• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

original Sin vs Sinful Nature

DQuixote

New Member
I posted a chart not long ago that gives a nice little summary of the different forms of Calvinism. Not all Calvinists believe exactly the same way.

And therein lies the problem! Not all Christians believe exactly the same way, a theological impossibility if one is spiritually rightly dividing scripture!

Buf if it caught on, we'd have to shut down the BB.

Let the impossible begin! Again!

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: <-----Angelic beings looking over my shoulder, giving me high 5's...........
 

Dustin

New Member
BobRyan said:
Agreed "not all Calvinists hold to the same part of the Tulip" but the question was specifically about "reformed" theologians -- how many of them are just 3 point Calvinists??

some??

none by "definition"??

How many are 4 pointers - denying Perseverance?

some?

None?


No, all the ones I have in mind are 5 pointers (cosistant Calvinists), there are a few different views of 5-point Calvinism. I'd say 3 (in the 5 point group) very generally, although there are numerous other individual views.

Basically you have Infralapsarians (election after fall) , Supralapsarians (election before fall, some say before creation also), and Hypers.

It's hard to say what exactly the Hypers believe because they are historically the vast minority. Some believe one could be saved without hearing the Gospel, but to attribute this to all "hypers" would not be accurate.

Speaking of the other two views, there are various other criteria that but it's a lot to type and I'm not up to it tonight.



Soli Deo Gloria,
Dustin
 

BobRyan

Well-Known Member
Dustin said:
Well, there are Reformed people with differening views of Calvinism. I posted a chart not long ago that gives a nice little summary of the different forms of Calvinism. Not all Calvinists believe exactly the same way.

And by that you mean they all are 5 pointers (by definition).

That was the part that was not as apparent from your statement above.

In Christ,

Bob
 

tragic_pizza

New Member
It all has to do with understanding what the five points mean. I've spoken already about Total Depravity. "Unconditional Election" relates to Romans 5:8, that in our most sinful state Christ died for us. "Limited Atonement" speaks to eficcacy, not application. Jesus died for all, not a few, but the free gift is given to those who respond to God's call for reconciliation. "Irresistable Grace" is a tough one, because if God indeed calls everyone to reconciliation, how is it that some resist? We don't know. Perhaps the answer equates to some form of pluralism, perhaps we must be satisfied knowing that God hass all the answers and we do not. "Perseverance of the Saints" is a promise, not a form of OSAS. If we persevere, we will be welcomed into eternal life with God.
 

DQuixote

New Member
Jesus died for all, not a few, but the free gift is given to those who respond to God's call for reconciliation.

Precisely. I would have stated it as "Jesus died for ALL, not a few, AND the free gift is given to those who respond to God's call."

That erases the difference between all the 5-pointers, 4-pointers, 3-pointers, pointers-abounding, Arminians, Slovakians, Hawaiians, and whomever is left.

"Perseverance of the Saints" is a promise, not a form of OSAS. If we persevere, we will be welcomed into eternal life with God.

On the contrary. They are identical. Those who answer God's call will perservere because of the mediation of Christ, not because of works. There is no license to sin in that. There is absolute assurance that eternity is ours because He paid the debt in full and His payment perserveres until all Believers come home. For that, we do not wallow in sin, we rejoice in His Presence.

-End of Presentation-
 

BobRyan

Well-Known Member
tragic_pizza said:
It all has to do with understanding what the five points mean. I've spoken already about Total Depravity. "Unconditional Election" relates to Romans 5:8, that in our most sinful state Christ died for us. "Limited Atonement" speaks to eficcacy, not application. Jesus died for all, not a few, but the free gift is given to those who respond to God's call for reconciliation.

You are making an Arminian argument out of it. I don't think the 4 and 5 pointers are going to argue that Christ paid the debt for the sins of "all the world" but rather - just the elect.


"Irresistable Grace" is a tough one, because if God indeed calls everyone to reconciliation, how is it that some resist? We don't know.

Well that confusion can't exist in an Arminian system or in a 4 and 5 point system. The 4 and 5 pointers deny that God actually draws - actually calls any but the elect since those called - those drawn, simply "wake up one day" and "discover" that they are already born again Christians "for some odd reason".

"Perseverance of the Saints" is a promise, not a form of OSAS. If we persevere, we will be welcomed into eternal life with God.

Perseverance is a promise and a warning in the NT - most often a warning to the saints - to those already born again that they must persevere in the state they are IN to be saved in the end.

In Christ,

Bob
 

BobRyan

Well-Known Member
DQuixote said:
Precisely. I would have stated it as "Jesus died for ALL, not a few, AND the free gift is given to those who respond to God's call."

That erases the difference between all the 5-pointers, 4-pointers, 3-pointers, pointers-abounding, Arminians, Slovakians, Hawaiians, and whomever is left.

The 4 and 5 point Calvinist argument is that Jesus did NOT pay the debt owed by the wicked that will eventually go to hell.

In the Calvinist model (and for some confused Arminians) the cross is not ONLY the 1John 2:2 "Atoning Sacrifice" (NIV) it is ALSO the final atonement process that excludes the high priestly work God said is so nececessary to "Atonement" in Lev 16. That means - all payment all process, all good-vs-bad and saved-vs-lost payment issues are OVER.

Once atoned for there can be NO SUCH THING as atoned for but lost. What "other process" are you going to appeal to?? If there is one then your "Atonement" was not complete. So by definition the payment COULD only be for those God selected to be saved.

The only alternative (if using that flawed defnition for atonement) is universalism.

They keep telling Arminians that - and some Arminians keep swallowing the Calvinist concept of Atonement (excluding what God says about it in Lev16) and then trying to get out of the box that paints them in -

In Christ,

Bob
 

JDale

Member
Site Supporter
Heavenly Pilgrim said:
HP: So God creates every human guilty from birth. Guilty of what? What is the charge? What is the crime? Where is the disobedience? Where is the justice? Judicial speaks of a court of justice. What justice would condemn and convict all men before they ever had any opportunity to choose anything, let alone sin? What a total blight you paint upon the character and justice of God.



HP: Show me where that is mentioned? Where does it say first that they are guilty, and secondly where does it say that God sets aside their guilt. Again guilt for what? Are they guilty for allowing God to form them as sinners from birth without choice or having anything whatsoever with the state they are born into?

And to think you call that justice, or judicial guilt.


Simple.

Romans 5:12-14 -- Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
(For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

ALL -- guilty as charged.

JDale
 

JDale

Member
Site Supporter
BobRyan said:
James 4:17 - to him who KNOWS to do right and does it not - to him it is sin.

Infants have a Savior who releases them from their sinful natures (and yes even fallen natures) if they die as infants.

No magic rites about infant baptism to solve their salvation status due to a myth like original sin. God is not going to burn them or punish them for Adam -- Adam would have to pay for his own sin in hell if he goes there.

in Christ,

Bob

It is one thing to say that God in His grace does not "impute" sin to the account of those infants and children under the age of accountability. It is quite another to say that "original sin is a myth."

The former is simply a Biblical acknowledgement of a merciful Saviour who would not harm any of "these little ones..." The latter borders on the heretical thinking of Pelagianism.

JDale
 

BobRyan

Well-Known Member
Adam sinned -- the result is that he gets a sinful nature and so do his children.

What is not taught in scripture is that God will burn Adam's children in hell for Adam's sin. To get that teaching you have to go to the source of it - the RCC and the dark ages.
 
JDale: Simple.

Romans 5:12-14 -- Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:…..

HP: That verse simply states that we, as physical descedents of Adam, are subject to the physical consequenses of the fall, and that 'death,'not sin, passed upon all men as a result of being the offspring of Adam. It does not state or imply that any are guilty of Adam’s sin or that any are born in original sin. If you would read the text as it is written, it will tell you why death passed upon all men, and it will not tell you because of Adam's sin or the sin of any other. Death passed upon all men because “ALL HAVE SINNED.” Now why is that so hard to understand? What gives you the right to inject your false Augustinian presupposition into the text concerning original sin? How can you point to something as being heretical, when it is you that is adding into the text words and ideas that simply are not found there? Possibly you have other texts that support the false notion of original sin?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Wesley on Original sin. “Our moral faculties have been distorted by the Fall, but `nothing is sin, strictly speaking, but a voluntary transgression of the known will of God'.
Wesley on Liberty of Thought “The Scripture does not, that I remember, anywhere say, in express words, that the sin of Adam is imputed to his children; or, that the sins of believers are imputed to Christ; or, that the righteousness of Christ is imputed to believers: but the true meaning of these expressions is sufficiently found in several places of Scripture.” “Yet since these express words and phrases, , of the imputation of Adam’s sin to us, of our sins to Christ, and of Christ’s righteousness to us, are not plainly written in Scripture we should not impose it on every Christian, to use these very expressions. Let every one take his liberty, either of confining himself to strictly Scriptural language, or manifesting his sense of these plain Scriptural doctrines, in words and phrases of his own.”
HP: JDale, was Wesley a heretic by allowing freedom of thought on these issues?
 

BobRyan

Well-Known Member
Ok so an infant who dies - does or does NOT need a Savior??

Answer: The infant DOES need a savior because the infant has a sinFUL nature that is at war against the sinless and pure Law of God. So the "need" of the infant is "not repentance" nor "confession" or "forgiveness of sin" -- the NEED of the infant is to have the sinful nature removed.

Christ through his death earns the right to stand for that infant as his/her spiritual head - in the place that Adam stood before the fall. To claim that infant as a son or daughter and to freely give to them the Gospel gift of a sinless nature at the glorification event for all mankind (the second coming) when the saints are transformed and taken to heaven.

In Christ,

Bob
 

BR: Answer: The infant DOES need a savior because the infant has a sinFUL nature that is at war against the sinless and pure Law of God. So the "need" of the infant is "not repentance" nor "confession" or "forgiveness of sin" -- the NEED of the infant is to have the sinful nature removed.
HP: Now that is a nice bit of conjecture. Where is the slightest bit of evidence to support it? :)
 
Top