How Messed Up Are People?

[HatGuy]

No creation is capable of God's righteousness, not even angels or any other possibly existing beings. But our limitation is not our guilt.

A guilt must include our choice to do something unrighteous. A cat is not guilty that it cannot drive a car. Guilt is related to knowledge and capability.

Our guilt is we tried (and try) to have a righteousness like God's. Remember the tree of knowledge of good and evil and how Adam and Eve desired to be "like God, knowing good and evil". That "knowing" is related to "discerning"'. There is a sense in which human beings have wanted to decide good and evil for themselves and set up their own righteousness. But we were always meant to live in God's righteousness, not our own.

It's not our limitation that is our guilt. It's our refusal to live in our limitation and be human that is the real problem.

 

[trophy33]

... we were always meant to live in God's righteousness, not our own.

It's not our limitation that is our guilt. It's our refusal to live in our limitation and be human that is the real problem.

I think I can agree with this.

 

[HatGuy]

I think I can agree with this.

That's got to be a world record for a forum like this

 

[fhansen]

Semi pelagianiasm and Arminianism are not synonymous.

At least Arminianism in the classic sense.

Total depravity is affirmed under classical Arminian teaching (I'm talking Arminius himself here, and Wesley) while limited atonement and unconditional election is not.
Election is conditioned on saving faith, but such faith is given by the Spirit, it's not something human beings have.

I know it's common and popular for many Reformed / Calvinists to want to lump everything else under some form of Pelagianism, but it's in actual fact not true. It's true in certain circumstances (I'll admit a lot of Arminians are semi Pelagian) but it is not theologically true when you actually look at the details.

There are really four degrees of choice:
A. Augustinian (Calvinist essentially)
B. Semi Augustinian (Arminianism)
C. Semi Pelagianism (Eastern Orthodox)
D. Pelagianism (liberal thought, Finney, etc. mostly)

I've no idea where the Catholics truly sit, but I'd venture to say it's probably a little complicated.

Semi-Pelagianism holds that human faith precedes grace. Catholicism holds that grace precedes everything in justification but that said grace is still resistible, i.e. man can't possibly save himself but he can still refuse to be saved. I believe the EO are essentially on that same page as well.

 

[fhansen]

It's not our limitation that is our guilt. It's our refusal to live in our limitation and be human that is the real problem.

This is soooo true.

That's got to be a world record for a forum like this

I know, right?? What's going on here?

 

[HatGuy]

Semi-Pelagianism holds that human faith precedes grace. Catholicism holds that grace precedes everything in justification but that said grace is still resistible, i.e. man can't possibly save himself but he can still refuse to be saved. I believe the EO are essentially on that same page as well.

I would then have to reiterate that the OP's definitions and categories are misinformed, then.

 

[Vicomte13]

I've no idea where the Catholics truly sit, but I'd venture to say it's probably a little complicated.

Catholics don't know where we sit on this either, because we don't use the same vocabulary, terminology, etc. for these things. It's sort of like some people can distinguish several different shades of pink in swatches of color that all look the same to other people.

 

[Mountainmanbob]

Probably best not to be 100%
in any man's Camp.

90% Calvinist here.

M-Bob

 

[RDKirk]

Probably best not to be 100%
in any man's Camp.

90% Calvinist here.

M-Bob

I'll dance with concepts Calvinists have married.

 

[RDKirk]

No creation is capable of God's righteousness, not even angels or any other possibly existing beings. But our limitation is not our guilt.

A guilt must include our choice to do something unrighteous. A cat is not guilty that it cannot drive a car. Guilt is related to knowledge and capability.

From Romans 1, it is apparent that creation provides the knowledge and capability for all (adult) humans to recognize God's existence and essential virtue. Thus any who refuse to do at least that much are without excuse and choosing to unrighteously suppress the truth.

 

[Halbhh]

From Romans 1, it is apparent that creation provides the knowledge and capability for all (adult) humans to recognize God's existence and essential virtue. Thus any who refuse to do at least that much are without excuse and choosing to unrighteously suppress the truth.

It seems clear to me that little children know of God, instinctively.

It's subtle to try to remember what you believed when you were 3 or 4 years old, and not yet aware of a lot.

Because you could have faith then, and not have a word for it, and it is so normal, so natural, like breathing.

You don't need intellectual understanding to breathe.

Little children, already having faith that is not intellectually understood, and having it since the earliest awareness, and that continuing, until for some in a later years time, eventually absorb some (ego-intellect, idea) wrongness taken in from outside of themselves begins to remove them from that faith.

This isn't what made me think children that die not knowing the gospel will gain eternal life -- instead I understand that based on many scriptures taken together.

But this seeming early faith is an interesting piece to consider also!

When Christ said the Kingdom of God belongs already to little children, He wasn't only saying the crucial reality that we adults must change, and become like the little children, that is, humble and open to God, and willing to listen and trust. Not only that. He also was directly saying they already have the Kingdom, initially. This is also a way to understand one aspect of the Prodigal son parable, this son of the father: Christ said he was already a son, and thus alive, and then departed, and was "dead", and then repented and turned, and confessed, and was made "alive" again!

 

[RDKirk]

It seems clear to me that little children know of God, instinctively.

It seems clear to me that little children don't know anything, instinctively.

When Christ said the Kingdom of God belongs already to little children, He wasn't only saying the crucial reality that we adults must change, and become like the little children, that is, humble and open to God, and willing to listen and trust. Not only that. He also was directly saying they already have the Kingdom, initially. This is also a way to understand one part of Luke chapter 15, about the Prodigal son, who Chris said was already a son, alive, and then left and was "dead", and then repented and turned, and confessed, and was made "alive again"!

Are you saying there is no "original sin" and that people are born righteous and innocent, but fall later?

 

[Halbhh]

It seems clear to me that little children don't know anything, instinctively.



Are you saying there is no "original sin" and that people are born righteous and innocent, but fall later?

"Know" -- as purely intellectual knowledge, knowledge using words. That's right, I agree. They don't "know" anything yet, can't articulate, don't have much of that one-against-the-other (aka "duality", aka "distinctions", aka "knowledge") that distinguishes one thing from another. They have faith like breathing. Perhaps it would help a little for you to get what I'm saying if you consider: do you need to "know" how to breathe? (Yet, later in life, you can indeed to learn to breathe in various ways, and then "know" how to breathe also.)

The original sin of Adam....(hmmm...maybe this ought to be in another discussion, another thread) was that Adam/Eve -- they broke faith with God, that is, they stopped trusting God. It was a step away from God. It's perfect that they soon hid from Him, in the story, to help us get it. See? We all do that, at some point, and then we all need to repent (come back). But we don't do that breaking faith with God at the age of 1 month or 2 years old. Not yet. Put another way, Adam's sin we all will do, it's inevitable, but we didn't already do it at 2 or 3 years old, not yet. It's later, variously, for various individuals. In time, we all became prodigal. There's the original sin. I realize my wording is never going to be anywhere even slightly close to the perfect wording Christ used. If it seems wrong what I said, I just say "I'm only human, look to Christ for perfect wordings". Anyone would do well not to argue on mere doctrines that are not actually scripture, but ideas (mere wordings and ideas of men), but instead we do well to rely on every last word Christ says (and there are very many).

 

[~Anastasia~]

None of the above - exactly. (Referring to OP)

We are born not guilty of personal sin, but our wills are naturally bent to self. Young children are not inherently evil but they are easily swayed by selfishness or self-centeredness. So much so that the general view of psychological sciences is that this is the "normal" human condition.

And the world is infected with sin. It surrounds us, bombards us, temptation abounds. Along with our impaired (selfish) will, the result is that we all sin, pretty much as soon as it becomes possible in whatever basic ways. All sin.

Christ was born with the same flesh as us. Otherwise there would be no possibility of salvation. "God became MAN" for that purpose. Not God-became-something-that-looked-like-man.

But Jesus did not have a fallen will. There was never anything of sin in Him. He lived a sinless life.

Theoretically Adam could have lived in such a way if he had chosen to, but he chose to disobey God instead.

God calls us, extends some measure of grace to all. It is up to us whether we respond to it and how well, but the more we respond, the more grace we can receive. God gives grace to the humble, but resists the proud. I don't buy the idea that all human beings are mere puppets - only those responding whom God causes to respond. God desires that all men repent and be saved. But He allows resistance, if that's what people want. Being created in the image of God, we are endowed with free will as one of our human dignities. (Though sin can further and further warp us and rob us of any real free choice.)

 

[royal priest]

A good man brings good things out of the good stored up in his heart, and an evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in his heart.
Mt 12:35

Now there was a man named Joseph, a member of the Council, a good and upright man
Lk 23:50

He was a good man, full of the Holy Spirit and faith, and a great number of people were brought to the Lord.
Acts 11:24

The backslider in heart will have his fill of his own ways, But a good man will be satisfied with his.
Proverb 14:14

Corruption does not come from external influences. Nor does the act of sinning. Rather, what makes a person a sinner is the natural propensity of the sinner's heart.

Matthew 15:17-20, "Do you not see that whatever goes into the mouth passes into the stomach and is expelled? But what comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart, and this defiles a person. For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness, slander. These are what defile a person. But to eat with unwashed hands does not defile anyone.”

 

[Vicomte13]

"Know" -- as purely intellectual knowledge, knowledge using words. That's right, I agree. They don't "know" anything yet, can't articulate, don't have much of that one-against-the-other (aka "duality", aka "distinctions", aka "knowledge") that distinguishes one thing from another. They have faith like breathing. Perhaps it would help a little for you to get what I'm saying if you consider: do you need to "know" how to breathe? (Yet, later in life, you can indeed to learn to breathe in various ways, and then "know" how to breathe also.)

The original sin of Adam....(hmmm...maybe this ought to be in another discussion, another thread) was that Adam/Eve -- they broke faith with God, that is, they stopped trusting God. It was a step away from God. It's perfect that they soon hid from Him, in the story, to help us get it. See? We all do that, at some point, and then we all need to repent (come back). But we don't do that breaking faith with God at the age of 1 month or 2 years old. Not yet. Put another way, Adam's sin we all will do, it's inevitable, but we didn't already do it at 2 or 3 years old, not yet. It's later, variously, for various individuals. In time, we all became prodigal. There's the original sin. I realize my wording is never going to be anywhere even slightly close to the perfect wording Christ used. If it seems wrong what I said, I just say "I'm only human, look to Christ for perfect wordings". Anyone would do well not to argue on mere doctrines that are not actually scripture, but ideas (mere wordings and ideas of men), but instead we do well to rely on every last word Christ says (and there are very many).

You understand it. It is good? Are you one who is possessed of the sort of memory that clearly remembers when you were three and four? I am, and you write as one who does, which makes me want to talk to you, because you too may remember what God was like, before, and it is something I want to talk with someone else about, but none seem to remember. So I’m alone and I’d like to not be. Do youremember? Is there any other among you who does? If yes, please PM me.

 

[Vicomte13]

It seems clear to me that little children don't know anything, instinctively.



Are you saying there is no "original sin" and that people are born righteous and innocent, but fall later?

Little children know a great deal. But they forget.