How to become a Calvinist in 5 easy steps

[Clare73]

Ok, Clare.

Tell you what, let me do so. . .and the rule is you have to take Paul at his word in Ro 5:12-15, you can't try to make it say or mean something else.

All sinned (Ro 5:12) and no one sinned (Ro 5:14).
Both correspond to one and the same thing-- the imputation of Adam's sin, making Adam the pattern for Jesus (Ro 5:14). (What?!)

The premises:
1) Adam died because he sinned against a direct command (law) carrying the death penalty (Ge 2:17).
2) Where there is no such direct command (law) carrying a death penalty (as in the Mosaic law, Dt 24:16, Ro 6:23), there is no death (for sin).

The facts:
1)There was no law carrying a death penalty between Adam and Moses, therefore there was no sin and, therefore, no death for sin (Ro 5:13).
2) But all died between Adam and Moses when there was no law (carrying the death penalty) and, therefore, no one sinned (Ro 5:14).
Then why did they die?
3) What is stated at the beginning (Ro 5:12) has now been shown and is

The conclusion:
1) Sin entered the world through one man and death through sin (Ro 5:12).
2) In this way, death came to all men, because all sinned (Ro 5:12). . .i.e., the trespass of the one man (Ro 5:15) was imputed to them, causing their deaths
3) which was the pattern of Christ (Ro 5:14)!!!. . .whose righteousness is likewise imputed to us (Ro 4:1-11).

The sin of Adam is imputed to all born of Adam, just the righteousness of Christ is imputed to all those born of Christ (Ro 5:19).

 

[JAL]

Tell you what, let me do so. . .and the rule is you have to take Paul at his word in Ro 5:12-15, you can't try to make it say or mean something else.

You think your reading is the only viable one. And yet to me it seems less viable than others.

All sinned (Ro 5:12) and no one sinned (Ro 5:14).

For the third time, you truncated Paul's words at Ro 5:14. In such manner we could make the Bible say almost ANYTHING.

Both correspond to one and the same thing-- the imputation of Adam's sin, making Adam the pattern for Jesus (Ro 5:14). (What?!)

After the fashion of Calvnists/Reformed, you extrapolate the term imputation unto "representation." I don't take it that far. In my view, neither Adam nor Christ is my representative.

You mentioned Dt 24:16. This supports my claim that Adam's children don't pay for the sins of father Adam.

The law of non-contradiction reigns. Representation/imputation contradicts the word "justice" as understood by humans. Please don't try to tell me the Bible consists of non-human words that we can't understand - such a Bible would be useless to us.

The premises:
1) Adam died because he sinned against a direct command (law) carrying the death penalty (Ge 2:17).

Sure.

2) Where there is no such direct command (law) carrying a death penalty (as in the Mosaic law, Dt 24:16, Ro 6:23), there is no death (for sin).

False. Rom 2:15 supports the rule of conscience. Sin - and therefore death - existed, for example Sodom, Gomorrah, and Noah's period.

Secondly, I seem to be a physical piece of Adam. Therefore all sinned and merit death.

The facts:
1)There was no law carrying a death penalty between Adam and Moses, therefore there was no sin and, therefore, no death for sin (Ro 5:13).

See above.

2) But all died between Adam and Moses when there was no law (carrying the death penalty) and, therefore, no one sinned (Ro 5:14).
Then why did they die?

Addressed above.

3) What is stated at the beginning (Ro 5:12) has now been shown and is

The conclusion:
1) Sin entered the world through one man and death through sin (Ro 5:12).

Sure.

2) In this way, death came to all men, because all sinned (Ro 5:12). . .

Sure.

i.e., the trespass of the one man (Ro 5:15) was imputed to them, causing their deaths

I disagree. Again, you use the term "imputation" much like the Calvinist/Reformed term "representation".

3) which was the pattern of Christ (Ro 5:14)!!!. . .whose righteousness is likewise imputed to us (Ro 4:1-11).

No. Christ was never my representative. He atoned for my sin. Two completely different theories of redemption. Don't conflate them.

The sin of Adam is imputed to all born of Adam, just the righteousness of Christ is imputed to all those born of Christ (Ro 5:19).

I omitted one or two lines of response where I have a specific reason for objecting to your views.

 

[zoidar]

A thought I have is that it really doesn't matter that much which of these views you hold. Not to God anyway. What matter is how you live as a Christian, that you follow Christ with your heart. That is what God wants for all of us.

 

[Clare73]

You think your reading is the only viable one.

It is true to the words, the context and consistent with Paul's argument.
Yours is not.

And yet to me it seems less viable than others.
For the third time, you truncated Paul's words at Ro 5:14. In such manner we could make the Bible say almost ANYTHING.

Assertion without Biblical demonstration is without Biblical merit.

After the fashion of Calvnists/Reformed, you extrapolate the term imputation unto "representation." I don't take it that far. In my view,

Strawman. . .of pure nonsense.

I use imputation as it is used in Ro 4:3, Ge 5:6.

You'll have to do better than that to be credible.

neither Adam nor Christ is my representative.

Correct.
"Imputation" of Adam's sin to mankind is not "representation."
It also is not "inheritance."
We do not "inherit" Adam's sin, we inherit his fallen nature.
His sin is imputed to us as the pattern (Ro 5:14) of Christ's righteousness which is imputed to us (Ro 4:1-11), as righteousness was imputed to Abraham (Ge 5:6, Ro 4:3)

You mentioned Dt 24:16. This supports my claim that Adam's children don't pay for the sins of father Adam.

Dt 24:16 is about inheritance.
The children do not "inherit" the sin of the father, they "inherit" a fallen nature.
Adm's sin is "imputed "to them, as the pattern of Christ (Ro 5:14) whose righteousness is likewise "imputed" to us (Ro 4:1-11).
You fail to deal with what sinful Adam is the pattern of. . .for the all-righteous Christ (Ro 5:14).
Until you do, yours is not a "viable" interpretation.

Deal with and be true to the actual words of the text, not your obfuscation of them.

The law of non-contradiction reigns. Representation/imputation

Strawman mumbo-jumbo. . .imputation is not "representation."

contradicts the word "justice" as understood by humans. Please don't try to tell me the Bible consists of non-human words that we can't understand - such a Bible would be useless to us.
Sure.
False. Rom 2:15 supports the rule of conscience. Sin - and therefore death - existed, for example Sodom, Gomorrah, and Noah's period.

That's a fail of being true to Paul's words in Ro 5:13-14, and a fail of being consistent with Paul's argument.

Secondly, I seem to be a physical piece of Adam. Therefore all sinned and merit death.

Nowhere found in Scripture. . .more Biblically unauthorized interpretation not according to Biblical text.

See above.
Addressed above.
Sure.
Sure.
I disagree. Again, you use the term "imputation" much like the Calvinist/Reformed term "representation".

I use the term "imputation" according to its Biblical meaning--"to reckon, to account, to credit to the account of"(Ro 4:3, Ge 15:6).
It is you who are misinformed, or choose to misrepresent, what it means in Ro 4:3, Ge 15:6.

Complete fail to Biblically demonstrate any error. . .in addition to proposed alternative not being true to the words of the text, its context and consistent with Paul's argument.

 

[JAL]

Assertion without Biblical demonstration is without Biblical merit.

I have to "prove" that you truncated Paul's words? Is this 1st grade reading class?

Strawman. . .of pure nonsense.

Nonsense. You haven't demonstrated any strawman. You admit that the term "imputation" means "to reckon, to account, to credit to the account of"(Ro 4:3, Ge 15:6). That's how I use the term. You extrapolate it further - much like the Calvinist/Reformed sense of representation. That's sheer assertion.

I use imputation as it is used in Ro 4:3, Ge 5:6.

We both do. You just ramify it further than I do. That's not inappropriate in itself. But in this case the extrapolation conflicts with justice. You have God dishonestly pronouncing 100 billion unborn descendants of Adam "guilty" of sin unparticipated in.

You'll have to do better than that to be credible.

A rational assessment would find me doing just fine.

Correct.
"Imputation" of Adam's sin to mankind is not "representation."

Call it whatever you want. You haven't shown any relevant distinctions. Either:
...(1) I pay only for my own sins (this is my position).
...(2) OR, the behavior of someone else, often called a representative, is reckoned to me.

Just like you resisted the terminology "Calvinist" in the past, here too you resist the term "representative". All this does is fog the whole conversation, making it impossible to have a discussion with you.

It also is not "inheritance."
We do not "inherit" Adam's sin, we inherit his fallen nature.

Here again, you seem to be splitting theological hairs. The point is that in your view - whether we call it imputation, representation, or inheritance - Adam's descendants are pronounced guilty uncomplicitly. Why are you so hung up on the terminology?

You fail to deal with what sinful Adam is the pattern of. . .for the all-righteous Christ (Ro 5:14).
Until you do, yours is not a "viable" interpretation.

Deal with and be true to the actual words of the text, not your obfuscation of them.

We've discussed this on other threads. Paul never insists upon a full, unbroken parallel between Adam and Christ. There are both similarities and differences. The main similarity is that, in both cases, one act had consequences for many people.

Certainly the parallel wasn't representation (what you'd call "imputation"). Think about it. Did Adam have to die to represent us? No. His bad behavior, in your (representational) view, becomes our status. No death is needed. By parity of reasoning, if Christ were imputing His good behavior to us, no death would be needed. (As I said, atonement and representation are different systems of redemption).

This refutes your whole position. Christ did NOT impute/represent. Thus by parallel, Adam did NOT impute/represent.

Strawman mumbo-jumbo. . .imputation is not "representation."

Yeah, just like you used to resist the term Calvinism, but finally realized that it has much in common with your views.

That's a fail of being true to Paul's words in Ro 5:13-14) and a fail of being consistent with Paul's argument.

Um...er...My citing Ro 2:15 isn't a "fail of being true to Paul's words." What was that term you used a moment ago? Nonsense.

Nowhere found in Scripture. . .more Biblically unauthorized interpretation not according to Biblical text.

Physically being a piece of Adam is "Nowhere found in Scripture" ??? Well, for starters, I'm a monistic materialist. I find no inkling in Scripture of anything immaterial. Starting with that foundation, shall we have a look? With all your talk about the parallels between Adam and Christ, it's strange that the following text was overlooked.

"22For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive." (1 Cor 15).

Interpreting the term "in" ancestrally is exegetically illegal for lack of historic precedent. Nobody talks that way. Nobody says, "I have bad eyesight because genetically I am in my myopic grandfather." The word in simply isn't used ancestrally, at least not as possibly alleged here. How is the term normally used? Physically/locationally/geographically, "The dirty dishes are in the sink."

Therefore we were physically/locationally/geographically situated in Adam's body. Similarly, when the Fire fell upon each of us, such as happened at Pentecost, we became physically situated in Christ.

And I don't even need 1 Cor 15:22 to hold that position. It's a logical necessity because, if God is just, I must be Adam as to suffer consequences of his sin. But why should I talk to you of logical necessity? Your disregard for the law of non-contradiction has manifested time and again.

 

[Clare73]

I have to "prove" that you truncated Paul's words? Is this 1st grade reading class?

You have not demonstrated either alteration or misrepresention of the meaning of Paul's words.

Nonsense. You haven't demonstrated any strawman. You admit that the term "imputation" means "to reckon, to account, to credit to the account of"(Ro 4:3, Ge 15:6). That's how I use the term. You extrapolate it further - much like the Calvinist/Reformed sense of representation. That's sheer assertion.

Bloviation. . .

Still no Biblical demonstration of your assertions, making them without merit.

 

[JAL]

Still no Biblical demonstration of your assertions, making them without merit.

Assertion contrary to fact. You're not fooling anyone.

 

[Clare73]

Assertion contrary to fact. You're not fooling anyone.

This assertion without Biblical demonstration is without Biblical merit.

 

[JAL]

This assertions without Biblical demonstration is without Biblical merit.

Ok, Clare.

 

[John Mullally]

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

Unless you are brain dead you could have at least done your own short high-level exegesis of Romans 5:12-15 instead of demanding the correct interpretation of that from a respondant. Given your thousands of pro-Calvinists posts on this forum, one would expect that you would be able to directly address Romans 5:12-15 you submitted without an explanation. Advice: Try to be more forthcoming and explaining what you have to say in the future instead of being extremely curt and lying to every one by saying you are not a Calvinist. Go ahead admit your position and address your Calvinist proof-texts and get to the point. You have made several thousands of posts on this forum in support of Calvinism and will not when asked directly, will not admit to being a Calvinist. LIAR! LIAR!

In my queries, you repeated reject the plain text from Paul in 1 Timothy 2:4 because it cancels Calvinism - you deny that God desrises all men to be saved per 1 Timothy 2:4! When my argument is remade you state "already addressed" - which is a lie because you never make a coherenet argurment that anyone besides Calvinist's would consider!

1 John 4:16 says that God is love. But you side with midievil lawyer Calvin who worked to put his opponents to death by flame (by their fruits you shall know them). Contrasting Cavin against the Apostle John: Calvin attributes God to horrid, inexplicable hatred for many by assigning them to eternal torment from before their birth - all for the purpose of giving God glory, In contrast,, John says that God is a God of love (1 John 4:16) - therefore God is not predestinating any to hell!

More from the evil Calvin:

“…individuals are born, who are doomed from the womb to certain death, and are to glorify him by their destruction.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 23, Paragraph 6)​

 

[Clare73]

You can do the exegesis and make the counter-argument - instead of making demands. Asking for true context and argument places yourself as judge - which you are not.

Feel free to exegete Ro 5:12-15, and we can discuss it.

You repeatedly reject Paul in 1 Timothy 2:4

Methinks the pot is calling the kettle black.

You repeatedly do not address God choosing only some, and not all in 1Pe 1:2.

 

[JAL]

You have not demonstrated either alteration or misrepresention of the meaning of Paul's words.

Actually, I did. Your reading of Paul is that there was no sin from Adam to Moses. I responded with approximately four OT verses indicating sin in Sodom, Gomorrah, and Noah's era. Everytime I asked you to address those verses, you responded to my question with a question.

I have also pointed out other contradictions in your general thinking. And when I explain my own conclusions, I usually do at least as much demonstration as you do. Yet your response is always the same, "You haven't demonstrated your position."

Clearly, the only demonstration worthy of consideration, in your eyes, is capitulation to your position.

 

[Clare73]

Actually, I did. Your reading of Paul

My "reading"?. . .When you don't agree with the text, it becomes someone's "reading". . .that's rich. . .and certainly explains a lot.

"Where there is no law, there is no transgression." (Ro 4:15).

"Sin is not taken into account when there is no law." (Ro 5:13)

is that there was no sin from Adam to Moses.

He said there was no transgression.
He said sin was not taken into account.

I responded with approximately four OT verses indicating sin in Sodom, Gomorrah, and Noah's era. Everytime I asked you to address those verses, you responded to my question with a question.

You set Scripture against itself.

Paul addresses those verses. . ."sin is not taken into account where there is no law (with death penalty attached, as in the manner of Adam's transgression in the Garden, Ro 5:14, and under the Mosaic law, Dt 24:16, Ro 6:23)

 

[JAL]

My "reading"?. . .When you don't agree with the text, it becomes someone's "reading". . .that's rich. . .and certainly explains a lot.

"Where there is no law, there is no transgression." (Ro 4:15).

"Sin is not taken into account when there is no law." (Ro 5:13)

He said there was no transgression.
He said sin was not taken into account.

You set Scripture against itself.

Paul addresses those verses. . ."sin is not taken into account where there is no law (with death penalty attached, as in the manner of Adam's transgression in the Garden, Ro 5:14, and under the Mosaic law, Dt 24:16, Ro 6:23)

As expected: you still failed to address the four OT verses I provided.

Such a contradiction is SUPPOSED to awaken you to the need to revise your reading of Paul. Obstinacy on your part is not a solution.

 

[JAL]

@Clare73,

I think I will stick with my reading of Paul, as it does not contradict the OT.

 

[JAL]

My "reading"?. . .When you don't agree with the text, it becomes someone's "reading". . .that's rich. . .and certainly explains a lot.

No, I often refer to "my (own) reading" of the text. Remember, we are all fallible readers. I use that terminology for us all.

 

[Clare73]

@Clare73,

I think I will stick with my reading of Paul, as it does not contradict the OT.

It just contradicts Paul. . .

 

[Clare73]

No, I often refer to "my (own) reading" of the text. Remember, we are all fallible readers. I use that terminology for us all.

According to you, God gave us a truth that cannot be truly known.

I have a higher view of God than that.

 

[JAL]

It just contradicts Paul. . .whatever floats your boat.

Minor correction. It contradicts your truncated version of Paul's words, as discussed already.

 

[Clare73]

As expected: you still failed to address the four OT verses I provided.

Read it again. . .

Sin was in the world, but sin is not taken into account where there is no law (with death penalty, as in the Garden, and the Mosaic law).