Evidence for God from Science

Just to be absolutely clear, fully God and fully man is essential and agreed upon.

The point, however, is that if Christ is fully man and it is practically necessary that we sin, why didn't he sin? Also, what about after we are "born again" and are a "new creation"? Should mention that I believe we are dead in sin, not sick.

Something about your scenario strikes me as wrong besides the point I already gave but again, I'll have to look into it further. I'm also not completely sold on the phrase "necessarily sin" and am a little hesitant to use it because I believe it could be used to present scenarios that a Calvinist wouldn't agree with. Actually, let me put it this way- I don't want to say that it is essential to sin because we are "human".

narnia4 wrote:Just to be absolutely clear, fully God and fully man is essential and agreed upon.

The point, however, is that if Christ is fully man and it is practically necessary that we sin, why didn't he sin? Also, what about after we are "born again" and are a "new creation"? Should mention that I believe we are dead in sin, not sick.

Something about your scenario strikes me as wrong besides the point I already gave but again, I'll have to look into it further. I'm also not completely sold on the phrase "necessarily sin" and am a little hesitant to use it because I believe it could be used to present scenarios that a Calvinist wouldn't agree with. Actually, let me put it this way- I don't want to say that it is essential to sin because we are "human".

Christ didn't sin because He was the one person who chose not to (though the possibility is logically open to all of us). I wouldn't say, then, that it is practically necessary that we all sin. I'd say it's just a practical reality that we all do (where 'all' refers to all humans, save Christ, who live long enough to exercise their will in a rational manner).

I'd also argue that 'dead in sin' is a metaphor. It may point to a spiritual reality (sin killed me), but being dead in sin doesn't mean that we are cadavers as the Calvinist implies. Cadavers can't do ANYTHING, and yet we all do all kinds of things spiritually. How can the a cadaver, for instance, hate God or run from the light?

"Sickness" refers, for me, to the broad condition of having inherited a fallen nature from our father Adam. That sickness, for me, is accidental to our nature, not essential to it. I mean nothing more.

But why did Christ choose not to sin if there wasn't something "different" about him? It obviously wasn't just coincidence. I just don't feel like this objection to TD is leading anywhere, but obviously I want to prevent more than just a "hunch" or argue that its invalid just because it doesn't convince me.

Here's an undeveloped idea- there is something physically different (some would argue more) between men and women. But aren't they both still human? Christ was a man, does that mean that he somehow couldn't reach women because of that reason?

One attractive thing about the "sin as death" metaphor besides the obvious theological viewpoint is that "sin as death" seems to me to be much more prominent (unless its just the verses I'm reading) in Scripture than "sin as sickness".

I should add one thing- if being dead in sin were an essential part of being human, we couldn't be transformed. We obviously don't become a different species when we're saved. We're new creatures, but we're also still human. So clearly it isn't essential that we sin in order to be human, but I don't see this as a point against Calvinism (I could just be missing something, its happened in the past).

There was something different about Christ: the divine nature. That enabled Him to see the perfect good and therefore choose it consistently. We cannot, however, deny His full humanity in asserting His full deity. Christ does not have ONE nature that is an admixture of human and divine. He has TWO natures: one fully human, one fully divine. So everything that we assert about the human nature of me and you we must assert about the human nature of Christ. Otherwise, we have denied the humanity of either us or Him.

And I would insist that being dead in sin is NOT an essential part of being human. If it were, then Christ, being human, would have been dead in sin. Adam would have been created dead in sin. Being dead in sin is accidental to being human (accidental = a property we possess that is non-essential, like the color of my hair; it is essential to my humanity that my hair (should I have any) have color; it is accidental what that color is).

But Christ didn't do what "normal humans" do because of his divine nature. Normal humans always sin. Jesus didn't sin because of his divine nature, so his divine nature DID effect him. That doesn't mean he wasn't fully human. if it doesn't for other positions. Under other positions, were Christ not God, he would have sinned. Under Calvinism, were Christ not God, he would have sinned. This whole semantic distinction (and I love A-T philosophy) doesn't seem to hurt Calvinism any more than any other position.

I also would deny that being dead in sin is an essential part of being human, at least in the way you apparently mean it. Were that the case, than the saved would be dead as well, which is absurd. I would suggest that that state is closer to the state that Christ was in, the state of those who are walking with God and have been regenerated. The saved are still "humans" but they have been transformed, living instead of dead. So Christ is an example of the sinless man that we should look like were we not depraved. It almost seems to me that there's this implicit assumption that Calvinists believe that humans are "supposed" to sin, but I don't think most Calvinists would put it exactly that way. Sin is a deviation, God doesn't desire evil for us. The reprobate necessarily sins, but those who walk with God do not... and Christ was God. So Christ was never a reprobate, but he was human.

I may have to take your offer and leave this alone soon if we can't get through to each other, if we aren't communicating we aren't communicating. I think the last half of the paragraph above is the most important point I have, and its a distinction I really should have made earlier.

Jac wrote:

The bottom line, for me, is that if God can be the primary cause of any trivial choice without determining that choice (and I think He can), then God can be the primary cause of my faith, so long as faith springs from free will. Augustinians, of course, strongly reject that possibility. But since I am not Augustinian . . . I don't

After reading what you wrote, a few times, and without picking nits, I pretty much agree with this, Jac.

since I agree that all of our acts are primarily moved by God (including our free acts). So I would reject the (semi) Pelagian claim that we do anything in and of ourselves.

And, I also agree with this.


I don't think it has to be one of the two extremes. Total depravity or semi-pelagianism. IMO, there can be another belief.

narnia4 wrote:But Christ didn't do what "normal humans" do because of his divine nature. Normal humans always sin. Jesus didn't sin because of his divine nature, so his divine nature DID effect him. That doesn't mean he wasn't fully human. if it doesn't for other positions. Under other positions, were Christ not God, he would have sinned. Under Calvinism, were Christ not God, he would have sinned. This whole semantic distinction (and I love A-T philosophy) doesn't seem to hurt Calvinism any more than any other position.

The question is why humans sin. Do they sin necessarily, or is it just something that they happen to do? For instance, does the eye see necessarily, or is that just something that the eye happens to do? The answer is that it sees necessarily, for it if did not, then it would not be an eye. Blindness, in fact, is considered an evil precisely because it is a failure of the eye to accomplish its intended end. That is why we don't say that rocks are blind. They don't have that end. In still other words, it is essential to the nature of the eye to see; eyes are seeing things, and that necessarily.

What about the fact that my eyes are blue? Are they blue essentially or does that just happen to be the case? The answer is that they just happen to be blue. The color of my eye is an accidental property of my eye. It is essential to my eye that they be some color; the particular color that they are is an accidental property. They could have been brown, for instance. In this case, they are blue.

Returning, then, to sin. We sin. Is our sin like the seeing of the eye, or is it like the color of the eye? That is, is our sin something we do necessarily--humans are sinning things--or is it something we do accidentally--humans are moral things, and sometimes, it just so happens that our moral acts are sins? TD seems to suggest the former to me, given their view of the bondage of the will. I hold the latter.

If you say the former, then you have to deal with the fact that Christ did not sin. He, therefore, is not the same kind of thing that you and I are, just like a rock that doesn't see isn't the same kind of thing as an eye that doesn't see (since for one thing, the property of (not) seeing is essential and for the other it is not). Thus, TD is either a direct assault on our humanity or Christ's. I say that sin is accidental to the human nature, and therefore, our sin is more like the color of our eyes. Just as it is not necessary for an eye to be a particular color to still be an eye (though it is necessary for the eye to have the capacity to see to be an eye, even if that capacity is never actualized, as in the case of blindness), it is not necessary for the human being to sin to be a human. Therefore, some of us sin; some of us don't. The some of us that do includes everyone in the world save Christ (and those that never had a chance to). They conceivably could not have; it is not the case that they must have.

At this point, you can deny that TD makes sin a necessary part of the human nature. But you can't say that the distinction, if accepted, poses no problems for TD anymore than you can say that a rock is blind.

I also would deny that being dead in sin is an essential part of being human, at least in the way you apparently mean it. Were that the case, than the saved would be dead as well, which is absurd. I would suggest that that state is closer to the state that Christ was in, the state of those who are walking with God and have been regenerated. The saved are still "humans" but they have been transformed, living instead of dead. So Christ is an example of the sinless man that we should look like were we not depraved. It almost seems to me that there's this implicit assumption that Calvinists believe that humans are "supposed" to sin, but I don't think most Calvinists would put it exactly that way. Sin is a deviation, God doesn't desire evil for us. The reprobate necessarily sins, but those who walk with God do not... and Christ was God. So Christ was never a reprobate, but he was human.

I may have to take your offer and leave this alone soon if we can't get through to each other, if we aren't communicating we aren't communicating. I think the last half of the paragraph above is the most important point I have, and its a distinction I really should have made earlier.

If you say that the reprobate necessarily sin and that the elect do not, you are saying (whether you mean it or not) that there are two types of creatures that we conveniently call humans, but that really aren't the same thing at all. A thing's form--its essence--is, at bottom, a specific set of capacities, powers, potentialities, essential properties (whatever you want to call them). So humans, for instance, have the essential property of being alive. They have the essential property of being an animal. They have the essential property of being rational. They have the essential property of being moral. They have the essential property of being the image of God, etc. If you find a creature that is a rational animal but is not the image of God, then it is not a human (perhaps, for instance, Neanderthal). Or suppose you found a creature that was the image of God and was rational but was not an animal. That would not be human, either. Humans have plenty of accidental properties--those they can do without and still be humans (whether or not they have hair, the color of their sin, whether or not they can hit a 98 mph fastball, etc.). But you cannot change an essential property of humanity and still be talking about a human.

So we come to the question of the sin nature. There is no question we have a sin nature. We have that property, just as surely as we have the property of having skin. The question is, what kind of property is it. Is it an essential property (such as our rationality) or an accidental property? You deny (rightly) that being dead in sin is essential to being human. So then you acknowledge that it is accidental. But what about the sin nature itself? I would insist that the sin nature itself is accidental to our nature. If the Calvinist makes it essential by saying we necessarily sin, then saying that the elect do not necessarily sin means that you have two different sets of essential properties (one with a sin nature essentially; one without). Therefore, you have two different kinds of beings.

Again, you can argue that Calvinists would or should deny that the sin nature is essential. You argue that Calvinists should or would deny that humans sin necessarily. You can even try a middle position and argue that the sin nature is an accidental property that, once obtained, necessarily sins. I don't know how coherent that is, but at least it's worth a shot. But you can't say that reprobate humans necessarily sin by nature, but that Christ did not, and maintain that both are fully human. You might as well say that rocks are eyes, even though their essential properties are completely different.

It seems to me that one issue is that I would have to accept your Aristotelian-Thomist metaphysical assumptions in order for this discussion to go where it maybe should go... and that's too big to happen on this thread. I feel that I would be doing an unnecessary disservice to Calvinists if I casually accept your choices of language here. But I'm still going to go along for now just because that's the only way to continue the discussion.

Jac3510 wrote: The question is why humans sin. Do they sin necessarily, or is it just something that they happen to do? For instance, does the eye see necessarily, or is that just something that the eye happens to do? The answer is that it sees necessarily, for it if did not, then it would not be an eye. Blindness, in fact, is considered an evil precisely because it is a failure of the eye to accomplish its intended end. That is why we don't say that rocks are blind. They don't have that end. In still other words, it is essential to the nature of the eye to see; eyes are seeing things, and that necessarily.

Let's take the example of blindness. What about people that are born blind? They still have eyes that aren't mean for seeing, but they don't see. People who are blind aren't rocks, obviously.

What about the fact that my eyes are blue? Are they blue essentially or does that just happen to be the case? The answer is that they just happen to be blue. The color of my eye is an accidental property of my eye. It is essential to my eye that they be some color; the particular color that they are is an accidental property. They could have been brown, for instance. In this case, they are blue.

I'd just like to point out that I don't know if I have to accept this. Your DNA was coded in such a way that your eyes are blue, if you had different DNA then your eye could be a different color. This probably isn't really related just thought I'd throw that out there. Maybe a hyper-calvinist could make something of this stance though.

If you say the former, then you have to deal with the fact that Christ did not sin. He, therefore, is not the same kind of thing that you and I are, just like a rock that doesn't see isn't the same kind of thing as an eye that doesn't see (since for one thing, the property of (not) seeing is essential and for the other it is not). Thus, TD is either a direct assault on our humanity or Christ's. I say that sin is accidental to the human nature, and therefore, our sin is more like the color of our eyes. Just as it is not necessary for an eye to be a particular color to still be an eye (though it is necessary for the eye to have the capacity to see to be an eye, even if that capacity is never actualized, as in the case of blindness), it is not necessary for the human being to sin to be a human. Therefore, some of us sin; some of us don't. The some of us that do includes everyone in the world save Christ (and those that never had a chance to). They conceivably could not have; it is not the case that they must have.

Or you could say that humans have eyes but have been blind for generations. Does it follow that if people are born blind, their eyes are no longer eyes or they are suddenly rocks, or they are a different species?

If the Calvinist makes it essential by saying we necessarily sin, then saying that the elect do not necessarily sin means that you have two different sets of essential properties (one with a sin nature essentially; one without). Therefore, you have two different kinds of beings.

Well, II Corinthians 5:17. I haven't gone on the offensive really, but one problem I have with your position is that there seems to be precious little difference in this life between the saved and the unsaved. And given the tremendous strength and power of the language in the Scriptures when it comes to what being saved and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit actually does (a new creation, dead to sin), hearing something like sin described simply as an "accidental property" (I know its a standard term) doesn't sit that well. Reasoning that an unbeliever can seek God and tries to accomplish His will without salvation doesn't fit my personal understanding of the world and nature.

But I'll again bring up an underdeveloped not completely thought out point that I brought up earlier but wasn't commented on. Is a woman necessarily a woman? To try to avoid being crass, it seems that certain body parts definitely serve a specific function. Does that mean that a woman is not human, because she has distinct features that separates her from man? Does that mean that Christ couldn't have died for women? Or do men and women have distinct features while both are equally human?

Again, you can argue that Calvinists would or should deny that the sin nature is essential. You argue that Calvinists should or would deny that humans sin necessarily. You can even try a middle position and argue that the sin nature is an accidental property that, once obtained, necessarily sins. I don't know how coherent that is, but at least it's worth a shot. But you can't say that reprobate humans necessarily sin by nature, but that Christ did not, and maintain that both are fully human. You might as well say that rocks are eyes, even though their essential properties are completely different.

I'm not completely committed to saying that humans sin necessarily, and I would definitely say that sin is a deviation, something wrong, something that shouldn't be.

But I'm apparently having trouble getting my original point about Christ's divine nature across. Were it not for Christ's divine nature, He would have sinned. So while Jesus' both fully man and fully God, the fact that he didn't sin set Him apart. The perfect human, and we fall short of that perfection. If imperfect humans were necessarily not perfect humans, how does it actually follow that a perfect human is not a real human? Humans are broken, Christ is what we should look like.

I know you and Jac are going over this but I'd like to address a point or two here.

But I'm apparently having trouble getting my original point about Christ's divine nature across. Were it not for Christ's divine nature, He would have sinned. So while Jesus' both fully man and fully God, the fact that he didn't sin set Him apart. The perfect human, and we fall short of that perfection. If imperfect humans were necessarily not perfect humans, how does it actually follow that a perfect human is not a real human? Humans are broken, Christ is what we should look like.

It seems to me that you are making Christ's human nature and sinless-ness, contingent upon his divine. In simple words, Christ WILL sin, had he not been divine. But I think you may be missing the point here. Chris'ts divinity is not the force behind his faith. When the devil tempted him, Christ did not reply "You can not tempt me, I am divine. Your efforts would result in a failure because being Divine, means even when I am in human form, I can not sin."

No, if Christ's sinless-ness had only been because of his divinity and not of his own will, then what was the point in being tempted? You can not lure someone on something he doesn't want or need or couldn't fall for.

I think you have driven yourself in a false dichotomy here. I think Christ is ALWAYS divine in the sense that he is God but I think when he came down he "emptied himself" to become full human, as well. If he had been divine, like the Divine in the fullest form, on Earth, then it was impossible to crucify him, as a matter of fact he couldn't die as well, How can God die if he is fully God? You would see that you will get into a lot of absurdities if you go down this road.

You can rightly point out though that it opens up a gate for all sort of notions that man can choose not to sin, but no I do not think that is the case. Christ was not born with a sinful nature, though he was born human but he refused to be tempted. In that case his birth is a divine act but it doesn't grant him any divinity (in the purest sense of the word) with regards to his volitional will.

You have to see Christ's humanity and divinity merge together yet you can not make one contingent upon the other. There is no objection here that his case is a special one and unique one at that and also that Christ had a divine influence but I do not think that Divine influence actually restricted his actions as a human being. He knew his mission and he know the totality of the work he was destined for.

Hypothetically, did Christ had the potential to sin, to go against his father's will? Yes. But he submitted that His will is to fulfill the will of his father. And please do note it is his own will with which he submitted to his Father's will. Not because he COULD NEVER DO OTHERWISE as He was divine. The human element has to be present to make him fully human and tempted to all things, he has to die as a perfect human, not as a perfect God or else as Jac put it, he is not human (or we are not humans).

I think the issue is sin VS original sin.
Christ could have sinned but he choose not to, although he did lose his temper with people and even got "violent" in the temple.
BUT he was NOT subject to "original sin", in short, what makes us candidates for TD is that we are born with the innante "defect" that even though we know something to be wrong, we still WANT to do it ( though we can choose not to) but for worse than that is that in our fallen state we keep trying t "fix things" without God and that is where Christ was Perfect, He KNEW that nothing good can be done without God and what we try to do is do "good" without God - by our own accord BUT because our intentions are sinful, we fail.

Apologies for not catching up with the thread first but I wanted to address Jac's point here as I see it goes to the heart of the matter.

Jac3510 wrote:

Byblos wrote:I honestly don't know how they can be reconciled. But like I said, any system that relies on free will to cooperate with God's free gift, even if that cooperation is passive, is dancing around the semi-pelagian line.

What do you think about the argument I made earlier in this thread, Byblos?

I wrote:I think this gets at an even deeper issue of what it means to be human. Whether intentional or not, I think the T in the TULIP actually denies mankind their humanity. The moment you say, "the human nature is necessarily sinful (in the Calvinistic sense)," what you are saying is that sin is an essential property of the human nature. There's no way around that. That's what necessary means in this context--that thanks to the fall, human nature is such that it is now essentially sinful. But that means that anyone who can choose not to sin has a different sort of nature (namely, one to which sinfulness is accidental rather than essential). But in that case, both people cannot be said to be human! For if you change something's essential properties, you change what it is. Now, we know that Christ never sinned, so that means that either Christ is truly human and that we are not truly human (since Christ's nature is not essentially sinful whereas ours is), or it means that we are truly human but that Christ is not truly human. Both consequences seem, to me, absolutely absurd, for in either case, Christ is not as we are and therefore cannot be our mediator.

I realize I'm doing something here different than you intended--I'm providing an argument against TD. But I can't help it. When talking about this issue, I think we need to be consistent. If we are going to hold to the premise that TD is true and that TD entails that a person cannot choose not to sin, then we must explain why that is true: namely, because man is essentially sinful; which means that humanity is essentially sinful, and therefore a) anything non-sinful we do, we do because God overrides our humanity, and b) either we are not humans or Christ is not human (or, that Christ Himself was essentially sinful, contra Scripture).

How is it semi-pelagian to assert that human nature is such that it has a will, and that will can choose something if it perceives good in it? Obviously, nothing. That's the Catholic position on the will. So then why is it semi-pelagian to suggest that the intellect (which directs the will) can perceive goodness in Christ? I know that Augustinians just assert that it cannot be so, but why? What makes it semi-pelagianism deny Augustine here? The only way I can make heads or tales of it is to assert that the will cannot do anything good (thus the bondage of the will), but the only way to do THAT is say make the human nature essentially sinful. But if that, then since Christ was not essentially sinful, either we or Christ were not human.

Your thoughts?

My basic disagreement with this is two-fold, 1) that denying Augustine is not semi-pelagianism, I think it is, and more importantly 2) that if Christ was not essentially sinful and we are that either we or Christ are not human.

On 1) it is a matter of salvation, not mere perception of goodness in something or someone. Salvation is a free gift from God so to add the requirement that our will must perceive this goodness to make it stick so-to-speak in my view makes a contribution, however passive on our part and that's what makes it semi-pelagian. I know this doesn't violate even the Catholic view since our passive cooperation is part and parcel of the process. But here's what I still question, why is it that some have the ability to passively cooperate with the gift and some don't? In Catholic theology then we get into things like prevenient grace and efficacious grace and the question gets deeper but still essentially the same, why do some have this type of grace as opposed to another? All the way down we go until we get to the point where one must admit it is a mystery only God is privy to as to why some are saved and some aren't. And where are we? Back to TD (or at a minimum unconditional election).

On 2) I reject the whole premise if Christ is not essentially sinful and we are that either we or Christ are not human. Christ was not sinful because of an act of pure will. This pure act of the will is possible not due to his divinity but due to him being not from Adam (and therefore not having been born in original sin). He could have sinned if he wanted to, he chose not to. We, on the other hand, having been born from Adam (and in original sin) by nature cannot have an act of pure will. There is obviously a difference between us and Christ but does that make either of us not human? I don't think so.

Hey guys, I'm afraid I won't be able to make any more long posts on this because I'll be gone for a week or so in a couple days and I hate leaving discussions unfinished.

But to address Neo's points a little bit. My post was in response to Jac saying that Christ didn't sin because he was divine. But I don't think the false dichotomy is on my part. I'm saying that I believe its possible that sinning is something humans must do without being essential in the way that Jac means. I should point out that Calvinists and those who hold to Total Depravity can have other options here, but I stuck to my original argument that so I'll try to continue to stick to my guns.

To repeat myself again, sin is clearly not essential to being "human". Maybe sin is essential to being a reprobate, but both the reprobate and regenerated are human. Otherwise the regenerated wouldn't be human. They are, however, still regenerated and a new creation.

Let me us a term I like better- universal deformity. I think that's a lot closer to what I'm trying to describe.

I'll give three examples here to describe what I mean, none perfect but I think they all illustrate something. If one of them implies that sin is merely an accidental property that becomes necessary or something similar, so be it. I'm trying to show what Calvinists believe the truth to be, not get tied down to semantics. Also, if I'm unable to fully describe something that does not mean that its just nonsense. It could be a mystery, after all the hypostatic union is a mystery... but that doesn't mean its impossible.

But here's the three examples-

A blind man is deformed. There may be groups of blind men. Everyone in the world may be born blind. But that doesn't mean that they aren't essentially human or that those who can see and those who are blind are different species. The blind do however, necessarily NOT see... that's just the definition of being blind. I like the dead example here too since Scriptures uses it often, but since others don't appreciate it I'll leave it out.

Or take my example of men and women. They have different bodily features but they still fall under the category of being human because having certain body parts is not essential to being human. But a woman is a woman, not a man.

But here's one I like better than the above. Let's say there's a door with a handle that's five feet in the air, and sitting there is a newborn that wants to get outside. The newborn is as human as a human who could reach the handle, but he's just not tall enough. There's simply no way for him to be able to reach the door. Not until he grows up. As a child, there are a lot of things he's simply incapable of doing.

The last example may sound more like an "accidental property"... and if that's the case then fine. I'm trying to describe what total depravity is, if its necessary (I disagree but at this point I think we should just drop it) to say that sin is "an accidentally property that becomes necessary once obtained" or one of the other presented options, fine.

So that's all I have to say on this subject for now. Thanks for the discussion everyone.

Let's take the example of blindness. What about people that are born blind? They still have eyes that aren't mean for seeing, but they don't see. People who are blind aren't rocks, obviously.

What exactly is your objection? They are blind because of what they lack necessarily.

Does it follow that if people are born blind, their eyes are no longer eyes or they are suddenly rocks, or they are a different species?

Based on Thomist philosophy (which is where Jac is coming from) how are you making these conclusions?

But I'm apparently having trouble getting my original point about Christ's divine nature across. Were it not for Christ's divine nature, He would have sinned. So while Jesus' both fully man and fully God, the fact that he didn't sin set Him apart.

But this seems contrary to your original argument (if not TD) that man could potentially not sin and therefore not need Christ. We seem to agree as Jac pointed out that Jesus is both fully man, and fully God. Are you saying that Christ's human nature is TD?

Byblos wrote: On 2) I reject the whole premise if Christ is not essentially sinful and we are that either we or Christ are not human. Christ was not sinful because of an act of pure will. This pure act of the will is possible not due to his divinity but due to him being not from Adam (and therefore not having been born in original sin). He could have sinned if he wanted to, he chose not to. We, on the other hand, having been born from Adam (and in original sin) by nature cannot have an act of pure will. There is obviously a difference between us and Christ but does that make either of us not human? I don't think so.

Thank you Byblos. Its amazing sometimes how you can practically write a book on a subject without knowing quite how to word something, but then someone else makes a similar point with a twist that you didn't consider and can handle it in a short paragraph.

This is much closer to what I was trying to say than anything I actually said, although I was focusing on divinity separating us from Christ instead of original sin. I definitely should have put the focus on original sin earlier, but I felt that there was already a lot going on in the discussion. It seems that some here would deny this understanding of original sin, but that's another reason why it clearly should have been brought up sooner.

But clearly, I think, if humans and Christ were exactly the same then Christ would sin the same as humans. So there is a difference, the question is whether that difference makes Christ or man not human. And I think the answer is no for the succinct reasons you gave here.

Based on Thomist philosophy (which is where Jac is coming from) how are you making these conclusions?

What conclusions, that eyes aren't rocks? I don't know exactly what you mean, but one reason I have to cut short my part in this discussion is because I'm not going to get into a debate about an entire metaphysical system. I have Thomistic sympathies but I don't think the argument stands for reasons given. And at this point that's all I can really say about it, not going to debate in circles if someone else is just going to affirm something because of their metaphysical position and I'm going to deny it. That's just a waste of time unless you can flesh it out completely. The rest of you can discuss whatever you like, obviously.

Edit- should acknowledge that Paul caught the important distinction here too. If you deny the imputation of sin, that's when you come to this issue imo.

On 1) it is a matter of salvation, not mere perception of goodness in something or someone. Salvation is a free gift from God so to add the requirement that our will must perceive this goodness to make it stick so-to-speak in my view makes a contribution, however passive on our part and that's what makes it semi-pelagian. I know this doesn't violate even the Catholic view since our passive cooperation is part and parcel of the process. But here's what I still question, why is it that some have the ability to passively cooperate with the gift and some don't?

Ability, passive or not, would actually be a Calvinism objection. The elect have the ability, and the reprobate don't. Why?
I think the question you mean to ask is why do some affirm and some deny? And we could ask that with a number of truth issues. You can raise children in the same home, and one may make a wise choice and the other foolish. And you then ask, 'why?' That is an issue of the will. When two people are presented with the same information they can and do make different decisions. I have a friend who is an identical twin. One is a believer, the other not.

The Pelagianism thing, semi or otherwise is really an issue of who is the first mover. Jac, I thought, had explained this earlier, but it seems to have been dismissed.