How to become a Calvinist in 5 easy steps

[JAL]

When you answer my request. . .

What does Paul say in Ro 5:13?

Answering a question with a question. Your standard deflection/ dancing. The more often you need to resort to this tactic, the less plausible is your analysis. It's a cry of desperation from someone backed into a corner.

When you answer my request. . .

What does Paul say in Ro 5:13?

You're the one making the extraordinary claim - a period from Adam to Moses where no one is sinning? And God's response was - to wipe them out instead of delighting in them?

When you answer my request. . .

What does Paul say in Ro 5:13?

I already gave you my understanding of Ro 5:13, "Sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law." I argued that laws were already written on their hearts in tandem with the conscience (Ro 2:15).

Let's start with Sodom and Gomorrah. Was there any sin there?

Gen 18:20-21: Then the Lord said, “The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin so grievous 21that I will go down and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry that has reached me. If not, I will know.”

Isaiah 3:9, "They parade their sin like Sodom;they do not hide it."

Jer 23:14, "They strengthen the hands of evildoers, so that not one of them turns from their wickedness. They are all like Sodom to me; the people of Jerusalem are like Gomorrah.”

Ezek 16:49, "Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. 50They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen."


He didn't destroy them for living righteously!

 

[Clare73]

Answering a question with a question.

Non-responsive.

I already gave you my understanding of Ro 5:13, "Sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law." I argued that laws were already written on their hearts in tandem with the conscience (Ro 2:15).

So Paul got it wrong when he said they "did not sin." (Ro 5:14)

We disagree. . .

 

[JAL]

Non-responsive. . .

The only one who didn't respond here is you.

Reality check: you need to accept that, as a fallible exegete, your conclusions are sometimes facile and tenuous.

And this might be true of all of us - but at least we try to play it safe by harboring the optimism that anyone might be saved. No point in risking salvations on the possibly faulty Calvinistic exegesis.

 

[Clare73]

The only one who didn't respond here is you.

Reality check: you need to accept that, as a fallible exegete, your conclusions are sometimes facile and tenuous.

Assertion without Biblical demonstration is without Biblical merit.

 

[JAL]

Non-responsive.

So Paul got it wrong when he said they "did not sin." (Ro 5:14)

We disagree. . .

You conveniently truncated some of Paul's words.

The law of non-contradiction is the exegete's best friend. Since other passages record sin in the OT, you need to interpret Romans 5 in light of that fact. If you fully appreciated the law of non-contradiction, you wouldn't be a Calvinist in the first place.

 

[JAL]

Assertion without Biblical demonstration is without Biblical merit.

Um....er...I demonstrated that Sodom and Gomorrah had sin.

 

[JAL]

@Clare73,

"The Lord saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time." (Gen 6:5).

Sure looks like sin to me.

 

[Clare73]

Um....er...I demonstrated that Sodom and Gomorrah had sin.

Which contradicts Paul in Ro 5:14.

 

[JAL]

Which contradicts Paul in Ro 5:14.

No, it's a historical fact that contradicts YOUR tenuous interpretation of Ro 5:14. I gave you a viable interpretation of Ro 5:14, based on Ro 2:15.

Care to reciprocate? Meaning, can you exegete the OT verses that I cited, as to justify your alleged innocence of Sodom, and Noah's generation?

 

[JAL]

@Clare73,

Rom 5:14, "...those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam."

What command did Adam break? An expressly articulated command, specifically voiced. All this verse proves is that death reigned over those people who never received that sort of command. They neither heard such a voice nor saw such commands in writing.

When you claim that no one was sinning, you're putting words in Paul's mouth. Yes it's one possible interpretation, but it flies in the face of the data concerning Sodom, Gomorrah, and Noah's generation.

 

[Clare73]

No, it's a historical fact that contradicts YOUR tenuous interpretation of Ro 5:14.
I gave you a viable interpretation of Ro 5:14, based on Ro 2:15.

Which is in contradiction to the argument presented in Ro 5:12-15.

Not until you interpret Ro 5:12-15, being true to its words, context and argument, do you have a "viable" interpretation.

 

[JAL]

Which is in contradiction to the argument presented in Ro 5:12-15.

Not until you interpret Ro 5:12-15, being true to its words, context and argument, do you have a "viable" interpretation.

This puts you on a fishing expedition. As yet, you haven't pointed out any weaknesses in my posts regarding those verses - at least nothing unaddressed. I've done my job so far.

Conversely, I HAVE pointed out an unaddressed weakness in your posts, namely the OT verses about Sodom, Gomorrah, and Noah.

 

[JAL]

Which is in contradiction to the argument presented in Ro 5:12-15.

How is Rom 2:15 a contradiction to Ro 5:12-15?

The one explains the other - and it does so without contradicting Sodom, Gomorrah, and Noah.

 

[Clare73]

This puts you on a fishing expedition. As yet, you haven't pointed out any weaknesses in my posts regarding those verses - at least nothing unaddressed. I've done my job so far.

Conversely, I HAVE pointed out an unaddressed weakness in your posts, namely the OT verses about Sodom, Gomorrah, and Noah.

You have not presented a full exegesis of Ro 5:12-15, being true to its words, context and argument.

 

[JAL]

You have not presented a full exegesis of Ro 5:12-15, being true to its words, context and argument.

I'm not the one with unaddressed/unresolved charges of contradiction.

This is just another example of posing a question to deflect a question. And even if I took you up on the challenge, you'd say, "Here is some OTHER passage you haven't exegeted to my satisfaction." Am I to exegete the whole Bible? That's not how this is supposed to work. If you see an exegetical weakness in my position, be specific about it. Don't just deflect with, "You need to exegete the Bible."

 

[JAL]

@Clare73,

All you're "accomplishing" on this thread is to make it plain that you're a Calvinist because you don't find it paramount to fully respect the law of non-contradiction.

 

[Clare73]

I'm not the one with unaddressed/unresolved charges of contradiction.

This is just another example of posing a question to deflect a question. And even if I took you up on the challenge, you'd say, "Here is some OTHER passage you haven't exegeted to my satisfaction." Am I to exegete the whole Bible? That's not how this is supposed to work. If you see an exegetical weakness in my position, be specific about it. Don't just deflect with, "You need to exegete the Bible."

You have not presented a full exegesis of Ro 5:12-15, being true to its words, context and argument.

 

[JAL]

You have not presented a full exegesis of Ro 5:12-15, being true to its words, context and argument.

I have no unaddressed problems alleged on this thread. You've made it clear that you cannot resolve the apparent contradictions in your position. To prove the point, I'll give you another example.

If you recall, I claimed that each of us is a piece of Adam's physical soul. I backed this up by arguing that regeneration/sanctification itself occurs in pieces. You said, basically, "No need for pieces, because we just have two natures sinful and holy."

I argued that two conflicting natures is a contradictory definition of an object. You denied this. Here again you seem to ignore the law of non-contradiction. Let's take a closer look.

Suppose a woman says, "I love my new marble countertop. Its surface is so smooth that I slept like a babe on it last week. Unfortunately it has a second nature, abrasive like broken glass. Last night I again tried to sleep on it and ended up with 22 stitches in my back."

Two natures obviously make for a contradiction - easily resolved of course, if the countertop has two pieces, one smooth and the other abrasive.

You wallow in contradiction, after contradiction, after contradiction - but seriously want us to believe that your exegesis is solid? Not going to happen on my watch.

 

[Clare73]

I have no unaddressed problems alleged on this thread.

You have not presented a full exegesis of Ro 5:12-15, being true to its words, context and consistent with Paul's argument there.

 

[JAL]

You have not presented a full exegesis of Ro 5:12-15, being true to its words, context and consistent with Paul's argument there.

Ok, Clare.