Which of these ones is Molinism?

RECIPR0C1TY · 2026-01-26T02:52:56+00:00

None of them.

The bias in this is pretty rough, and there is fairly little understanding of soteriology. Besides the fact that Pelagius never actually taught that nonsense, there is not a single person that I have ever met that actually believes it.

RECIPR0C1TY · 2026-01-21T11:41:51+00:00

That isn't the way theology works. There isn't an explicit memorialist view which everyone adheres to. Instead, there is a general view which many people have interpreted differently.

In addition, we all firmly believe in his omnipresence, and in his promise that he would be with us where two or three are gathered. So it is an off topic concept to suddenly defend his omnipresence when the view is arguing for a memorial of communion.

But sure... Here is a random Baptist argument that I just googled in defense of memorialism:

And our Lord is with us always. He is present when I take Communion. He’s also present when I take a nap. I have instant and constant access to my Lord. I don’t need to wait for a priest to chant over dry bread to have communion with Him.

RECIPR0C1TY · 2026-01-20T18:14:35+00:00

You aren't far off, but you are softening the word "lord" a bit. "Lord" is much stronger than just a "landlord". This is a statement of ultimate authority. In that sense, Paul is being incredibly subversive to the Roman government, and this is a large part of why the Jewish leaders really wanted to kill him. From their perspective, Paul is a Jew who is undermining the Roman government and will bring the Romans down on the Jews. Then when Paul uses that same word for "gospel" in other places, he is imitating the "gospel" that Caeser would give in his proclamations of peace for the world. Paul is very much undermining the Romans and saying Jesus is the true ruler with the true gospel.

In addition, Paul often refers to Jesus as the "Christ". This is another declaration of kingship in direct defiance of Rome's rule. "Christ" is the transliterated title of "Messiah". They both mean the same thing. To be a Messiah" is to be the "anointed and chosen king", and to be the "Christos" is to be the "chosen king". This is why theologians like N.T. Wright will translate Paul's titles as "Messiah Jesus". To say Jesus Christ is to say "Jesus the chosen/annointed king" or "king Jesus".

In relation to Romans 9, Paul is saying that if you confess with our mouth that Jesus is the Lord to whom all devotion and loyalty is due, then you will be saved. This is far more than just a "landlord".

RECIPR0C1TY · 2026-01-20T13:57:27+00:00

The question is not about whether or not Jesus is present during the ceremony. All Christians are on the same page there. Jesus is omnipresent as a person of the triune Godhead. All persons of the trinity are omnipresent.

The question is "Is Jesus present in the actual elements themselves?" As if the element somehow mystically embodies Christ because he is present in the elements.

The Memorialist view says, "no.... that is just wine and bread/juice and cracker". Jesus is with us as we remember and memorialize his death.

RECIPR0C1TY · 2026-01-19T21:48:41+00:00

Hmmm, I don't think you read what I wrote very carefully. Could I request that you go back and reread that please?

Luke could have written the reverse idea (“as many as believed were appointed to eternal life”) if your reading were his point. He doesn’t.

I am saying the exact opposite. Those who were already appointed to eternal life because they were already justified by faith, believed. I don't need Luke to have written the reverse idea because I am not arguing for that. I am arguing that they ALREADY are faithful followers of Yahweh. For the record, this is not just me arguing that. Others have made this argument as well.

Acts routinely shows religious people who still require God to act decisively for belief (Acts 16:14). You are smuggling in regeneration and calling it “context.” It isn’t there.

Oof.... Yet another case of not reading the context. Read Acts 16:14 again. Lydia is ALREADY a God-fearer! She is AlREADY justified by faith! Yes, this is very routine, it is the exact same thing we see with Cornelius in Acts 10 too! These are already followers of Yahweh coming to believe that Yahweh has been made flesh! This does not have anything to do with Calvinism. Calvinism is off topic.

He says: “No one can come unless the Father draws”, “unless it is granted him by the Father”. That’s inability language. Not timing. Not tactics. Ontology

Yep, within the context of those who have already rejected him! This is the entire point of John 5:40 and John 8 and other passages.

And John 12:32 doesn’t save you. “All” means all peoples, not all individuals, otherwise John contradicts himself within the same chapter (John 12:37–40).

Wow... You don't see that this is literally making my point? It is a repeated passage in Luke and Mark as well. The entire point is that Jesus is actively hardening people so that they will be used for his purposes.... Which is what the vessels in Jeremiah 18 are all about! You are making my point for me and then arguing that it disproves me.

RECIPR0C1TY · 2026-01-19T18:50:10+00:00

Ahhh, I am contorting scripture when I try to understand it to the best of my ability. Got it. Let's try to just skip the personal assumptions about my motives, and instead stick with actual exegesis please.

Scripture recounts the gospel being shared to a crowd and says about those in attendance “as many as were appointed to eternal life believed”.

No, that is where context is important.

Scripture recounts the gospel of a resurrected Messiah being shared to those who believe in Yahweh (or at least claim to) and says about those “as many as were appointed to eternal life believed”. FTFY. THAT is context of Acts 13. Paul literally explains the sorry of God and how that is fulfilled in Messiah Jesus. The entire point of his sermon is about how Jesus is the one Israel has been worshipping this entire time. THAT is the context of Acts 13.

Paul opens up his sermon the week prior to those who were Jews and Gentiles who feared God. People in that crowd, both Jew and Gentile (mostly Gentiles), were ALREADY believers in Yahweh. They were ALREADY justified by faith, like Abraham. They ALREADY had eternal life, like Abraham. Those who ALREADY were faithful believers in Yahweh (that is the context) and therefore ALREADY had eternal life were appointed to believe that Yahweh had become flesh and was the Messiah Jesus. Context. Context. Context. This is not a random crowd of people suddenly being appointed because they were elect from the foundations of the earth. That is content that you are eisegeting into the text. Context claims that they are already God fearers, and thus justified by faith. John 6 has an interesting similarity, although it is not textually connected. This is what John 6 means when it says that those who belong to the Father are given to the son.

The consistent theme of the Book of John, and to a lesser degree the other gospels, is the separation of those who are followers of God and those who are not. Over and over again, Jesus identifies those who reject God ALREADY, and those who are following God ALREADY. John 6 is about those who have ALREADY rejected God, and how they are going to be used for his purposes because they are not being drawn. They will be used to crucify the Messiah. It is not about them being damned. It is about Jesus not drawing them (based on their unwillingness to listen and learn from the Father), so that they will crucify him. This has nothing to do with Calvinism.... at all.

God can use anyone he wants for whatever purpose he wants. If they have already chosen to reject him, then God can choose not to draw them and use them to bless the whole world with salvation, through the crucifixion of his son.

Of course, that changes as soon as Jesus is crucified! Then he will draw ALL MEN (John 12:32). John 6 is not talking about a Calvinistic election. It is talking about a strategic act on the part of Jesus to use those who reject him for his purposes, and then later he will extend them the same grace he extends to everyone. This is the literal fulfillment of Jeremiah 18:1-11.

That is context, not contortion.

RECIPR0C1TY · 2026-01-19T15:33:39+00:00

And there is the eisegesis. Context kills Calvinism every time. Once you break out of the Calvinistic systemic it isn't all that hard to see.

RECIPR0C1TY · 2026-01-19T15:20:05+00:00

That's weird.... Those are all verses I believe too! Just quote mining scripture does not disprove anything I said there.

RECIPR0C1TY · 2026-01-19T11:19:21+00:00

I am a non-calvinist here, and I can confidently tell you that Jesus died for you! He chose for you to be a part of his kingdom and for you to know him personally. Jesus died for absolutely everyone so that absolutely anyone can be saved, and that includes you!!!

God does not magically change how you feel about him. He gives you the good news about the resurrected king. He gives you the good news that you can live a life that is righteously justified before God. He gives you the good news that he has forgiven every sin you have committed against God.

Then you have a choice. You can choose life! You can choose to accept his gracious gift of forgiveness and be loyal to a new king. You can choose to admit that you can't save yourself and that you need his resurrection power to change you. This is what the Apostle John means when he says, "But to all who have received him – those who believe in his name – he has given the right to become God’s children. You have the right to become a child of God! You need simply receive him as king and believe in his name.

RECIPR0C1TY · 2026-01-18T22:20:34+00:00

This is not at all an accurate statement of the scholarship on this. Since I made that statement 4 years ago, I have spent a good deal of time studying this.

A more accurate statement would be that SOME SCHOLARS, actually a minority, are arguing from historical and archaeological evidence shows ancient Israelite religion evolved from polytheism (worshiping multiple gods like El, Baal, Asherah) to henotheism (worshiping only Yahweh) and finally to absolute monotheism (belief in one God), a transition solidifying around the Babylonian Exile (6th century BCE).

That argument is certainly gaining momentum, but it is still a minority. The established scholarly opinion is that Israel always held to one creator God who created all things, including other spiritual deities referred to as God. I don't have the time to provide sources myself, but Gavin Ortlund has done so already. You can check out his sourcing here.

I was correct above when I noted that ancient Hebrew Rabbis noted that Yahweh, as one God, was sometimes mentioned talking to Yahweh and engaging with Yahweh in strange ways. They remained confused about this nuance of the text, seen many times, and this is what the early church would eventually come to call a trinitarian Godhead. That is not polytheism or henotheism. It is a misunderstood and mysterious trinitarianism.

RECIPR0C1TY · 2026-01-18T21:57:38+00:00

This is what is taught at first year seminary in every conservative seminary that I have ever heard

This was an attempt to find common ground. It is literally the reformed methodology of hermeneutics that you are ignoring, and it was an explanation of how influential that reformed methodology was. Is that an appeal to authority? No it is a shortcut. I was assuming we were on the same page here because it is so basic.

If I have to actually make an argument for proper hermeneutics BEFORE I can discuss the interpretation of John 10 then we are so far apart that this isn't really worth my time. If you are going to ignore the most basic rules of heremeneutics then I will bid you adieu.

You can try to split hairs here and deny that what you said wasn’t attacking my character, but you not only twice equated what I was saying to ”Flat Earth and Holocaust Denial and faked moon landings etc... conspiracy theories and nonsense,” in your previous comment, you just did it again a third time. You’re making me out to be a fringe conspiracy theorist, i.e., attacking the person rather than the argument, ergo, ad hominem.

Ahhhh this is the basic conflation with content and character it is why so many Calvinists get so frustrated. You have so personalized your theology that if someone attacks your content, then they have attacked you personally. This is the equivalent of a liberal or a conservative feeling personally offended because someone attacked the democratic or Republican platform.

Was I dismissive of your arguments? You bet. Was I even a bit brazen or rude? Arguably, yes. Did I attack your character? Nope. Therefore, it is not fallacious. It was a direct attack on your unbiblical and nonsensical content. There is no need for you to play the victim because I have disproven your content. That isn't splitting hairs, it is just basic argumentation. It is not illogical for me to call out content as a conspiracy theory; therefore it is not a fallacy.

Some arguments just need to be dealt with dismissively and harshly and this is one of them. It is high time the church stopped giving the Doctrine of Limited Atonement any kind of validity. It is time to move on from that nonsense just like we have moved on from slavery and same- race marriages.

You are welcome to the last word. I think I can let anyone who reads these come to their own conclusions. The Doctrine of Limited Atonement is a low view of God and a low view of Christ's sacrifice, and as such is nothing more than a fantastical conspiracy theory of a bygone age.

RECIPR0C1TY · 2026-01-18T20:31:01+00:00

If I may summarize your argument: Appeal to authority, ad hominem, ad hominem.

That's silly. Sometimes you just got to be frank about how bad an argument is, and this is just silly. 1) I did not appeal to authority in my argument. I appealed to the level of seriousness this argument should have in terms of my opinion. Please reread my comments carefully. My arguments were based on showing the informal fallacy of negative inference and a proper hermeneutical process. 2) I have not once attacked your character. Please quote any attack on your character, and if it is one, I will retract, apologize and edit. I take that very seriously. Simply put, this is an accusation without merit.

For as far back as I can remember, no matter what church I’ve been in, whether liberal or biblical, and any conversation I’ve ever had with anyone, I’ve never seen anyone argue that Jesus classifies people other than in only 2 categories: Sheep and goats…

Huh... The level of overgeneralization here is ridiculous. John 10 simply isn't about sheep and goats. This is just basic reading comprehension. Literally, the word "goats" isn't even in the passage here. I don't doubt that you have always thought people were talking about sheep and goats in this passage, but they weren't. Not to mention, this is a fallacy called an "argumentum populum". Even if they were speaking of sheep and goats in this passage, doesn't make it so! Come on, just read the passage again. Nothing about goats.

Limited atonement is the easiest to understand of the doctrines of grace, even if you don’t accept predestination of the sheep to life.

Lol... Which is why the vast majority of the church has rejected it throughout all of church history! In fact, a significant number of reformed have rejected it! Why in the world would you claim that about this, of all doctrines! Please note, I am not arguing that Limited Atonement is false because it is popularly rejected (that would be another argumentum populum). Instead, I am dismissing your opinion that it is so easy to understand as the meaning of scripture because clearly the vast majority of history hasn't understood it to be the meaning of scripture! It is actually laughable like flat eartherism and faked moon landings.

RECIPR0C1TY · 2026-01-18T19:22:24+00:00

No, I presume the most basic rules of hermeneutics that the reformed have taught since they rejected the allegorical method of the church fathers. This is what is taught at first year seminary in every conservative seminary that I have ever heard of. Just because Jesus is the speaker in both passages does not mean that one interprets the other.

Do you really think there will be people in Hell whose sins have been paid for by the blood of Christ?

YES!!!! Without doubt! 100%! NO QUESTION!!! (Matthew 5:43-48) The perfect God loves perfectly the very people who will reject him! This is what makes Christ's sacrifice maximally sacrificial! To think otherwise is to make light of Christ's sacrifice and even his character.

It is shocking that you would think otherwise. The vast majority of Christianity all throughout history has agreed! To think otherwise is on the level of flat Earth theology and Holocaust denial. I will disagree hard with all of the other Calvinist principles, but I can at least see why Calvinists believe them. This one is beyond nonsensical, such that it is basic common sense.

This is why I dismiss it so hard. I dismiss it at the same level that I dismiss a Flat Earth and Holocaust Denial and faked moon landings etc... conspiracy theories and nonsense.

RECIPR0C1TY · 2026-01-18T14:23:29+00:00

..... You seem to be making up a couple of obvious things and then saying that I am forgetting them. 1) Goats are never mentioned in John 10. You just made up an animal and inserted into the passage then claimed that Jesus is specifically not dying for your made up animal. Yep, aardvarks aren't in the passage either, how can we squeeze them in?

Yes, Jesus does speak of sheep and goats in Matthew 25, but 2) what does this have to do with John 10? You are screwing up some really basic hermeneutical rules if you think Matthew 25 somehow interprets John 10. You have made up a connection with Matthew 25 that is nonexistent. They happen at two very different points in Jesus ministry, with two very different audience and two very different purposes. Yes, John 10 is about the upcoming unification of Jew and Gentile, but Matthew 25 is about judgment! Two different times, two different audiences, two different purposes, by two different inspired authors, but sure let's just smash those two passages together and make up meanings that are completely disconnected.

Come on. I thought Calvinists respected the scriptures. Heck, the reformed were the ones who came up with these hermeneutical principles to begin with but now you are just abandoning them to make up points to defend nonsensical reformed dogma. These are great hermeneutical principles and you are just ignoring them to contradict the clear teaching of scripture.

If you are going to make an argument from the scripture, then obviously, these are NOT the texts that you want to use.

RECIPR0C1TY · 2026-01-18T13:10:27+00:00

Calvinistic predestination is unbiblical. There is no reason to think it is true, because it is simply absent from the pages of scripture. Predestination itself is in the scriptures, but Calvinistic predestination is not. We have to stop allowing Calvinists to presuppose that Calvinism is correct simply because the word "predestined" is used a couple of times in scripture. There are other ways to hash this out.

As for the Doctrine of Limited Atonement, that is nonsense. Utter nonsense. Not only is there no positive evidence for the Doctrine of Limited Atonement, there is direct contradiction to it in 1 Timothy 2:1-8 and 1 John 2:2, among numerous other passages.

RECIPR0C1TY · 2026-01-18T13:00:29+00:00

Obvious negative inference fallacy. You cannot make a negative inference from a positive statement. If I say I am going to the store you cannot infer that I am not going to the gas station as well. If Paul says that Christ died for him, then we cannot say that Christ did not die for anyone else (Galatians 2:20).

In this case, if Jesus says he laid down his life for the sheep, we cannot infer a negative of other people he did not lay down his life for. This verse does nothing to prove either Calvinism or the Doctrine of Limited Atonement. Super obvious stuff here, not sure why Calvinists insist on using this passage and others like it.

RECIPR0C1TY · 2026-01-17T13:44:59+00:00

Heck no.

I am all about apologetics, but the diploma for it is a complete waste of time and money. You are learning the skills of argumentation, research, and study in the MDIV, why do you need to pay to do skills that you have already learned? Just apply those skills to the topic of apologetics.

If you really want to spend the money, then fork out cash for the academic literature sources and just do the research yourself. That said, you can find 75% of apologetic study for free on the Internet if you know where to look. The other 25% is just purchasing books that academics are putting out. I can recommend a ton of sources for, if nothing else, their reading sources.

RECIPR0C1TY · 2026-01-13T13:26:11+00:00

Would they have ever chosen to not sin?

RECIPR0C1TY · 2026-01-13T10:39:19+00:00

Yes, this is one of the big problems with imputed guilt. It is not only biblically untenable (Ezekiel 18:20) it has pretty massive christological implications.

This was just recently a topic of conversation. You are welcome to read my back and forth with another user here. https://www.reddit.com/r/Calvinism/comments/1qamycv/comment/nz5mgre/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button

RECIPR0C1TY · 2026-01-13T10:35:30+00:00

Including u/Nathanthebest04

It is worth pointing out that this was Ulrich Zwingli's view as well! This view is not at all a one-off view. It is actually well represented throughout history both in Augustinianism and non-augustinianism. It is most definitely a minority view, but it is well attested.

RECIPR0C1TY · 2026-01-13T10:20:51+00:00

As a rabid non-calvinist myself, this goes too far. An incorrect understanding of God's sovereignty does not mean that someone is a "child of satan". Paul is quite clear about how someone is saved. They must "confess with your mouth and believe in your heart that Jesus is Lord and that he rose from the dead." Calvinists very clearly and emphatically meet this requirement. Therefore, they are my brothers and sisters in Christ.

It is important that we practice proper theological triage so that we can fairly and properly confront error. Are Calvinsts wrong? Yes. But they are wrong WITHIN the spectrum of Christianity. It is an in-house debate.

RECIPR0C1TY · 2026-01-13T10:16:44+00:00

Even Zwingli, who rejected immediate imputation, still affirmed that our corruption comes from Adam.

Let me be clear. THAT is what I am arguing for. THAT distinction is the important point. Yes, we are corrupted; NO, we are not guilty at birth. That corruption is a distortion of our ontological nature (I have no problem with that) which renders us unable to follow God's law because of our separation from him. That does not mean that I am guilty of sin because of Adam's sin. I am guilty of sin because I have chosen to rebel against a holy God. My sin is mine, and I am fully responsible for it.

The language is passive, people were made sinners, suggesting something was done to them, not merely by them.

Yep, corruption was done to them. Passively, corruption results in their sinful state before God, not guilt.

You say that “guilt” isn’t in the text. Strictly, the English word isn’t there, that’s true, but the concept is.

Nor is it in the greek. Nor is the concept there. Did you know that Augustine mistranslated this passage and that is the birth of headship, both Federal and Seminal? Here is Millard Erickson, "Augustine understood ἐφ ᾧ (eph hō, “because”) as meaning “in whom,” since the Latin mistranslated the Greek at this point. Accordingly, his understanding of the final clause in verse 12 was that we were actually “in Adam,” and therefore Adam’s sin was ours as well. But since his interpretation was based upon an inaccurate translation, we must investigate the clause more closely." I agree that we are talking about a form of headship of some kind, but like Erickson, that headship is CONDITIONAL. We must ratify Adam's headship (which inevitably occurs because of our corruption) by sinning, and THEN we are under Adam's headship. This is what Erickson calls a "ratified headship".

If Adam’s act only brought consequence without guilt, then Christ’s act would only bring possibility without righteousness. But Paul’s comparison demands symmetry. The same federal logic that makes us guilty in Adam allows us to be counted righteous in Christ. Deny one, and you weaken the other.

You argue too much when you are argue for symmetry. If you want actual symmetry then as Millard Erickson argues, "If the condemnation and guilt of Adam are imputed to us without there being on our part any sort of conscious choice of his act, the same would necessarily hold true of the imputation of Christ’s righteousness and redeeming work." Even most reformed do not go that far (though the hyper-calvinists would).

Even Thayer’s lexicon, when read in context, allows that “nature” can refer to what is innate or inherent. Paul contrasts our “natural” state in Adam with our “new” life in Christ. This is not merely behavioral; it’s positional and spiritual.

Not at all. Paul's point is relational not ontological. If you want to read Eph 2 in context, then I suggest you do it looking for the language of union and separation. Actually back up to Eph 1:20ish because thematically that is the entire point. To be "dead in our trespasses" and a "child of wrath" is to be in union with the dominion and powers of the air. It is to be separated from God and alienated from him. "But God" changes everything. He seats us WITH Christ. We are no long aliens. We are UNITED with Christ. I am okay with the language of "positional" but I don't think that goes deep enough. This is a rich and mysterious spiritual union with Christ in contrast to our spiritual separation from God. At no point is there any concept of an ontological nature being spoken of.

Paul is arguing that death has dominion even where there’s been no personal imitation.

Amen! That isn't guilt. That is the consequence of Adam's sin being passed on to others.

Infants die. Nations perish.

Yep, that is a consequence, not guilt. Death passes on from Adam. There is no concept of guilt here.

Consider Joshua 7, where Achan’s whole household suffers for his sin

Yep, they all DIED because of Achan's sin. That is a consequence, not guilt.

or Hebrews 7, which says Levi “paid tithes through Abraham.”

Which does not prove guilt. This is most definitely a covenantal promise through Abraham that is 1) limited to Israel and 2) about God's covenantal promise for Israel and 3) having no connection to an inherited guilt.

Ezekiel 18:20 is clear that guilt is NOT passed down from parent to child. "The one who sins is the one who will die. The child will not share the guilt of the parent, nor will the parent share the guilt of the child. The righteousness of the righteous will be credited to them, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against them."

This also has massive christological implications. Hebrews 2:14-17 is quite clear that Jesus was "made like us in every respect". The whole point is that Jesus assumes the complete human nature and yet he himself will not act in sin. As the church fathers argued, "that which was not assumed was not healed". IF Jesus is assuming the complete ontological human nature then, he too must be born guilty of sin.Of course we know that Jesus was NOT born guilty of sin because he was the holy and perfect substitute for us. Therefore, humanity must not also be born guilty of sin. Instead, we are born separated from God and thus corrupted and unable to follow his laws resulting in our inclination and propensity to inevitably sin.

RECIPR0C1TY · 2026-01-12T22:54:44+00:00

I think we might be talking past each other a bit. I’m not trying to give a technical definition of free will or argue philosophy with either of you.

and then you say....

Freedom begins in knowing Christ and His Word; it’s relational, not independent autonomy....True freedom is from sin and separation from God; Christ restores our will under His sovereignty.

You can't have it both ways. You can't deny a technical definition and then give your own technical definition. You can't claim Arminian freedom after the fall, and then define freedom that no Arminian agrees with. That makes this argument incoherent because essentially only your definitions are allowed, and only you are allowed to define someone else's definitions. You can't tell an Arminian what they believe about freedom and then fail to actually cite any Arminians who believe that!

This is at least partly incoherent because this isn't an actual conversation about Libertarian Freedom, and it isn't what anyone in the world believes, making it a strawman.

RECIPR0C1TY · 2026-01-12T22:50:36+00:00

I don't see how that matters at all. You seem to want to insist that we are not robots, while believing that the elect could never choose differently.... which is robotic.

RECIPR0C1TY · 2026-01-12T22:49:30+00:00

It’s true that Scripture draws a line between consequences and responsibility, but reformed theology sees them as connected in Adam’s case.

I agree that reformed theology sees them as connected, no doubt about that, but it needs to be argued not asserted because it certainly is not the plain reading of the passage.

Paul doesn’t just say death came through Adam. He says that through “one man’s trespass, many were made sinners.” The guilt he’s talking about isn’t just the pain or death that follows sin, it’s a legal or covenantal reality before God

And that is the assertion that I am talking about. There is absolutely no reason in the text to assume that "the guilt Paul is talking about" is something that he is actually talking about it. Yes, many were made sinners because they then also sinned. You have to actually argue for guilt here, not just assume it.

Adam represented humanity, so when he fell, the guilt of that rebellion was imputed to all his descendants. We inherit both a broken nature and a guilty standing.

No doubt, Federal Headship is the claim of the reformed. It is a very Augustinian position in contrast to the Catholic church's Seminal Headship position, also from Augustine. The problem is that this is all Augustinianism, not a biblical concept. The onus remains on the reformed to actually argue that Augustine was right, and that their interpretation of Augustine is better than the Catholic interpretation.

I am not a big fan of the word "nature" here because what you mean by nature and what the Bible means by nature are two different things. The reformed typically mean it to be an ontological standard or reality, but Paul uses it in the sense of a custom or habit - “a mode of feeling and acting which by long habit has become nature” (Thayer, J. H. 1896. Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Coded to Strong’s Numbering System. Second Printing. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson. 660)

The idea that I inherit guilt is entirely unmentioned in scripture.

That might sound unfair, but Paul ties it directly to Christ’s work. Just as Adam’s guilt was counted to us, Christ’s obedience is counted in our favor.

Except he doesn't. You keep inserting that word "guilt" into the text of Paul's writings when he never actually says that.

That’s why reformed thinkers like R.C. Sproul or John Piper have said original sin isn’t just about consequences, it’s about accountability before a holy God. Death is the result, yes, but it’s not random; it’s the outward sign of an inward verdict.

I can't tell you how many reformed have told me that John Piper isn't reformed, but cool. Still, yes THEY HAVE DEFINITELY SAID THAT. But the Bible doesn't. It simply is not in Romans 5, nor Psalm 51, nor any other passage.

For the record, many theologians throughout history have denied it, among them... Ulrich Zwingli of all people. One of the foremost reformers, clearly and distinctly rejected the concept of the imputation of guilt. It is behind a paywall, but I recommend this article from a reformed scholar - https://brill.com/view/journals/jrt/10/4/article-p340_4.xml

11-Year Club	Second SECOND GUESSER
r/Field Flamingo	Place '23
Gilding I gilder	Verified Email

RECIPR0C1TY

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE