What is wrong with Calvinism ?

Fervent · Jul 19, 2022

Mark Quayle said:
I can't help but wonder what you do with this: "For as through the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous." (Romans 6:14) and its context.

Soundbytes are hardly a way to develop theology.

It's quite simple to understand that passage in a historical fashion, when it is understood that what is inherited from Adam is the mortal condition, with its weakness to appetites. That verse then speaks not to some kind of fictional bookkeeping on God's part but the fact that while Adam brings death, Christ frees us from death. We are made righteous by taking up Christ's life, just as we were made sinners by being born into Adam's death.

misput · Jul 19, 2022

What is the difference between imputed sin and actual sin? Imputed sin is credited to us by God because Adam fell, actual sin is because we miss the mark of perfection which we are incapable of. We are missing something here because on the surface it makes no sense that we are going to hell for either one. Death and Hell must be two different things. The scripture says God created evil, Isiah 45:7 Could it be we do not go to hell for imputed sin or actual sin but for the sin of rejecting God/Christ as our savior? Of course accepting God/ Christ as savior means we depend on Him for everything. We become reborn by Our Spiritual father rather than a fleshly father. How this process comes about is rather immaterial. All most of us know or need to know is it is wonderful!

Mark Quayle · Jul 19, 2022

Fervent said:
Explaining my assessment would be a bit more in depth than I'm willing to go for a forum post, but it is because the first hints at Augustine's doctrine of original sin come in his Confessions which is all about his inability to control his lust.

Ok. I'll leave it alone, then.

Fervent said:
I'm not sure where you got that I was speaking about Augustine when I was pointing out your redefining common words like "choice" well beyond recognition to preserve your double-speak.

My bad. I thought the fact your earlier paragraph's statements concerning Augustine was included in the same post meant they were relevant to the statements made in the next paragraph.

Fervent said:
As for my priority for historical context, it's because the Bible was revealed to a particular people at a particular time so it has a specific meaning that requires that context. Shifting the interpretation requires first accurately understanding it in history, otherwise all we are doing is reading our historical context into it. A second reason for the priority is that it is the most easily overlooked, because the notion of a "plain reading" is intuitively pleasing making our historical biases easily introduced requiring a conscious effort to combat against.

No, it requires first, understanding the language at all. Your priority is out of order. It is only one of many important considerations. Not only that, but YOU are taking that priority to include the translation's inaccuracies, not the common tongue of the time the original was written, but the influence of later influences on thought, if in any way the translations disagree with your thesis —not as they simply are, you know, 'the common use'.

Clare73 · Jul 19, 2022

misput said:
What is the difference between imputed sin and actual sin? Imputed sin is credited to us by God because Adam fell, actual sin is because we miss the mark of perfection which we incapable of. We are missing something here because on the surface it makes no sense that we are going to hell for either one. Death and Hell must be two different things. The scripture says God created evil, Isiah 45:7 Could it be we do not go to hell for imputed sin or actual sin but for the sin of rejecting God/Christ as our savior? Of course accepting God/ Christ as savior means we depend on Him for everything. We become reborn by Our Spiritual father rather than a fleshly father. How this process comes about is rather immaterial. All most of us know or need to know is it is wonderful!

Yes and no. . .

We go to hell because we reject the remedy for our sin, both imputed and actual.

Fervent · Jul 19, 2022

Mark Quayle said:
No, it requires first, understanding the language at all. Your priority is out of order. It is only one of many important considerations. Not only that, but YOU are taking that priority to include the translation's inaccuracies, not the common tongue of the time the original was written, but the influence of later influences on thought, if in any way the translations disagree with your thesis —not as they simply are, you know, 'the common use'.

Understanding the language is part and parcel to understanding the historic context, as the language influences the thought as much as the mode of thinking influences the language. Historic context covers a broad number of considerations. My mentioning of translation's inaccuracies comes because the originator of the doctrine of original sin that so infects the Western church had little understanding of the original language and instead depended on a poor translation in the Old Latin, combined with Latin commentaries such as Ambrosiaster's. That this later historical context has become so influential requires comment explaining its insidiousness. Returning to the original language and how it was viewed was why I made mention of Chrysostom, as his homilies give a clearer indication of which sense "epi+dative" was understood to the speakers of Greek at the time. That the Latin preposition was a major influence on Augustine and the subsequent acceptance of his theory of original sin is essentially indisputable, with scholarship of current defenders of original sin recognizing the error and seeking alternative arguments to support continued belief in it

Mark Quayle · Jul 19, 2022

Fervent said:
Soundbytes are hardly a way to develop theology.

It's quite simple to understand that passage in a historical fashion, when it is understood that what is inherited from Adam is the mortal condition, with its weakness to appetites. That verse then speaks not to some kind of fictional bookkeeping on God's part but the fact that while Adam brings death, Christ frees us from death. We are made righteous by taking up Christ's life, just as we were made sinners by being born into Adam's death.

What soundbytes? You sound afraid of that particular verse. I invite you to address it along with its whole context. I didn't ask you to address it in historical fashion, unless you include that as just one of its necessary analyses. Interesting too, that you carefully avoid saying outright that man is a slave to sin, apart from being born again. (Yes, that is in the context).

Mark Quayle · Jul 19, 2022

Clare73 said:
Yes and no. . .

We go to hell because we reject the remedy for our sin, both imputed and actual.

Exactly. Because we believed not. John 3:18

Fervent · Jul 19, 2022

Mark Quayle said:
What soundbytes? You sound afraid of that particular verse. I invite you to address it along with its whole context. I didn't ask you to address it in historical fashion, unless you include that as just one of its necessary analyses. Interesting too, that you carefully avoid saying outright that man is a slave to sin, apart from being born again. (Yes, that is in the context).

There's no fear of that, or any other, particular verse. I am generally opposed to the practice of proof texting, which is to strip verses of their original context. Explaining the whole context of that verse requires delving into the whole letter, its pastoral function, and Paul's habit of using rhetoric. I don't address "slave to sin" because it's not really relevant to expounding on that verse alone, as the central notion behind what it means to be "made sinners" and "made righteous" is built around inheriting the curse of death from Adam, and being given a new life in Christ.

As I stated earlier, though, a major issue with Calvinist theology is it begins by stripping Romans of its historical context and treats it as if its a book of systematic theology when it is anything but. Calvinism is injected into the Bible through misinterpreting a book that requires a great deal of understanding of the Old Testament context most of its arguments are built around. It's all about preconceptions and philosophy, rather than careful exegesis.

Clare73 · Jul 19, 2022

zoidar said:
There is a difference between consequences and responsibility. Life has consequences, that doesn't mean I'm responsible for them. Adam's sin had consequences on my life, does that make me responsible for Adam's sin? No, I'm responsible for what I do with what I have inherited from Adam.
The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father’s iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son’s iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself.
— Ezekiel 18:20

Yes, we do not inherit Adam's sin by birth . .rather God imputes Adam's guilt to all those born of Adam (Roman 5:18), Adam being the pattern (Romans 5:14) for God imputing the righteousness of Christ (Romans 1:17, Romans 3:21, Romans 3:24-25) to all those born of Christ (Romans 5:18b, 19b) .

zoidar · Jul 19, 2022

Clare73 said:
Yes, we do not inherit Adam's sin by birth . .rather God imputes Adam's guilt to all those born of Adam (Roman 5:18), Adam being the pattern (Romans 5:14) for God imputing the righteousness of Christ (Romans 1:17, Romans 3:21, Romans 3:24-25) to all those born of Christ (Romans 5:18b, 19b) .

Hm, how come none of your verses mention guilt?

zoidar · Jul 19, 2022

Mark Quayle said:
My argument was that there are ways to show that it cannot be said that God does not, or would not, or that it would not be just for him to, cause people the circumstances (causes) in which they make choices according to their inclinations and influences, yet hold them responsible for their choices: Thus: If God says they are responsible, and if God says that he causes all things, there is no need to say otherwise for either one of those; no need to reinterpret Scripture, because, (at the least), #'s 1,2,3,4.

There is the argument again: "God can do whatever He likes." How does that show we are responsible? And no! Scripture does not confirm your position. Since Scripture affirms personal responsibility, it affirms free will. There is no need for reinterpretation of Scripture, we agree there.

Mark Quayle said:
God makes no statement that he will hold you responsible for holding up a bank you did not hold up. The example does not serve your point. But God does make a statement that he imputes the guilt of Adam's sin onto us. Since we know that to be so, and we also know that he is logical and just, (God's mind and will trumps ours) —and our reasoning that he would not hold us responsible for sin we willfully choose, even if our choices were caused, does not hold up.

But Adam "robbed a bank" (ate from the tree), and now you say we have the guilt for it... No we don't know it is so. Not all Christians agree with this idea.

Mark Quayle said:
(I could have added in @Clare73 's argument —that God is not unjust to hold us responsible for choices freely made according to our inclinations. By that use, after all, no matter the causes, we freely do choose. But that is not an argument of the same type as these, though it would probably have been better understood by you. I could also have repeated my logical arguments, but I've already done that. So I'm coming at this from a different tack.)

I don't believe God is holding us responsible for inclinations, but for sins we actually commit. How are "freely chosing sin" making us responsible, if what we will to choose is caused by God? To me this sounds like eating the cake and have it too. On one hand affirming our responsibilty and then saying God is the reason we will what we will. I don't see how it's not a contradiction.

Mark Quayle said:
You are responsible for robbing the bank; the reason you rob the bank is because you willfully chose to do so, even if there were other sure causes at work to bring you to that point, and to cause you to choose what was already determined for you to do.

Again how am I responsible for my willful choice, if God is the cause of it?

Mark Quayle said:
You yourself said he caused you to be born with a sinful nature. And you have at other times agreed with at least the Arminian reasoning, that one will live according to that sinful nature until God changes something, no? Arminianism likes "prevenient grace" but it is a necessary change, no?

This feels like a topic for another discussion.

Mark Quayle said:
Because 'uncaused free will' implies not only guilt, as you claim, but it also implies credit for righteous choices —that is, unless you wish to credit mere chance...

That is something we can discuss. It's an interesting topic, but I don't see it as part of this discussion: "How we can be responsible without free will."

Mark Quayle said:
Are you saying he imputes the guilt but that he is not logically and justly holding you responsible? That imputation of itself condemns us. And he does have that right to do with his creatures as he pleases; and nobody has, nor does their opinion have, the authority (not to mention the wisdom) to proclaim him unjust. I would say he is more than just to proclaim his whole created race of humans guilty, on the basis of Adam's sin alone, whether we can logically see it or not. What do we know of individuality vs corporate, or even of what sin really is, nevermind the differences in the levels of hierarchy between God and man, and type of economies of God vs man and the relationship between them?

No, I'm saying God is not inputing guilt to us, but a sinful nature.

"God can do whatever He pleases" ? No, not really. He can't be unjust. That is against His character.

You are mentioning what sounds like a "mystery". Sure it can be a mystery. And yes, we don't know everything. But that is not a logical argument for us being responsible.

Mark Quayle said:
It is an argument for the fact of it, or at least, the removal of the argument against it. If God imputed the guilt of Adam's sin on us (and I see no way to say he did not, according to Scripture), yet we cannot see how that is fair, how can we say he would not be fair in holding us responsible for willfully choosing to do that which we are by chain of causation, caused to do? Or, if we do find it fair for him to do so, how is it any less fair for him to hold us responsible for sin we willfully chose and were caused to choose?

If God holds us responsible for A He can also hold us responsible for B. Sure He can. But Him holding us responsible, does it make us logically responsible? Where do you find that personal responsibility?

I don't think God imputed Adams sin to us, but his sinful nature.

misput · Jul 19, 2022

Mark Quayle said:
Exactly. Because we believed not. John 3:18

Universal damnation to hell is not possible for the imputed sin of Adam before we are capable of believing or not, even if there is such a thing as imputed sin.

Mark Quayle · Jul 19, 2022

Fervent said:
There's no fear of that, or any other, particular verse. I am generally opposed to the practice of proof texting, which is to strip verses of their original context. Explaining the whole context of that verse requires delving into the whole letter, its pastoral function, and Paul's habit of using rhetoric. I don't address "slave to sin" because it's not really relevant to expounding on that verse alone, as the central notion behind what it means to be "made sinners" and "made righteous" is built around inheriting the curse of death from Adam, and being given a new life in Christ.

As I stated earlier, though, a major issue with Calvinist theology is it begins by stripping Romans of its historical context and treats it as if its a book of systematic theology when it is anything but. Calvinism is injected into the Bible through misinterpreting a book that requires a great deal of understanding of the Old Testament context most of its arguments are built around. It's all about preconceptions and philosophy, rather than careful exegesis.

Ok, well, I guess this is more evidence of the fact our conversation won't continue forward. Your bias, (and no, I don't deny mine, though I do deny Calvinism as such is the point of it), makes you choose what you wish for the purposes of your exegesis, and ignores your eisegesis. You claim the same for me, and I don't deny there is something to that.

Good day to you.

Mark Quayle · Jul 19, 2022

misput said:
Universal damnation to hell is not possible for the imputed sin of Adam before we are capable of believing or not, even if there is such a thing as imputed sin.

God has every right to include us as cells of a corrupt body to be disposed of or whatever else he wishes to do with us. You consider each individual an end unto himself?

Clare73 · Jul 19, 2022

zoidar said:
Hm, how come none of your verses mention guilt?

I give up. . .the same reason no verses mention "Trinity". . .or "sovereignty" regarding God?

Fervent · Jul 19, 2022

Mark Quayle said:
Ok, well, I guess this is more evidence of the fact our conversation won't continue forward. Your bias, (and no, I don't deny mine, though I do deny Calvinism as such is the point of it), makes you choose what you wish for the purposes of your exegesis, and ignores your eisegesis. You claim the same for me, and I don't deny there is something to that.

Good day to you.

The point of my exegetical method is to eliminate my bias, to the extent that that is possible. This involves not only consulting multiple translations and linguistic analysis, but also consulting the near sources and their views on the matter. That my interpretations and initial sense of the verses may be faulty is exactly the point of working the verses analytically, which involves drawing my biases to the surface as much as possible. The issue is not one of bias, but the susceptibility of a given method to such biases.

Good day to you as well.

Mark Quayle · Jul 19, 2022

Clare73 · Jul 19, 2022

zoidar said:
But Adam "robbed a bank" (ate from the tree), and now you say we have the guilt for it... No we don't know it is so. Not all Christians agree with this idea.

When you correctly exegete Romans 5:12-14 you will know it, correctly answering why they all died between Adam and Moses when there was no covenant law in place with the death penalty attached to cause their deaths. . .and where there is no law there is no sin to cause death.
Romans 5:14, Romans 5:18 agree with it.

Let's start with Romans 5:14. For what could sinful Adam possibly be a pattern for Christ, the sinless one, as the apostle teaches there that Adam is?

Clare73 · Jul 19, 2022

zoidar said:
I don't think God imputed Adams sin to us, but his sinful nature.

Adam's sinful nature is inherited, not "imputed," and we are not condemned for it.

Adam's guilt is imputed, and we are condemned for it (Romans 5:18).

Clare73 · Jul 19, 2022

misput said:
Universal damnation to hell is not possible for the imputed sin of Adam before we are capable of believing or not, even if there is such a thing as imputed sin.

Except that the apostle teaches that it is (Romans 5:12-14, Romans 5:18).

What is wrong with Calvinism ?

Well-Known Member

JimD

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist

Blood-bought

Well-Known Member

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist

Well-Known Member

Blood-bought

loves Jesus the Christ! ✝️

loves Jesus the Christ! ✝️

JimD

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist

Blood-bought

Well-Known Member

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist

Blood-bought

Blood-bought

Blood-bought

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency