Original Sin...

I wonder why scripture never once says wrath falls on the righteous , Gods chosen , Gods elect .

oops
 
was the first sin in Man eating from the tree? (breaking the command)
or unbelief or rebellion? leading to the above
???

is unbelief a special kind of/unforgivable sin?
 
Last edited:
christ_undivided said:
Tom doesn't "refute" Perseverance.

MacArthur's position is very close to Arminianism when it comes to his "Lordship" nonsense.
Click to expand...

How is "Lordship salvation", "nonsense"?

Do you hold to the view he opposes, "license to sin", that Jesus can be your Saviour but you don't have to accept Him as Lord?
 
Theo1689 said:
How is "Lordship salvation", "nonsense"?

Do you hold to the view he opposes, "license to sin", that Jesus can be your Saviour but you don't have to accept Him as Lord?
Click to expand...
Ditto
 
Last edited by a moderator:
christ_undivided said:
Did you notice the word "Generally" in the words you quoted? There is a reason this word exists in the English language. It disregards exceptions in following comments. There are exceptions.
Click to expand...

Did you know that I was requested to "quote a Calvinist" that says we inherited Adam's guilt. As you have indicated, I quoted several credible sources, which more than satisfies the request made of me.

The use of "generally" does not only admit possible exceptions, but it admits that the typical and majority opinion is assumed! It is not a disregarding of he exceptions, but an affirmation that the imputation of Adam's guilt to his posterity is a standard point of theology among Calvinistic adherents.

The poster to whom I was responding was seemingly implying that the normal Calvinistic argument was not what I suggested, that any thought aligning with inherited guilt by a Calvinist is aberrant, spurious, and fringe. I have demonstrated that it is nothing of the sort!
christ_undivided said:
You quoted several Calvinists in your response but you didn't really deal with use of "guilt".
Click to expand...

The objective was not to explain the use of guilt, which is rather self-evident, but to quote credible Calvinistic sources affirming the doctrine of imputed guilt.


christ_undivided said:
Guilt is imputed. It is not a claim that man isn't actually guilty of his own crimes. Man is BOTH innately guilty through Adam and his own subsequent sin.
Click to expand...
I haven't suggested any such thing. I have only suggested what you have affirmed, that the standard, typical assertion of Reformed theology is that "Man is BOTH innately guilty through Adam and his own subsequent sin."


Doug
 
Theo1689 said:
How is "Lordship salvation", "nonsense"?

Do you hold to the view he opposes, "license to sin", that Jesus can be your Saviour but you don't have to accept Him as Lord?
Click to expand...

I accept everything you just said as being true. MacArthur extends this to require works he finds acceptable as proof.
 
christ_undivided said:
So you are a MacArthur Calvinist? Which is it?
Click to expand...
Lordship has nothing to do with and ism. It’s biblical - Jesus is Lord, Jesus demands lordship . Lordship is not an option it’s a requirement to be a disciple .

Hope this helps !!!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Joe
TibiasDad said:
Did you know that I was requested to "quote a Calvinist" that says we inherited Adam's guilt. As you have indicated, I quoted several credible sources, which more than satisfies the request made of me.

The use of "generally" does not only admit possible exceptions, but it admits that the typical and majority opinion is assumed! It is not a disregarding of he exceptions, but an affirmation that the imputation of Adam's guilt to his posterity is a standard point of theology among Calvinistic adherents.
Click to expand...

Never said otherwise. You agree there are exceptions. We agree. Just making the point exceptions exist.

TibiasDad said:
The poster to whom I was responding was seemingly implying that the normal Calvinistic argument was not what I suggested, that any thought aligning with inherited guilt by a Calvinist is aberrant, spurious, and fringe. I have demonstrated that it is nothing of the sort!
Click to expand...

I believe you misunderstood what was said. Which is why I said what I said.


TibiasDad said:
I haven't suggested any such thing. I have only suggested what you have affirmed, that the standard, typical assertion of Reformed theology is that "Man is BOTH innately guilty through Adam and his own subsequent sin."


Doug
Click to expand...

Theo can speak to this but I haven't see anything from him that would indicate he doesn't accept this.
 
Theo1689 said:
I think you're going to have to quote him.
Click to expand...

That is my assessment of his teachings. I expect believers to sin. I expect believers, to at times, make a practice of sin. I don't believe they will remain in such a condition without chastisement. I don't believe that what MacArthur teaches allows for these facts.
 
christ_undivided said:
That is my assessment of his teachings. I expect believers to sin. I expect believers, to at times, make a practice of sin. I don't believe they will remain in such a condition without chastisement. I don't believe that what MacArthur teaches allows for these facts.
Click to expand...
Yes like scripture says he is against the habit and practice of sin .
 
Chalcedon said:
Far from it just the opposite is true
Click to expand...

The primary difference between his position and your current position is the fact you believe God disowns sons. His position and your current position are almost identical.

To me, Dispensationalism isn't compatible with Calvinism.
 
W
christ_undivided said:
Never said otherwise. You agree there are exceptions. We agree. Just making the point exceptions exist.



I believe you misunderstood what was said. Which is why I said what I said.




Theo can speak to this but I haven't see anything from him that would indicate he doesn't accept this.
Click to expand...
Which is why his question was odd….

Doug
 
christ_undivided said:
Too bad that David had a man killed and his bastard son ruled Israel......

Right? If you had your way David would be burning in hell. Which is why you refuse to answer Howie's question.
Click to expand...
How does 2 isolated sins = habitual sinning ?

did David commit adultery and murder on a regular basis ?

any more fallacious arguments?

Next
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top