What is wrong with Calvinism ?

[Clare73]

To believe it's about imputed guilt of Adam, is something we can hold to be true, not what it literally says. Of course I understand it is because of guilt (just pointed out it doesn't literally say it), but what guilt? You say of Adam's sin, I say of our own sin.

BSB Romans 5:18
So then, just as one trespass brought condemnation for all men (from living in sin because of the inherited fallen nature), so also one act of righteousness brought justification and life for all men. (through living a new life because of Christ's righteousness received through the Holy Spirit)

BSB Romans 5:19
For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners (through their own sins because of the inherited fallen nature), so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.(through living a new life through Christ's righteousness)

I don't show you this to convince you I'm right. I don't care if you believe it or not.
What I care about is that you see there are different available interpretations of the text, that fits just as good. But from our discussions so far, I don't see you very open to acknowledge this. And this is where I think you should reconsider.

No, they don't "fit just as good."
"What you care about" is incorrect.

For your "interpretation" of imputed righteousness is not in agreement with its presentation in Genesis 15:6 and Romans 4:2-3 where it is ascribed/counted as/credited to/reckoned to Abraham simply because he believed, not because of anything (works) he did, and where that principle is applied to the NT in Romans 4:1-11.
Not being familiar with the issue of Romans 1-5--all righteousness is only from God (Romans 3:21), you seek to interpret it outside that context.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Although God does choose individuals for certain purposes which may or may not have anything to do with their salvation.

God does nothing nebulously.

When a passage of Scripture doesn't make good sense to a person, it is not saying that Reason trumps Scripture, for that person to look about for another way to see that passage of Scripture.

The real problem with, "This is speaking of us, all the faithful collectively, not choosing individually.", is that it just doesn't make sense. It's pretty obvious that cause-and-effect is pervasive, and that chance cannot cause anything, and that God is first cause, which means that EVERYTHING that is not him is what it is by his plan and purpose. I don't mean that God does nothing collectively, but when he does, it is individuals to whom he does it.

Even in Heaven the Bride of Christ, a collective, is made of individuals.

I'm not sure I fully understand what you mean. But sure some preconceived basic ideas are natural, like Jesus dying and being resurrected and that sin entered the world through the fall of Adam. Those are basic truths. When I read the Bible I try to read from the "basic truths", not from ideas like predestination, total depravity etc. So to me reading the Bible is trying to read it from a mind that is as much as possible blank from doctrines, to really read what is says and not says. Sure context is important, won't argue there. But it's important to not study the Bible with already formed doctrines in the head, as far as that is possible.

I don't think you will be convinced from reading the Bible alone, but from studying the Early Church Fathers. So it depends on how much you invest into that, and what importance you give the teachings of the Early Church Fathers.

Should one also bring to the table, a blank mind, as far as reason is concerned? There is certainly value in reading with a mind like a child, but there is also value in maturity, which includes not only Godliness, but wisdom, knowledge and understanding.

Whether by 'doctrine' you intend such things as the tenets of Reformed Theology (or any other theology) or not, we ALL —even the unbelievers— have theology; we all have our doctrine. We also have our worldview, which is impossible to shed, though wise to bear in mind that we do have one (not at all saying that our worldview cannot change —it is constantly being revised, as we learn and mature).

(Ha! Personally, I find the attempt to read without preconceptions distracting. How does one do that? I remember taking a speedreading course, but found my mind incapable of following the method, simultaneous with paying attention to what my eyes were scanning!)

 

[Mark Quayle]

Although God does choose individuals for certain purposes which may or may not have anything to do with their salvation.

But why would God "choose individuals for certain purposes which...may not have anything to do with their salvation" yet not choose individuals for salvation? Are you implying that freewill only applies to salvation?

If, according to your statement, God can choose specific individuals for specific things, does not (according to your theology) that choice infringe on their freewill? Is it not inconsistent to complain that God choosing specific individuals for salvation infringes on their freewill but not these?

 

[Mark Quayle]

Although God does choose individuals for certain purposes which may or may not have anything to do with their salvation.

But why would God "choose individuals for certain purposes which...may not have anything to do with their salvation" yet not choose individuals for salvation? Are you implying that freewill only applies to salvation?

If, according to your statement, God can choose specific individuals for specific things, does not (according to your theology) that choice infringe on their freewill? Is it not inconsistent to complain that God choosing specific individuals for salvation infringes on their freewill but not these?

 

[misput]

Of course God doesn't depend on chance. I know you come back to that many times. I don't see the correlation you make between free will and chance. If God wants me to go to the store today and meet Mr. B, He can easily put a thought into my head He knows will make me choose by free will to go to the store. I think God is using our free will choices to accomplish His purposes.

Do you know of Molinism? I think that is interesting, and not too far from my view.

About 3 minutes.

Very interesting video, Thanks. Also read your essay, also interesting. When you were writing about evil it kept reminding me of Ecclesiastes 12: "Remember thy creator in the days of thy youth, before the evil days come" and goes on to describe ageing and death in a highly metaphorical way so evil does not seem to always mean sin but sometimes does. Just thinking about where God says He creates evil----just rambling : )

 

[misput]

I'm having a bit of trouble getting that concept through my head. Are you saying God chose, from before anyone was born, some nebulous group that does not include individuals? What was he thinking!

Why am I not surprised u are having trouble getting something through your head? And trying to change what I said, shame on you.

 

[Clare73]

Why do then Genesis and Exodus say people sinned before the Law was given?

What about Sodom and Gomorrah?

And Cain and the flood, and the tower of Babble and, and, and-----------

Between Adam and Moses, there was no covenant nor law of God in force whose penalty was death, both spiritual and physical.
The issue of Romans 5:12-14 is sin-to-death, not just sin. . .as Adam's sin was sin-to-death, both spiritual and physical--"Dying, you shall die," (Genesis 2:17), which is the only reason Adam died.

The issue of Romans 5:12-14 is why all died when no law of sin-to-death was in force, as it was with Adam, and later with Moses to Christ.
The answer is Romans 5:18, all those born of Adam were condemned to death by Adam's transgression, just as (so also) all those born of Christ are justified (declared righteous) by Christ's obedience (the cross).

There is no transgression of the Law of Moses without the Law of Moses obviously. But
there were still sin before Moses.

The issue of Romans 5:12-14 is that sin was not to physical and spiritual death by a law of God. . .yet they all died, as did Adam who sinned against a law of God carrying the penalty of death (Genesis 2:17).

Why? Because the Law is written in our hearts.

For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them, on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus. — Romans 2:14-16

Romans 5:12-14 is not about just sin, it is about sin against law carrying a penalty of death, of which there was no such law between Adam and Moses. . .and yet they all died.

 

[misput]

God does nothing nebulously.

When a passage of Scripture doesn't make good sense to a person, it is not saying that Reason trumps Scripture, for that person to look about for another way to see that passage of Scripture.

The real problem with, "This is speaking of us, all the faithful collectively, not choosing individually.", is that it just doesn't make sense. It's pretty obvious that cause-and-effect is pervasive, and that chance cannot cause anything, and that God is first cause, which means that EVERYTHING that is not him is what it is by his plan and purpose. I don't mean that God does nothing collectively, but when he does, it is individuals to whom he does it.

Even in Heaven the Bride of Christ, a collective, is made of individuals.

As u well know, it does not matter if it makes sense to u but what ever floats your boat man, go for it.

 

[Clare73]

I can say: "My own faith is credited me as righteousness."

Can you really say: "My own faith is imputed me as righteousness?"

Yes, and that is "credited to" me as righteousness, as well as "imputed to" me as righteousness.

Which is not to say it is my own righteousness imputed to me because of works, but as the text states, the righteousness of Christ is imputed to me (Romans 4:1-11).

To say: "Righteousness is imputed me by my own faith" is not the same thing. Here it can be someone elses righteousness that is imputed.

Precisely. . .having established that no one is righteous (Romans 3:10), that all righteousness is from God alone (Romans 1:17, Romans 3:21, Romans 3:24-25), the only righteousness in existence being the righteousness of God/Christ, it is the only righteousness that can be imputed.

 

[Mark Quayle]

This is speaking of us, all the faithful collectively, not choosing individually.

I'm having a bit of trouble getting that concept through my head. Are you saying God chose, from before anyone was born, some nebulous group that does not include individuals? What was he thinking!

Logically, first cause is necessarily specific.

Of course God doesn't depend on chance. I know you come back to that many times. I don't see the correlation you make between free will and chance. If God wants me to go to the store today and meet Mr. B, He can easily put a thought into my head He knows will make me choose by free will to go to the store. I think God is using our free will choices to accomplish His purposes.

So where's the problem? What you say there is the same thing I say. It does not admit to uncaused free will. Uncaused free will depends on chance, which logically self-contradictory.

Do you know of Molinism? I think that is interesting, and not too far from my view.

Yes, and rejected it outright. It admits what, to my mind at least, is heresy, just as does Arminianism. It rejects omnipotence. A little non-causation is a lot.

 

[misput]

Between Adam and Moses, there was no covenant nor law of God in force whose penalty was death, both physical and spiritual.
The issue of Romans 5:12-14 is sin-to-death, not just sin. . .as Adam's sin was sin-to-death (Genesis 2:17), both physical and spiritual, which is the only reason Adam died.
The issue of Romans 5:12-14 is why all died when no law of sin-to-death was in force, as it was with Adam.
The answer is Romans 5:18, all those born of Adam were condemned to death by Adam's transgression, just as (so also) all those born of Christ are justified (declared righteous) by Christ's obedience (the cross).

The issue of Romans 5:12-14 is that sin was not to physical and spiritual death by a law of God. . .yet they all died, as did Adam who sinned against a law of God carrying the penalty of death (Genesis 2:17).

Romans 5:12-14 is not about just sin, it is about sin against law carrying a penalty of death, of which there was no such law between Adam and Moses. . .and yet they all died.

U are being blind to the fact that if one does not know the law of Moses he is a law unto himself and will be judged through Jesus Christ.

 

[Clare73]

A good case can be made on both sides of most biblical debates by picking and choosing the scripture used but the main point is usually missed or forgotten. We need to keep the main thing, the main thing. Have U noticed how few people are responding to this thread. Do U realize how few folks even know what the question is let alone the answer. Might ought to lighten up, or not : ) Good entertainment anyway.

Have you noticed how many are reading this thread?

 

[Clare73]

I'm having a bit of trouble getting that concept through my head. Are you saying God chose, from before anyone was born, some nebulous group that does not include individuals? What was he thinking!

He chose the "church."

 

[Clare73]

U are being blind to the fact that if one does not know the law of Moses he is a law unto himself and will be judged through Jesus Christ.

Which has nothing to do with Paul's argument in Romans 5:12-14 regarding no law in force with penalty of death, yet all died.

 

[Alive2]

Precisely. . .having established that no one is righteous (Romans 3:10), that all righteousness is from God alone (Romans 1:17, Romans 3:21, Romans 3:24-25), the only righteousness in existence being the righteousness of God/Christ, it is the only righteousness that can be imputed.

Amen--only God is righteous and that righteousness is extended to the elect by a vehicle and that vehicle is Christ.

 

[misput]

Have you noticed how many are reading this thread?

Reading and responding are like being at home but the electric is off, if u get my drift but maybe they are looking for a fuse, we can always hope.

 

[Clare73]

Reading and responding are like being at home but the electric is off, if u get my drift but maybe they are looking for a fuse, we can always hope.

Could they just be trying to understand the issue of the imputation of both Adam's sin/guilt to all those born of Adam, and of Christ's obedience/righteousness to all those born of Christ (Romans 5:18-19)?

 

[misput]

Which has nothing to do with Paul's argument in Romans 5:12-14 regarding no law in force with penalty of death, yet all died.

Says u, back it up with scripture.

 

[misput]

Could they just be trying to understand the issue of the imputation of both Adam's sin/guilt to all those born of Adam, and of Christ's obedience/righteousness to all those born of Christ (Romans 5:18-19)?

We can always hope.

 

[Clare73]

Says u, back it up with scripture.

Read Romans 5:12-14. . .