Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Arminian - Total depravity - what is this

What C's call total depravity is in truth, THE IMAGE OF GOD IN MAN, the way HE made us, MISUSED for self. Adam first did it and disobeyed God. People still think they are ok to live as they want too. BUT, we were made to FELLOWSHIP with GOD. When we use what God gave us to live as we choose we fail God. When we do not use the Image of God in us to know and fellowship with God we DISOBEY GOD,
IT IS A CHOICE HE MADE US WITH THE RIGHT AND ABILITY TO MAKE,

Man must have enough of the IMAGE OF GOD to be able to truly fellowship with God, God took a great risk here because HE allow man to choose Not to Obey HIM.
IT IS A GOD GIVEN CHOICE!!
The results are eternal.
Hell is God honoring our right to choose.

God gave us the right and ability to make a choice,
AND HE WILL HONOR THE CHOICE.
( That is the most terrifying thing I find in the BIble.)
 
I said "IF YOU MEAN".
ON MY BLOG I explain tat there are TWO WAYS a person may go. Obey God and keep his commandments, or do as "I" Pease and reject God.
I feel so often people see al mankind as "Toally Deprvied. I do not see Christians saved be grace through faith, iindwelled by the Holy spirit, adopted into the family of God, old things past all made new, I do not see CHRISTIANS as totally depraved.
The C have so much wrong, I am so not Calvinist, I am not Armenian EITHER, such is not necessary.
God made us in his image He gave us a choice and the right and ability to choose OBEY ME OR NOT!
YES I BELIEVE IT IS JUST THAT SIMPLE!

I hope you mean Arminian and not Armenian. Armenians are people from the country of Armenia.
 
I hope you mean Arminian and not Armenian. Armenians are people from the country of Armenia.
You seem to know "What I mean". I am disgusted that anyone would find only a word used wrong to criticize.

Is there any importance in this discussion beyond finding such mistakes?

You practice the Total Depravity of man and fail to see or admit it is your choice to condemn instead of discuss the issue.

It is the Image of God in man, a freely given choice that separates us from God, not some idea of total depravity beyond our control. Do you even know that that idea of total depravity is from “Mysticism”, Gnostic.
 
Why are we even debating and discussing Calvinism doctrine when we have that which has already been written that it is the grace of God through Christ Jesus who is the free gift of grace that all can be reconciled back to God in regeneration of a Spiritually transformed life in Christ. There is only one doctrine and that is the doctrine of Christ as what He has already taught all of us.

John 3: 16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. 17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

Ephesians 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 9 Not of works, lest any man should boast. 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

We already know that all of us have fallen short of the glory of God and need His mercy and grace. God's plan of salvation knowing that man would fall from it was made before the foundation of the world through Christ Jesus who now sits at the right had of God making intercession for us.
 
Because it's true!
I've posted links but apparently you don't care to believe facts.



OS has ALWAYS existed. It's the sin committed by Adam.
Augustine took this concept and changed it to mean that every person born is imputed with Adam's sin.

If original sin has always existed, then how could St. Augustine have changed it to mean every person is born with it? You are not making sense.

Furthermore, original sin is NOT an imputation. Rather, it is a deprivation. Hence, man must be born again (baptized). cf. John 3:5; Romans 6:4


This caused every baby to have to be baptized AS SOON AS POSSIBLE because Augustine reasoned that if they were not baptized they could not enter into heaven.

Partially true. There was considerable debate in the early Church as to when babies should be baptized. Some argued for the eighth day, as baptism was seen as the fulfillment of circumcision. Circumcision incorporated the child into the Boyd of Israel; baptism incorporates the child into the Boyd of the new Israel: the Church. (cf. Col 2:11-12). Others, influenced by Novatianism, argued for baptism to be delayed.

Nonetheless, the Church has always held that baptism is necessary for salvation. (cf. John 3:5, Mark 16:16, Romans 6:4, 1 Peter 3:21)


You're mixing up the baptism of babies with Augustine's understanding of O.S.

Augustine's understanding of baptism of babies is the Church's understanding. Here are his words:

“It was not I who devised the original sin, which the Catholic faith holds from ancient times; but you, who deny it, are undoubtedly an innovating heretic. In the judgment of God, all are in the devil's power, born in sin, unless they are regenerated in Christ.” - St. Augustine, On Marriage and Concupiscence, Book II:25


Babies were baptized from the beginning...to bless them and to make them a part of the community and to allow them the benefits of the Holy Spirit...

You are conflating Protestant "dedication" ceremonies with the Church's understanding and hence reason for the baptism of children. The Church doesn't baptize babies to bless them, but rather to make them born again and hence remove original sin and restore them to a life of grace.

NOT because they'd go to hell if they weren't.

This is common knowledge in the CC, I don't even know why links are necessary.

The Church has never formally declared the fate of unbaptized babies because God never revealed their fate. St. Augustine held to a fundamentalist view, as he saw no exceptions to Christ's command that men must be born again. Others throughout the ages have had their own theolegoumenon. But that's all they are, opinions.

I'm sure you know that the CC has thought this over and is no longer stating as fact that babies that are not baptised to to hell.
This very idea was adopted by Augustine and, in turn, the church.
Why, I cannot fathom.

Again, the Church has never formally declared the fate of babies. Any opinions on it were just that, opinions (theologoumenon). Augustine was certainly in the fundamentalist camp, finding no exceptions to Christ's command.


Please read the CCC 1229-1261.

Exactly. These articulate the Catholic understanding of baptism. For example...

CCC1250: Born with a fallen human nature and tainted by original sin, children also have need of the new birth in Baptism to be freed from the power of darkness and brought into the realm of the freedom of the children of God, to which all men are called. The sheer gratuitousness of the grace of salvation is particularly manifest in infant Baptism. The Church and the parents would deny a child the priceless grace of becoming a child of God were they not to confer Baptism shortly after birth.

CCC1257: The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation. He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them. Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament. The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are "reborn of water and the Spirit." God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.

And here's the last link I'll post,,,,the information is history and I don't know how one can argue with history...

https://decodedpast.com/concepts-original-sin-early-christianity-augustine-vs-pelagius-others/14520

Not sure why you posted this, as it refutes your argument that the concept of original sin and the necessity of baptism originated with Augustine.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
No, I don't believe your erroneous posts about St. Augustine. They are demonstrably false.



If original sin has always existed, then how could St. Augustine have changed it to mean every person is born with it? You are not making sense.

Furthermore, original sin is NOT an imputation. Rather, it is a deprivation. Hence, man must be born again (baptized). cf. John 3:5; Romans 6:4




Partially true. There was considerable debate in the early Church as to when babies should be baptized. Some argued for the eighth day, as baptism was seen as the fulfillment of circumcision. Circumcision incorporated the child into the Boyd of Israel; baptism incorporates the child into the Boyd of the new Israel: the Church. (cf. Col 2:11-12). Others, influenced by Novatianism, argued for baptism to be delayed.

Nonetheless, the Church has always held that baptism is necessary for salvation. (cf. John 3:5, Mark 16:16, Romans 6:4, 1 Peter 3:21)




Augustine's understanding of baptism of babies is the Church's understanding. Here are his words:

“It was not I who devised the original sin, which the Catholic faith holds from ancient times; but you, who deny it, are undoubtedly an innovating heretic. In the judgment of God, all are in the devil's power, born in sin, unless they are regenerated in Christ.” - St. Augustine, On Marriage and Concupiscence, Book II:25




You are conflating Protestant "dedication" ceremonies with the Church's understanding and hence reason for the baptism of children. The Church doesn't baptize babies to bless them, but rather to make them born again and hence remove original sin and restore them to a life of grace.



The Church has never formally declared the fate of unbaptized babies because God never revealed their fate. St. Augustine held to a fundamentalist view, as he saw no exceptions to Christ's command that men must be born again. Others throughout the ages have had their own theolegoumenon. But that's all they are, opinions.



Again, the Church has never formally declared the fate of babies. Any opinions on it were just that, opinions (theologoumenon). Augustine was certainly in the fundamentalist camp, finding no exceptions to Christ's command.




Exactly. These articulate the Catholic understanding of baptism. For example...

CCC1250: Born with a fallen human nature and tainted by original sin, children also have need of the new birth in Baptism to be freed from the power of darkness and brought into the realm of the freedom of the children of God, to which all men are called. The sheer gratuitousness of the grace of salvation is particularly manifest in infant Baptism. The Church and the parents would deny a child the priceless grace of becoming a child of God were they not to confer Baptism shortly after birth.

CCC1257: The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation. He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them. Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament. The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are "reborn of water and the Spirit." God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.



Not sure why you posted this, as it refutes your argument that the concept of original sin and the necessity of baptism originated with Augustine.
There's too much here and I can't now...it's been a long day for me and it's late here.

If you don't accept my links regarding Augustine and the history of the church...

Could YOU post some information on Augustine? He CHANGED the meaning of O.S. and his understanding of it was accepted by the church. He DEFINED what it meant:
Some eight centuries later the Catholic theologian Anselm extended the implications of Augustine’s concept of original sin and claimed that babies who died, did so as sinners; as sinners, they had no access to eternal life but were condemned to eternal damnation.

It's difficult for me to understand how you don't accept this fact because it's very obvious you're well read and know doctrine of the CC.

Will answer the rest tomorrow morning....
(unless I "wake up" later on...)
 
There's too much here and I can't now...it's been a long day for me and it's late here.

If you don't accept my links regarding Augustine and the history of the church...


I don't accept your opinion because it is demonstrable erroneous. Children were being baptized to remove the sin of Adam centuries before St. Augustine even arrived on the scene. In the first century, we have the example from Scripture, where households were baptized. (cf. Acts 16:16, Acts 16:33, 1 Cor 1:16)

Then, in subsequent centuries, we have more examples...

2nd Century
“For He came to save all through means of Himself — all, I say, who through Him are born again to God — infants, and children, and boys, and youths, and old men. He therefore passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, thus sanctifying infants; a child for children, thus sanctifying those who are of this age, being at the same time made to them an example of piety, righteousness, and submission; a youth for youths, becoming an example to youths, and thus sanctifying them for the Lord.” (St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 2:22:4)


3rd Century
Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves, let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them.” (Hippolytus, The Apostolic Tradition, 21:16)

In the Church, baptism is given for the remission of sins, and, according to the usage of the Church, baptism is given even to infants. If there were nothing in infants which required the remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of baptism would seem superfluous.” (Origen, Homilies on Leviticus, 8:3)

The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants.” (Origen, Commentaries on Romans 5:9)

“Moreover, belief in the divine Scriptures declares to us, that among all, whether infants or those who are older, there is the same equality of the divine gift…And therefore, dearest brother, this was our opinion in council, that by us no one ought to be hindered from baptism and from the grace of God, who is merciful and kind and loving to all. Which, since it is to be observed and maintained in respect of all, we think is to be even more observed in respect of infants and newly-born persons, who on this very account deserve more from our help and from the divine mercy, that immediately, on the very beginning of their birth, lamenting and weeping, they do nothing else but entreat. We bid you, dearest brother, ever heartily farewell.” (St. Cyprian, Epistle 58 to Fidus on the the baptism of infants)

Your links refute your argument.


Could YOU post some information on Augustine? He CHANGED the meaning of O.S. and his understanding of it was accepted by the church. He DEFINED what it meant:
Some eight centuries later the Catholic theologian Anselm extended the implications of Augustine’s concept of original sin and claimed that babies who died, did so as sinners; as sinners, they had no access to eternal life but were condemned to eternal damnation.

It's difficult for me to understand how you don't accept this fact because it's very obvious you're well read and know doctrine of the CC.

Will answer the rest tomorrow morning....
(unless I "wake up" later on...)

Sure thing.

---> http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1408.htm

---> http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1501.htm

---> http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/15072.htm
 
Last edited by a moderator:
If original sin has always existed, then how could St. Augustine have changed it to mean every person is born with it? You are not making sense.

Furthermore, original sin is NOT an imputation. Rather, it is a deprivation. Hence, man must be born again (baptized). cf. John 3:5; Romans 6:4
I'm not making sense to you because you don't accept that Augustine CHANGED what O.S. is and means and how it should be "treated"....by baptizing babies as soon a possible or they'd go to hell.

Try asking your pastor/priest about this. It's a known fact.. I feel like I'm discussing with you whether or not water is wet.

Augustine CHANGED the understanding of O.S. and taught it was IMPUTED and it was accepted by the church. Why, I'll never understand. He's also reponsible for predestination and Calvinism since John Calvin referred back to him.

BERFORE Augustine, the church believed man was affected by OS.
AFTER Augustine the church believed man is imputed with it.

Having been IMPUTED with it...it now became NECESSARY that babies be baptized asap.

I'm not discussing baptism here...babies were always baptized, but it was a choice.....
After HIM it was no longer a choice but a necessity.




Partially true. There was considerable debate in the early Church as to when babies should be baptized. Some argued for the eighth day, as baptism was seen as the fulfillment of circumcision. Circumcision incorporated the child into the Boyd of Israel; baptism incorporates the child into the Boyd of the new Israel: the Church. (cf. Col 2:11-12). Others, influenced by Novatianism, argued for baptism to be delayed.

Nonetheless, the Church has always held that baptism is necessary for salvation. (cf. John 3:5, Mark 16:16, Romans 6:4, 1 Peter 3:21)
I'm NOT discussing the above... Forget about baptism itself.
What you've stated above is true.

Do you understand that since it was DEBATED, it wasn't understood to be NECESSARY for babies?




Augustine's understanding of baptism of babies is the Church's understanding. Here are his words:

“It was not I who devised the original sin, which the Catholic faith holds from ancient times; but you, who deny it, are undoubtedly an innovating heretic. In the judgment of God, all are in the devil's power, born in sin, unless they are regenerated in Christ.” - St. Augustine, On Marriage and Concupiscence, Book II:25
Augustine's understanding is the church's understanding.
Right. NOW, AFTER HIM.

What did the church believe BEFORE HIM?




You are conflating Protestant "dedication" ceremonies with the Church's understanding and hence reason for the baptism of children. The Church doesn't baptize babies to bless them, but rather to make them born again and hence remove original sin and restore them to a life of grace.
Are you seriously telling me the above?
I'll just make believe you never said it.



The Church has never formally declared the fate of unbaptized babies because God never revealed their fate. St. Augustine held to a fundamentalist view, as he saw no exceptions to Christ's command that men must be born again. Others throughout the ages have had their own theolegoumenon. But that's all they are, opinions.
This is incorrect.
The church has always stated that infants that were not baptized did NOT go to heaven. Why do you think it commanded that babies be born immediate?

It's only NOW, after VAT II that the church has taken back its claim and stated that we cannot know what happens if an infant is not baptized but we depend on the mercy of God.

This is in the CCC....I'm not posting it because it's better if you look for it yourself.



Again, the Church has never formally declared the fate of babies. Any opinions on it were just that, opinions (theologoumenon). Augustine was certainly in the fundamentalist camp, finding no exceptions to Christ's command.
Incorrect.




Exactly. These articulate the Catholic understanding of baptism. For example...

CCC1250: Born with a fallen human nature and tainted by original sin, children also have need of the new birth in Baptism to be freed from the power of darkness and brought into the realm of the freedom of the children of God, to which all men are called. The sheer gratuitousness of the grace of salvation is particularly manifest in infant Baptism. The Church and the parents would deny a child the priceless grace of becoming a child of God were they not to confer Baptism shortly after birth.

CCC1257: The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation. He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them. Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament. The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are "reborn of water and the Spirit." God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.

I'm sure you understand that the CCC which you quote above is from 1992,,,many years AFTER VAT II.

I stated above it's been changed..there is more on this BTW in the CCC.

Please find out what the church believed BEFORE VAT II.



Not sure why you posted this, as it refutes your argument that the concept of original sin and the necessity of baptism originated with Augustine.
The way you worded the above shows me that you've totally misunderstood everything I've been saying.
OS did NOT ORIGINATE with Augustine...it was already in existence. He CHANGED the meaning of it.

It was NOT necessary to baptize babies or BEFORE him because the chuch did NOT believe that unbaptized babies went to hell.
It only became necessary AFTER him because of the church's acceptance of HOW HE understood OS to be imputed to every man born.

I'm not one to continue arguing forever.
Please ask someone else you trust and that knows church history. Ask how OS was understood BEFORE and AFTER Augustine. Ask WHY babies were baptized BEFORE and AFTER Augsutine.
 
Back
Top