original Sin vs Sinful Nature

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...........

 

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

 

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.

 

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.

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-

 

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

 

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

 

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?

 

HP: JDale, was Wesley a heretic by allowing freedom of thought on these issues?

 

HP: Now that is a nice bit of conjecture. Where is the slightest bit of evidence to support it?

 

Why the deafening silence BR? Where do you find support for your claims?