Do you agree with this? Washer & Lordship salvation

[Marcia]

HP: Marcia, there is not one verse that Steaver has posted concerning righteousness that teaches the view of imputed righteousness taught by those in Calvinistic circles. I believe without a shadow of a doubt that the Calvinistic view of imputed righteousness is the view of Steaver, and must in fact be your’s also.

HP, the view of imputed righteousness is a biblical view. I am not a Calvinist. This view is something I hear at my church, in bible studies, my seminary, etc. and none of them are Calvinist. Read the passages I posted again.

Certainly Christ has, by His obedience, sufferings and death, made it possible for God treat us governmentally as though we have never sinned IF we fulfill certain conditions. The idea that Steaver would have us believe is that due to Christ’s obedience, sufferings and death, blinders are placed over the eyes of Almighty Omnipotent God and that regardless of our formed intents and subsequent actions they are all seen by God as righteousness if one has ‘Christ’s righteousness imputed to them.’ That is simply an erroneous view that is no where supported by any Scripture whatsoever. The passages mentioned do not support such a view in the least.

Yes, they do support such a view. How do they not? Please show us.

Furthermore, it is the held belief of Steaver as I have read and understood him, that it matters not how ‘unrighteous’ a believer might act, that it never brings one under the condemnation of the law and its corresponding penalty. That is yet another falsehood with no Scriptural support. “The soul that sinneth, it shall certainly die” is the Scriptural admonition.

Have you read Rom 8.1 lately? "Now there is no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus." It's clear as day. In fact, I think you need to read the whole book of Romans.

No sin will be forgiven or set aside without the fulfillment of the conditions God has set forth in His Word. To believe otherwise is to presume upon the grace of God, which should be avoided at all cost.

Then Jesus' atonement was not sufficient to cover our sins.

We are righteous in God's eyes only if we have trusted wholly in the work of Christ on the cross.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Quote:

HP: Certainly Christ has, by His obedience, sufferings and death, made it possible for God treat us governmentally as though we have never sinned IF we fulfill certain conditions. The idea that Steaver would have us believe is that due to Christ’s obedience, sufferings and death, blinders are placed over the eyes of Almighty Omnipotent God and that regardless of our formed intents and subsequent actions they are all seen by God as righteousness if one has ‘Christ’s righteousness imputed to them.’ That is simply an erroneous view that is no where supported by any Scripture whatsoever. The passages mentioned do not support such a view in the least.

Marcia: Yes, they do support such a view. How do they not? Please show us.

HP: The burden of proof lies not on me to prove they do not, but on you or Steaver to prove that those passages support the Calvinistic position you are espousing.



Quote:
HP: Furthermore, it is the held belief of Steaver as I have read and understood him, that it matters not how ‘unrighteous’ a believer might act, that it never brings one under the condemnation of the law and its corresponding penalty. That is yet another falsehood with no Scriptural support. “The soul that sinneth, it shall certainly die” is the Scriptural admonition.

Marcia: Have you read Rom 8.1 lately? "Now there is no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus." It's clear as day. In fact, I think you need to read the whole book of Romans.

HP: While you are quoting a verse it is always wise to quote the whole verse. The last part clarifies the first part. “to those that walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit.” When one walks after the flesh, especially the professed believer , the Spirit testifies condemnation to ones heart. Deny it all you so desire, and refuse to listen when the Spirit speaks, the condemnation remains regardless of all attempts to silence it. Doctrinal positions to the contrary will do noting to silence the condemnation of ones God-instilled conscience.
Quote:
HP: No sin will be forgiven or set aside without the fulfillment of the conditions God has set forth in His Word. To believe otherwise is to presume upon the grace of God, which should be avoided at all cost.

Marcia: Then Jesus' atonement was not sufficient to cover our sins.

HP: How in the world do you get that from what I said?? Christ’s atonement was made and is sufficient for the sins of the entire world Marcia. Just the same, only those repented of and forsaken will be found to be under the blood.

Marcia: We are righteous in God's eyes only if we have trusted wholly in the work of Christ on the cross.

HP: 1Jo 3:7 Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous.

How does this passage fit into your doctrinal position? How does your view of imputed righteousness harmonize with it? Is he righteous that has righteousness imputed according to this verse, or is he righteous that doeth righteousness? If you desire to take the position of imputed righteousness, prove it with this crystal clear passage.

 

[steaver]

The idea that Steaver would have us believe is that due to Christ’s obedience, sufferings and death, blinders are placed over the eyes of Almighty Omnipotent God and that regardless of our formed intents and subsequent actions they are all seen by God as righteousness if one has ‘Christ’s righteousness imputed to them.’ That is simply an erroneous view that is no where supported by any Scripture whatsoever. The passages mentioned do not support such a view in the least.

Wow!

Could you please reference a quote of mine that would remotely suggest such a false witness against your neighbour?

Furthermore, it is the held belief of Steaver as I have read and understood him, that it matters not how ‘unrighteous’ a believer might act, that it never brings one under the condemnation of the law and its corresponding penalty. That is yet another falsehood with no Scriptural support. “The soul that sinneth, it shall certainly die” is the Scriptural admonition.

Tts 3:5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;

Rom 4:6 Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,

Rom 3:19 Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.

Rom 3:20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law [is] the knowledge of sin.

Rom 3:21 But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;

Rom 3:27 Where [is] boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.

Rom 3:28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.

Rom 3:31 Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.

Rom 4:13 For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, [was] not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.

Rom 4:14 For if they which are of the law [be] heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect:

Rom 4:15 Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, [there is] no transgression.

Rom 4:16 Therefore [it is] of faith, that [it might be] by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all,


Rom 6:14 For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.

Rom 6:15 What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.

Rom 7:1 Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth?

Rom 7:2 For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to [her] husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of [her] husband.

Rom 7:3 So then if, while [her] husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.

Rom 7:4 Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, [even] to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.

Rom 7:5 For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death.

Rom 7:6 But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not [in] the oldness of the letter.

Rom 7:7 What shall we say then? [Is] the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.




Well, tell you what, I can't post most of the NT here, there isn't enough room. Get yourself a bible and you will find the scriptures you say do not exist.

And the soul that sinneth, yes it shall surely die. This is why Jesus came. Look it up!

:thumbs:

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

HP: The idea that Steaver would have us believe is that due to Christ’s obedience, sufferings and death, blinders are placed over the eyes of Almighty Omnipotent God and that regardless of our formed intents and subsequent actions they are all seen by God as righteousness if one has ‘Christ’s righteousness imputed to them.’ That is simply an erroneous view that is no where supported by any Scripture whatsoever. The passages mentioned do not support such a view in the least.

Steaver: Wow!

Could you please reference a quote of mine that would remotely suggest such a false witness against your neighbour?

HP: First I do need to apologize. I know full well that you have not stated such directly. It was not my intention to say that you had. I was simply stating what I believe is the essence or end of your position. I should have made it clearer that my comments were my opinion.

Tell us Steaver with your own words so we do not misrepresent your views. What is the penalty for sin in the life of the believer? Are our sins as believers already atoned for and covered by the blood before we even commit them? Has Christ’s righteousness been imputed to us on the account of present and future sins that one has not committed yet or has not repented of?

To cut to the chase, please show us a Scripture that indicates that the penalty of sin in the believer's life is loss of rewards, and if Christ's righteousness is imputed, why would any penalty be possible for that which has already been atoned for and settled on the cross?

 

[Marcia]

HP said:

The burden of proof lies not on me to prove they do not, but on you or Steaver to prove that those passages support the Calvinistic position you are espousing.

HP, did you not read my earlier post? I am not a Calvinist nor have I ever been! This has nothing to do with Calvinism. I fail to see the connection.

Are you saying that when one has faith in Christ, is indwelt and regenerated by the Holy Spirit, that they are not seen as righteous in God's eyes? You said the burden of proof is on me and Steaver, but the proof is there in the scriptures that we posted. I don't see how it could not be clearer. When we trust in Christ, his righteousness covers our sins. This is the essence of the gospel.

I'm guessing that maybe what you are arguing for is that one can lose their salvation, because that is the only way I can make sense of what you are saying. Is that what you are saying?

 

[Alive in Christ]

I'm going to just post after reading the 1st post, so this might be a repeat of what has already been posted.

I have seen several of Paul Washers videos. I believe he loves God, is sincere, and has recognized an area in the Body that is sometimes out of balance.

Unfortunetly, he is a legalist. He is going "out of balance" in the other direction. He is proclaiming a works based salvation.

In truth, our works have no part in our attaining justification with God. We are eternally seen by God...from the moment we enter into saving faith...as *positionally* completely sinless.

The perfect, sinless, rightiousness of Jesus Christ is imputed to us at the moment we are born again. That imputation is permanent. God eternally "sees" us as being "in Christ". So much so that even now were are spiritually already "seated" in the heavenlies, "In Christ"...

"Even when we were dead in tresspasses and sins, made us alive together with Christ (for it is by grace that you are saved), and raised us up together, and made us sit together in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus"

"In Him you trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise,who is the guarentee of the redemption of the purchased possesion, to the praise of His glory"

Among many others of course.:godisgood:

 

[Alive in Christ]

"Originally Posted by xdisciplex
I just watched this 10 minute clip here from Paul Washer where he says that salvation is not easy. I don't know but Washer always drags me down.

Thats what legalism does.

In contrast to that...

"For it is by grace that you are saved, through faith. And that not of ourselves, it is the gift of God. Not of works, least anyone should boast"

:godisgood:

 

[Alive in Christ]

Heavenly Pilgrim,

Steaver posted this, in support of the truth of Gods grace, our eternal security through faith alone, and imputed rightiousness...

"Tts 3:5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;

Rom 4:6 Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,

Rom 3:19 Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.

Rom 3:20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law [is] the knowledge of sin.

Rom 3:21 But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;

Rom 3:27 Where [is] boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.

Rom 3:28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.

Rom 3:31 Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.

Rom 4:13 For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, [was] not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.

Rom 4:14 For if they which are of the law [be] heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect:

Rom 4:15 Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, [there is] no transgression.

Rom 4:16 Therefore [it is] of faith, that [it might be] by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all,


Rom 6:14 For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.

Rom 6:15 What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.

Rom 7:1 Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth?

Rom 7:2 For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to [her] husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of [her] husband.

Rom 7:3 So then if, while [her] husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.

Rom 7:4 Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, [even] to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.

Rom 7:5 For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death.

Rom 7:6 But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not [in] the oldness of the letter.

Rom 7:7 What shall we say then? [Is] the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.

Immedietly after that, you responded...

"Tell us Steaver with your own words so we do not misrepresent your views...."

Steaver just posted 21 passages of scripture in support of his view, and you...rather than deal with that...say...

"Tell us Steaver in your own words..."

Why do you want something "in his words", rather than dealing with Gods words?

Please deal with all of Gods scriptures that have been posted.


:godisgood:

 

[Tom Butler]

I have seen several of Paul Washers videos. I believe he loves God, is sincere, and has recognized an area in the Body that is sometimes out of balance.

Unfortunetly, he is a legalist. He is going "out of balance" in the other direction. He is proclaiming a works based salvation.

In truth, our works have no part in our attaining justification with God. We are eternally seen by God...from the moment we enter into saving faith...as *positionally* completely sinless.

The perfect, sinless, rightiousness of Jesus Christ is imputed to us at the moment we are born again. That imputation is permanent. God eternally "sees" us as being "in Christ". So much so that even now were are spiritually already seated in the heavenlies...":godisgood:

I know Paul Washer and have heard him preach many times. If he were to read what I highlighted in your post, he would recoil in horror to think that anyone would read works salvation into his preaching.

In fact, I believe he would agree wholeheartedly with the remainder of your post. You must have misunderstood what he said.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Marcia: HP, did you not read my earlier post? I am not a Calvinist nor have I ever been! This has nothing to do with Calvinism. I fail to see the connection.

HP: I do not desire to sound condescending, but if you do not understand the connection between Calvinism and the false notion of imputed righteousness, your education, regardless if garnered in a Seminary, is deficient.

I hate to be the one to tell you, and call yourself whatever you like, the fact still remains: the dogma of imputed righteousness is pure Calvinism.

 

[DHK]

HP: I do not desire to sound condescending, but if you do not understand the connection between Calvinism and the false notion of imputed righteousness, your education, regardless if garnered in a Seminary, is deficient.

I hate to be the one to tell you, and call yourself whatever you like, the fact still remains: the dogma of imputed righteousness is pure Calvinism.

HP, this is a warning. There are many of us here that are not Calvinist, myself included. Yet, in previous discussions with you, we are accused of being Calvinists because we don't fit into your theological paradigm. Stop the name-calling. Stop the accusations. It doesn't matter how high of an opinion you may fashion yourself to be as a theologian. When someone tells you that they are not a Calvinist and doesn't want to be labeled as such, then leave it at that.

Further arguments about such name-calling will be taken up with the administration. This is simply a warning.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: HP, this is a warning. There are many of us here that are not Calvinist, myself included. Yet, in previous discussions with you, we are accused of being Calvinists because we don't fit into your theological paradigm. Stop the name-calling. Stop the accusations. It doesn't matter how high of an opinion you may fashion yourself to be as a theologian. When someone tells you that they are not a Calvinist and doesn't want to be labeled as such, then leave it at that.

Further arguments about such name-calling will be taken up with the administration. This is simply a warning.

HP: I would be interested to hear and welcome the response of the administration of this board, not upon your false accusations but upon my posts. I did not call anyone a Calvinist, but only point out the clear and well understood connection between Calvinism and dogmas supported by those on this list. Face the facts DHK, some dogmas are clearly Calvinistic, and those that support such dogmas should not be alarmed or insulted when the well understood connection is made.

If one does not desire to align themselves with a certain doctrinal persuasion, I would suggest that they take a serious look at their beliefs that directly coincide with those developed and supported by a particular 'ism.'

Show me where I have ever denoted anyone as being a Calvinist. Quote me accurately please and in context. I might have well stated that something is a Calvinistic position, or that one is in support of a Calvinistic notion, but that is a far cry from your false accusation of name calling.

 

[DHK]

If one does not desire to align themselves with a certain doctrinal persuasion, I would suggest that they take a serious look at their beliefs that directly coincide with those developed and supported by a particular 'ism.'

The rules state that you post showing grace to others.
The above is an example of your pride, your opinion, and your name-calling whether directly or indirectly. Calling a person a Calvinist when they say they are not, is rude and arrogant. It doesn't matter what you think and how theologically correct you think you are. You need to stop. And you need to stop now, for you are derailing this thread.

BTW, in case you haven't noticed I have over 15,000 posts. I am not going to wade through them all just to find a couple in which I responded to you about Calvinism.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: The rules state that you post showing grace to others.

HP: The above is an example of your pride, your opinion, and your name-calling whether directly or indirectly. Calling a person a Calvinist when they say they are not, is rude and arrogant. It doesn't matter what you think and how theologically correct you think you are. You need to stop. And you need to stop now, for you are derailing this thread.

BTW, in case you haven't noticed I have over 15,000 posts. I am not going to wade through them all just to find a couple in which I responded to you about Calvinism.

HP: Please do not waste time wading through numerous posts because I do not believe you will find one comment that is in accordance to your false accusation. Take the time to re-read my post you now reference that I sent in regards to Marcia’s obvious lack of understanding of the most liklely source of her own held belief. Did I call her a Calvinist as you falsely claim? Go ahead and post my exact words that would substantiate your claim that I am name calling or that I called her a Calvinist.

In the meantime, show us where the Church held to any imputed righteousness dogma such as Marica or Steaver are espousing prior to the advent of Augustine, the real father of Calvinism. Will you deny that Augustine developed his theological system straight from the writings of none other than Augustine?

For one to act as if though these clearly held positions developed and pressed into service within the Church by men such as Augustine and Calvin, as if though they just developed by one reading or studying Scripture on their own, is to history nothing short of historical plagiarism…….or lack of understanding as to the impact others have had upon ones thinking.

Tell us DHK, why it so offensive to simply draw a connection between a well established theological system of thought known to every open minded student of theology as Calvinism and ones stated position? Have you ever called one a Pelagian, or Arminian, in any debate on this list? Have you ever drew attention to the likeness between men such as Pelagius or Ariminius and the doctrinally held positions of one on this list? Careful DHK, God is listening.

 

[webdog]

The rules state that you post showing grace to others.
The above is an example of your pride, your opinion, and your name-calling whether directly or indirectly. Calling a person a Calvinist when they say they are not, is rude and arrogant. It doesn't matter what you think and how theologically correct you think you are. You need to stop. And you need to stop now, for you are derailing this thread.

BTW, in case you haven't noticed I have over 15,000 posts. I am not going to wade through them all just to find a couple in which I responded to you about Calvinism.

I would like to point out, DHK, that if showing grace to other posters is a rule, even the moderators are not above this rule. HP asked you to provide the accusations you have made against him. It would be showing grace to back up an accusation, or recant such an accusation.

 

[DHK]

I would like to point out, DHK, that if showing grace to other posters is a rule, even the moderators are not above this rule. HP asked you to provide the accusations you have made against him. It would be showing grace to back up an accusation, or recant such an accusation.

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1235321&postcount=135
http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1235328&postcount=136
http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1234259&postcount=109

All the rest of the conjecture DHK has proposed is simply man-made philosophical cover for the unfounded Augustinian presupposition of original sin.

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1232785&postcount=86

 

[steaver]

For one to act as if though these clearly held positions developed and pressed into service within the Church by men such as Augustine and Calvin, as if though they just developed by one reading or studying Scripture on their own, is to history nothing short of historical plagiarism…….or lack of understanding as to the impact others have had upon ones thinking.

I have yet to read one sentence ever written by Calvin or Augustine. Maybe I should see what these men had to say, but then if I do I will be accused of getting my theology from them instead of the scriptures, but then again I already am accused of getting it from them! Go figure!

raying:

 

[steaver]

HP: First I do need to apologize. I know full well that you have not stated such directly. It was not my intention to say that you had. I was simply stating what I believe is the essence or end of your position. I should have made it clearer that my comments were my opinion.

Tell us Steaver with your own words so we do not misrepresent your views. What is the penalty for sin in the life of the believer? Are our sins as believers already atoned for and covered by the blood before we even commit them? Has Christ’s righteousness been imputed to us on the account of present and future sins that one has not committed yet or has not repented of?

To cut to the chase, please show us a Scripture that indicates that the penalty of sin in the believer's life is loss of rewards, and if Christ's righteousness is imputed, why would any penalty be possible for that which has already been atoned for and settled on the cross?

Appology accepted :wavey:

Q1) There is no penalty for sin, Jesus took care of this (Romans 8:1). Only discipline. God chasens those He loves. Hbr 12:7 If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not?

Q2) Yes. The believers sins (past present, future) are all taken away, paid for, by the once shed blood of our High Priest, Jesus Christ, slain before the foundation of the world. It is finished!

Q3) Yes.

Q4) There is no scripture which indicates a penalty of loss of rewards for a believer sinning. Rewards are all about good works verses bad works. However, in a sense, sin can cause one to do bad works and bear less fruit, which will cause a loss of rewards in the end.

You say you do not believe in imputed righteousness. How in the world do you ignore all those scriptures which say just that??

raying:

 

[Marcia]

I would like to point out, DHK, that if showing grace to other posters is a rule, even the moderators are not above this rule. HP asked you to provide the accusations you have made against him. It would be showing grace to back up an accusation, or recant such an accusation.

He said I had a Calvinist position in post #21, and I replied I was not a Calvinist. Then he called me a Calvinist again, or said I was "espousing the Calvinist position" (same thing) after this, in post #25, both on previous page.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Marcia: He said I had a Calvinist position in post #21, and I replied I was not a Calvinist. Then he called me a Calvinist again, or said I was "espousing the Calvinist position" (same thing) after this, in post #25, both on previous page.

HP: Tell the list the truth, the whole truth and NOTHING but the truth. Which was it Marcia? Did I call you a Calvinist, or I did I simply point out the truth that you are ‘espousing a Calvinistic position? Certainly the word Calvinism has meaning and has for centuries, and signifies certain distinctive known to any and all who take the time to study the origin of doctrines. The imputed righteousness of Christ, IN THE MANNER YOU AND STEAVER have suggested, is a purely ‘Calvinistic’ position, unknown to the Church prior to the advent of Augustine. It is part and parcel to the system of theology known to the world for hundreds of years as Calvinism.

I will say it again. It matters not what one calls themselves, or whether they take offense at the clear connection between their views and the view know to every fair minded theological student, the dogma of the imputed righteousness of Christ as presented on this list by Steaver and Marcia is in fact a decidedly Calvinistic position and is not novel with these two individuals and is not directly taught as such in the Word of God.

I will also add that the dogma of original sin is in fact an Augustinian notion, again unaccepted or promoted as truth by the Church as dogma prior to the advent of Augustine, and is the foundational doctrine of Calvinism. It matters not whether one calls themselves an Arminian or whatever, the dogma of original sin is an Augustinian/Calvinistic dogma and all that purport it to be true are assuming an Augustinian/Calvinistic position. The reason why I do not say original sin is an Arminian position is that the Arminian position set forth was borrowed from the Augustian position that preceded their position. I would not hesitate to tell one calling themselves an Armninian, or anyone else for that matter, that when they present the dogma of original sin as their belief, they are espousing a decidedly Augustinian/Calvinisitc position in their stated acceptance of the dogma of original sin that was novel with Augustine.