caught my eye. I am sorry, but this comment shows the utter disrespect some have for the Word of God, twisting it at will to say what they desire to invent.

 

Romans 5:19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

What do you think this verse means?
I suppose the many are: HP, DHK, Biblicist and SBM, and that is all. All others are not sinners. This is the kind of exegesis you do?

A.T. Robertson's Word Pictures.

A Greek scholar, An Arminian, and a Calvinist all disagree with you HP.
Go and study your "heresy" some more.

 

HP: DHK eliminates free will and is obviously unable to comprehend the real ends of his own positions. When sin is attributes to a race apart from any choice of their own, as DHK clearly does as noted by his own words that men are born as sinners separated from God, the will of man has absolutely nothing to do with being the sinners they are. It makes a mockery out of Scripture that teaches that men are responsible for their sins and makes a mockery out of the justice of God, (justice being a word with understandable meanings) showing God blaming men for something they could not have avoided. Like it or not, and change the verbiage as one so desires, the same problems exist in the model DHK proposes as in the Calvinistic model.

 

HP: What I do is recognize that all and many are two distinctly different words with different meanings. "Many' is NOT a universal term, regardless of if the whole Church world thinks it is.

So salvation is universal?? Is that the kind of consistency you show in your interpretation of this passage? If not whty not? If 'many' means all universally in one place, you must of necessity use it in the same manner concerning those many made righteous in the other. And you have the audacity to chide me as to my exegesis? At least I can distinguish between a clearly limited 'many' and a universal 'all.' Neither do I just twist and write it as I feel I need to to support my position as you did.

 

HP: Your personal attack is duly noted.... and "your sources are not good enough." (to put it in your own words)

In reality there are some calling themselves a Calvinist, an Arminian and even some scholars that are deceived as to their own salvation, let alone some doctrinal position they take from this verse that is not stated or implied.

 

What would you like HP? For me to delete the one offensive word you don't like. I wasn't going to be that blunt except for your unwarranted statement:

You certainly are one to talk about personal attacks.

You have it wrong. All of those men of God agreed on salvation. Their theological positions on many things were different, but they all agreed on the gospel and salvation. They also all condemned the heresy of Pelagianism--a heresy in which you believe. I can say that HP because it is a heresy, a heresy that has been condemned throughout the centuries by orthodox Christianity.
The quotes I gave you should have helped you to see that Wesley and JFB are opposite ends of the spectrum here. JFB are Calvinists (two Presbyterians and one Church of England); Wesley founded the Methodists.
But they all condemned the position you hold.

 

classical arminianism?

 

So you would be really upset with Apostle paul , as Calvin himself frew upon the writings of Paul to get his theology from!

 

We hold that manking is indeed born into a state of being seperated by god, but THAT is caused by being spiritually ded in and of ourselves, unable.unwilling to come to god to restablish the spiritual relationship!

 

NOT IF you hold to man being unable to come to God by himself. as the Lord will either grant faith to His elect, and enable them to get saved, or else he would send to people grace enough to allow them to choose/reject Jesus...

IF you hold to man having faith in himself/apart from God, that is NOT the Gospel!