godrulz37

Some is semantics, some speculative, some significant differences. The nature/nurture, environment, genetics, choice stuff has been debated in secular circles. Propensity is not causation. There is a distinction between easy (Pelagian), difficult (my view/semi-Pelagian perhaps), and impossible (Calvinism). Total depravity is not total inability. Since it only takes one wrong thought, motive, word, deed to sin and become a sinner, we do not need theories that are not strongly supported by Scripture to explain why all eventually sin and need a Saviour. This is academic unless people blame shift and do not see why God would hold them responsible for something they cannot help (cf. hair color). Denying that we sin or are in need of a Savior (some religions and philosophies) truly is a problem. I think there is some room to debate nuanced details in doctrinal disputes as long as we don’t blatantly deny core truth (so, those who deny the impeccability of Christ still strongly affirm that He was, is, always will be sinless). Thomistic (Aquinas) views on being, etc. were philosophical and I am suggesting confusing being vs choice issues is a mistake leading away from clear, biblical teaching.