What is wrong with Calvinism ?

[Clare73]

Duh! I seem to remember, now where did I put, what was it I was looking for?

I give up. . .what was it?

But feel free to exegete Romans 5:12-14, being true to its words and context and, dealing with all the issues presented therein.

 

[Clare73]

Sometimes when I read the Bible I stop and ask a few questions that I look for answer to. Like what is it that author is trying to explain? And exacly what is it that he says and what is it that he doesn't say? It's a good way to investigate Scripture. I know we can't read the Bible like we haven't been influenced by anything, but there is a difference between
trying to read the Bible free of preconceived ideas
and trying to fit things in like total depravity and limited atonement.

Assumes facts not in evidence. . .

Total depravity - Romans 8:7-8; 1 Corinthians 2:14; Romans 3:20-21.
Limited atonement - atonement applied only to those who believe (John 3:16), not applied to all.

 

[Clare73]

No, they didn't get their understanding from Scripture alone. How do you figure?
They got it passed on from the apostles themselves and then from tradition.

False dichotomy. . .

The apostles themselves presented nothing in disagreement with what they wrote, and anything else in disagreement with what they wrote is de facto illegitimate. . .making the apostolic writings 100% sufficient in themselves, nothing needed to be added to them by man.

We have access to the same source of truth and doctrine which the church fathers did.
We can study it in the enlightenment of the Holy Spirit just as the church fathers did.
They didn't have more that was determinative than we do.

We can measure the teachings of the church fathers by the word of God just as we measure everything else.
Scripture, not the church fathers, is the authority for the born again.

 

[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), "Dying, you will die." (Genesis 2:17)

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 spiritual and physical, 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.

 

[zoidar]

Limited atonement - atonement applied only to those who believe (John 3:16), not to all

"Whoever" is general statement which means whoever in the whole world.​

Don't you see the necessary consequence of that those who deny Jesus are included in the word "world" ? That means the atonement by necessity is unlimited.​

For God so loved the world (this must include those who deny him, vers 17), that He gave His only begotten Son.​

Whom did God love? Those who will deny him and those who will receive him. The proof is that God gave His only Son for both "groups" so they could potentially be saved.​

#4104​

For whom did God give His Son? The world, those who receive him and those who deny him. In what way did God give His Son to those who deny Jesus, if not as the atoning sacrifice?

 

[Clare73]

"Whoever" is general statement which means whoever in the whole world.​

Don't you see the necessary consequence of that those who deny Jesus are included in the word "world" ? That means the atonement by necessity is unlimited.​

Application is the only thing material here.

Its application is not unlimited, its application is limited.

For God so loved the world (this must include those who deny him, vers 17), that He gave His only begotten Son.

Whom did God love? Those who will deny him and those who will receive him. The proof is that God gave His only Son for both "groups" so they could potentially be saved.
#4104​

For whom did God give His Son? The world, those who receive and those who deny him. In what way did God give His Son to those who deny Jesus, if not as the atoning sacrifice?

 

[zoidar]

Application is the only thing material here.

Its application is not unlimited, its application is limited.
​

Everyone believes the application is limited (except universialists). John 3:16 says not only that it's applied to believers, but that God sent His Son as the atoning sacrifice for everyone.

 

[zoidar]

Between Adam and Moses, there was no covenant nor law of God in force whose penalty was death (both spiritual and physical)

How could then God punish Sodom with death for its sins, if there was no such penalty for sin?

 

[Clare73]

Everyone believes the application is limited (except universialists). John 3:16 says not only that it's applied to believers, but that God sent His Son as the atoning sacrifice for everyone.

Application is what is material.

 

[Clare73]

How could then God punish Sodom with death for its sins, if there was no such penalty for sin?

Irrelevant. . .

Who says he can't?
Who is going to keep him from doing so. . .who does he answer to?

What is relevant to Romans 5:12-14 is whether there was a law by God in force then with a death penalty attached for all who sinned?
There was not and, the word of God says (twice) that they did not sin (Romans 5:13-14).

There was such a law, however, in Israel from Moses to Christ.
Except they had it better than Adam.
A remedy for the death penalty was included in that law.

 

[zoidar]

Application is what is material.

I think it matters a bunch who God sent Jesus to die for. Because it shows who God loves.

 

[zoidar]

Irrelevant. . .

Who says he can't?
Who is going to keep him from doing so. . .who does he answer to?

What is relevant to Romans 5:12-14 is whether there was a law by God in force then with a death penalty attached for all who sinned?
There was not and, the word of God says (twice) that they did not sin (Romans 5:13-14).

There was such a law, however, in Israel from Moses to Christ.
Except they had it better than Adam.
A remedy for the death penalty was included in that law.

But it says "all sinned". You can't just ignore that (well you can, but shouldn't). You are saying that means Adam's guilt was imputed to all men, but that is not what it says. If I'm not wrong that view was first held by Augustine.

Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned⁠—
— Romans 5:12

 

[zoidar]

Scripture, not the church fathers, is the authority for the born again.

Of course!

The Early Church Fathers are the first "Bible study teachers." They lived close in time to the apostles and some even met and were taught by the apostles. Which apostle taught Luther or Calvin how to understand Paul? No one! Yet people believe that Luther and Calvin got everything in the Bible right. If we don't think the Early Church Fathers could get it right, how can we believe Luther and Calvin got it right some 1500 years later?

 

[Clare73]

But it says "all sinned". You can't just ignore that (well you can, but shouldn't). You are saying that means Adam's guilt was imputed to all men, but that is not what it says. If I'm not wrong that view was first held by Augustine.

Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned⁠—
— Romans 5:12

And the rest of the story. . .

What does Romans 5:14 state: death reigned over them that had not sinned on the likeness of Adam's transgression (against a specific command carrying the death penalty).

Yet all were guilty of sin as proven by death "reigning over them". . .because Adam's sin/guilt was imputed to them.

Your issue is with Scripture, not with me.

 

[Clare73]

Of course!

The Early Church Fathers are the first "Bible study teachers." They lived close in time to the apostles and some even met and were taught by the apostles. Which apostle taught Luther or Calvin how to understand Paul? No one! Yet people believe that Luther and Calvin got everything in the Bible right. If we don't think the Early Church Fathers could get it right, how can we believe Luther and Calvin got it right some 1500 years later?

They were taught what those same apostles wrote in the Scriptures, we having the added advantage of all the apostolic writings, not just of one.

 

[zoidar]

They were taught what those same apostles wrote in the Scriptures, we having the added advantage of all the apostolic writings, not just of one.

Just of one?

 

[misput]

Just of one?

And if that one was not Ro 5:12-18 with Clare teaching it, well everyone was just out of luck : )

 

[Alive2]

Was that necessary?

And if that one was not Ro 5:12-18 with Clare teaching it, well everyone was just out of luck : )

 

[misput]

Was that necessary?

All in fun, lighten up friend : )

 

[zoidar]

.