Something small and round

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Precisely. If you pervert the nature of God to the point where he's more on par with the devil and subsequently claim to receive revelations from that kind of "god", then I would seriously question the true source of those revelations. God doesn't play lottery.

Conversely, one should not presume that only those outwardly in communion with Rome are members of the Body of the Church. To presume that the Roman Rite definitively conveys Grace and none other can is eqally arrogant.

This is why, as Banquo said, you end up the the Archbishop of Canterbury; a man who refuses to speak on behalf of the Lord he both Loves and obeys. It's why I'm quite a big fan, even though I don't agree with him on everything.

[Andres]

It is not a case of me interpreting anything, it is about God telling me what I need to know. You say all I have is words from other humans, but that's from an atheist point of view - you don't factor in the whole spiritual regeneration/born again thing we have in Christianity.

Did Christ wrote the things you believe in or was it written by humans?

I think it's the latter.

Considering the many "types" of Christians, what was written down, is not clear enough, as it leaves room for interpretation.

Each "type" of Christian follows the interpretation of the group he belongs to. Each one of those groups are interpreting what was written down by imperfect human beings, who might have given their own interpretation while writing it down.

I respect your belief and no humble Christian should challenge it.

In fact, I think that what you believe is what you should believe; I won't argue about that. I'm tolerant.

What I do dislike, is the fact that a lot of Christians say that their version is the only correct one, which, to me, contradicts with the "humble before God" part.

We, as humans, can only interprete and try to understand, but we cannot say that our version is true and all others are wrong, because that would be putting words in Gods' mouth.

Thinking that you know what Gods' message was and all those who disagree are mistaken, is typical human. Just like vanity and pride, which are sins.

Maybe you are right, but it's possible the other believers are right as well. Or maybe you're all wrong. Only God knows and, humble as you are, that is something you should recognise and accept

Most Christians are not humble enough when it comes to Gods' message.

[rvg]

Conversely, one should not presume that only those outwardly in communion with Rome are members of the Body of the Church. To presume that the Roman Rite definitively conveys Grace and none other can is eqally arrogant....

Oh, I do not, not at all. Orthodoxes and Anglicans (prior to their Church's implosion) were definitely on the right track.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Did Christ wrote the things you believe in or was it written by humans?

I think it's the latter.

Considering the many "types" of Christians, what was written down, is not clear enough, as it leaves room for interpretation.

Each "type" of Christian follows the interpretation of the group he belongs to. Each one of those groups are interpreting what was written down by imperfect human beings, who might have given their own interpretation while writing it down.

I respect your belief and no humble Christian should challenge it.

In fact, I think that what you believe is what you should believe; I won't argue about that. I'm tolerant.

What I do dislike, is the fact that a lot of Christians say that their version is the only correct one, which, to me, contradicts with the "humble before God" part.

We, as humans, can only interprete and try to understand, but we cannot say that our version is true and all others are wrong, because that would be putting words in Gods' mouth.

Thinking that you know what Gods' message was and all those who disagree are mistaken, is typical human. Just like vanity and pride, which are sins.

Maybe you are right, but it's possible the other believers are right as well. Or maybe you're all wrong. Only God knows and, humble as you are, that is something you should recognise and accept

Augustine said something about this, possinbly in "The City of God", roughly translated as:

It should not be said that God is ineffable, because then something is said [about God] so that it is better not to say He is ineffable, however something must be said and so this contradiction should be passed over in silence.

A Christian has not only a right, but a responsibility, to argue his or her beliefs, but at the same time to be open to alternative arguements. You are correct that to presume to know the truth is arrogant. However, to know part of the truth and to not present it to your brothers and sisters is much, much, worse because it is selfish.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Oh, I do not, not at all. Orthodoxes and Anglicans (prior to their Church's implosion) were definitely on the right track.

We haven't imploded yet, we just need to sort out the Americans. Excomunication doesn't really work with us. Things will probably calm down once the current American "primate" is replaced.

Also, most Lutherans and Methodists are OK, the latter are broadly theologically compatable with Anglicans, and the former maintain the Universal Love of God; Luthor was notable for not spelling out exactly who that was reconciled with Sola Gracia.

that just leaves Calvin and his children, who are much more extreme than he was. I looked up the doctrine of "Absolute Depravity" in the Library here once. The principle is merely that no part of human experience is free from the consequences of the Fall, i.e. man is in no part wholly pure. He is not, however, according to Calvin without redeeming features. The problem comes from the doctrinally irrelevant invective and rhetorical flourishes he used to make his points.

Apparently, his defence was that plain language would not convince the masses, so he dressed up his points in persuasive language. That alone demonstrates the intellectual bankuptcy of the man, who protested against fancy formulaic rituals and then used the same principles in his own sermons.

[rvg]

Well, yeah, the doctrine of "Absolute Depravity" is absolutely depraved.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Well, yeah, the doctrine of "Absolute Depravity" is absolutely depraved.

No, have another look at what I wrote. In its original form it was purely an acknowledgement of human fallability and our entirely subjective and individual viewpoints. That is a doctrine entirely compatable and agreeable to traditional catholic belief. HOWEVER, the way it was propogated led to its perversion.

[rvg]

Well, I'm of course referring to its calvinist incarnation.

[Rhyfelwyr]

The same logic could be used for "the fairies told me I'm right". The only difference is the fact that you have more believers on your side than I have on my side.

I don't mean to present that as an argument, it was just a response to those asking how I could be so confident in what I believe.

Did Christ wrote the things you believe in or was it written by humans?

I think it's the latter.

Considering the many "types" of Christians, what was written down, is not clear enough, as it leaves room for interpretation.

Each "type" of Christian follows the interpretation of the group he belongs to. Each one of those groups are interpreting what was written down by imperfect human beings, who might have given their own interpretation while writing it down.

I respect your belief and no humble Christian should challenge it.

In fact, I think that what you believe is what you should believe; I won't argue about that. I'm tolerant.

Each of these groups of Christians believes that their own beliefs are right. I believe that what I believe is rooted firmly in the scripture. Catholics believe the Pope is infallible. The Orthodox believe they are the only true continuation of the early church.

Just because we have doctrinal differences doesn't mean we don't believe each other to be Christians, although it does become an issue with the more major differences. But yeah, obviously we each have our own understanding of things which we belive to be correct. Just like Muslims, Buddhists, and atheists do. The only difference is that some systems are more exclusive than others, however I dont' think this is a fair justification for dismissing them.

What I do dislike, is the fact that a lot of Christians say that their version is the only correct one, which, to me, contradicts with the "humble before God" part.

We, as humans, can only interprete and try to understand, but we cannot say that our version is true and all others are wrong, because that would be putting words in Gods' mouth.

Thinking that you know what Gods' message was and all those who disagree are mistaken, is typical human. Just like vanity and pride, which are sins.

Maybe you are right, but it's possible the other believers are right as well. Or maybe you're all wrong. Only God knows and, humble as you are, that is something you should recognise and accept

Most Christians are not humble enough when it comes to Gods' message.

To argue that God does not reveal any sort of truth to anyone is intolerant. To argue that there is no absolute truth which any person can claim to know is intolerant.

Everyone is intolerant, if intolerant means not accepting other people's beliefs as right. I would say I'm tolerant since I let people go about their business with their other beliefs, but that doesn't mean I should have to accept them as being right. There's a difference between tolerance and acceptance.

that just leaves Calvin and his children, who are much more extreme than he was. I looked up the doctrine of "Absolute Depravity" in the Library here once. The principle is merely that no part of human experience is free from the consequences of the Fall, i.e. man is in no part wholly pure. He is not, however, according to Calvin without redeeming features. The problem comes from the doctrinally irrelevant invective and rhetorical flourishes he used to make his points.

Apparently, his defence was that plain language would not convince the masses, so he dressed up his points in persuasive language. That alone demonstrates the intellectual bankuptcy of the man, who protested against fancy formulaic rituals and then used the same principles in his own sermons.

I don't think that this is true given the pretty black-and-white view Calvin had on the nature of man. While most people today generally think of good and evil as being sort of opposite forces, with a neutral bit in the middle; Calvin argues that sin is anything short of perfect righteousness, as the scripture appears to do so as well. And so to fall short of the glory of God, is to be sin.

As for our redeeming features which he mentions, I remember one passage where he argues how even "the Turks" have certain good attributes amongst their people, noting that some of their rulers were generous, others were great conquerors etc. However, he goes on to argue that these are in no way an integral part of their nature, but instead gifts given to them from God. He then goes on to say how God will hold his blessings against them in the day of judgement. In this respect, he seems to be echoing Jesus sentiments of how those towns which are blessed with hearing the gospel and do not repent will have it held against them at judgement day, and he says it will be more tolerable for Sodom and Gamorrah than it will for them.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I don't think that this is true given the pretty black-and-white view Calvin had on the nature of man. While most people today generally think of good and evil as being sort of opposite forces, with a neutral bit in the middle; Calvin argues that sin is anything short of perfect righteousness, as the scripture appears to do so as well. And so to fall short of the glory of God, is to be sin.

There is a fundamental difference between being less than perfect, and being utterly wretched. Calvin argued more for the former than the latter. His invective is what clouds the issue, and it was irrelevant to his point.

Also, to Sin, and "to be Sin" are completely different. One is to offend against God by turning away from him; the other is to be the turning away oneself, to be inherently evil. Since all proceeds by the consent of the Father man could only be inherently evil if that was the Will of God.

That would mean that God had actively willed something to be evil; which would make him evil. This, I expect, Iis the crux of rvg's comment. If God is evil he is not God, he is the Devil.

As for our redeeming features which he mentions, I remember one passage where he argues how even "the Turks" have certain good attributes amongst their people, noting that some of their rulers were generous, others were great conquerors etc. However, he goes on to argue that these are in no way an integral part of their nature, but instead gifts given to them from God. He then goes on to say how God will hold his blessings against them in the day of judgement. In this respect, he seems to be echoing Jesus sentiments of how those towns which are blessed with hearing the gospel and do not repent will have it held against them at judgement day, and he says it will be more tolerable for Sodom and Gamorrah than it will for them.

This assumes that "their true nature" is not a gift from God. I refer you to the Creed:

I Believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.

If man's inherent nature were evil then he would not be a child of God, unless God's children are inherently evil.

[rvg]

If God is evil he is not God, he is the Devil.

Exactly.

[gaelic cowboy]

Speaking most likely as the only person living in the same county as this hoax the consensus today in the Pub were I had my few beers was incredulity.

This fellow is charging 60 euro a pop apparently to tell you things you want to hear as some kind of fortune teller. The majority of the people are turning up to this vision lark are coming for the craic to be honest.

Here is the local papers take on it

[Hosakawa Tito]

Am I the only one who thought this was going to be a fetish thread?

Don't worry Irishmen. We still see the Vrigin in tortilla chips, trees, sandwhiches....well anything really.

And he does mean anything. Some Texans even see the Virgin in bird droppings.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Speaking most likely as the only person living in the same county as this hoax the consensus today in the Pub were I had my few beers was incredulity.

This fellow is charging 60 euro a pop apparently to tell you things you want to hear as some kind of fortune teller. The majority of the people are turning up to this vision lark are coming for the craic to be honest.

Here is the local papers take on it

Sheesh. That just beggars belief. 60 Euro a pop?

What a two-a-penny amateur.


He should study the business model of Fatima, in Portugal. Or that of the Las Vegas of the Middle Ages, Santiago in Spain.
And the most succesful of all: Lourdes, South of France. The second largest tourist destination in France, and a multi billion euro business.

[Rhyfelwyr]

There is a fundamental difference between being less than perfect, and being utterly wretched. Calvin argued more for the former than the latter. His invective is what clouds the issue, and it was irrelevant to his point.

Also, to Sin, and "to be Sin" are completely different. One is to offend against God by turning away from him; the other is to be the turning away oneself, to be inherently evil. Since all proceeds by the consent of the Father man could only be inherently evil if that was the Will of God.

That would mean that God had actively willed something to be evil; which would make him evil. This, I expect, Iis the crux of rvg's comment. If God is evil he is not God, he is the Devil.

There is a difference between a sin and being sin, hence why some people say hate the sin and not the sinner. But Calvin clearly argues that we are sin. I'm too run down right now to look it up, but he argues with one passage where Paul calls various iniquities that he lists as being the "fruits of sin".

This assumes that "their true nature" is not a gift from God. I refer you to the Creed:

I Believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.

If man's inherent nature were evil then he would not be a child of God, unless God's children are inherently evil.

God made Adam with free will, and it was only after he chose sin we arrive at where we are now. Everyone that sins is a slave to sin etc. So God's actual creation can't be said to be evil.

The only real difference between Calvinism and Arminianism etc is that in Calvinism, we are able to use our own free will to lose our free will.

[drone]

There is a difference between a sin and being sin, hence why some people say hate the sin and not the sinner. But Calvin clearly argues that we are sin. I'm too run down right now to look it up, but he argues with one passage where Paul calls various iniquities that he lists as being the "fruits of sin".

Institutes of the Christian Religion

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

But lest the thing itself of which we speak be unknown or doubtful, it will be proper to define original sin. I have no intention, however, to discuss all the definitions which different writers have adopted, but only to adduce the one which seems to me most accordant with truth. Original sin, then, may be defined a hereditary corruption and depravity of our nature, extending to all the parts of the soul, which first makes us obnoxious to the wrath of God, and then produces in us works which in Scripture are termed works of the flesh. This corruption is repeatedly designated by Paul by the term sin, (Gal. 5: 19;) while the works which proceed from it, such as adultery, fornication, theft, hatred, murder, revellings, he terms, in the same way, the fruits of sin, though in various passages of Scripture, and even by Paul himself, they are also termed sins. The two things, therefore, are to be distinctly observed, viz., that being thus perverted and corrupted in all the parts of our nature, we are, merely on account of such corruption, deservedly condemned by God, to whom nothing is acceptable but righteousness, innocence, and purity. This is not liability for another's fault. For when it is said, that the sin of Adam has made us obnoxious to the justice of God, the meaning is not, that we, who are in ourselves innocent and blameless, are bearing his guilt, but that since by his transgression we are all placed under the curse, he is said to have brought us under obligation. Through him, however, not only has punishment been derived, but pollution instilled, for which punishment is justly due.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Institutes of the Christian Religion

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

But lest the thing itself of which we speak be unknown or doubtful, it will be proper to define original sin. I have no intention, however, to discuss all the definitions which different writers have adopted, but only to adduce the one which seems to me most accordant with truth. Original sin, then, may be defined a hereditary corruption and depravity of our nature, extending to all the parts of the soul, which first makes us obnoxious to the wrath of God, and then produces in us works which in Scripture are termed works of the flesh. This corruption is repeatedly designated by Paul by the term sin, (Gal. 5: 19;) while the works which proceed from it, such as adultery, fornication, theft, hatred, murder, revellings, he terms, in the same way, the fruits of sin, though in various passages of Scripture, and even by Paul himself, they are also termed sins. The two things, therefore, are to be distinctly observed, viz., that being thus perverted and corrupted in all the parts of our nature, we are, merely on account of such corruption, deservedly condemned by God, to whom nothing is acceptable but righteousness, innocence, and purity. This is not liability for another's fault. For when it is said, that the sin of Adam has made us obnoxious to the justice of God, the meaning is not, that we, who are in ourselves innocent and blameless, are bearing his guilt, but that since by his transgression we are all placed under the curse, he is said to have brought us under obligation. Through him, however, not only has punishment been derived, but pollution instilled, for which punishment is justly due.

Wow, I just tried it and I never realised you could google it like that. I can't believe I used to sit and churn through the big book before.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

There is a difference between a sin and being sin, hence why some people say hate the sin and not the sinner. But Calvin clearly argues that we are sin. I'm too run down right now to look it up, but he argues with one passage where Paul calls various iniquities that he lists as being the "fruits of sin".

God made Adam with free will, and it was only after he chose sin we arrive at where we are now. Everyone that sins is a slave to sin etc. So God's actual creation can't be said to be evil.

The only real difference between Calvinism and Arminianism etc is that in Calvinism, we are able to use our own free will to lose our free will.

You seem confused, are we damned by ourselves or by Adam?

Institutes of the Christian Religion
[SPOIL]But lest the thing itself of which we speak be unknown or doubtful, it will be proper to define original sin. I have no intention, however, to discuss all the definitions which different writers have adopted, but only to adduce the one which seems to me most accordant with truth. Original sin, then, may be defined a hereditary corruption and depravity of our nature, extending to all the parts of the soul, which first makes us obnoxious to the wrath of God, and then produces in us works which in Scripture are termed works of the flesh. This corruption is repeatedly designated by Paul by the term sin, (Gal. 5: 19;) while the works which proceed from it, such as adultery, fornication, theft, hatred, murder, revellings, he terms, in the same way, the fruits of sin, though in various passages of Scripture, and even by Paul himself, they are also termed sins. The two things, therefore, are to be distinctly observed, viz., that being thus perverted and corrupted in all the parts of our nature, we are, merely on account of such corruption, deservedly condemned by God, to whom nothing is acceptable but righteousness, innocence, and purity. This is not liability for another's fault. For when it is said, that the sin of Adam has made us obnoxious to the justice of God, the meaning is not, that we, who are in ourselves innocent and blameless, are bearing his guilt, but that since by his transgression we are all placed under the curse, he is said to have brought us under obligation. Through him, however, not only has punishment been derived, but pollution instilled, for which punishment is justly due.[/SPOIL]

To me this seems to indicate than Man is not inherently corrupt, but that he has been infected by corruption. Therefore, Man has Sin within him, but Man is not himself Sin.

So, I don't think Calvin actually agrees with you, Rhy.

[drone]

Wow, I just tried it and I never realised you could google it like that. I can't believe I used to sit and churn through the big book before.

Googled:

Calvin Paul "fruits of sin"

Piece of cake. With Google, the uninformed, ill-read, but technically savvy can fake it on a interweb forum!

To me this seems to indicate than Man is not inherently corrupt, but that he has been infected by corruption. Therefore, Man has Sin within him, but Man is not himself Sin.

The title of that chapter is:

Through the Fall and Revolt of Man, The Whole Human Race Made Accursed and Degenerate. Of Original Sin

so I would tend to agree.

[Rhyfelwyr]

You seem confused, are we damned by ourselves or by Adam?

To me this seems to indicate than Man is not inherently corrupt, but that he has been infected by corruption. Therefore, Man has Sin within him, but Man is not himself Sin.

So, I don't think Calvin actually agrees with you, Rhy.

Regarding who is responsible for our sin, Calvin argues that Adam is not only the actual ancestor of mankind today, but also the 'federal head', in that he is representative of all of humanity, eg:

"Why feel any anxiety about the transmission of the soul, when we know that the qualities which Adam lost he received for us not less than for himself, that they were not gifts to a single man, but attributes of the whole human race? There is nothing absurd, therefore, in the view, that when he was divested, his nature was left naked and destitute that he having been defiled by sin, the pollution extends to all his seed."

This is particularly significant if you look at Genesis allegorically. Certianly though, there is no doubt that Calvin argues that original sin is passed to us through Adam.

Also, according to Calvin, to be in any way impure is to be sinful. Anything short of perfect righteousness is sin. There's no middle ground as many see it today, and I think this is where our confusion over total depravity/partial corruptness is coming from. Say for example, some person, who is not a Christian, gives money to charity. Pelagius or the Pope would say, "yeah, that was a good, righteous work of this man". Calvin would point out how he did not do it to honour God, and so it was sinful, and worthy of condemnation.

So when he argues how we are tainted, that doesn't just mean a sort of neutral agent burdened by sin - our imperfection is what makes us sin. Also, the fact that Jesus is said to be "made sin for us" on the cross is significant (a point Calvin makes a major deal about). It shows that the wrath of God is not against individual acts of sin, but against the sinful nature that produces them. Hence when Jesus comments on the law, he says how to think lustfully is adultery, to hate someone is murder etc. All this is designed to point us to the fact that sin is not just an act, but an inherent part of our nature.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Regarding who is responsible for our sin, Calvin argues that Adam is not only the actual ancestor of mankind today, but also the 'federal head', in that he is representative of all of humanity, eg:

"Why feel any anxiety about the transmission of the soul, when we know that the qualities which Adam lost he received for us not less than for himself, that they were not gifts to a single man, but attributes of the whole human race? There is nothing absurd, therefore, in the view, that when he was divested, his nature was left naked and destitute that he having been defiled by sin, the pollution extends to all his seed."

This is particularly significant if you look at Genesis allegorically. Certianly though, there is no doubt that Calvin argues that original sin is passed to us through Adam.

Calvin's formulation here has it's roots in the legal granting of and divesting of rights and titles. He is applying he lgal knowledge to Man's relationship with God. The concept is entirely medieval and conventional. Adam is the purjured (oath-breaking) vassal, Christ is the betrayed King who nonetheless forgives his people.

The concept is Post-Patristic, not Scriptural.

Further, Adam is not said to lose any qualities, save his imortality. An alegorical reading of Genesis supports the belief in Free Will, in fact. When Adam eats the fruit he comes to understand the nature of right and wrong (becoming like God), although he knows he has done wrong he nonetheless tries to hide his Sin from God (who sees all). In order to Sin one requires both the guilty act and thought. Prior to eating the fruit Adam was not capable of a guilty thought.

ergo, he was incapable of Sin.

When we turn to the Gospels what we find is a message that despite transgressions God still wishes to be reunited with ALL his children, regardless of race or nationality. What Christ offers is the chance to turn back to God without the requirement to be perfectly obedient. This allows hummanity to reverse Adam's Original Sin, his choice to turn from God. Christ is therefore the enabler, he offers his hand to any who will take it, and leads his people through the Door that is himself and thence to Salvation.

Christ alone, therefore, is the only guide who can lead the way back to God and the only gatekeeper who can unbar the door.

Also, according to Calvin, to be in any way impure is to be sinful. Anything short of perfect righteousness is sin. There's no middle ground as many see it today, and I think this is where our confusion over total depravity/partial corruptness is coming from. Say for example, some person, who is not a Christian, gives money to charity. Pelagius or the Pope would say, "yeah, that was a good, righteous work of this man". Calvin would point out how he did not do it to honour God, and so it was sinful, and worthy of condemnation.

No, you are confused. You assume that the "middle ground" is neutrality, it is not. If pure water is Righteousness and Sin is oil, then man is Water tainted with oil. He is still distinctly water, but the water is tainted. However, the water is not as totally rupegnant as pure oil, either.

Man is not a simple creature, he has a compound nature.

In the same way, the Pope is not Pelegius, because the Pope does not argue that good deeds get you into heaven, they just get you out of purgatory.

So when he argues how we are tainted, that doesn't just mean a sort of neutral agent burdened by sin - our imperfection is what makes us sin. Also, the fact that Jesus is said to be "made sin for us" on the cross is significant (a point Calvin makes a major deal about). It shows that the wrath of God is not against individual acts of sin, but against the sinful nature that produces them. Hence when Jesus comments on the law, he says how to think lustfully is adultery, to hate someone is murder etc. All this is designed to point us to the fact that sin is not just an act, but an inherent part of our nature.

This point hinges on Paul, whose authority hinges on Augustine (whom Calvin accepted), who declared the scripture flawed (Confessions).

[Rhyfelwyr]

Calvin's formulation here has it's roots in the legal granting of and divesting of rights and titles. He is applying he lgal knowledge to Man's relationship with God. The concept is entirely medieval and conventional. Adam is the purjured (oath-breaking) vassal, Christ is the betrayed King who nonetheless forgives his people.

The concept is Post-Patristic, not Scriptural.

I've heard this idea before that Calvin was just a product of his time with the legalism etc, but regardless of the extent of the similarities you could draw between his society and his interpretation of the Bible, his ideas that you mentioned do seem to be there. Adam does break his covenant with God, and it is also humanity that breaks their later covenants throughout the OT, whether Noahide, Abrahamic etc. Also, Christ is a king betrayed by his people, who goes on to forgive them.

Further, Adam is not said to lose any qualities, save his imortality. An alegorical reading of Genesis supports the belief in Free Will, in fact. When Adam eats the fruit he comes to understand the nature of right and wrong (becoming like God), although he knows he has done wrong he nonetheless tries to hide his Sin from God (who sees all). In order to Sin one requires both the guilty act and thought. Prior to eating the fruit Adam was not capable of a guilty thought.

ergo, he was incapable of Sin.

I don't argue that Adam did not have free will, but I do believe his actions lost if for the rest of us. In committing that first sin, he was separated from God, and whoever sins is a slave to sin etc. To argue for free will in the Pelagian sense, you would have to deny that this original sin is passed down to Adam's descendents.

When we turn to the Gospels what we find is a message that despite transgressions God still wishes to be reunited with ALL his children, regardless of race or nationality. What Christ offers is the chance to turn back to God without the requirement to be perfectly obedient. This allows hummanity to reverse Adam's Original Sin, his choice to turn from God. Christ is therefore the enabler, he offers his hand to any who will take it, and leads his people through the Door that is himself and thence to Salvation.

Christ alone, therefore, is the only guide who can lead the way back to God and the only gatekeeper who can unbar the door.

I agree fully with the last bit. The controversy is over how we come to Christ in the first place. Whether we can choose to do it, or whether he grants even our faith to us as part of the 'package' he gained at Calvary. Also, if God worked to be united with all of humanity, why does Jesus in one place say that he came do to the will of his Father that sent him, and then later that he prays only for those that his Father has given him?

No, you are confused. You assume that the "middle ground" is neutrality, it is not. If pure water is Righteousness and Sin is oil, then man is Water tainted with oil. He is still distinctly water, but the water is tainted. However, the water is not as totally rupegnant as pure oil, either.

Man is not a simple creature, he has a compound nature.

In the same way, the Pope is not Pelegius, because the Pope does not argue that good deeds get you into heaven, they just get you out of purgatory.

I know what you are saying, but how can you be sure that the sin is not part of our nature? Why the water and oil analogy, and not mixing black and white paint or something? Considering when arguing this point, we were talking about what Calvin believed, surely when he says "corruption" he implies that sinfullness not only is added on top of our soul through original sin, but becomes an actual part of it? You seem to be suggesting that our 'natural' souls are conflicted with our imputed sinfulness, however the only such conflicts mentioned in the scripture are between our regenerated souls and the flesh. Furthermore, imagery such as removing a heart of stone for a heart of flesh seems to suggest there was nothing good/pure there to begin with.

This point hinges on Paul, whose authority hinges on Augustine (whom Calvin accepted), who declared the scripture flawed (Confessions).

We're debating what exactly Calvin believes on the matter of total depravity, so you have to go along with giving the scripture some authority here.