The 6 common misconceptions about what is called 'Calvinism'

[Rick Otto]

Jal, I love your persistance and attention to and capacity for, detail.

I think a first point of divergence was AFox's use of "double standard", the reality being God's standard is simply "higher".
And by that, I simply mean that He doesn't suffer, like us, from mixed motives that can taint our perception of definition & result in coloration (think 'glass darkly') of what we consider to be conceptual clarity that fosters logical consistency.
Are you familiar with Isaiah 45:7? And bear in mind, that like ArcticF., I'm not defending an established position of anybody else's - knowingly, although I do appreciate your referencing them - it edifies me for you to school me that way.
And I appreciate the ideal of the universality of philosphy's practicality, as applied to logical consistency, but terms are mission critical, and besides the (what I consider to be a) gaff of using the term "double standard", I'm thinking your definition of "innocent" is not in parallel with ours (me 'n AF), "federalism" being the sore point for you, on the issue of "fairness" - a term I do not necessarily equate with "justice".
Fairness, as I percieve it, implies an equality before a law (of contradiction even), but God's justice is about righteousness (His), and has nothing to do with fairness.

"All things being equal", fairness would equate with justice. But all things, if we include The Creator, are not equal. The reson hy chaos does not rule, is because it too, is created & therefore in control of a axiomaticaly Good God.

So as Isaiah provokes in 45:...
7: I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

...God is not to be judged by His action, rather His motivation. His motivation is pointed out in Romans 9:
21: Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?
22: What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:
23: And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,

So "innocence" needs to be defined in terms of God's purposes to maintain logical consistency in percieving original (federal) sin.
That sin & guilt we inherit isn't specific except in format & consequence. Adam geneticaly formatted the entire race, leaving the "seed of the woman" the only one fit for divine incarnation.
In this sense, only Jesus was innocent.

 

[JAL]

Rick, let me say for starters that I admire your politeness and respect on this forum. I need to learn from your example. Part of my problem is that I feel that many Protestants have for 500 years touted as fact, as though it were the plain teaching of Scripture, various doctrines which are not in plain, indeed are quite problematical. I’m just sick of it and hence I lose patience when I feel that a debater is persisting in a contradiction wiithout admitting that there is even a problem that needs addressing. What bothers me about it as that I see the church moving in the wrong direction resulting in a loss of billions of souls. Also I feel that if Protestants were more candid about the problems in their theology, they would have found solutions 500 years ago. In a moment I’ll examine some of your comments on the issues of this debate.

 

[JAL]

Jal, I love your persistance and attention to and capacity for, detail.

I think a first point of divergence was AFox's use of "double standard", the reality being God's standard is simply "higher".
And by that, I simply mean that He doesn't suffer, like us, from mixed motives that can taint our perception of definition & result in coloration (think 'glass darkly') of what we consider to be conceptual clarity that fosters logical consistency.

Again, if God’s standard of “honesty” is “higher” than mine such that it allows for the possibility of what I would, by my standard, call dishonesty, the promises of Scripture are worthless. Similarly if God’s standard of “justice” is “higher” than mine such that it can possibly violates my definition of it as “fairness”, such that the innocent may be condemned (declared guilty), I can have no eternal hope. Because even if I am CURRENTLY innocent by virtue of God’s blood, once we allow that the innocent can be declared guilty, my current innocence is placed in jeopardy.

More to come…

 

[OnTheWay]

Let's think about TULIP for a moment without using the fluff modern terms people use to mask some of Calvin's really nasty ideas.

T = Total Depravity

Are people really devoid of all good? The fact that large soceities function is by itself proof that this is false doctrine. Calvin was a man that spent most of his life quite sick, that tends to make people a bit nasty. You don't order people burned at the stake because you're good natured.

U = Unconditional Election

The modern Calvinist doesn't like to hear the term reprobate used anymore. But facts are facts, in the Calvinist system most people are junk God created solely for the purpose of sending them to hell.

L = Limited Atonement

In the words of St. John the Theologian:

My children, I am writing this to prevent you from sinning; but if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ, the upright. [SIZE=-2]2[/SIZE]He is the sacrifice to expiate our sins, and not only ours, but also those of the whole world.
1 John 2:1-2

This is directly refutes the Calvinist system, and like any other system if one part is wrong then then construct is wrong.

I = Irresistible Grace

A complete denial of the free will of men. The elect cannot being anything else and the reprobates cannot be anything but reprobates. As such the reprobates have no responsiblity to follow any of God's teachings, they couldn't even want to do so. It renders the great commission meaningless, the saved will walk into a Calvinist church whether they want to or not and the damned are damned regardless of who preaches to them. It's sadistic and cruel, not much in line with a God that loves the world so much He sent His only begotten Son to die for it.

P = Perseverance of the Saints

The nature of God presented to us in Calvinism is not the loving father of man, but the cruel dictator and overlord of man. You can't call it perseverance simply because no one under the Calvinist system can do anything of the sort. The game is rigged, you're either saved or damned and have been so since the moment you were conceived. Perserverance would mean coming through despite resistance. Well if you're one of the elect you cannot be resisted. If you are a reprobate you cannot be saved, Jesus didn't even die for you.

 

[JAL]

Are you familiar with Isaiah 45:7?… I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

Some years ago I briefly examined some commentaries on this verse and came away feeling confident that “evil” is neither the necessary nor the best translation here. Why did I conclude? As I recall, it is because the verse polarizes “peace” and – what? Evil? The opposite of peace is not evil. It’s turmoil, or war, or something like that, I would imagine. But there is a much better reason to question this interpretation. A prominent theologian once stated, and I agree with him, that hermeneutics “not only informs the exegesis, it dictates the interpretation.” That is to say, the exegete has to begin with some assumptions called hermeneutical assumptions. He cannot then draw a conclusion inconsistent with those hermeneutical assumptions (although he can, indeed, reject the assumptions and start all over again with a new set of assumptions). The main assumption, for me, is that we cannot violate the law of noncontradiction. To associate God with originating evil would contradict my present confidence in His promises. Following this principle, I would take a similar approach to another passage you cited:

...God is not to be judged by His action, rather His motivation. His motivation is pointed out in Romans 9:
21: Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?
22: What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:
23: And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,

Let me say about the above passage (I’m surprised ArcticFox didn’t mention it), this is probably the only passage that I can think of that offers a fairly solid ground for a doctrine of condemned innocents. Unlike so many underhanded debaters, I’m not one to reply, in the face of such evidence, “That’s a silly argument.” No. This passage is very tempting evidence to conclude that God would, in fact, condemn the innocent.

However, once again, “hermeneutics not only informs the exegesis, it dictates the interpretation.” I cannot subscribe to a contradiction. Therefore I must either abandon my original assumptions about God (at loss of eternal hope) or look for another interpretation. The question I would ask is this: Is the clay here already marked burnable? If it is already guilty in Adam, and if God foresees it won’t be saved, He can do anything He wants with it in harmony with merited judgment, he can use it for his own glory. Notice that Paul distinguishes in this passage between “the vessels of his mercy” versus “the vessels of His wrath.” Mercy and wrath betoken prior guilt. It is the guilty who incur wrath and need mercy. Paul is dealing with burnable clay here, not innocent clay.

 

[CSMR]

This is just a bunch of rambling. You need to deal with the specific objections raised in my initial post. Otherwise you are just expressing a bias. The world is full of religions because there is plenty of bias, but precious little coherence (logical consistency).

You were espousing the notion that the same things should be said about God's goodness as about our goodness. I pointed out examples where you will surely agree this does not hold? I also challenged you to epress your argument in a coherent way which is both exact and hopefully does not allow these examples.

Your first post about "Human and divine standards" is a tangential argument. I wasn't disputing with you here. I would say to talk about either human or divine love or justice we need divine standards by the revelation of the holy spirit. We shouldn't apply a divine standard to God and a human standard to ourselves. That does not mean that the same thingscan be said about God's love as about human love etc.. (I don't deny however that there are very important connections and would say that human goodness/love/justace is derived from divine goodness/love/justice but derivatively, not simplistically saying "What is good for God to do is good for me to do" and vice versa.)

Again, if "love" and "justice" mean something different for God than what they mean to me, how can I take comfort in the hope of His love and justice? If He violates integrity such as I understand it, what hope do any of us have? You need to deal with that problem

Hopefully you do understand the goodness of God, even though it is something different from the potential goodness of people, and can take comfort in it as the power that leads you to repentance and salvation.

 

[JAL]

…"federalism" being the sore point for you, on the issue of "fairness" - a term I do not necessarily equate with "justice".
Fairness, as I perceive it, implies an equality before a law (of contradiction even), but God's justice is about righteousness (His), and has nothing to do with fairness.

God’s justice “has nothing to do with fairness”? Huh? You lost me on that one. You continue;

"All things being equal", fairness would equate with justice. But all things, if we include The Creator, are not equal….God is not to be judged by His action, rather His motivation. His motivation is pointed out in Romans 9

Ok, there may be an argument here. For example, if a person commits an act of violence to save his life, we could exonerate him if we felt he lost control as a result of the circumstances. That is to say, his felt need for survival was so great that he couldn’t help but do what he did. And I would agree that if God’s need for glory were so great that He finds Himself compelled to seek it even at the expense of innocent human suffering, we couldn’t blame Him for this. But there are two problems with this. First, the mainstream views God as plenally self-sufficient, He has no needs (I personally disagree). On this mainstream assumption it is indeed difficult to justify creation. Why take the risk of creating sin-prone angels and men whose actions might lead to hell if He has no needs? (2) The Bible specifically declares that He does not condemn the innocent (Ezek 18). He is a god of mercy, not a god of innocent suffering.

You end with a summary of the federal position. I don’t see how your wording clarifies it, though:

So "innocence" needs to be defined in terms of God's purposes to maintain logical consistency in percieving original (federal) sin.
That sin & guilt we inherit isn't specific except in format & consequence. Adam geneticaly formatted the entire race, leaving the "seed of the woman" the only one fit for divine incarnation.
In this sense, only Jesus was innocent.

As I said, Scripture speaks of accounting for individual sin, and the problem is that the notion of a universal representative (Adam or Christ) contradicts individual accounting.

Here is another problem. Are you aware that federalism logically contradicts the atonement? Let me explain. Adam’s descendants don’t have to individually choose to accept him as their rep, in federalism. Rather, his position as rep automatically confers his status to them. If his status were innocence, our status would be innocence. It is only when he sins that we lose innocence. Federalism maintains that Christ is our new rep. It follows that the moment God appointed Him as our rep, our status became innocent, because He had never sinned. As long as He avoids sin, we remain innocent. There is no need to atone for sin because there is no guilty state if the rep remains innocent.

And this leads to another problem. If Christ really were the rep in the same sense as (federal) Adam, men wouldn’t need to accept His representation. Just as all men are said to be guilty in Adam (like it or not) in virtue of His role as rep, so too all men would be innocent in Christ (like it or not) in virtue of His role as rep. No human being would go to hell. This makes it clear that Christ was NOT our federal rep and, by parity of reasoning, neither was Adam.

 

[JAL]

Human ethics is not a concept that applies to God. If you want to have something called divine ethics you will have to invent it. The rather infinite and categorical differences between God and man disallow one from making the easy analogies between human ethical statements and divine ethical statements whatever they are.

And this statement is antithetical to hope. As I stated, if the way that God is going to "love" me for all eternity can contradict the essence of what I consider to be love, I can have no hope. I freely admit that we fail to understand His love in a quantitative sense. But we MUST be able to understand it in a qualitative sense, for otherwise it confers no hope. So this notion that there are no clear "analogies between human ethical statements and divine ethethical statements" is, in a nutshell, hopeless.

Human ethical action is the demonstration of saving faith in Jesus Christ. Note that God does not posess saving faith in Jesus Christ.

Apparently you take God's lack of saving faith as proof that His virtues deviate from we consider to be virtues? That's a non-sequitir. It doesn't follow. It is precisely because He is righteous and fair that He doesn't need SAVING faith. He doesn't need to be saved because He hasn't sinned. Had He chosen to sin, He would indeed need someone to atone for Him in order to be exonerated. Stop trying to artificially create a double standard, one for men, and another for God. It is only leads to contradictions.

Or thought of another way, human ethical action is the obedience of the command of God. To extend the bounds of this statement and apply it to God you would have to have a notion of God commanding himself.

This is a reasonable argument but is insufficient proof of a double standard. Allow me to explain. Let's suppose men had no way of knowing God's will, in essence they are just animals. Would it be just for God to condemn them? What kind of God do you folks believe in, anyway? According to Paul men stand condemned based on their knowledge of God's will implanted in their conscience. In my view, conscience is an inherently obligatory concept. Precisely what makes God righteous is His fidelity to His own conscience. True, the specifics of His conscience differ from ours in one sense - and only one sense (His conscience tells Him that He is Lord), but the general principles (the virtues) remain the same.

I see no need for a double standard. Both man and God submit to conscience.

 

[Rick Otto]

You said:
"Again, if God’s standard of “honesty” is “higher” than mine such that it allows for the possibility of what I would, by my standard, call dishonesty, the promises of Scripture are worthless. Similarly if God’s standard of “justice” is “higher” than mine such that it can possibly violates my definition of it as “fairness”, such that the innocent may be condemned (declared guilty), I can have no eternal hope. Because even if I am CURRENTLY innocent by virtue of God’s blood, once we allow that the innocent can be declared guilty, my current innocence is placed in jeopardy."

>>>We can only value the promises of scripture as much as we can honestly understand them. By creating Evil, if only in potentiality, God allows us to be dishonest with ourselves as a crisis-inducing ingredient to motivate character developement in both or either, ourselves & others.
The commandment 'not to lie' was specificaly about one kind of lie only - witness against one's neighbor, like Jacob's deception against Esau, not like Rahab's cover-story for Joshua's spies in Jericho. God Himself puts a lying spirit in the mouth(s) of Samaritan prophets in:
1Ki 22:22 - And the LORD said unto him, Wherewith? And he said, I will go forth, and I will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. And he said, Thou shalt persuade him, and prevail also: go forth, and do so.
23Now therefore, behold, the LORD hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these thy prophets, and the LORD hath spoken evil concerning thee.

Only to illustrate the unfairness in judging action without regard to motivation, as a preface to re-examine the notions of "guilt & innocence" in relationship to responsibility & motivation.

Adam is responsible for what we are born guilty of - posessing the contraband of sin bondage on our motivation (the description of a soul with a stillborn spirit). You might recall sin did not enter the world upon Eve's perpetration, it waited until Adam, the responsible party, chose to become complicit.

You are "presently" not innocent by virtue of God's blood until you believe. You are predestined to be innocent if elect, but only in eternity, until God actualizes that condition here in time.

Having eternal hope isn't a condition we can choose, only fake or deny, according to how honest we (God willing)are capable of being with ourselves.

So being innocent of an immoral act by virtue of infancy, isn't the same as being innocent of posessing an immoral nature. Christ alone posessed that kind of innocence, making Him the only candidate available to accept undeserved judgement, and therefore the only one capable of making perfect sacrifice... He owed no penance.

The "higherness"(sounds like "truthiness" lol) part of God's standard is the axiom God is good.
For me, the standards for establishing logical consistancy & non-contradiction in exegesis are these:
Omniscience, Omnipotence, and Omnipresence. I believe any fair minded philosopher could find hours of delight in those reference points for triangulating on scriptural truth.

I hope I haven't been pedestrian. I gotta a gig at an art gallery opening & I'm a little late. I hope I get back to you soon.

 

[JAL]

Here's an another problem with federalism. Consider the claim that God can change our reps, first Adam,then Christ. First, it suggests that God is contradicting Himself, since federalism conditions the status of men on Adam. To change our rep such that our status is NOT conditioned upon Adam contradicts God's (supposed) claim that Adam had a determinative effect on our status.

Second, if changing our rep is consistent with divine justice, then one day God can say to us in heaven, "I've decided that your rep will now be Hitler (or, Stalin or Satan or some other evil being). Therefore you are all guilty and will be transferred to hell immediately."

 

[JAL]

Federalism's incompatibility with justice can be seen in the garden. The claim is that if the rep lives his entire life in innocence, the rest of us are innocent by representation. Now consider Eve's situation after she ate the fruit. On this assumption she should not have allowed Adam (the rep) to partake. She should have murdered Adam before he had another chance to eat the fruit. Since the rep dies innocent, she too, by representation would remain innocent.

A theodicy that construes wanton murder as the key to innocence must have a logical problem SOMEWHERE. In a nutshell, federalism is an inherently unjust concept.

 

[ArcticFox]

Let's think about TULIP for a moment without using the fluff modern terms people use to mask some of Calvin's really nasty ideas.



Are people really devoid of all good? The fact that large soceities function is by itself proof that this is false doctrine. Calvin was a man that spent most of his life quite sick, that tends to make people a bit nasty. You don't order people burned at the stake because you're good natured.

I should have included this under my common misconceptions. Total Depravity does NOT mean that people are as evil as they could be, or that everything people do is evil by human standards. What it DOES mean is that sin has reached every aspect of our being, and that we are unable, apart from faith in Christ, to please God. See Hebrews 11:16, Romans 3:10-18, Romans 14:23.

The modern Calvinist doesn't like to hear the term reprobate used anymore. But facts are facts, in the Calvinist system most people are junk God created solely for the purpose of sending them to hell.

A total strawman. Read Romans 9 (14-26) to see why God creates some for dishonor and some for honor. Argue with God, and accuse him of injustice; Paul's answer is swift and to the point, 'Who are you, oh man, to answer back to God?' A question we should ALL tremble at, Calvinist or not.

In the words of St. John the Theologian:

My children, I am writing this to prevent you from sinning; but if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ, the upright. [SIZE=-2]2[/SIZE]He is the sacrifice to expiate our sins, and not only ours, but also those of the whole world.
1 John 2:1-2

This is directly refutes the Calvinist system, and like any other system if one part is wrong then then construct is wrong.

This could refute Limited Atonement, but it could not refute the whole Calvinist system. I myself will probably end up saying that I don't believe in the Limited Atonement aspect of Calvinism, so I cannot defend it. Others may step in here. Keep in mind that there are verses that seem to indicate a limited atonement, and there are verses that seem even more clearly to indicate a universal atonement.

A complete denial of the free will of men. The elect cannot being anything else and the reprobates cannot be anything but reprobates. As such the reprobates have no responsiblity to follow any of God's teachings, they couldn't even want to do so. It renders the great commission meaningless, the saved will walk into a Calvinist church whether they want to or not and the damned are damned regardless of who preaches to them. It's sadistic and cruel, not much in line with a God that loves the world so much He sent His only begotten Son to die for it.

Did you read my original post? These are common misconceptions about Calvinism. The fact is, if Calvinism is NOT true, than the Great Comission is meaningless because no one is able to hear the message and respond favorably. Calvinism being true ALLOWS missions to succeed, and makes evangelism a success.

Did you read my original post? This is misconception #3. Calvinism teaches that we have a totally messed up view of 'free will,' and that no one has a truly 'free will,' regenerate or unregenerate; we are all bound to the masters we serve, whether sin or righteousness (see Romans 6:15-23). Remember, no unsaved person will want to come to Christ apart from the Father drawing him. See John 6:44.

The nature of God presented to us in Calvinism is not the loving father of man, but the cruel dictator and overlord of man. You can't call it perseverance simply because no one under the Calvinist system can do anything of the sort. The game is rigged, you're either saved or damned and have been so since the moment you were conceived. Perserverance would mean coming through despite resistance. Well if you're one of the elect you cannot be resisted. If you are a reprobate you cannot be saved, Jesus didn't even die for you.

This is misconception #1. Did you read my original post?

I cannot deny Scriptural teachings because some human minds think it violates their concept of a loving God. I'm sorry, but I have no theological convictions for any man's concept of a loving God if that man cannot prove his concept from Scripture and plain reason (both, not either or).

If the Scriptures teach that Calvinism is how God loves people, than no human philosophy of love, no human offense at this doctrine can do it any violence. God's Word stands above vain human philosophies, and always has. After all, his ways are higher than our ways, and he therefore does not love in the limited human way.


AMEN to God's Word

 

[JAL]

The commandment 'not to lie' was specifically about one kind of lie only - witness against one's neighbor, like Jacob's deception against Esau, not like Rahab's cover-story for Joshua's spies in Jericho.

I had this passage in mind when I spoke of “white lies” earlier in the debate. My comment was that, whatever one concludes about white lies, consistency demands the same standard for God. The Rahab scenario does offer some evidence that God Himself, in some situations, condones white lies.

In my view, the highest principle is conscience. If Rahab acted in conscience, she acted rightly. To say that conscience is the highest obligation is not to suggest that there is no absolute standard but merely to point out that the absolute standard, if consistent with justice, only holds us accountable to what our conscience believes to be true. That is to say, even though there is an absolute standard (namely, love that does no harm to its neighbor – see Rom 13), I am exonerated from this standard in cases where my conscience does not KNOW which choices are harmless. To act in conscience is to act to the best of my knowledge in ethical matters.

Let’s suppose a particular lie does no (undue) harm to its neighbor, although it might bring (due) harm (judgment) to the unjust. I should think I can condone it as being in accordance with the moral law. Rahab could have taken the easy way out. She could have sold out her friends to purchase her own safety. Admittedly this passage is challenging, but I think it can be reconciled with human concepts of virtue – and the same is true of the next one:

God Himself puts a lying spirit in the mouth(s) of Samaritan prophets in:
1Ki 22:22 - And the LORD said unto him, Wherewith? And he said, I will go forth, and I will be a

lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. And he said, Thou shalt persuade him, and prevail also: go forth, and do so.
23Now therefore, behold, the LORD hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these thy prophets, and the LORD hath spoken evil concerning thee.

Part of the solution here is to realize that God can put a demon anywhere he wants to. The rest of the solution entails reflecting on the heavenly scenario. God had previously decided to use demons as instruments of his purposes. In this system, demons are a vehicle of judgment such that when we sin, God grants them more leeway. Presumably this is a situation where the demons, based on God’s previous commitment, were entitled to this kind of leeway. Men had sinned, and hence it was time for God to release, in judgment, another deceptive demon. One volunteered. God said, “Fine, it might as well be you, I grant you permission, Go!”

Remember, we cannot subscribe to contradictions. Whenever we face a challenging passage therefore, we must strive for an interpretation consistent with our other beliefs about God, such as His righteousness, justice, integrity, and kindness.

 

[JAL]

Adam is responsible for what we are born guilty of - possessing the contraband of sin bondage on our motivation (the description of a soul with a stillborn spirit).

Merely repeating this traditional claim does nothing to parry the objections that I raised against it.

You might recall sin did not enter the world upon Eve's perpetration, it waited until Adam, the responsible party, chose to become complicit.

Actually, in my view of Adam, that assessment of the situation is quite inaccurate. You are merely bringing to my recollection another contradiction in federalism, namely that it FAILS TO EXPLAIN how Adam is regarded as the first transgressor since in fact such was Eve.

You are "presently" not innocent by virtue of God's blood until you believe.

Again, the atonement contradicts federalism for reasons stated. I am not challenging the atonement, I accept the idea that faith is a requisite for salvation in His blood – but there was no need for His blood if federalism were true. God then becomes the cruel being who sends His Son to suffer and die FOR NOTHING.

Having eternal hope isn't a condition we can choose, only fake or deny, according to how honest we (God willing)are capable of being with ourselves.

Our degree of experienced hope varies daily as we wrestle with the challenges of the Christian life. The presupposition of the NT writers is that the promises given to us are an UNIMPEACHABLE basis for hope. This reassurance succeeds only if we feel confident that the virtues of God implicit or explicit in the promises matches our standard human concepts of virtue.


Next you argue that God’s justification for declaring us guilty is our being born with a sinful nature – that we did not choose?

So being innocent of an immoral act by virtue of infancy, isn't the same as being innocent of possessing an immoral nature. Christ alone possessed that kind of innocence, making Him the only candidate available to accept undeserved judgment, and therefore the only one capable of making perfect sacrifice... He owed no penance.

Sorry, if we had no choice or voluntary role in being born with a sinful nature, it’s not our fault. That contradicts our concept of justice and thereby undermines any assurance we have of divine virtue. To blame someone for his state of birth is like a judge declaring an infant guilty because an adult put stolen jewelry in his lap.

This brings to mind another problem with federalism. Many of its proponents admit that there is no way to explain HOW we are born with a sinful nature. Intuitively, a sinful nature is a tendency (addiction) to sin resulting from actual sinning. But if Adam was the one who sinned, we should be born without such tendency (regardless of whether or not we are federally guilty). The result is that we have God creating innocent souls and then STAINING THEM WITH SIN during birth, we make Him an agent of evil.

One solution proposed by federalists is to claim that our mechanical body is what causes our souls to sin. That doesn’t work, however, because that shouldn’t be called sin. If a machine moves me to do something, irresistibly and inadvertently, I am not to blame. The present-day Reformed theologian Donald Bloesch admitted that the Reformed tradition neither has explained, nor even CAN explain, the taint. That’s a pretty significant statement. It’s one thing to say that your theology hasn’t explained something. It’s quite another to say that it is INCAPABLE of explaining it.

But explaining it is a cinch for me, given my revised view of Adam.

 

[epistemaniac]

Jal, you said

Again, if "love" and "justice" mean something different for God than what they mean to me, how can I take comfort in the hope of His love and justice? If He violates integrity such as I understand it, what hope do any of us have?

To say that God's expressions of these emotions is qualitatively different is not to say that there is no analogy between God's love and human love, or that what love means for God and love for humans are in direct opposition to one another. What you are doing is failing to appreciate that when God loves or expresses justice, these are expressed by a being that is in possession of attributes humans do not possess, perhaps most importantly of these is omniscience. You have been shown some excellent biblical examples already of situations where God’s actions, if done by humans seem overly harsh or even unjust. But, given God’s knowledge of the situation, which was complete and exhaustive, we dare not elevate ourselves above God and presume to judge God’s actions as being “beneath” us or that we would be morally superior to God because we might not have carried out the same level of severity in our carrying out of justice as God did. But hey, if you feel comfortable standing over God in what you feel is a morally superior position, have at it. I would say that your prospects for success in this endeavor are poor.

Here is another example that could have been used.
Joh 7:2-10 ESV Now the Jews' Feast of Booths was at hand. (3) So his brothers said to him, "Leave here and go to Judea, that your disciples also may see the works you are doing. (4) For no one works in secret if he seeks to be known openly. If you do these things, show yourself to the world." (5) For not even his brothers believed in him. (6) Jesus said to them, "My time has not yet come, but your time is always here. (7) The world cannot hate you, but it hates me because I testify about it that its works are evil. (8) You go up to the feast. I am not going up to this feast, for my time has not yet fully come." (9) After saying this, he remained in Galilee. (10) But after his brothers had gone up to the feast, then he also went up, not publicly but in private.”

Was Jesus being deceptive by telling his brothers that he would not go to the Feast of Booths, when all the while He knew He would go? Given our knowledge, that Jesus did not intend to go to the Feast in the way His brothers wanted Him to, with pomp and circumstance, but secretly, it could still be argued that Jesus should have been “totally” honest with His brothers that He intended to go, but in a way that was without bravado. But the overall point is that Jesus’ knowledge of the situation is one where He, being Lord, told others what He felt they needed to know, and no more. He doesn’t and didn’t have to explain Himself to others, so too, with God the Father or God the Holy Spirit. The exercise of justice or mercy is carried out in perfection, though we may not know all the particulars as to the “how’s” or “why’s” as to what is done. We are simply in no position to elevate ourselves over any situation and presume to say that God should have done this or that, or that God was unjust in anything He does.

Blessings,
Ken

 

[JAL]

To say that God's expressions of these emotions is qualitatively different is not to say that there is no analogy between God's love and human love, or that what love means for God and love for humans are in direct opposition to one another. What you are doing is failing to appreciate that when God loves or expresses justice, these are expressed by a being that is in possession of attributes humans do not possess, perhaps most importantly of these is omniscience. You have been shown some excellent biblical examples already of situations where God’s actions, if done by humans seem overly harsh or even unjust. But, given God’s knowledge of the situation, which was complete and exhaustive, we dare not elevate ourselves above God and presume to judge God’s actions as being “beneath” us or that we would be morally superior to God because we might not have carried out the same level of severity in our carrying out of justice as God did. But hey, if you feel comfortable standing over God in what you feel is a morally superior position, have at it. I would say that your prospects for success in this endeavor are poor.

Here is another example that could have been used.
Joh 7:2-10 ESV Now the Jews' Feast of Booths was at hand. (3) So his brothers said to him, "Leave here and go to Judea, that your disciples also may see the works you are doing. (4) For no one works in secret if he seeks to be known openly. If you do these things, show yourself to the world." (5) For not even his brothers believed in him. (6) Jesus said to them, "My time has not yet come, but your time is always here. (7) The world cannot hate you, but it hates me because I testify about it that its works are evil. (8) You go up to the feast. I am not going up to this feast, for my time has not yet fully come." (9) After saying this, he remained in Galilee. (10) But after his brothers had gone up to the feast, then he also went up, not publicly but in private.”

Was Jesus being deceptive by telling his brothers that he would not go to the Feast of Booths, when all the while He knew He would go? Given our knowledge, that Jesus did not intend to go to the Feast in the way His brothers wanted Him to, with pomp and circumstance, but secretly, it could still be argued that Jesus should have been “totally” honest with His brothers that He intended to go, but in a way that was without bravado. But the overall point is that Jesus’ knowledge of the situation is one where He, being Lord, told others what He felt they needed to know, and no more. He doesn’t and didn’t have to explain Himself to others, so too, with God the Father or God the Holy Spirit. The exercise of justice or mercy is carried out in perfection, though we may not know all the particulars as to the “how’s” or “why’s” as to what is done. We are simply in no position to elevate ourselves over any situation and presume to say that God should have done this or that, or that God was unjust in anything He does.

It seems to me that many agnostics and atheists have a more cohesive theory of justice than Calvinists. There are many agnostics and atheists, based on my own experience, who would have the following conversation with me:

I ask, "If God exists, created you, and gave you a conscience, would He be justified in punishing you for blatant transgressions?"
They will typically reply, "Yes."
I ask, "But would He be justified in a verdict of guilty and a sentence of hell prior to any voluntary action on your part?"
They will reply, "No, OF COUSE NOT.

Many Calvinists sit within their ivory tower and declare, "Since I am saved, I don't mind if God condemned a bunch of OTHER people to hell prior to any voluntary action."
You are, however, fallible, correct? What would happen if you found out tomorrow that you are not among the elect? Dethroned from your ivory tower of safety, would you really perceive this theology as just? Somehow I doubt it.


Your claim, epistemaniac, is that we shouldn't presume to judge God's decisions. Actually, I will be the FIRST to agree with you on that point. It's precisely why I would never buy into Sola Scriptura. That is to say, only God has access to sufficient data to determine in advance whether a particular action will prove harmful to myself and to others. There simply isn't enough data in Scripture to make this determination. Therefore Scripture is a basis neither necessary nor sufficient for making decisions or evaluating them, whereas the voice of God is both (insofar as it convinces/convicts the conscience). Jesus knew the Father's will better than we do, not because He was a better Bible scholar (He did not attend either of the two seminaries of his day), but because He heard the Father's voice more loud and clear.

Therefore if God's voice commanded me (as to Abraham), "Go kill your son," I would have to assume that, as usual, I am suffering from a basically infinite lack of data. I must NOT conclude, if I am to be consistent, that the FINAL OUTCOME of such a divine command is (undue) harm to my neighbor. It would be better to assume a rationale such as the following, "God is asking me to kill my son because he perhaps committed an offense meriting judgment." Or, “This is only a test.”

I’ll say it again. Despite my lack of data, I cannot conclude, with consistency, that the FINAL OUTCOME is for God to harm the innocent. And the same is true of the other virtues. For example, I may perhaps claim that God can tell a white lie, but I cannot conclude that the FINAL OUTCOME will be a violation of His promised kindness to me and His fairness to others. The law is this: “Love does no harm to one’s neighbor”(Rom 13), and therefore I cannot have God violating His own law. I cannot have Him sending innocent people to hell, for example. And I can’t have God being blatantly dishonest. I cannot have Him dishonestly say, “These people are guilty”, prior to any voluntary action on their part. (Remember, a white lie is not an instrument of harm to one’s neighbor whereas declaring the innocent guilty would indeed be an instrument of harm).

What is the FINAL OUTCOME of federalism? People who have not sinned stand condemned. Actually this contradicts Paul’s claim that all HAVE sinned (even the unborn) – the real question, then, is this: How do we come up with a revised view of Adam such that all have sinned? Phrased in that way, the answer is pretty simple to find – but only if we are willing to part with at least one traditional assumption.

 

[JAL]

An argument occasionally given in favor of federalism is that Adam was the "perfect" rep. The idea is basically that we all act just like Adam, we all act alike. I would like to provide some evidence that free agents do NOT all act alike. Take, for instance, the angels. SOME of them sinned, others remained faithful. Therefore it would have been unjust for God to have instituted an angelic federalism where Lucifer was the rep for ALL of them. The result would have been MILLIONS of innocent angels thrown in hell prior to any voluntary action.

Thus the notion that we all act alike contradicts the notion of free agency, as seen with the angels. If, in fact, we all act alike, God did NOT make us free agents and is therefore responsible for our behavior.

Another proof of free agency is this. If someone walks up to you and slaps you in the face, with whom are you angry? At the offender. But if we all act alike, you should be equally angry at yourself. No Christian really believes that we all act alike.

 

[Rick Otto]

What happened to logical consistancy? lol
The logic of being representative rests on consistency of identifying elements in the rep & his constituents.
jesus wasn't constituent in Adam, rather in Eve. That identifies Him as the only viable candidate for election to the position. The position only became available based on spiritual necessity, it hasn't been dependant upon the capricious whims you assign as possible, to our creator. Where is there logic in any of that?

Angels were all individualy created, not born. Different ball game, different rules.
We are not, in the strictest sense of the word "free", free agents. God IS responsible. Responsibility does not necessarily carry with it, guilt.
We all act alike in a larger sense, not exactly in specifics. We are all human, and thus we all act like humans act, the "alikeness" is general, not uniformly specific.

We CAN be guilty of what we are not complicit in, but responsible for, and likewise we CAN be responsible for what we are not guilty of.
I can be legaly guilty of posession of contraband, even if that contraband was placed on my person without my permission. I can be responsible for, but not guilty of, the acts of my children who I legaly represent before the law.

JAL, you gotta be more careful who choose to represent us...
"I ask, "But would He be justified in a verdict of guilty and a sentence of hell prior to any voluntary action on your part?"
They will reply, "No, OF COUSE NOT."

MY reply Jal, is Yes, of course, the Creator is justified in whatever He chooses to create, being the creator. Our judgement of Him is objectively irrelevant. It is only important to us, because we have our own ideas about what is fair & just.
And He points out having done exactly that in the Rom 9 passage on His loving Jacob & hating Esau, BEFORE they were even born, in accordance to His doctrine of grace & election.

Paul explains HOW we are born with a sinful nature by saying we were all "in" Adam when he sinned. Make of it what you will.

"Intuitively, a sinful nature is a tendency (addiction) to sin resulting from actual sinning."
Adam established the tendency in all of us by his actual sin. God confined the "carrier" status of this "virus" to men. Women recieve it, but only men pass it on, thus the "virgin birth" opportunity for Jesus to make a claim to Adam's rep status. But the claim is evolved, nd escalated from mere genetic re-ordering the race, to spiritualy re-ordering its circumstance. Mercy is available only at the discretion of the judge, not to "he who willeth, or he who runneth".

Your murder analogy can be extended to infants if they are born innocent (without a sin nature). Kill 'em before they sin & guarantee your kid goes to heaven. That would quickly depopulate an entire religion! lol

You seemed pretty coherent at first, but you're beginning to lose me, sorry.

 

[JAL]

You seemed pretty coherent at first, but you're beginning to lose me, sorry.

Even if I lost you on my last post, I had earlier identified several contradictions in federalism unaddressed to this point. You haven't so much as admitted that there is a problem. I had hoped that, behind your aura of politeness, was an equal degree of intellectual integrity, and now I am beginning to have my doubts.

What happened to logical consistancy? lol
The logic of being representative rests on consistency of identifying elements in the rep & his constituents.
jesus wasn't constituent in Adam, rather in Eve. That identifies Him as the only viable candidate for election to the position. The position only became available based on spiritual necessity, it hasn't been dependant upon the capricious whims you assign as possible, to our creator. Where is there logic in any of that?

I can't make any sense of the above statement - you seem to read my theodicy as Eve-centric? Huh? You are almost certaintly mis-extrapolating me. You might want to limit yourself to some of my clearer statements made earlier. I think you're right - I apparently did lose you on that last one - totally.

Angels were all individualy created, not born. Different ball game, different rules.

And human souls are not individually created? Look, what difference does it make, anyway? Either we are free moral agents with capacity to choose individually (somewhat like the angels) or we are constituted in such a way that we all act alike. If the latter (i.e. if we are unfree beings who all act alike), that's God's fault, not ours, as you go on to admit:

We are not, in the strictest sense of the word "free", free agents. God IS responsible. Responsibility does not necessarily carry with it, guilt.

And you call this coherent? Even though God is responsible, He declares US guilty? And that is consistent with a God of integrity? That makes Him a liar! And if He is a liar, how can His promises afford us the hope purportedly offered? Suppose I grabbed your arm, put a gun in your hand, and squeezed your hand as to force you to pull the trigger. Who is really at fault here, if not me?

Your next statement seems to stand on both sides of the fence:

We all act alike in a larger sense, not exactly in specifics. We are all human, and thus we all act like humans act, the "alikeness" is general, not uniformly specific.

If we don't act alike in the specifics, then the notion that Adam can represent us becomes all the less credible. Nor is it even clear the distinction you are trying to make between acting alike in the specifics versus acting alike in general. That distinction seems to break down under closer scrutiny.

We CAN be guilty of what we are not complicit in, but responsible for, and likewise we CAN be responsible for what we are not guilty of.
I can be legaly guilty of posession of contraband, even if that contraband was placed on my person without my permission.

This statement is oversimplified. You are suggesting I'm too stupid to realize that? "Legally guilty" only reminds us of the INJUSTICES sprouting from our imperfect legal system. Human judges suffering from a lack of data may PRESUME you guilty even when you are technically innocent. Frankly I wouldn't want to worship a God who would blame me for an unbenknownst placement of stolen jewelery on my person. In the same way your claim that, before God, we can be guilty of actions of which we are not complicit is judicially absurd - regardless of how our imperfect legal system works.

I can be responsible for, but not guilty of, the acts of my children who I legaly represent before the law.

You ARE guilty (both technically and legally) if you fail to properly discipline and restrain your children. If you did your job as a parent properly, you are not technically guilty. Again, don't treat me as though I am too stupid to see the difference. Come up with something better than that.

MY reply Jal, is Yes, of course, the Creator is justified in whatever He chooses to create, being the creator. Our judgement of Him is objectively irrelevant. It is only important to us, because we have our own ideas about what is fair & just.

No, it's not irrelevant if it exposes contradictions in our Doctrine of God. Contradictions are not "irrelevant" contrary to your assumptions. Let me tell you how relevant they can be. Apparently as the result of the Spirit's conviction, in fear of hell I gave my life to Christ about 20 years ago. The guy who led me Christ asked me, a couple days later, how do you feel about your new relationship with God? My response? "I hate Him. I believe that I am saved, I believe that Jesus died for my sins, but if what you told me about God is true, that He blames me for Adam's sin, I could never love him fully, nor even want to try." I had no motivation to seek His face.

When you propose a theology that depicts God as unjust, you potentially weaken the spiritual motivation of the listeners. Another consequence is this. The solution entails a whole new metaphysics with startling implications for sanctification and evangelism.

And He points out having done exactly that in the Rom 9 passage on His loving Jacob & hating Esau, BEFORE they were even born, in accordance to His doctrine of grace & election.

Finally, a real argument! There are two types of arguments that I respect, first a solid appeal to Scripture and secondly a solid appeal to logic and logical consistency. Now, here’s why I disagree with your reading. Your argument seems to be:
(1)Paul here describes the prenatal Jacob and Esau as two innocent ones.
(2)God condemns one of them despite his innocence.
The problem with this reading is that we now have Paul contradicting himself. Keep in mind that Romans 5 precedes Romans 9. In Romans 5 Paul made it clear that Jacob and Esau HAD sinned in Adam. One commentator noted that Paul used the aorist tense in both Romans 3 (“all have sinned”) and Romans 5 (“all sinned”). The commentator said, “The parallel is clear. All had ACTUALLY sinned.” Actual sin pretty much rules out any notion of “sin by representation.” In Adam, Jacob and Esau had sinned. But as “Jacob” and “Esau” they had, as yet, done nothing bad or good. What Paul is stating is that, GIVEN THAT WE ARE ALL GUILTY IN ADAM, it is, as a result, “not a matter of him who willeth or him who runneth, but of God, who granteth mercy.” It is a matter of election BECAUSE we are guilty and this election can precede birth – but it does NOT precede guilt, for He is not a God of injustice. He is not cruel and capricious like men.

Paul explains HOW we are born with a sinful nature by saying we were all "in" Adam when he sinned. Make of it what you will.

What we have to make of it is a doctrine without logical contradictions. If we cannot do it, we should admit that our theology is self-contradictory and admit that we are still looking for a solution – and a small number of Reformed theologians have already done this. In other words, let’s stop pretending to have solved a problem that we haven’t solved. That’s intellectual dishonesty, and I’m sick of it.

Adam established the tendency in all of us by his actual sin. God confined the "carrier" status of this "virus" to men. Women recieve it, but only men pass it on, thus the "virgin birth" opportunity for Jesus to make a claim to Adam's rep status. But the claim is evolved, nd escalated from mere genetic re-ordering the race, to spiritualy re-ordering its circumstance.

Your “virus” analogy doesn’t fool me into thinking that you have an explanation as to the universality of concupiscence. It’s easy enough to SAY we “inherited” a sin nature from Adam. The trouble is that on mainstream assumptions, there is no way to explain how. A standard Catholic Catechims addmitted this fact, stating, "The transmission of original sin is a mystery we cannot understand." For example, many mainstream theologians claim that each human soul comes into existence ex nihilo at conception, freshly created by God. Even if it could be argued that He creates evil souls (contrary to a righteous God), their actions really shouldn’t be called evil since their state of birth (i.e. creation) isn’t their fault.

Your murder analogy can be extended to infants if they are born innocent (without a sin nature). Kill 'em before they sin & guarantee your kid goes to heaven. That would quickly depopulate an entire religion! Lol

First of all, I do not believe that infants are born innocent. They are guilty in Adam. But maybe what you are doing here is posing a hypothetical. You are perhaps saying. "Your agument about Eve killing the rep Adam before he sins doesn't work. One way to show it doesn't work is to extend it to the idea of killing infants." No, this is not a fair extension. If I kill an innocent infant, he would indeed go to heaven, as he should. But what about me, as the killer? I should go to hell. My argument stands, therefore, namely that federalism is unjust because it would have (guilty) Eve being declared innocent for killing the rep Adam, for if he dies in innocence, she is innocent by representation.

Look, I hope this to be my last post ever on this forum, so I am going to tell you my solution, briefly. Keep in mind that the mainstream has had 2000 years – and millions of books – to explain and defend their view. I can’t do it in all in one paragraph. This will leave my position open to objections that I won’t be here to rebut.



The idea is pretty simple. As Charles Hodge admitted, the ability of mind and body to work together cannot be explained if the mind is immaterial. That’s one reason that the church father Tertullian rejected immaterial substance as early as 200 AD. I don’t have space here to list the logical contradictions arising from the notion of immaterial soul.


Assume for the moment that God made ONE man Adam, and thus ONE (physical) soul – and only one. Since Eve came from his ribs, even her soul was Adam. Sin creates an addiction to sin, a tendency called concupiscence. When Adam and Eve sinned, therefore, they had this tendency.

But the notion of a physical soul is that it can be subdivided. In my solution, God divested Adam of most of his tainted soul, storing away the greater mass of it in suspended animation. Adam and Even then lived normal lives. At every conception, God takes a portion of the (sin-tainted) reserved soul from suspended animation and mates it to the embryo. He doesn’t create any new souls. He has never created more than one soul. Stated simply, you ARE Adam. It’s not that you were WITH Adam. No. YOU chose to eat the fruit even though you cannot presently remember being in the Garden or making that choice.

But how can this be? Why can’t I remember? The nature of a physical soul is such that if it’s physical thought-currents are properly scrambled, it loses recollection of events - if you don't believe me, try hitting someone over the head with a baseball bat as to cause various types of brain damage (without killing him) - or just picture Alzheimer's disease. That’s precisely how the omniscient Son of God became incarnate. All that knowledge which He had PRIOR to incarnation was lost (forgotten) upon descent into Mary’s womb. All that’s necessary to do this is scrambling, for reasons which I cannot discuss here.

Every single charge of contradiction that I have leveled against federalism is absent from my solution. It’s a complete solution to all those charges of injustice.

You’d be surprised at the ways that I could use Scripture to defend this position. But I have been trying to break my addiction to this forum, and now is a good time to do it.


One final note: the famous evangelical theologian Millard J. Erickson realized this was the only way to solve the problem. That's why he too construes the soul as a material presence in the body, and as the solution to the problem of Adam.

 

[Revelation1316]

JAL,

I see what you are saying about Federalism.

If through Adam, sin entered the world and death with it, the logical counter to this is that through the Second Adam, grace entered the world and salvation with it.

The Second Adam, logically, should exactly undo the damage of the first at least.

The thing both Calvinists & Arminians can agree on is that most people will be going to Hell - Jesus said salvation was the "narrow path", wheras Hell was the "wide path".

But then you have a logical problem regarding the Second Adam.

There are 8 Billion people on earth, only 3 Billion max would be Christian, which leaves the other 5 Billion hellbound.

Now, Universalists will reason that because everyone is born with Original Sin because of Adam, everyone will be saved eventually through Christ.

This is somewhat logical, but the Universalists can only use their own Bible to support this view, which no other translation agrees with, and so, like JW's & The New World Transaltion - I don't believe they are being academically honest, nor do I believe in their interpretation as I think it's unscriptural and it cheapens Christ's atonement.

So if we assume the traditional view, that all born are hellbound because of Orignal Sin, we have to ask the following question:

Q. If all born are headed for eternal death through Adam, why are not all born after the Second Adam headed for eternal life? (the logical opposite)

Calvinism says that some are chosen, most are not. Although I attend a Reformed Church, I am not a Calvinist, I have too many problems with it.

Now Calvinism aside, let's look at the Arminian view:

People can freely choose Christ, people can freely make the decision for themselves whether they'll be saved or damned.

Nice concept, but what is it's opposite?

It's opposite is choosing to be damned.

Now nobody chooses to be damned, they might reject Christ and we say they are choosing damnation, but in their minds if they reject Christ, they don't believe in hell so their not willfully choosing to be damned.

So let's go further back down the line - if the decision to be damned isn't made at the time one rejects Christ, when is it made?

Well, humans are born with Original Sin, so it's logical to look at Birth.

Now a baby can't choose to be born, but it's parents can choose for it.

But we still have a problem if we say Parents choose hell for their children by knowingly concieving them.

The problem is this:

It's not exactly the logical opposite to choosing salvation in Christ yourself.

Salvation: Your Choice.
Damnation: Your Parents' Choice.

But if your parents choose hell for you, this is still Federalism.

I personally believe Children and mentally handicapped persons are covered by a special grace.

The theory about "child grace" is present in Judaism, the theory is that at 12 for girls and 13 for boys, the soul "awakens" and then is responsible. (IIRC)

Now, this seems to correlate to what we see in the world, bar the odd exception of late bloomers, which one would assume God would extend the deadline.

Personally, I believe in the traditional view of Original Sin because I don't think we have any better.

I also - as an Arminian - believe that nobody goes to Hell without hearing the gospel once.

My problem lies in having to make that choice, and I don't believe parents should have kids, because that puts the burden of responsibility on the child to make a choice later on to accept Christ or reject him and "wait and see".

Therefore, the only consolation between Original Sin & Christ's Atonement is this:

All people are covered by a special type of grace until they hear the gospel. Once they hear the gospel, that grace departs. If another grace hasn't replaced it (saving grace), that person will die "graceless" and without grace, nobody can enter Heaven - grace is the key that unlocks the door to heaven.

I think this fits in with Satan and his demons in that they have no grace, nor are they given the chance to "repent!" by Christ's atonement.

Therefore, the only people God has really damned to hell are Satan & his fallen angels, and even then you could say they chose that themselves because they all had first hand knowledge of God and his power yet chose to gamble on a coup d'etat.

God Bless,
Rev