Calvinist Confusion

[Dave G]

Do you hold to original Sin as affecting all humans with a sin nature, and thus Jesus had to be Virgin Born to bypass being effected by it?

Jesus being born of a Virgin was prophetic, and miraculous.
Up until the Lord was born, no man or woman had ever been born without both an earthly father and mother ( except Melchizedek, who had neither ).

There are some that try to go beyond Scripture and state that Christ had a sin nature, but overcame it by the power of the Holy Spirit.
I used to agree with that, but now I want someone to show me Scripture that actually states it.

So Jesus was born with same sin nature that we all were?

To me, you're getting into areas that Scripture needs to be addressed for.
In fact, all our beliefs should be addressed by God's word, and not the words of men, as I see it.
Who else can we trust but the One who cannot lie?

Question:

Do you have God's word that appears to show this answer, whether yea or nay?
Let's look for it.
Otherwise, we really should leave this one off the table, in my opinion.

No. He would have a human nature. Unlike us He did not sin.

Agreed.

" For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as [we are, yet] without sin." ( Hebrews 4:15 )

Also, please see Romans 8:3, Hebrews 2:14-18, Philippians 2:6-7, John 1:14.



He is both the Son of man and the Son of God.

 

[Dave G]

Of course it doesn't. But Calvinists have their own definitions for Biblical words. ( Some of those whom you call "Calvinists", have what they believe are the biblical definitions for words. It seems that you and I have different ones. Apparently, what's obvious to me is not obvious to you. )

All: The elect ( Not always ).
Draw all Men: Regenerate the Elect ( In John 12:32, if all men are drawn by the Holy Spirit, then all men will be raised up per John 6:44 )
Everyone: The elect
Whosoever: The elect ( "whoseover believeth" are the elect, are Christ's sheep, etc. If you are a true believer in Jesus Christ, you are one of the elect. If you're not, then you are not. )
World: The elect ( "World" doesn't always mean every single man, woman and child...please see Psalms 22:17, John 15:8, John 12:19, 2 Corinthians 5:19, James 4:4, 1 John 3:1 ).

Mystery: The way God decrees sin but is not responsible for it.( He didn't decree it. He allowed it for His own purposes ).
Mystery (2): Any theological issue held to by Calvinists that contradicts scripture and they cannot explain. ( What questions do you have about God that cannot be explained by God's word? )

As to John 3:16, the Calvinist's dictionary has this:

John 3:16: Enigmatic verse. ( Again, it's one verse. If God loves everyone, then please bring Scripture that states why He cannot save those whom He loves. ) One must be a scholar to properly understand this passage. James White’s unbiased insights are recommended.( I properly understand it, and I didn't need James White to show me ...it became obvious to me after many years of reading the Bible )

My replies within the body of your text, sir.

 

[Yeshua1]

Go to the appropriate thread and re-read our conversation.

You then see Jesus and us having the same nature, its just that we choose to sin, and He never did?

 

[Yeshua1]

Jesus being born of a Virgin was prophetic, and miraculous.
Up until the Lord was born, no man or woman had ever been born without both an earthly father and mother ( except Melchizedek, who had neither ).

There are some that try to go beyond Scripture and state that Christ had a sin nature, but overcame it by the power of the Holy Spirit.
I used to agree with that, but now I want someone to show me Scripture that actually states it.



To me, you're getting into areas that Scripture needs to be addressed for.
In fact, all our beliefs should be addressed by God's word, and not the words of men, as I see it.
Who else can we trust but the One who cannot lie?

Question:

Do you have God's word that appears to show this answer, whether yea or nay?
Let's look for it.
Otherwise, we really should leave this one off the table, in my opinion.



Agreed.

" For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as [we are, yet] without sin." ( Hebrews 4:15 )

Also, please see Romans 8:3, Hebrews 2:14-18, Philippians 2:6-7, John 1:14.



He is both the Son of man and the Son of God.

We all were born with sin nature, so how can Jesus be Holy and have one as we have?

 

[Yeshua1]

Jesus being born of a Virgin was prophetic, and miraculous.
Up until the Lord was born, no man or woman had ever been born without both an earthly father and mother ( except Melchizedek, who had neither ).

There are some that try to go beyond Scripture and state that Christ had a sin nature, but overcame it by the power of the Holy Spirit.
I used to agree with that, but now I want someone to show me Scripture that actually states it.



To me, you're getting into areas that Scripture needs to be addressed for.
In fact, all our beliefs should be addressed by God's word, and not the words of men, as I see it.
Who else can we trust but the One who cannot lie?

Question:

Do you have God's word that appears to show this answer, whether yea or nay?
Let's look for it.
Otherwise, we really should leave this one off the table, in my opinion.



Agreed.

" For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as [we are, yet] without sin." ( Hebrews 4:15 )

Also, please see Romans 8:3, Hebrews 2:14-18, Philippians 2:6-7, John 1:14.



He is both the Son of man and the Son of God.

BOTH of those titles were for divinity though! Jesus was fully human, but sinless humanity, NOT our fallen natures state!

 

[JonC]

You then see Jesus and us having the same nature, its just that we choose to sin, and He never did?

yes.

 

[Yeshua1]

yes.

So you do deny the fall of Adam, correct?

 

[Wesley Briggman]

Calvinism is nonsense.

Giving you the benefit of the doubt, what is the Holy Spirit teaching us in the following scripture:

Mat 7:21 KJV - Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
Mat 7:22 KJV - Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
Mat 7:23 KJV - And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

 

[Dave G]

We all were born with sin nature, so how can Jesus be Holy and have one as we have?

Dave...

Does Scripture anywhere state that Jesus Christ had a sin nature?
Does it state anywhere that Christ sinned?
Does it state anywhere that He overcame sin through the power of the Holy Ghost?

To me, you are misunderstanding my position...
I am not defending Jon on this...I am asking the both of you to look at the Bible and come up with an answer.
Find all the Scriptures that show Him coming as a man, being tempted, etc. and you should be able to either:

1) Determine that God's word does not have an answer.
2) Determine that it does.

Search the Scriptures whether these things are so.

If it's not there, don't go there.
From my perspective, it's one thing to be curious about something...it's another to drive ones' self muy loco trying to discover an answer to a question that may have no answer in God's word.

However, if you must have one, here is my answer:

1 Peter 2:22.
2 Corinthians 5:21.
Hebrews 7:26.
Isaiah 53:9.
Acts of the Apostles 3:14.
Hebrews 4:15.
1 John 3:5.

In Him was no sin.

He had no sin nature, because it did not manifest itself as found here ( Matthew 15:18-20 ).

He was undefiled...therefore, He had nothing within Himself that threatened to escape out and defile Him.

He was and is sinless and perfect.
His very nature is righteousness incarnate ( in human form ).

That is the way I see Him.

 

[Reformed]

I think the confusion comes in when Baptists hold views apart from a Calvinistic (original use) origin. So much Reformed doctrine is assumed even by baptists who reject the five points. Even the Arminianism is indebted to Calvin.

So I could be called a "Calvinist" by some but my views mean I contextualize the issues differently.

This could be significant as more Baptists are "reforming" their Reformed views.

Otherwise I think we risk a false agreement.

Jon, IMHO you are over-thinking this. Anyone can attach any meaning they want to any word they want. When it comes to the term "Calvinist" among Baptists, it typically revolves around the doctrines of grace. There are teachings that Calvinists have intramural squabbles over such as the Regulative Principle of Worship, tongues, head coverings, Dispensationalism vs. Covenant Theology et al., but the core agreement is the doctrines of grace. Of course, I am a Calvinist, so I am on the inside looking out. The term is not an issue with me.

 

[JonC]

Jon, IMHO you are over-thinking this. Anyone can attach any meaning they want to any word they want. When it comes to the term "Calvinist" among Baptists, it typically revolves around the doctrines of grace. There are teachings that Calvinists have intramural squabbles over such as the Regulative Principle of Worship, tongues, head coverings, Dispensationalism vs. Covenant Theology et al., but the core agreement is the doctrines of grace. Of course, I am a Calvinist, so I am on the inside looking out. The term is not an issue with me.

I may be overthinking it.

I am just cautious, perhaps because of old SBC issues when some would say one thing but mean another. For example, I believe men are unable to turn to God apart from God drawing them. But I do not believe this is due to a fallen "sin nature". That said, the original responce of Dort were broad enough to incorporate differences in view.

My primary objection is that I disagree with the context Calvinism provides to the Atonement. If I overlook that, though, I can agree with many of its end conclusions. We just get there differently.

 

[37818]

I think a good resource to understand the Calvinist objections to a general atonement would be John Owen's arguments against it in his book "The Death of Death in the Death of Christ." Just reading his "To The Reader" I discovered what it was I believe about te general atonement. John address in the book the arguments of those who hold to the general atonement.

Now my view is Christ's death is a general atonement, to be either one's Savior or to be one's Judge. Thanks to John's book I discovered what it was I believed from Scripture on the matter. Romans 8:34; Romans 14:9-11.

 

[Reformed]

I may be overthinking it.

I am just cautious, perhaps because of old SBC issues when some would say one thing but mean another. For example, I believe men are unable to turn to God apart from God drawing them. But I do not believe this is due to a fallen "sin nature". That said, the original responce of Dort were broad enough to incorporate differences in view.

My primary objection is that I disagree with the context Calvinism provides to the Atonement. If I overlook that, though, I can agree with many of its end conclusions. We just get there differently.

I understand your objections. Of course, they are made as a non-Calvinist, so you should have an objection.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

 

[Wesley Briggman]

Cavill, I am interested in your response to my question.

Calvinism is nonsense.

Giving you the benefit of the doubt, what is the Holy Spirit teaching us in the following scripture:

Mat 7:21 KJV - Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
Mat 7:22 KJV - Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
Mat 7:23 KJV - And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

 

[MB]

Cavill, I am interested in your response to my question.

Mat & 21-23
That even though we may use His name it does not make us Christian. Only the Belief that Christ died for our sin and rose from the dead can save us. Faith comes by hearing the word and Grace comes through Faith.
Salvation is not by Grace alone because, it always comes through Faith.

Gal 2:16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified..

We are saved by Grace through faith

Eph 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

Faith comes first inorder that Grace can save. And Faith come by hearing the word of God.
MB

 

[Yeshua1]

Dave...

Does Scripture anywhere state that Jesus Christ had a sin nature?
Does it state anywhere that Christ sinned?
Does it state anywhere that He overcame sin through the power of the Holy Ghost?

To me, you are misunderstanding my position...
I am not defending Jon on this...I am asking the both of you to look at the Bible and come up with an answer.
Find all the Scriptures that show Him coming as a man, being tempted, etc. and you should be able to either:

1) Determine that God's word does not have an answer.
2) Determine that it does.

Search the Scriptures whether these things are so.

If it's not there, don't go there.
From my perspective, it's one thing to be curious about something...it's another to drive ones' self muy loco trying to discover an answer to a question that may have no answer in God's word.

However, if you must have one, here is my answer:

1 Peter 2:22.
2 Corinthians 5:21.
Hebrews 7:26.
Isaiah 53:9.
Acts of the Apostles 3:14.
Hebrews 4:15.
1 John 3:5.

In Him was no sin.

He had no sin nature, because it did not manifest itself as found here ( Matthew 15:18-20 ).

He was undefiled...therefore, He had nothing within Himself that threatened to escape out and defile Him.

He was and is sinless and perfect.
His very nature is righteousness incarnate ( in human form ).

That is the way I see Him.

I see Jesus as being born in the same flesh body that all of us have, as His body would have the same limitations as all of ours, except that he had no sin nature, as all of the rest of us had when born, as His was and remained sinless humanity!

 

[Yeshua1]

Jon, IMHO you are over-thinking this. Anyone can attach any meaning they want to any word they want. When it comes to the term "Calvinist" among Baptists, it typically revolves around the doctrines of grace. There are teachings that Calvinists have intramural squabbles over such as the Regulative Principle of Worship, tongues, head coverings, Dispensationalism vs. Covenant Theology et al., but the core agreement is the doctrines of grace. Of course, I am a Calvinist, so I am on the inside looking out. The term is not an issue with me.

Great posting,as there are indeed Calvinist Baptists, and also Reformed Baptists, and we do indeed have "fun" when discussing issues such as spiritual gifts, modes of leading church, water baptism, which Confession etc!

 

[Yeshua1]

I may be overthinking it.

I am just cautious, perhaps because of old SBC issues when some would say one thing but mean another. For example, I believe men are unable to turn to God apart from God drawing them. But I do not believe this is due to a fallen "sin nature". That said, the original responce of Dort were broad enough to incorporate differences in view.

My primary objection is that I disagree with the context Calvinism provides to the Atonement. If I overlook that, though, I can agree with many of its end conclusions. We just get there differently.

If we do not have a fallen sin nature from the fall, than why are we called dead in our sins and spiritual dead and blind?

 

[Yeshua1]

I understand your objections. Of course, they are made as a non-Calvinist, so you should have an objection.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

I am still confused as to how Jon C can hold to the 5 points of grace and yet not be a Calvinist in at least salvation?
And since it appears denies original Sin and us have sin natures fallen, how can that be reconciled as being viable options to hold?

 

[JonC]

If we do not have a fallen sin nature from the fall, than why are we called dead in our sins and spiritual dead and blind?

We are called dead in our sins, spiritually dead, and spiritually blind because we are dead in our sins, spiritually dead, and spiritually blind without Christ. Essentially, we are not born saved but in the need of a Savior which is Jesus Christ our Lord.

Now your turn - If we are spiritually dead not because we sin but because we are born with a fallen sin nature from the Fall, then why does Scripture not refer to us as possessing a fallen sin nature from the Fall?