History 101- Augustines heresy of original sin, original guilt

[praise_yeshua]

On Total Depravity

1st. It does not consist in any want of faculties to obey God. We have all the powers of moral agency, that are needed to render perfect obedience to God. If there were any want of faculties, in our nature, our responsibility would cease; and we could not be justly blamed, for not doing that, for the performance of which, we do not possess the appropriate moral powers.

2dly. Total depravity does not consist, in a mutilated state of our moral powers. Neither our powers of body, or mind, are in a maimed, or mutilated state. If they were so, our obligation to obedience, would be diminished, precisely in proportion to the imperfection of the faculties of moral agency, which we possess.

So, if you believe Finney, that leads to my question. If everyone since Adam is born without a sin nature, and We have all the powers of moral agency, that are needed to render perfect obedience to God, then surely someone should have made it through their entire life without sinning. It would be statistically impossible to think otherwise. What need would he/she have of Christ?

I don't believe Finney. I don't base what I believe on anything but the Scriptures and reason. I spoke of Finney because I know what he said and what he taught. That is why I asked you to quote him. Finney was a good man. Morally superior in many ways to the Calvinists of his time. Just like today, he was greatly misunderstood. He embraced emotionalism more than most any Calvinist in history. He believed that man could "feel God". In this, I agree with him, but not because he said anything about it. I believe it because of personal experience, the Scriptures and reason.

Men sin because they are taught to sin. I taught my children to sin and didn't even realize it. You did too. Everyone does. The capability to sin doesn't = "sin nature"....

Innocence is what mankind's children were/are until they were taught differently.

 

[civic]

On Total Depravity

1st. It does not consist in any want of faculties to obey God. We have all the powers of moral agency, that are needed to render perfect obedience to God. If there were any want of faculties, in our nature, our responsibility would cease; and we could not be justly blamed, for not doing that, for the performance of which, we do not possess the appropriate moral powers.

2dly. Total depravity does not consist, in a mutilated state of our moral powers. Neither our powers of body, or mind, are in a maimed, or mutilated state. If they were so, our obligation to obedience, would be diminished, precisely in proportion to the imperfection of the faculties of moral agency, which we possess.

So, if you believe Finney, that leads to my question. If everyone since Adam is born without a sin nature, and We have all the powers of moral agency, that are needed to render perfect obedience to God, then surely someone should have made it through their entire life without sinning. It would be statistically impossible to think otherwise. What need would he/she have of Christ?

Fallacy if Adam couldn’t do it why would you thin anyone else could ?

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

I don't believe Finney. I don't base what I believe on anything but the Scriptures and reason. I spoke of Finney because I know what he said and what he taught. That is why I asked you to quote him. Finney was a good man. Morally superior in many ways to the Calvinists of his time. Just like today, he was greatly misunderstood. He embraced emotionalism more than most any Calvinist in history. He believed that man could "feel God". In this, I agree with him, but not because he said anything about it. I believe it because of personal experience, the Scriptures and reason.

Men sin because they are taught to sin. I taught my children to sin and didn't even realize it. You did too. Everyone does. The capability to sin doesn't = "sin nature"....

Innocence is what mankind's children were/are until they were taught differently.

You called Finney a Calvinist. His views are very anti-Calvinist.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

Fallacy if Adam couldn’t do it why would you thin anyone else could ?

If we are not born with a sin nature, and (as Finney said), we have all the powers of moral agency, that are needed to render perfect obedience to God, then my question is perfectly valid.

But I didn't expect anyone to answer it, at least not honestly.

 

[civic]

If we are not born with a sin nature, and (as Finney said), we have all the powers of moral agency, that are needed to render perfect obedience to God, then my question is perfectly valid.

But I didn't expect anyone to answer it, at least not honestly.

I’m not talking about finney but Adam

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

I’m not talking about finney but Adam

Deflection. You are assuming Adam had all the powers of moral agency, that are needed to render perfect obedience to God but sinned. So, what? If it's true that we are born like Adam, and have all the powers of moral agency, that are needed to render perfect obedience to God, then my question is still perfectly valid.

 

[praise_yeshua]

You called Finney a Calvinist. His views are very anti-Calvinist.

Not so much. Take time to get to know him. Look at his life and what he did and said.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Deflection. You are assuming Adam had all the powers of moral agency, that are needed to render perfect obedience to God but sinned. So, what? If it's true that we are born like Adam, and have all the powers of moral agency, that are needed to render perfect obedience to God, then my question is still perfectly valid.

Abel? Did you forget Abel?

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

Abel? Did you forget Abel?

What about Abel? Do you have supernatural evidence that he never sinned, and therefore had no need of Christ?

 

[praise_yeshua]

What about Abel? Do you have supernatural evidence that he never sinned, and therefore had no need of Christ?

Need for Christ is different. Why are you conflating? You are assuming your premise. Not trying to establish it.

Abel pleased God. That is clear and part of the comments you made.

 

[praise_yeshua]

What about Abel? Do you have supernatural evidence that he never sinned, and therefore had no need of Christ?

To be clear, you're assuming Christ had to die for sin. He didn't. Necessity is entirely different than willingness.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

Need for Christ is different. Why are you conflating? You are assuming your premise. Not trying to establish it.

Abel pleased God. That is clear and part of the comments you made.

Ah, okay, so you're saying Abel didn't need Christ to be written in the book of life. Thanks for that. I guess that means Jesus meant, "Nobody comes to the Father except through me, except for Abel."

 

[TomL]

Wrong. "Finney departed strongly from traditional Calvinist theology. In the field of soteriology, he denied the doctrine of total depravity, implying humans can please God without the intervention of his grace."

Um the entire pre Augustine church denied the Calvinist view of total inability

 

[praise_yeshua]

Ah, okay, so you're saying Abel didn't need Christ to be written in the book of life. Thanks for that. I guess that means Jesus meant, "Nobody comes to the Father except through me, except for Abel."

No. That isn't what I said. That is your false characterization.

Back up a little and establish that Christ had to die for sin. Your theology makes Christ a slave to sin. A servant of sin. Christ served humanity. Not sin.

So go for it. Establish that sin was exclusively the reason that Christ died. Go for it. I'll wait.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Um the entire pre Augustine church denied the Calvinist view of total inability

Near thee.... even in thy mouth.....

"At the tip of your lips....."

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

No. That isn't what I said. That is your false characterization.

Back up a little and establish that Christ had to die for sin. Your theology makes Christ a slave to sin. A servant of sin. Christ served humanity. Not sin.

So go for it. Establish that sin was exclusively the reason that Christ died. Go for it. I'll wait.

First you claim to be an expert on Finney but don't know what Finney said, and now this? What books are you reading? Certainly not the Bible.

1 Peter 2:24 “He himself bore our sins” in his body on the cross, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; “by his wounds you have been healed.”

2 Corinthians 5:21 God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

 

[civic]

Um the entire pre Augustine church denied the Calvinist view of total inability

Exactly !

 

[civic]

First you claim to be an expert on Finney but don't know what Finney said, and now this? What books are you reading? Certainly not the Bible.

1 Peter 2:24 “He himself bore our sins” in his body on the cross, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; “by his wounds you have been healed.”

2 Corinthians 5:21 God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

Awesome verses no one I kn ow of on this forum denies them. Thanks for posting those.

 

[praise_yeshua]

First you claim to be an expert on Finney but don't know what Finney said, and now this? What books are you reading? Certainly not the Bible.

1 Peter 2:24 “He himself bore our sins” in his body on the cross, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; “by his wounds you have been healed.”

2 Corinthians 5:21 God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

I told you to quote Finney. Not what others said about Finney. It was a clear statement. Not sure why you're attacking something I didn't say.

I certainly believe the verses you posted above. However, these verses do not establish the necessity for the death of Christ. Christ could have abandoned mankind all together. Christ didn't die for angelic sinners.

Again. You're insisting that Christ die for your sin. You are making Christ the servant of sin. He wasn't. The verses you referenced above are self serving the way you insist upon applying them..

isn't is special that you believe Christ only died for you and those just like you? I mean really is extraordinary isn't it. That God would partake of the same flesh that all of mankind carries and yet He only has to die for you and those just like you.... Right? Be clear. Admit that is what you believe. You insist that Christ only served your sin.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

I told you to quote Finney. Not what others said about Finney. It was a clear statement. Not sure why you're attacking something I didn't say.

I certainly believe the verses you posted above. However, these verses do not establish the necessity for the death of Christ. Christ could have abandoned mankind all together. Christ didn't die for angelic sinners.

Again. You're insisting that Christ die for your sin. You are making Christ the servant of sin. He wasn't. The verses you referenced above are self serving the way you insist upon applying them..

isn't is special that you believe Christ only died for you and those just like you? I mean really is extraordinary isn't it. That God would partake of the same flesh that all of mankind carries and yet He only has to die for you and those just like you.... Right? Be clear. Admit that is what you believe. You insist that Christ only served your sin.

This is another response that's going to require some LSD to grasp what you're saying. And I'm fresh out of LSD, so I just won't respond.