The Implications of Original Sin

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Biblicist: I beleive that every aspect of human nature has been corrupted by sin but no man has reached full corruption by sin which is progressive and distinctly different between men.

HP: Calvinist position of total depravity

Biblicist: I believe that election is to salvation not because of foreseen faith but that it is wholly of grace and therefore although conversion is conditioned upon repentance and faith, election is not conditioned upon anything by man. I believe the means of salvation is chosen by God as much as the persons of salvation.

HP: Calvinist position of election, predestination, irresistible grace and limited atonement

Biblicist: I believe that election is God's mery toward otherwise unwilling and resistant God hating sinners in spite of themselves while merely allowing others to continue according to their own free choice to continue in their resistance and rejection of the light. Apart from the elective mercy of God none would come to Christ freely by choice.

HP: Calvinist position of election, total depravity, original sin, irresistible grace....along with something normal to all Calvinists,i.e., a complete divide between what freedom involves and their use of the term. Nothing new there.

Biblicist: I believe that the atonment of Christ is universal for all mankind in that it redeems all men from the "sin" of the world so that no human being will stand condemned before God for any other sin but their own and thus securing the salvation of dying infants who have no personal indivdiual responsible sins. I believe that Christ in regard to all the Father gave him to redeem laid down his life for his friends, for his sheep, for the elect and every single last one will be saved eternally.

HP: Whatever in the world is he saying? An atonement from original sin to all the lost? Oh thanks heaps! Eternal torment is still their necessitated end. A completely unfounded philosophical position that I have never read concerning Calvinists, but who knows? I have never heard that from any group no less. If the end could only justify the means, he would be in good shape, for at least he does not condemn innocence. Last but not least, he supports again the doctrine of election which necessittes double predestination. No bueno.

Biblicist: I believe that no man is coerced to choose anything contrary to their own will but salvation occurs when God gives a new heart with a new will that freely responds to new loves and new hates which are opposite to what is found in the unregenerate heart of man.

HP: What? Speak of direct contradictions. He tells us that no one can act in any other way ( that is necessitated my friends) than ones will dictates, and that is to sin alone. What is this nonsense of not being coerced and those words like 'freely'? But certainly nothing new to Calvinism. You can hear such double talk every day in pulpits throughout the land. He certainly is not alone and would be in excellent company with Calvinistic theology.

Biblicist: I believe that every single solitary person the Father has given to the Son for the purpose of redemption (not for perdition) comes to the Son in faith and is kept by the Son in faith until judgment day and only false professors fall from their profession of faith. Saved people can fall from the doctrine/understanding of grace due to false teachers but not from their position of grace before God.

HP: OSAS know in the Calvinistic world as the 'P' in TULIP. Perseverance of the saints. Clearly a Calvinistic notion as well.

There we have it. What was that old saying? If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, most likely it is a duck regardless of what books a duck has or has not read.

 

[plain_n_simple]

Well I just asked him if he was a follower of Calvin with no real response. So by his answers and leanings he is?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

I am only a judge of ducks:thumbs:

 

[plain_n_simple]

Haha, thought so....

 

[The Biblicist]

Well I just asked him if he was a follower of Calvin with no real response. So by his answers and leanings he is?

Here is the difference. I did not gain my theology from studying Calvin or Augustine but from indepth personal study primarily of the book of Romans and Ephesians and 1 & 2 Thessalonians.

So, I resent being accused that I had to study Calvin or Augustine to come to my position when I HAVE NEVER READ THEM!

I would be quoting them if they were my sources of authority.

I think it is intellectual dishonest on your part and others to make this charge as it presumes I had to study such men to arrive at conclusions which I KNOW I did not derive from any such man. That might boost your ego and give you a better than thou complex but it is a lie!

 

[12strings]

QUOTE FROM PLAIN & SIMPLE:

God did not know Adam would sin, only that he had the opportunity to. He trusted him.

I'm curious as to where in scriptures you find this.

 

[12strings]

12STRINSG: Are you saying that once saved, a believer is just as likely to sin or not sin as adam was? If so, why is it that we sin so much?

PLAIN_N_SIMPLE: Read slowly, I said we have the potential, or ability, to sin. Not the likelyhood. Jesus was tempted and had the potential to sin, not the likelyhood, but chose God instead. This is how He showed us as a man we can resist the temptations.

Are you saying we are not likely to sin? I think if you asked the majority of christians if they are likely to sin on a given day, they will say yes. Again I ask, Why do we sin so much, if we have no sin nature that constantly tempts us?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Oh sure Biblicist. You hammered out everything on your own anvil.

I am not accusing you of reading anyone, but what ever you have read, or who ever you have sat under, or whoever you have talked to or conversed with on theological/philosophical/spiritual matters, have certainly aided in indoctrinating you into pure unadulterated Calvinism.

If anyone believes you just read in all from Scripture in a room behind some curtain, Al Gore did in fact create the internet.:laugh:

 

[Winman]

Here is the difference. I did not gain my theology from studying Calvin or Augustine but from indepth personal study primarily of the book of Romans and Ephesians and 1 & 2 Thessalonians.

So, I resent being accused that I had to study Calvin or Augustine to come to my position when I HAVE NEVER READ THEM!

I would be quoting them if they were my sources of authority.

I think it is intellectual dishonest on your part and others to make this charge as it presumes I had to study such men to arrive at conclusions which I KNOW I did not derive from any such man. That might boost your ego and give you a better than thou complex but it is a lie!

I never studied Augustine or Calvin either, but I believed in Original Sin for years because I was taught by Sunday School teachers and pastors starting when I was a boy. But it was Augustine that established OS as official doctrine, Calvin followed in his footsteps, and it is still being taught today. It doesn't matter that you did not know where this false doctrine originated.

It was the scriptures that taught me Original Sin was false doctrine.

 

[Winman]

While OS was held by some early church fathers, it was Augustine who first attempted to establish OS using scripture. His argument was based almost exclusively on one single verse, Rom 5:12. The problem is that Augustine did not know Greek well and depended on a flawed Latin text that said "in whom all have sinned". Even scholars who agree with OS have admitted this is error and should read "because that all have sinned" or "for that all have sinned". The Eastern church that used only Greek texts disagreed with Augustine and have NEVER held to his view of original sin.

You did not get OS from scripture, you were taught it by men who have selectively pulled a very few scriptures out of context (Psa 51:5, Psa 58:3 etc...) to attempt to support it. These verses do not support OS. David was confessing his own sin with Bathsheba in Psa 51, in vs. 1 he says "my transgressions", in vs. 2 he says, "mine iniquity", in vs. 3 he says, "my transgressions" and "my sin", in vs. 4 he says, "have I sinned". Then you would have us believe that David suddenly blames his mother and being born in sins for his transgression with Bathsheba! This would not be a confession at all.

Psa 58:3 is obvious hyperbole, the next verse says these children are poisonous like a serpent, vs. 6 says they have great teeth of a young lion. I have 8 children, none were born with the ability to speak, much less lie, they were not poisonous, and none had teeth when they were born. So this is obvious exaggeration and should not be taken literally.

 

[plain_n_simple]

Are you saying we are not likely to sin?

No I am not. We are capable of sinning when tempted. When we are born again we are still capable of sinning, but God makes a way out.

I think if you asked the majority of christians if they are likely to sin on a given day, they will say yes.

So? The majority of Christians opinions are not scripture.


Again I ask, Why do we sin so much, ...
Probably because we are so worried about sinning, and our minds are focused on not sinning. We should keep our eyes on Jesus, be led by the spirit so we won't fulfill the lusts of the flesh. A lack of renewing the mind daily.

...if we have no sin nature that constantly tempts us?

You do not need a sin nature to be tempted. Jesus was tempted 40 days. Adam before the fall was tempted, but did not yet have the sin nature.

 

[The Biblicist]

I never studied Augustine or Calvin either, but I believed in Original Sin for years because I was taught by Sunday School teachers and pastors starting when I was a boy. But it was Augustine that established OS as official doctrine, Calvin followed in his footsteps, and it is still being taught today. It doesn't matter that you did not know where this false doctrine originated.

It was the scriptures that taught me Original Sin was false doctrine.

Your argument is rediculous! I can attribute your doctrine from following semi-pelagianism. Or worse yet, I can find some heretic that agrees with your position on free will and call you a follower of him.

This is a stupid strategy in debating another person UNLESS that person actually is quoting such men. I never have quoted such men!

Everything I believe I support with not merely scripture or proof texting but with an exegetical basis.

 

[plain_n_simple]

PnS: God did not know Adam would sin, but knew he was capable...

12strings:I'm curious as to where in scriptures you find this.

A careful look at Genesis. God created Adam in perfect love, in His image. If God thought Adam would make a mistake, He would not of even allowed him around the tree of the Knowedge of good and evil.
God knew what would happen to Adam if he ate from the tree.
Why would God let Adam destroy himself if He knew Adam would eat?
He would not because He loved Adam. God instructed Adam to not eat, and trusted His creation to obey. He gave Adam the ability to choose, true freedom.
Love is also trust.

 

[Winman]

Your argument is rediculous! I can attribute your doctrine from following semi-pelagianism. Or worse yet, I can find some heretic that agrees with your position on free will and call you a follower of him.

This is a stupid strategy in debating another person UNLESS that person actually is quoting such men. I never have quoted such men!

Everything I believe I support with not merely scripture or proof texting but with an exegetical basis.

It wouldn't matter if you never heard of Augustine, he is the man credited with establishing original sin as official church doctrine. That is an historical FACT. It has been passed down to this day. I have never attended a Reformed or Calvinist Baptist church, yet I was taught this from a boy in non-Cal Baptist churches.

It was scripture that taught me OS is false, especially Luke 15. These three stories which are "one" show that men are originally alive, but become lost and dead in sin.

The shepherd had 100 sheep originally. One went astray and was "lost". The shepherd searched and recovered it. Then Jesus says there will be joy in heaven "over one sinner that repenteth". So, this is speaking of "lost" sinners.

The next story is the same, the woman originally had 10 pieces of silver, one was "lost", she searched and recovered it. Again Jesus says there is joy over one sinner that repents.

The father had two sons, one went "astray" in riotous living (sin). He was joined to a citizen (Satan) of that far country. The young man repents and comes home. The father sees him from a distance (foreknowledge). The boy asks forgiveness and gets it. Now Jesus twice (vss. 24, 32) says the boy is "alive AGAIN". You cannot be alive AGAIN if you were born dead in sins. Jesus knows correct doctrine better than Augustine.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Biblicist: Everything I believe I support with not merely scripture or proof texting but with an exegetical basis.

HP: Look into a mirror and say that with a straight face. :laugh:

 

[The Biblicist]

It wouldn't matter if you never heard of Augustine, he is the man credited with establishing original sin as official church doctrine.

Perhaps YOUR church but not mine!

an historical FACT.

According to whose history? Rome's history? Now that is a real credible source isn't it:laugh:

I will not reduce myself to your insultive level. If I had ever quoted Augustine that would give you the right to make your accusation.

Here is the truth! YOu cannot deal with the scriptures and so you either get personal or start name calling, as in calling others followers of that man or this man!

I could keep calling you an pelagian or semi-pelagain but what good would that do if you only quote the scritpures??? It is a tool only of proud and arrogant men who wish to exalt themselves over others instead of dealing with the scriptures.

 

[Winman]

Perhaps YOUR church but not mine!

According to whose history? Rome's history? Now that is a real credible source isn't it:laugh:

I will not reduce myself to your insultive level. If I had ever quoted Augustine that would give you the right to make your accusation.

Here is the truth! YOu cannot deal with the scriptures and so you either get personal or start name calling, as in calling others followers of that man or this man!

I could keep calling you an pelagian or semi-pelagain but what good would that do if you only quote the scritpures??? It is a tool only of proud and arrogant men who wish to exalt themselves over others instead of dealing with the scriptures.

Augustine was a huge influence on Calvin and is quoted more than any other theologian in his writings. That is another historical fact. The fact that you were unaware of this does not change reality.

Before Augustine there were some early church fathers who suggested OS, but never from scripture. There were also many early church fathers who did not hold OS. Augustine was the first to attempt to support it from scripture, using Rom 5:12 almost exclusively for his proof-text. You can find many articles verifying this online. Augustine used a Latin text that said, "in whom all have sinned" which he believed referred to Adam. The Greek does not support this interpretation, scholars have freely admitted this verse should say "because that all have sinned" or "for that all have sinned" properly interpreted to mean death passed on all men, because all men have committed their own personal and individual sin.

Calvin simply followed Augustine's error, and you follow them both.

 

[DHK]

Augustine was a huge influence on Calvin and is quoted more than any other theologian in his writings. That is another historical fact. The fact that you were unaware of this does not change reality.

Before Augustine there were some early church fathers who suggested OS, but never from scripture. There were also many early church fathers who did not hold OS. Augustine was the first to attempt to support it from scripture, using Rom 5:12 almost exclusively for his proof-text. You can find many articles verifying this online. Augustine used a Latin text that said, "in whom all have sinned" which he believed referred to Adam. The Greek does not support this interpretation, scholars have freely admitted this verse should say "because that all have sinned" or "for that all have sinned" properly interpreted to mean death passed on all men, because all men have committed their own personal and individual sin.

Calvin simply followed Augustine's error, and you follow them both.

Winman,
Biblicist is a Calvinist, but I am not.
As far as the first point of Calvinism is concerned the Calvinist believes in "Total Inability," which I do not. But I still believe that man has a "depraved nature" from birth, or better termed, a "sin nature." I believe that sin nature does not hinder one from making a choice in trusting Christ, but it is the reason why we, by nature, sin.
"We are, by nature, the children of wrath."

Again, I come to my conclusions through the Scriptures.
I have not studied or read Augustine. I have read very little of Calvin.
The Bible is far more important to me than to waste my time studying the tomes of other men. I refer to some other works when necessary. But Augustine? Never.

Original sin is taught in the Bible, and so is the sin nature of man or total depravity, just not total inability.

 

[12strings]

PnS: God did not know Adam would sin, but knew he was capable...

12strings:I'm curious as to where in scriptures you find this.

A careful look at Genesis. God created Adam in perfect love, in His image. If God thought Adam would make a mistake, He would not of even allowed him around the tree of the Knowedge of good and evil.
God knew what would happen to Adam if he ate from the tree.
Why would God let Adam destroy himself if He knew Adam would eat?
He would not because He loved Adam. God instructed Adam to not eat, and trusted His creation to obey. He gave Adam the ability to choose, true freedom.
Love is also trust.

So the God you believe in is simply hoping everything will work out? But he really doesn't know what's going to happen, so he waits, wondering what we will do?

 

[glfredrick]

Augustine was a huge influence on Calvin and is quoted more than any other theologian in his writings. That is another historical fact. The fact that you were unaware of this does not change reality.

Before Augustine there were some early church fathers who suggested OS, but never from scripture. There were also many early church fathers who did not hold OS. Augustine was the first to attempt to support it from scripture, using Rom 5:12 almost exclusively for his proof-text. You can find many articles verifying this online. Augustine used a Latin text that said, "in whom all have sinned" which he believed referred to Adam. The Greek does not support this interpretation, scholars have freely admitted this verse should say "because that all have sinned" or "for that all have sinned" properly interpreted to mean death passed on all men, because all men have committed their own personal and individual sin.

Calvin simply followed Augustine's error, and you follow them both.

It would be most helpful if you would ACTUALLY read Augustine and Calvin instead of relying on some web site you have found that spews out this nonesense.