A Baptist View of Free Will

[GodsGrace]

This brings out an interesting point. Because unless everyone is OWED a chance under a so-called "Pelagian" type system, people will be offended.

Since Calvinism and Arminianism share the belief that no one deserves the grace of God and all are born sinful and unworthy, both share the understanding that God is inherently offensive to sinful flesh, as Scripture very plainly reveals to us.

So then, what is the difference between the two, if both have a so-called "mean" God?

— Under Arminianism God has a perfect attribute of love, is maximally loving and desirous for all to be saved, even though he does not owe it.

— Under Calvinism God has an imperfect attribute of partial love, only loving and desiring some to be saved, even though he does not owe it.


Thus for all God's attributes to be perfect—not just partially good, but maximally good—only the Arminian God is possible.

Help.
So it sounds like you know...
So I'm told I'm an arminiun.
OK.
So who is this Arminius?
And why am I not just called a CHRSTIAN?

(I don't mean by you).

 

[GodsGrace]

Excellent. I’m glad to hear that, Godsgrace.
I can read the nobility of your heart through the nobility of your words. Then may I suggest not to imply in any way that Calvinists are heretics, since heresy is listed among immoralities… among the fruits of the flesh. That’s what we just read in Galatians: Heretics do not enter the Kingdom of God.

I'm afraid I'm going to keep using the word HERETICAL.
It has a meaning and that's the meaning I'll be using.
I explained about Galatians, I think it was.

Thousands or millions have been arrested, tortured, beheaded, hanged or burnt at the stake for being heretics.

Agreed.

In our current times, and even in this Forum. some Christians think that Jehovah Witnesses, Muslims, Jews or Baha’is like me who choose to live and die in their respective religion deserve to burn in hell for ever, in indescribable suffering.

Well, maybe we could teletransport them back to the dark ages?
No one is going to hell because of incorrect doctrine but for refusing the love of God and accepting instead the instructions of satan.
The same sin that expelled Adam and Eve from the Garden.

I will say those however.....
There are some on these forums that write the word CHRISTIAN under their avatar who are NOT Christian.
Christianity has an explicit definition and if a person does not with to follow that definition then they should not refer
to themselves as Christian. JWs would be one such group. They are not Christian and should not define themselves this way.
If they'd like to be Christian they're welcomed to join the rest of the Christian people that understand and accept what it means to be Christian.

In conclusion, “heretic” and “heresy” are terms that we should utter or write with maximal prudence, in attention to the way those terms are used in the Bible, in attention tothose who have been persecuted and killed for 2000 years, and in attention to the feelings of all brothers and sisters at the Forum.

I really understand your point.
So how would YOU call a group that opposes mainline Christianity AS A WHOLE GROUP?

 

[Dizerner]

Help.
So who is this Arminius?
And why am I not just called a CHRSTIAN?

Ok, I will give you a VERY condensed history lesson.

Basically the majority visible external Christian church gradually morphed into Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox over the years by the time Calvin showed up. This is not to say that just because they called themselves Christian that made them Christian, nor is it to say that there were literally no other Christians, but the RCC and EO became the majority by the mid 1500s. There were also other Christian groups like the Anabaptists who didn't like the RCC at all, and were named for their rejection of infant baptism and belief that everyone should make a choice, and were heavily persecuted and often killed and tortured by the RCC.

Now Luther and some others felt like the RCC church needed reforming, because in fact, the RCC was full of unbiblical teaching. However, it was intimidating going against a really big and powerful church that everyone looked up to, so Luther and some others started gradually "protesting" different doctrines, and gradually more and more people broke away and stated where they differed from the RCC, eventually being called "Protestants." Most of them were Calvinist for some reason that is not readily explainable. Now weirdly, these Calvinists ended up not liking the Anabaptists either, even though you think they would have some sympathy and understand them.

Okay, I know this a long setup, but you really can't get the big picture without it, lol. So, after Calvin wrote a bunch of stuff and codified Calvinism, then later some of the group didn't like his emphasis on removing free will and blaming sin on God. So Arminius was the guy who came along and challenged Calvinism (along with others, but he was kind of a leader and got the most famous). Then Arminius made his own five points in opposition to the five points of TULIP. Basically, ever since then it's kind of become shorthand for "Free will versus Divine determinism" to say "Arminianism versus Calvinism," and people argued it heatedly for hundreds of years.

There is nothing wrong with "just being called a Christian." Many Calvinists also want to just call themselves Christian and don't particularly like to be called Calvinists. However, labels serve a function. We use the "Trinity" even though that word isn't in the Bible so people quickly understand what we are saying, that we believe God is three Persons in one Being. So doctrinal labels can just be a quick way to let people know what kind of theology or belief we have, whether we believe that real free will exists, or whether we believe that God's divine decree determines all the choices of all people. And instead of writing that all out every single time, you can just say "I have Calvinist/Arminian" theology.

You can take all these data points and pretty much explore them ad infinitum, it's a pretty deep rabbit hole, but that is the extremely abbreviated version for you. There are many people still today who just hate labels for some reason, and just don't like the feel of them, so they refuse to call themselves any particular theology. But I don't think there's really any good reason not to use "shortcuts" to just say what style of belief you have. I very closely align with what is called "Classical Arminian Theology."

 

[Dizerner]

No one is going to hell because of incorrect doctrine but for refusing the love of God and accepting instead the instructions of satan.
The same sin that expelled Adam and Eve from the Garden.

This is just incorrect. You seem to have a wrong understanding of what doctrine mean.

Doctrines are just your beliefs stated clearly. The principles or teachings that you live by.

So the teaching that "Jesus suffered the penalty for you sins" is actually a "doctrine," in fact we call it "substitutionary atonement."

If one rejects that doctrine, one has rejected God's only way of salvation, and cannot be saved.

Many on this forum calls themselves Christian yet reject this fundamental truth of the Gospel.

 

[Dizerner]

So we're all in sin.

We all do fall short of the glory of God, and so we all do sin since we are not perfect.

However, not everyone has grievous false doctrines, that is false.

Some doctrines are much less important than others.

Have we come to a final conclusion as to which doctrines are 100% correct?

For the majority, I have, after a lifetime of prayer and study.

Some things I still don't quite understand or have clarity on, and I just say "I don't know."

It's not a sin to simply not know after you've done your best.

This is common Christian teaching.
I'd say Calvinism goes beyond stating that all our thoughts, words and deeds are tainted with sin..
but agreed.

You are very correct on this!

So it makes God to be a sin decreeing God...the opposite of what the NT (and all the bible) teaches.

How is it immoral?

It's accusing God of sinful acts he did not do, how can that NOT be immoral?

Your question is puzzling, this doctrine literally insults the holiness of God.

What does immoral mean?
I've just never thought of it in that way.

Immoral just means morally wrong, it means to violate the proper standard of morality.

you're referring to OSAS.
This doctrine can lead to bad, ungodly behavior because it teaches that a person can live a life of sin and still be saved.

Excellent and powerful point.

The Holy Spirit has taught you well on this, OSAS is one of the biggest false doctrines in the church today.

 

[GodsGrace]

Ok, I will give you a VERY condensed history lesson.

Basically the majority visible external Christian church gradually morphed into Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox over the years by the time Calvin showed up. This is not to say that just because they called themselves Christian that made them Christian, nor is it to say that there were literally no other Christians, but the RCC and EO became the majority by the mid 1500s. There were also other Christian groups like the Anabaptists who didn't like the RCC at all, and were named for their rejection of infant baptism and belief that everyone should make a choice, and were heavily persecuted and often killed and tortured by the RCC.

Thanks.
And yes,,,,agreed on the history.

Now Luther and some others felt like the RCC church needed reforming, because in fact, the RCC was full of unbiblical teaching. However, it was intimidating going against a really big and powerful church that everyone looked up to, so Luther and some others started gradually "protesting" different doctrines, and gradually more and more people broke away and stated where they differed from the RCC, eventually being called "Protestants." Most of them were Calvinist for some reason that is not readily explainable. Now weirdly, these Calvinists ended up not liking the Anabaptists either, even though you think they would have some sympathy and understand them.

I think it's the understanding at the time of the sin nature.
But that's another story. (or free will).

Okay, I know this a long setup, but you really can't get the big picture without it, lol. So, after Calvin wrote a bunch of stuff and codified Calvinism, then later some of the group didn't like his emphasis on removing free will and blaming sin on God. So Arminius was the guy who came along and challenged Calvinism (along with others, but he was kind of a leader and got the most famous).

I believe Arminius started out as a Calvinist?

Then Arminius made his own five points in opposition to the five points of TULIP. Basically, ever since then it's kind of become shorthand for "Free will versus Divine determinism" to say "Arminianism versus Calvinism," and people argued it heatedly for hundreds of years.

So basically it's that simple?
Arminius came to believe in free will ---OR,,, he always believed it.
It does seem to really narrow down what Calvinists believe...however,
yes, total depravity AND free will are the two points that lead to every other belief (of TULIP)
The two combined make every other belief absolutely necessary.

There is nothing wrong with "just being called a Christian." Many Calvinists also want to just call themselves Christian and don't particularly like to be called Calvinists.

They are Christians because they believe the Christian tenets.
It's just that the theology is totally unorthodox.
They shouldn't take it as an insult...it's like being called a Lutheran or a Catholic.
It just makes it easier to identify a belief system.

However, labels serve a function. We use the "Trinity" even though that word isn't in the Bible so people quickly understand what we are saying, that we believe God is three Persons in one Being. So doctrinal labels can just be a quick way to let people know what kind of theology or belief we have, whether we believe that real free will exists, or whether we believe that God's divine decree determines all the choices of all people. And instead of writing that all out every single time, you can just say "I have Calvinist/Arminian" theology.

Yes..well, I know I can't fight being called an Arminiun (Arminians come from Armania) so I guess I just have to go with it.
Agreed on the above.

You can take all these data points and pretty much explore them ad infinitum, it's a pretty deep rabbit hole, but that is the extremely abbreviated version for you. There are many people still today who just hate labels for some reason, and just don't like the feel of them, so they refuse to call themselves any particular theology. But I don't think there's really any good reason not to use "shortcuts" to just say what style of belief you have. I very closely align with what is called "Classical Arminian Theology."

I know there's a list of the opposite of TULIP.
Would that be an list of Arminius by any chance?

Thanks for the very thought out lesson!

 

[GodsGrace]

This is just incorrect. You seem to have a wrong understanding of what doctrine mean.

I said that no one is going to hell because of incorrect doctrine.
Doctrine means a teaching.
Let's say that a person believe in OSAS....now I don't know your position,
but OSAS is definitely not a biblical postion.

So a person believes in OSAS but lives a life of obedience to God.
Is that person damned in your opinion?

My reply would be NO.
His doctrine is incorrect....
but his obedience will save him.
John 3:36

Doctrines are just your beliefs stated clearly. The principles or teachings that you live by.

So the teaching that "Jesus suffered the penalty for you sins" is actually a "doctrine," in fact we call it "substitutionary atonement."

If one rejects that doctrine, one has rejected God's only way of salvation, and cannot be saved.

Replied to above.

There are at least 7 atonement theories I can think of.
I may not believe in Penal Substitution since it came so late in Christian theology.
So you mean I'm damned because of this?

Many on this forum calls themselves Christian yet reject this fundamental truth of the Gospel.

Not sure which belief system you mean...but there are plenty.

 

[Dizerner]

Yes..well, I know I can't fight being called an Arminiun (Arminians come from Armania) so I guess I just have to go with it.

His name was Jacobus Arminius and his theology is spelled Arminian.

You mean the county of "Armenia" which has "Armenians" which is a common misspelling of Arminians.

Classical Arminianism does agree we have a sin nature, it is the one point they are in agreement on.

I know there's a list of the opposite of TULIP.
Would that be an list of Arminius by any chance?

Many theologies have taken up their own acronyms these days (often after flowers as homage).

I even came up with my own I called ORCHID.

Thanks for the very thought out lesson!

It was grossly oversimplified because there is a ton of detail to it, so be aware of that.


For further study:

Who was Jacobus Arminius? | GotQuestions.org

Who was Jacobus Arminius? What impact did Jacobus Arminius have on the Protestant church? What was his primary disagreement with Calvinism?

www.gotquestions.org

History of the Calvinist–Arminian debate - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

A (brief) Biblical Case for Arminianism, a series

Teile deine Videos mit Freunden, Verwandten oder der ganzen Welt

www.youtube.com

 

[Dizerner]

So a person believes in OSAS but lives a life of obedience to God.
Is that person damned in your opinion?

There are doctrines that are necessary for salvation, and those that are not.

I already stated that very clearly.

There are at least 7 atonement theories I can think of.
I may not believe in Penal Substitution since it came so late in Christian theology.
So you mean I'm damned because of this?

You could still possibly be saved by a trust that Jesus suffered to take your sins away in some sense.

But you are in extreme spiritual danger, and on the very most extreme edge of salvation, to deny this core and heart of the Cross.

I have written extensively on here in defense of PSA, hundreds of posts.


Please prayerfully read through this and let the Holy Spirit convict you.

God bless and sincerest wishes of goodwill.

Thread 'My full defense of PSA'

Jan 2, 2025

I posted much of this before but it's all over in different places and hard to find, so here is my summary of defense for PSA.


ALL other theories of atonement, and I do mean ALL, can only have meaning if derived from the ideas of sin and its punishment. WHY are we even in this mess? Why does God have to FIX anything at all? What is it God is even fixing? Without a thorough understanding of what sin and its punishment entails. you are lost in the water, you are floundering. The ONLY reason that makes any sense for God to become a man and die, to save the world, forgive sins, defeat death...

• Dizerner
• Replies: 68
• Forum: Penal Substitutionary Atonement

 

[GodsGrace]

We all do fall short of the glory of God, and so we all do sin since we are not perfect.

However, not everyone has grievous false doctrines, that is false.

Some doctrines are much less important than others.

Agreed.
Calvinism has totally false doctrine.
So you believe all Calvinists are lost??
This would be an extreme position to take since only God can judge the soul.

For the majority, I have, after a lifetime of prayer and study.

Some things I still don't quite understand or have clarity on, and I just say "I don't know."

It's not a sin to simply not know after you've done your best.

Agreed. Which is why incorrect doctrine will not land you in hell.

You are very correct on this!



It's accusing God of sinful acts he did not do, how can that NOT be immoral?

I'd say it's actually blasphemous.
Just never thought of an incorrect doctrine being immoral.
Will give it more thought.
As I said...moral speaks to behavior...so I don't know how believing Calvinism can be immoral...

moral
/ˈmɒrəl/
https://www.google.com/search?sca_e...2ahUKEwix06GIhcOLAxVUhP0HHX8LCsEQ3eEDegQIKBAL
adjective

1. 1.
   concerned with the principles of right and wrong behaviour.
   "the moral dimensions of medical intervention"
   
   
2. 2.
   holding or manifesting high principles for proper conduct.
   "he prides himself on being a highly moral and ethical person"
   

noun

1. 1.
   a lesson that can be derived from a story or experience.
   "the moral of this story was that one must see the beauty in what one has"
   
2. 2.
   standards of behaviour; principles of right and wrong.
   "the corruption of public morals"

Your question is puzzling, this doctrine literally insults the holiness of God.

What does insulting the holiness of God have to do with how a person behaves?

Immoral just means morally wrong, it means to violate the proper standard of morality.

You can't define a word by using the word!
I posted the meaning of MORAL up above and it goes to behavior.

Excellent and powerful point.

The Holy Spirit has taught you well on this, OSAS is one of the biggest false doctrines in the church today.

The above comment is re OSAS.
Thanks!
We can use all the encouragement we can get!

 

[GodsGrace]

His name was Jacobus Arminius and his theology is spelled Arminian.

You mean the county of "Armenia" which has "Armenians" which is a common misspelling of Arminians.

Correct. I meant Armenia.

Classical Arminianism does agree we have a sin nature, it is the one point they are in agreement on.

As are all Christians.

Many theologies have taken up their own acronyms these days (often after flowers as homage).

I even came up with my own I called ORCHID.

Why didn't you list it??!

It was grossly oversimplified because there is a ton of detail to it, so be aware of that.


For further study:

Who was Jacobus Arminius? | GotQuestions.org

Who was Jacobus Arminius? What impact did Jacobus Arminius have on the Protestant church? What was his primary disagreement with Calvinism?

www.gotquestions.org

History of the Calvinist–Arminian debate - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

A (brief) Biblical Case for Arminianism, a series

Teile deine Videos mit Freunden, Verwandten oder der ganzen Welt

www.youtube.com

So much studying D....I don't know if I can do this anymore.
I think I'll just stop thinking about it...you've given me enough.
When I study a topic I tend to go in full force and it takes a lot of time
and brain energy.


PS Which is why I really appreciate your post about Arminius.

 

[GodsGrace]

There are doctrines that are necessary for salvation, and those that are not.

I already stated that very clearly.

Yes...but you didn't state which ones and I don't expect you to go through them all just for me.
Eventually I'll come to know your beliefs.

I know persons that have never read a bible and that are saved.
Also, persons that have gone to church but never heard the actual gospel message and yet they are saved.

So, I'm very careful in making certain statements - for example that some doctrine needs to be understood for salvation.

You could still possibly be saved by a trust that Jesus suffered to take your sins away in some sense.

Of course! Jesus said that we are saved through Him.
Whoever is saved, is saved by the work that Jesus accomplished on the cross.
Jesus died for ALL MEN...right.
Unlimited atonement.

But you are in extreme spiritual danger, and on the very most extreme edge of salvation, to deny this core and heart of the Cross.

Are you speaking of Penal Substitution again?

I have written extensively on here in defense of PSA, hundreds of posts.

Yes...I guess so Penal Substitution Atonement Theory.
Will read what you've posted below.
Have you considered the others?
Are they of no value?
Have you realized that each one is biblical?
It's an interesting topic...I've tried twice to start a thread but there's very little interest.
(not on here).

Please prayerfully read through this and let the Holy Spirit convict you.

God bless and sincerest wishes of goodwill.

Thread 'My full defense of PSA'

Jan 2, 2025

I posted much of this before but it's all over in different places and hard to find, so here is my summary of defense for PSA.


ALL other theories of atonement, and I do mean ALL, can only have meaning if derived from the ideas of sin and its punishment. WHY are we even in this mess? Why does God have to FIX anything at all? What is it God is even fixing? Without a thorough understanding of what sin and its punishment entails. you are lost in the water, you are floundering. The ONLY reason that makes any sense for God to become a man and die, to save the world, forgive sins, defeat death...

• Dizerner
• Replies: 68
• Forum: Penal Substitutionary Atonement

Thanks D.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

No one is going to hell because of incorrect doctrine but for refusing the love of God and accepting instead the instructions of satan.
The same sin that expelled Adam and Eve from the Garden.

God bless you for this understanding, my sister.

I really understand your point.
So how would YOU call a group that opposes mainline Christianity AS A WHOLE GROUP?

You may want to use the same term you used few posts ago. You said "incorrect doctrine". Just say their view or doctrine is incorrect, wrong, false, not biblical, unsupported, illogical, absurd, etc. You can also use the term "heterodox". All these terms qualify the validity of their claims/beliefs, but not the morality of their lives or the eternal fate of their soul.

Thanks for not taking me wrong. If there is anyone here who does not condemn other people just for their beliefs, that person is you.
Let's move then from this issue.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

This is just incorrect. You seem to have a wrong understanding of what doctrine mean.
Doctrines are just your beliefs stated clearly. The principles or teachings that you live by.

That you live by?
Assenting to a doctrine (right or wrong) is different than living by such doctrine.
In most cases, assenting to a correct doctrine, or rejecting an incorrect doctrine, has nothing to do with living by it, and therefore nothing to do with our salvation. Faith is not doctrinal orthodoxy. Faith is trust and certainty in action. No works = no faith = no salvation.

You mention, for example, the doctrine of penal substitutionary atonement (PSA)
Well, there are thousands or millions of Christians who have been born again, who love Jesus and follow Jesus* without having understood such doctrine, and with minimal or no willingness to understand it, explain it, or defend it. You could bring them to this Forum, ask them "What does it mean that Jesus die for your sins?" and get all kind of answers that would not satisfy your personal understanding of PSA. Many would just shrug. Many would not even know if PSA is true or not... or why it is true or not. Many would just say that, in their daily life, when they commit a sin they ask God to forgive them, and go their neighbor to repair whatever can be repaired, and that's it.

Furthermore, you could find Christian theologians who disagree with PSA and present alternative views on Jesus sacrifice... and that wouldn't mean they don't love and follow Christ.


* NOTE: According to the Bible, the sign of being born again... the sign of being a disciple of Jesus... the sign that we abide in God, is that we love our brothers and sisters. This is hard-rock sound doctrine. What you present is not.

 

[Seabass]

• CLEARLY the bible says people sin

Yes, sinning is something people actively commit and are personally involved in meaning original sin is unbiblical.

• CLEARLY the bible says the Father draws

He draws by His word when men have have been 'taught' have 'heard' and 'learned' then men come to Christ. Hence drawing is nothing that is irresistible or done apart from the word of God being taught, heard, learned.

• CLEARLY the bible says "not of works"

In the context of Eph 2. not of works refer to works of merit not obedience to God's will, (Heb 5:9)

• CLEARLY the bible says Jesus will "lose none" and the "deposit" will "guarantee the inheritance"

The Ephesians were 'sealed' (Eph 1:13) but that was no unconditional guarantee of salvation for later those Ephesians had fallen, left their first love and warned to repent or else their candlestick out of its place, (Rav 2)

 

[GodsGrace]

Yes, sinning is something people actively commit and are personally involved in meaning original sin is unbiblical.

Why is original sin unbiblical?
Didn't Adam sin?
Was this the original sin?
If so...why is it unbiblical?

He draws by His word when men have have been 'taught' have 'heard' and 'learned' then men come to Christ. Hence drawing is nothing that is irresistible or done apart from the word of God being taught, heard, learned.



In the context of Eph 2. not of works refer to works of merit not obedience to God's will, (Heb 5:9)

The Ephesians were 'sealed' (Eph 1:13) but that was no unconditional guarantee of salvation for later those Ephesians had fallen, left their first love and warned to repent or else their candlestick out of its place, (Rav 2)

Agreed on "seal".
Also, it was believed that when persons were baptized they were "sealed" with the Holy Spirit.
It meant that the person now belonged to God and not to satan --- this is still believed.

Of course, when baptized, a person does not lose their free will so that they can still decide to abandon God at some point in their life.
So the seal only works for as long as the person desires to serve God and be indwelt by the Holy Spirit...
He will not stay where He's not welcomed.

Jesus spoke of abiding in Him.
He said that if we do not abide in Him we will be thrown away as a branch and burned.
A branch is attached to the tree...
Jesus is saying that it can be cut away and burned.
John 15:6
6 "If anyone does not abide in Me, he is thrown away as a branch and dries up; and they gather them, and cast them into the fire and they are burned.

 

[Seabass]

Why is original sin unbiblical?
Didn't Adam sin?
Was this the original sin?
If so...why is it unbiblical?

Agreed on "seal".
Also, it was believed that when persons were baptized they were "sealed" with the Holy Spirit.
It meant that the person now belonged to God and not to satan --- this is still believed.

Of course, when baptized, a person does not lose their free will so that they can still decide to abandon God at some point in their life.
So the seal only works for as long as the person desires to serve God and be indwelt by the Holy Spirit...
He will not stay where He's not welcomed.

Jesus spoke of abiding in Him.
He said that if we do not abide in Him we will be thrown away as a branch and burned.
A branch is attached to the tree...
Jesus is saying that it can be cut away and burned.
John 15:6
6 "If anyone does not abide in Me, he is thrown away as a branch and dries up; and they gather them, and cast them into the fire and they are burned.

Sin is not something that is innately, passively, unconditionally given to a person at birth, sin is something people commit..

1 Jn 3:4; Rom 4:14; Rom 7:8-9 all make the idea of original sin impossible. Sin is not an abstract idea that is passed from person to person...sin is something actively committed. Some try and make a person a sinner BEFORE that person sins which is impossible just like they try and make a person righteous BEFORE that person does any righteousness. Impossiblities.

For a newborn to be sinner he must have committed sin....transgressed Gods' law per 1 n 3:4 and infants have not committed any sin (Rom 9:11) therefore impossible for them to be sinners at birth.

 

[GodsGrace]

Sin is not something that is innately, passively, unconditionally given to a person at birth, sin is something people commit..

1 Jn 3:4; Rom 4:14; Rom 7:8-9 all make the idea of original sin impossible. Sin is not an abstract idea that is passed from person to person...sin is something actively committed. Some try and make a person a sinner BEFORE that person sins which is impossible just like they try and make a person righteous BEFORE that person does any righteousness. Impossiblities.

For a newborn to be sinner he must have committed sin....transgressed Gods' law per 1 n 3:4 and infants have not committed any sin (Rom 9:11) therefore impossible for them to be sinners at birth.

What?
Seabass...you don't understand the sin nature.
Excuse me for saying this but it's just too obvious.

WHERE did I say sin is given IN ANY FORM at birth???

WHERE did I say that a baby can sin???

Excuse me again for saying this, but you really need to study up on the sin nature of man.

or
Do you believe man is born totally good?
In which case you'd have to explain WHY man sins.

 

[civic]

I said that no one is going to hell because of incorrect doctrine.
Doctrine means a teaching.
Let's say that a person believe in OSAS....now I don't know your position,
but OSAS is definitely not a biblical postion.

So a person believes in OSAS but lives a life of obedience to God.
Is that person damned in your opinion?

My reply would be NO.
His doctrine is incorrect....
but his obedience will save him.
John 3:36

Replied to above.

There are at least 7 atonement theories I can think of.
I may not believe in Penal Substitution since it came so late in Christian theology.
So you mean I'm damned because of this?



Not sure which belief system you mean...but there are plenty.

PSA nor osas have any bearing on one’s salvation it’s a strawman argument where one places their man made doctrine above the gospel message which is salvific

 

[civic]

PSA nor osas have any bearing on one’s salvation it’s a strawman argument where one places their manner doctrine above the gospel message which is salvific

I was saved when I believed in PSA and I’m still saved now that I reject it as a false teaching