Open Theism Discussion Board
  HomeLog InRegisterSearch the ForumHelp
   
Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > (No Subject)
 
Forum Quick Jump
 
New Topic Post Reply Printable Version
[ << Previous Thread | Next Thread >> | Show Newest Post First ]

rossfadeinout
Registered Member




Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 428
 
   Posted 3/16/2005 3:02 PM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
Hey all,
 
I am having a theological e-mail debate with several of my friends from college, and all of them are Calvinist. 4 of them are students at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, and are very influenced by Mohler, Bruce Ware, and all the other Calvinists there. They're pretty sharp, so I want to be thorough and biblically backed in all my responses. We have all agreed that a good point to help our discussion along will be our doctrine of man. Let me quote a part of the latest e-mail.
 
Calvinist said...
it appears to me now, that questions and answers might facilitate a healthy discussion better than anything.  so i'll just ask a few questions, and take your time answering them, since what's a few more months to my wait?
be sure to include scriptural references with your answers, as this is obviously a biblically-based discussion, right?
  1)when adam and eve sinned, did sin enter humanity/"the whole wide world"?
  2)did we ALL sin in adam?
  3)was death a direct result of sin?
  4)do we ALL stand condemned b/c of ONE sin by ONE man?
  5)is the mind set on either the flesh or spirit?
if so,
  6)can a man whose mind is set on the flesh obey the law?
  7) can a man whose mind is set on the flesh please God?
  8) can a man whose mind is set on the flesh "quicken himself" from depravity? (make alive)
This series of questions really hits at the heart of the scriptural view of human depravity. I brought up this point a while back on the old board, and alot of folks had good ideas to add, but I can't find the links. Coming up with a biblical view of human depravity is the most difficult aspect of my reconciling the biblical account of man's free will.
 
So I would like to hear anyone's responses to one or more of these questions, with some scriptural references. I have my own answers to give, but I would like to hear other free will Theist's take on this.
 
Thanks,
Ross


"Let us remember how common the folly is of going from one faulty extreme into the opposite." -Thomas Reid

Back to Top
 

JEE
Registered Member


Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
 
   Posted 3/17/2005 12:11 AM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
Hi Ross,
 
I will have more time this weekend to give scriptural references for my answers to these excellent questions, but just quickly, my answers would be: 
 
 1)when adam and eve sinned, did sin enter humanity/"the whole wide world"?
 
Yes. Romans 5.

  2)did we ALL sin in adam?
 
No. That idea is the product of Augustine's inventive mind.

  3)was death a direct result of sin?
 
Depends on what kind of death you're talking about.

  4)do we ALL stand condemned b/c of ONE sin by ONE man?
 
No. That idea is the product of Augustine's inventive mind.

  5)is the mind set on either the flesh or spirit?
 
Yes. Romans 8:1-14 reveals this clearly.

if so,
  6)can a man whose mind is set on the flesh obey the law?
 
He could if he would surrender to the wooing of the Holy Spirit upon his conscience, but because he is not willing, he can't obey the law.

  7) can a man whose mind is set on the flesh please God?
 
No, according to Romans 8:1-14.

  8) can a man whose mind is set on the flesh "quicken himself" from depravity? (make alive)
No, and neither Arminianism nor Open Theism nor even Pelagianism for that matter assert such to be the case.
 
PS Ross ol' buddy: If these friends of yours are enrolled in SBTS, then they have a very powerful reason for being Calvinists. No one BUT a Calvinist is allowed to teach theology there. I would be quite surprised indeed if any Arminians or Open Theists graduated from SBTS in the near future. 
 
My 2c


May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit.


JohnE


http://revivaltheology.net

Back to Top
 

rossfadeinout
Registered Member




Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 428
 
   Posted 3/17/2005 2:44 PM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
John, thanks for the quick response! i would really love to have some more feedback from you as far as scriptural passages.
 
And you're right, these guys are hard core 5-pointers icon_smile_tongue I am not arguing to try to sway them to my position, but to show that a person can be biblically based and still an Arminian.
I know there are others out there who would love to help me out here cheers
 
Ross
 
PS, I'm not arguing from an Open View position, but from a more broad Arminian position. If I told them I was OV they wouldn't even talk to me.
 
 


"Let us remember how common the folly is of going from one faulty extreme into the opposite." -Thomas Reid

Back to Top
 

rossfadeinout
Registered Member




Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 428
 
   Posted 3/21/2005 5:03 PM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.

 

Hey John, and all you other free-will Theists out there.... Are you all just tired of debating Calvinists? I would still like to hear some scriptural interaction with the Calvinistic doctrine of Total Depravity inherited from Adam.

John said...
4)do we ALL stand condemned b/c of ONE sin by ONE man?
 
No. That idea is the product of Augustine's inventive mind.
I'm in agreement with you there. But what do you make of Romans 5 where Pauls says "18So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men...." (NASB)
 
(I know that I'm not giving the full context, but I would love to hear some good exegesis of this passage)
 
Thanks! Ross
 
 


"Let us remember how common the folly is of going from one faulty extreme into the opposite." -Thomas Reid

Back to Top
 

JEE
Registered Member


Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
 
   Posted 3/21/2005 11:28 PM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.

Hi Ross,

Yes, I am quite tired of debating Calvinists. In fact, I'm quite tired of debating anything at all. All I seem to get is called "negative" and "critical" for trying to use my God-given mind for His glory.

I find the NET Bible footnote on this verse helpful:

29tn There are no verbs in the Greek text of v. 18, forcing translators to supply phrases like “came through one transgression,” “resulted from one transgression,” etc.

I also like how they translate the verse in question:

5:18 Consequently, just as condemnation for all people came through one transgression, so too through the one righteous act came righteousness leading to life for all people. 5:19 For just as through the disobedience of the one man many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of one man many will be made righteous.

 

In any case, the Calvinist is in a bit of a pickle if he takes this verse to imply that everyone was condemned in Adam, for the verse just as plainly teaches that ALL are made righteous in Christ (universalism), if interpreted in an Augustinian sense.

Blessings,

 

John


May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit.


JohnE


http://revivaltheology.net

Back to Top
 

JEE
Registered Member


Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
 
   Posted 3/23/2005 2:44 AM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
Hey Ross,
 
Just today a friend of mine sent me the following link: http://eeminc.org/Articles/Origsin.html
 
It is a condensed version of a book written in the 1890s by a Rev. E.W. Cook.
 
MORAL EVIL IN ITS ORIGIN AND CIIARACTERISTICS
 
Rev. E. W. Cook, A. M.,
 
In this book, the author has some exegetical comments (which I have cut and pasted below) on Rom. 5:12-19 that you may find interesting.
 
Blessings,
 
John

EXEGESIS OF ROMANS V 12-19

The only argument of any weight for making the death spoken of in this passage include spiritual as well as temporal death, is that it stands in contrast with the word life in v.17; and as the latter evidently means spiritual and eternal life, therefore, the former must mean spiritual and eternal death. Answer:

This assumes that Paul, in comparing the respective works of Adam and of Christ, is intending to make a formal comparison -- to run a careful and exact parallel between the two, so that what is said of the work of the one shall find an exact counterpart in the work of the other. But this assumption is utterly without foundation.

Now, let a view be taken diametrically the opposite of this. Let it be assumed with equal, and even superior, probability that the mind of the apostle in its rapid and intense workings discerning a certain correspondence between the works of Adam and of Christ, so that one might properly b considered in some respects a type (tupos) of the other, is catching merely at those points of comparison in which the two illustrate each other more or less perfectly, with no thought of an exact correspondence - a rigid and formal comparison - and the entire argument falls to the ground. Certainly this is his manner of writing elsewhere. Witness the corresponding passage in 1 Cor. xv: 45-49- the only other passage in which Adam and Christ are compared.

The first Adam was made "a living soul," the last Adam was "a quickening spirit."

The first was "natural," the last "spiritual."

The first was "earthly," the last "heavenly."

Those who are earthly are like Adam; those who are heavenly are like Christ.

Now, to assume that the apostle was running a careful and exact parallel between the works of Adam and of Christ in this passage would be absurd. For example, assume that the expression "a living soul" was intended precisely to correspond with "a quickening spirit," and then undertake to ascertain the exact meaning of the' one from the other, and the absurdity becomes apparent. No, in both passages the apostle is evidently catching only at points of resemblance more or less obvious, and thus the word death in Rom. v need not be pressed to an exact fullness of meaning with the word life, and allows, at least, of limitation to temporal death.

  • Verse 19 -- 'were made sinners."

    This verse, as it stands in our translation, teaches Universalism out and out; for the unqualified statement is that as all "were made sinners" 'by Adam, so all shall be made righteous by Christ; and if "were made" really means what the words imply, that all men actually become simpers through Adam, then all men must actually become righteous through Christ, and Universalism is the logical result.

    Now, the word translated "were made" occurs in the New Testament twenty-one times. In all the other places where Paul uses it it means to ordain or appoint as a ruler, conductor, overseer, judge, eider, or priest; but in no other one of them does it mean "were made," as here translated. And in neither of the other three places where it is used by other New Testament writers does it necessarily need the translation "were made.," The exact meaning of the word is to put, place, or lay down-that is, to put in a position; and the meaning of the statement in v.19, which seems the most natural, is this -- That as all are made subject to temporal death for Adam's sin, and are so far put in the position of sinners for his sake, so by the obedience of Christ, all are put in the position of the righteous so far as to receive with them the benefits of Christ’s redemption -- the offer of pardon and the blessings of probation.

    A condensed summary of the entire passage is as follows:

    First -- The apostle says (v.12) that by one man sin entered into the world, and death entered by it, and so' death passed upon all men - that is, the condemning sentence of temporal death was passed upon the entire race for Adam's sin. "In Adam all die." (1 Cor. xv:22). "By one man's offense death reigned" -- that is, the mortality which Adam in -- cursed by sinning was transmitted, by God's. arrangement, to the entire race.

    In other words, God determined that Adam, inasmuch as he had become mortal by sinning, should beget only mortal descendants. Hence the statement, "As in Adam all die." (1 Cor. xv:22.)

    Secondly-He represents the work of Christ as equaling, and even in some respects surpassing, in its effects the results of Adam's sin. For example -

    V.15. By one, death comes to all; by One grace abounds to all.

    V.16. The judgment - the condemning sentence of temporal death -- follows "one" offense; the "free gift" follows "many."

    V.17. By one sinner, and he a mere man, death temporal reigns; much more by the Infinite Savior, the elect shall reign in life eternal.

    V.18. By "one offense" (Greek) all come under a condemning sentence of temporal death; by "one righteousness" (Greek) all come under a provision designed and adapted for justification unto life.

    V.19. As, therefore, by the disobedience of one all are put in the position of "sinners" (by thus suffering temporal death for his sin), so, by the obedience of One, all are put in the position of the "righteous" (by the blessings they enjoy in common with them).

    V.20. This verse should be especially noticed in its bearings on the doctrine of hereditary depravity. In v.12 sin entered (eiselthe) and death entered by it. Now, v.20, the law (pareiselthen) entered in addition, so that (as a consequence) the fall (paraptoma) "abounded" - filled up, extended, filled up the world; but grace met even this additional exigency, so that even where "sin abounded grace super-abounded."

    [NOTE-If we are to believe that the fall extended beyond Adam-"abounded"-embraced the race for the reason that his descendants were connected with him, then here in this 20th verse, if anywhere, we should expect that doctrine would be stated. But this verse says nothing about it, and only mentions, as the occasion of this universal sinfulness, that the law came in-either natural or revealed, or both -- implying that men now become sinners just as Adam did, by an intelligent transgression of it; no allusion being made directly or indirectly to him as the occasion of this universal sinfulness.]

    V.21. That as sin hath reigned in or with death temporal (en to thanato) meaning, perhaps, in connection with it -- attended by it -- and commensurate in extent with it, so might grace reign through righteousness unto life eternal -- that is, sin reigns unto death temporal, while grace reigns unto life eternal. Thus the apostle shows that, at every point, the system of Grace through Christ had transcended in blessings to mankind the entire train of evils that had come upon the race from the sin of Adam.

  •  
     
     


    May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit.


    JohnE


    http://revivaltheology.net

    Back to Top
     

    Violin for God
    Luke, I am your father. --Nooooooooo!!!!!




    Date Joined Dec 2004
    Total Posts : 690
     
       Posted 3/23/2005 1:49 PM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.

    Hey Ross, hope I'm not too late in adding to this thread, but here's my 2c for one of the questions:

      2)did we ALL sin in adam?

    I was looking up Romans 5 that relates to #1, but there’s a question I came across related to this question (ALL sin in adam).  Rom 5:12 says this:“Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death came through sin, and so death spread to all because all have sinned”. 

     

    Here’s my question: The “all have sinned” part… wouldn’t this “all” include Jesus? (Of course I don’t believe that, but I’d like to reconcile this passage somehow) There are plenty of other passages that make it clear that Jesus was without sin (2 Cor 5:21, 1 Peter 2:22, 1 John 3:5, etc.)

     

    I was about to answer this #2 question with a “no, because Jesus did not sin in Adam; he was spotless.”  Therefore ALL did not sin in Adam.  Sin entered the world because of Adam, but we didn’t sin through Adam.  But, how do we reconcile the “all have sinned” part without adding a side note: “all (except for Jesus) have sinned”?  If we do that, that opens a lot of other problems with other passages (example: John 1:3 with Jehovahs Witnesses.  They say “All things (except for Jesus) came into being through him…” (as we know, they believe Jesus was a created angel who did some creatin' himself)

    Any thoughts?confused   (Hope I'm not diverting this thread to another topic than what was originally intended. hijacked )


     

    Post Edited (Violin for God) : 3/23/2005 12:53:32 PM (GMT-6)

    Back to Top
     

    Laika
    Registered Member




    Date Joined Mar 2003
    Total Posts : 2433
     
       Posted 3/24/2005 1:26 PM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
    Violin for God said...

    Hey Ross, hope I'm not too late in adding to this thread, but here's my 2c for one of the questions:

      2)did we ALL sin in adam?

    I was looking up Romans 5 that relates to #1, but there’s a question I came across related to this question (ALL sin in adam).  Rom 5:12 says this:“Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death came through sin, and so death spread to all because all have sinned”. 

     

    The Latin Vulgate incorrectly added "in him" at the end of Romans 5:12 so it read "....spread to all because all sinned in him".
     
    The "him" being Adam.  Bad translation --> bad doctrine.
     
    hmmm 
     
    You brought up a good point, Violin.  Either
     
    Jesus became a man like us and was a sinner simply by being born OR
     
    Jesus didn't become a man like us OR
     
    Jesus became a man just like us and NO ONE is a sinner simply by being born.  They are sinners because they "have sinned".
     


    Post Edited (Laika) : 3/24/2005 4:51:52 PM (GMT-6)

    Back to Top
     

    D.R.
    Registered Member


    Date Joined Mar 2005
    Total Posts : 13
     
       Posted 3/25/2005 12:39 AM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
    Ross,

    One comment you made seemed to hit at the heart of the issue. You said,

    "Coming up with a biblical view of human depravity is the most difficult aspect of my reconciling the biblical account of man's free will."

    This is what I most often hear when I debate Arminianism -- how does free will square with the Bible's account of God's sovereignty and human depravity? And I think you have to ask yourself if your concept of free will can bunk any Biblical evidence these Calvinists can throw at you and why you think it possibly could. You see I think the problem for most people in accepting Calvinism is that dang ole freewill thing. That was one of the biggest obstacles for the Openness guys (just ask Clark Pinnock). How can man be responsible? How can man truely have a choice? How can God be loving? All these questions are secondary really though. You see they start from the conclusion that there is free will and that it is defined the way they see it. I am sorry, but that is a presupposition. Just because God says "Choose" or because says, "Act" or "Believe" or "Do" or a thousand other things that He commands us to do does not mean that we can in fact perform them without the grace of God effecting that. And in order to really understand these guys you are going to have to throw that out concept out of your head and look only at the Biblical evidence. After all, if they are right, then your philosophy, your discernment, your ability to reason, are all tainted by sin and the only way to measure anything is by going into the scripture as stipped bare of your presuppositions as you can. So stop trying to look for zinger arguments to win and just take the Bible in your head and read until it is in your heart. That may sound simplistic, but isn't that what the Bereans did when Paul challenged them?

    D.R.
    Back to Top
     

    rossfadeinout
    Registered Member




    Date Joined Oct 2002
    Total Posts : 428
     
       Posted 3/25/2005 2:53 PM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.

    Hey DR,

    Thanks for the response, but I think that you misread what I was trying to say. I believe that scripture teaches that man has the freedom to either accept or reject God's gracious offer of salvation. And my own personal experience affirms this. So I don't think that I have come to the scripture with a presupposition, but have clearly seen from scripture that God's universal salvific will can be rejected.

    DR said...After all, if they are right, then your philosophy, your discernment, your ability to reason, are all tainted by sin and the only way to measure anything is by going into the scripture as stipped bare of your presuppositions as you can.
    Isn't what you are saying here self-refuting? If we are totally depraved and our "discernment and ability to reason are tainted by sin", how can we understand what we read when we go to scripture? How do we know that we are stripped bare of our presuppositions if we can't discern or use reason?
     
    Confused,
    Ross


    "Let us remember how common the folly is of going from one faulty extreme into the opposite." -Thomas Reid

    Back to Top
     

    Laika
    Registered Member




    Date Joined Mar 2003
    Total Posts : 2433
     
       Posted 3/25/2005 3:25 PM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
    rossfadeinout said...
    DR said...After all, if they are right, then your philosophy, your discernment, your ability to reason, are all tainted by sin and the only way to measure anything is by going into the scripture as stipped bare of your presuppositions as you can.
    Isn't what you are saying here self-refuting? If we are totally depraved and our "discernment and ability to reason are tainted by sin", how can we understand what we read when we go to scripture? How do we know that we are stripped bare of our presuppositions if we can't discern or use reason?
     
    Confused,
    Ross

    Plus, can you trust someone, who claims to be totally depraved, when they say all are totally depraved?

    It's Paul's Cretan liar dilemma, "if a Cretan tells you all Cretans are liars, can you believe him?"

    rotfl 

    If DR is right, that all are totally depraved, then DR, being totally depraved, is lying about all being totally depraved.  If DR is wrong, then all aren't totally depraved. 

     


    Post Edited (Laika) : 3/25/2005 2:29:16 PM (GMT-6)

    Back to Top
     

    D.R.
    Registered Member


    Date Joined Mar 2005
    Total Posts : 13
     
       Posted 3/25/2005 5:21 PM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
    Ross,
     
    I didn't misread you, but I may not have explained myself well.  Basically, I was noting that you were asking for help in proving something you already believed to be true.  That is why I said you had a presupposition.  You apparently don't feel you have enough "proof" to argue against your friends.  So my question is how can you argue a position that you cannot prove beyond even your own mind's peace?  It seems to me that you are trying to prove a position you cannot even prove to yourself.  I mean, why are you even debating with these guys?  You acknowledged that you aren't going to change them and that you just want to show that you can be Biblical and hold to an Arminian position.  The problem is that you don't seem to be able to prove beyond your OWN shadow of doubt that this true.  That is why you are here.  My suggestion is that you are going to have to drop your presuppositions in order to really converse with these guys.  You already believe what you want to.  They have to prove to you that you are wrong.  If they cannot, stay where you are.  If you continue to have this much conflict in trying to prove your own position, then begin to try to prove their position and if you can do that better, accept it. 
     
    I guess that I am a bit biased on this because that is how I came to my conclusions.  I read the arguments and then went to the Bible.  I tried really hard to empty myself of my own presuppositions and then assumed the opposite position.  With the Holy Spirit's aid, I realized that I was less conflicted, had more peace, and scripture became more clear and cohesive when I went that way.  I stuck with it and eventually accepted my new position.  It wasn't an all at once thing, it was a continual stuggle, but as I threw out my preconceived notions, I became clear that all my views hinged on a few presuppositions.  I still struggle with it, and that is why I am here -- to make sure that it stay cohesive and consistant.  I have tried not to get too comfortable.  But what I have found is that the struggle makes me think more and be more creative in my thinking.  God always seems to give me peace in the midst of it in some way as well. 
     
    So I guess, all in all I am saying watch your motives and give the other side a chance, but stay cautious and always questioning seeking after the peace that only the Holy Spirit can bring in the midst of all of this.
     
    As for Laika, I believe you have wrong view of Total Depravity.  It does not mean that we can only sin (or lie as you irrationally jumped to).  It means that every aspect of our lives is tainted with sin PRIOR to salvation.  Once saved, we can then do good BY THE POWER OF THE SPIRIT.  That does not mean we still don't sin, but it means that we do not have to.  We can live in the Spirit and cease from sinning (not totally, mind you), but in such a way that we are continuing to renew our minds until we are perfected (which only comes in heaven), which resembles those stupid geometry graphs that we did in high school in which the line can continue to grow closer to 0, but can never touch it.  Hence, as a Christian I am no longer totally depraved, yet I still struggle with the old man who left his residue in my heart.  Thank God that He is cleaning that residue out slowly, yet continually.  And your silogism is incorrect because total depravity and lying are not the same thing.  Hence, you affirmed being totally depraved, I had to lie, without proving that lying was a necessary action of those who are depraved.  After all even Hitler told the truth ever once in a while.  Satan is the only one who cannot experience the common grace of God in order to not lie.
     
    Soli Deo Gloria,
    D.R.
    Back to Top
     

    Alan Rhoda
    Registered Member




    Date Joined May 2002
    Total Posts : 680
     
       Posted 3/25/2005 5:34 PM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
    Laika said...
    If DR is right, that all are totally depraved, then DR, being totally depraved, is lying about all being totally depraved.  If DR is wrong, then all aren't totally depraved.
    I'm not sure that follows, Laika. At least some Calvinists seem to want to say that total depravity does not imply that we are as bad as we can be, or that we lie every time we speak. In their view it only implies that every aspect of our being is at all times and in some way negatively impacted by sin. Understood in that sense, everyone's being totally depravity would not imply that DR is lying when he says that all are totally depraved.
     
    On the other hand, there are some Calvinist who really do maintain that total depravity means that "man is just as bad as he can be" (e.g., http://www.prca.org/fivepoints/chapter1.html). Your argument would seem to work against them, though I suppose that they might respond by limiting the claim to the unregenerate. Thus, "the unregenerate man is just as bad as can be", whereas the regenerate man, through the sanctifying grace of God, is no longer quite so bad. Given that the Calvinist takes himself to be one of the regenerate, this move seems to avoid the immediate paradox. Nevertheless, it seems to imply the highly implausible idea that all unregenerate persons lie all the time. If that is so, and given the fact that only God has infallible knowledge of who is regenerate and who is not, it would seem problematic for us to know who to trust. Could we have any assurance that anyone else was truly regenerate and therefore trustworthy, as opposed to unregenerate and therefore untrustworthy? If someone told us that they were a Christian and appeared to live accordingly, should we conclude that they probably are or that they are probably just lying and doing a depraved thing by pretending to be a Christian?
     
    There may be some other ways around the problem, but prima facie there does look to be a difficulty here for the Calvinist who takes totally depravity to mean that "man is just as bad as he can be".
    Ross said...
    If we are totally depraved and our "discernment and ability to reason are tainted by sin", how can we understand what we read when we go to scripture? How do we know that we are stripped bare of our presuppositions if we can't discern or use reason?
    Ross raises a good point here, one that is analogous in all essential respects to Plantinga's evolutionary argument against naturalism. The question raised here arises for even the modest construal of total depravity as the view that every aspect of human nature is always negatively affected by sin. I'm not convinced that this is knock-down argument, or that total depravity so understood is a self-refuting idea. But it does at least look to be somewhat self-stultifying or self-undermining.
     
    For my part, I think every aspect of our being is negatively affected by sin some of the time, and I think that at least some aspects of our being are negatively affected by sin at any given time, but I don't think that every aspect of our being is negatively affected all of the time. Biblical passages that seem to suggest otherwise I take as hyperbolic.
     
    Happy Resurrection Day!
     
    Alan
    Back to Top
     

    JEE
    Registered Member


    Date Joined Jul 2004
    Total Posts : 1466
     
       Posted 3/26/2005 1:55 PM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
     
     
    For a different perspective on total depravity, see Charles Finney's Systematic Theology lectures on the subject. He affirms that moral depravity is total, while carefully distinguishing between physical depravity and moral depravity.
     

     

     

     


    May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit.


    JohnE


    http://revivaltheology.net

    Back to Top
     
    New Topic Post Reply Printable Version
       
    Forum Information
    Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 1:21 PM (GMT -6)
    There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
    In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads