Justification by Faith-Out Of Date

[hedrick]

If that concept is taken further that God creates things that are bad or not perfect, than that viewpoint is against God's perfect nature and is a very slippery slope.

I think Calvin was sola scripture? Yes?

Calvin was sola scriptura. That doesn't mean he was always right.

Did Gen 3 change human nature, or only show what it was? Adam and Eve, as created by God, sinned the first time they faced temptation.

Yes, God created them and called it good. But we need to assess what that meant from what he did, not come to the Bible with our own preconceived idea of what good is and impose that on the account. Perhaps God didn’t consider it good for humans to be able to do good on their own. Perhaps he “imprisoned all in disobedience so that he may be merciful to all.” Or as I said before, we were never intended to be good on our own, but to depend upon God.

Trying to show that Adam and Eve were perfect in some way that we aren’t has always seemed to me to be a losing proposition. If they were perfect, they wouldn’t have sinned. About all you can say for them before the fall is that they hadn’t actually committed a sin yet. But if that’s sinlessness, then everyone is born sinless.

Paul speaks of Christ as a second Adam, and as the image of God. He is what Adam failed to be. In union with him God’s image is present in us in a new, more complete sense. But I don’t think anyone other than Christ was intended by God to play that role. I don’t think God tried to make Adam like Christ and failed, and Christ is his backup plan.

 

[ToBeLoved]

Calvin was sola scriptura. That doesn't mean he was always right.

Did Gen 3 change human nature, or only show what it was? Adam and Eve, as created by God, sinned the first time they faced temptation.

Well then why do you answer an 'Ask a Calvinist' thread with something a Calvinist would not believe? Isn't that a misrepresentation?

Why do you even think it is applicable to spread your own anti-Biblical viewpoints in this area? There are many other places for you to do so. People don't go to an 'Ask a Calvinist" sub forum and think they are going to get posts that are anti-Calvinistic.

I just think it is misleading and shouldn't be done. People have the right to get their questions answered in the right context, not to ask questions and get the wrong answers.

As far as your 2nd sentence, you know what is Biblical, why would you expect me to repeat what the Bible says and how it shows you to be wrong. You can read what is true yourself, but that obviously doesn't change that you think you know more than God's Word. The entire rest of your post is speculation. I'm not taking time to respond to it.

 

[hedrick]

Well then why do you answer an 'Ask a Calvinist' thread with something a Calvinist would not believe? Isn't that a misrepresentation?

Why do you even think it is applicable to spread your own anti-Biblical viewpoints in this area? There are many other places for you to do so. People don't go to an 'Ask a Calvinist" sub forum and think they are going to get posts that are anti-Calvinistic.

I just think it is misleading and shouldn't be done. People have the right to get their questions answered in the right context, not to ask questions and get the wrong answers.

As far as your 2nd sentence, you know what is Biblical, why would you expect me to repeat what the Bible says and how it shows you to be wrong. You can read what is true yourself, but that obviously doesn't change that you think you know more than God's Word. The entire rest of your post is speculation. I'm not taking time to respond to it.

Note that this is General Theology, not Ask a Calvinist. I'm a bit more circumspect in Ask a Calvinist.

However there are Calvinists and Calvinists. Many, probably a majority, of churches in the Reformed tradition today do not believe that Genesis is literal history. I think my view is pretty typical of what Reformed doctrine looks like in that context.

The New Perspective on Paul, which has influenced me to some extent, is also largely Reformed.

Remember that the motto of Reformed is "reformed and always reforming." I have great respect for Calvin. He was clearly the finest Biblical expositor in the 16th Cent and probably for several centuries after. However he was influenced by the specific way in which theological questions were expressed at the time, and he was also right at the beginning of critical scholarship applied to the Bible. So I don't feel any need to treat his views as inerrant. However I am generally closer to Calvin than to Reformed thought of the next couple of centuries.

 

[ToBeLoved]

Note that this is General Theology, not Ask a Calvinist. I'm a bit more circumspect in Ask a Calvinist.

However there are Calvinists and Calvinists. Many, probably a majority, of churches in the Reformed tradition today do not believe that Genesis is literal history. I think my view is pretty typical of what Reformed doctrine looks like in that context.

The New Perspective on Paul, which has influenced me to some extent, is also largely Reformed.

Remember that the motto of Reformed is "reformed and always reforming." I have great respect for Calvin. He was clearly the finest Biblical expositor in the 16th Cent and probably for several centuries after. However he was influenced by the specific way in which theological questions were expressed at the time, and he was also right at the beginning of critical scholarship applied to the Bible. So I don't feel any need to treat his views as inerrant. However I am generally closer to Calvin than to Reformed thought of the next couple of centuries.

But the Bible hasn't changed, nor will it change.

Just because Calvin or any other reformed person has a theory, doesn't make it true at all. What people want to try to do is make the Bible more relevant to themselves and who they are, but the Bible doesn't change, nor does God's Word.

What is this "New Perspective on Paul"?