What is wrong with Calvinism ?

[Clare73]

I would say that the Unconditional Consequences of the Original Sin are not Imputed by God to Adam's Progeny, but they are 'Imparted' through Procreation to All who are in Adam; just as arms and legs are Imparted to us. I would say that God doesn't 'Create' Sinners but Adam 'Procreated' Sinners. Also, I would say that a quick discussion about the difference between the words Imputation and Impartation would be a good idea. If Imputation is the wrong word, isn't everyone arguing for or against a Strawman?

Is this quick enough?

Righteousness is both imputed from God in justification (Romans 1:17, Romans 3:21, Genesis 15:6/Romans 4:2-3)
and imparted through obedience in the Holy Spirit in sanctification (Romans 6:16, Romans 6:19).

Adam's guilt is imputed only.
We do not inherit sin or guilt, we inherit only a sinful nature by natural generation.
Any "imparted" guilt would be through our own personal disobedience.

 

[Clare73]

Verse 12 explains/interpretates verse verse 18.
Death spread to all men because all men sin, just as Adam did, not because God imputes Adams sin to them.

If I may, here. . .

Actually, v. 12 does not interpret v. 18, but rather sets up the "conundrum" Paul is unravelling here; i.e.,
(we know) all died, therefore, all had to have sinned. . .which conundrum he unravels in vv. 13-14, to wit:
But what was the sin?
There was no covenantal law to sin against, so what caused their deaths?
God held them guilty of Adam's guilt which he imputed to them.

This is all in God's purpose of two Adam's, the former being the pattern for the latter (Romans 5:14), as explained in post #361, following:

God purposed two Adam's (1 Corinthians 15:21-23, 1 Corinthians 15:45-39), and
he purposed the first Adam to be a pattern for the second Adam (!) (Romans 5:14),
which Paul demonstrates in Romans 5:12-21,
whereby all those born of the first Adam are condemned by imputation of his guilt, as a pattern of
all those (re)born of the second Adam being redeemed by imputation of his righteousness; i.e., justification (Romans 1:17, Romans 3:21).

 

[iwbswiaihl]

Rebirth is not salvation, faith is not salvation, remission of sin is salvation, which remission/salvation is by faith, which faith is by the rebirth.

Remission of sin (by faith, which requires rebirth) removes you from God's wrath (Romans 5:9) and condemnation (Romans 5:18) on your sin, which is the meaning of salvation from the wrath of God (Romans 5:9).
Sorry that is not more clear to you.

I think we may be in agreement here.
Faith comes by hearing, for you have to have something to believe in before you can believe it.
But there is no hearing if one is not born again (John 3:3).
Because without the Holy Spirit, man does not hear, does not receive and does not believe (John 8:47;
1 Corinthians 2:14; Romans 8:7-8.
I see no inconsistency of this text with what I have presented above.

have a great day.

 

[ReverendRV]

Is this quick enough?

Righteousness is both imputed from God in justification (Romans 1:17, Romans 3:21, Genesis 15:6/Romans 4:2-3)
and imparted through obedience in the Holy Spirit in sanctification (Romans 6:16, Romans 6:19).

Adam's guilt is imputed only.
We do not inherit sin or guilt, we inherit only a sinful nature by natural generation.
Any "imparted" guilt would be through our own personal disobedience.

It's like using a fine-tooth comb. Impartation and imputation are a lot alike, but they are obviously different...

 

[ReverendRV]

nt

 

[Clare73]

Is this quick enough?
Righteousness is both imputed from God in justification (Romans 1:17, Romans 3:21, Genesis 15:6/Romans 4:2-3)
and imparted through obedience in the Holy Spirit in sanctification (Romans 6:16, Romans 6:19).

Adam's guilt is imputed only.
We do not inherit sin or guilt, we inherit only a sinful nature by natural generation.
Any "imparted" guilt would be through our own personal disobedience.
as "imparted" righteousness of sanctification is through our own obedience in the Holy Spirit.

It's kind of like taking a fine-toothed comb to the discussion. Impartation and Imputation are a lot alike, but of course they are different... Impartation.

It's like using a fine-tooth comb. Impartation and imputation are a lot alike, but they are obviously different...

Well, impartation requires our personal action,
whereas imputation does not, either in guilt or righteousness,
which is what imputation is all about in God's economy (Romans 5:18-19),
where the first Adam is a pattern for the second Adam (Romans 5:14).

 

[ReverendRV]

Well, impartation requires our personal action,
whereas imputation does not, either in guilt or righteousness,
which is what imputation is all about in God's economy (Romans 5:18-19),
where the first Adam is a pattern for the second Adam (Romans 5:14).

Well said...

Impartation is the Sharing of something 'Essential and Native to Humanity'; like Adam's Native Depravity. Imputation is the Sharing of something Alien to us; like the Righteousness of Christ...

 

[Clare73]

Well said...

Impartation is the Sharing of something Native to Humanity; like Adam's Native Depravity. Imputation is the Sharing of something Alien to us; like the Righteousness of Christ...

And something in which we personally had a doing, "effected" a "natural" (to its reality) consequence, so to speak.

 

[Der Alte]

Don't leave off the most interesting verse:
Ro 2:16 on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus.
The way I understand this is these who do not have the law (or the gospel) will be judged by the gospel of Christ. How does that work?

It appears to be closely connected to vs. 15

Romans 2:14-16
(14) For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
(15) Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another
(16) In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.​

Instead of making the vss contradictory I reconcile them this way.

In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men [who have] the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another, by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.​

 

[misput]

All men have the law which is the knowledge of good and evil, even if it is just through their conscience.Do you think Cain knew it was wrong to kill his brother?

 

[John Mullally]

Well, impartation requires our personal action,
whereas imputation does not, either in guilt or righteousness,
which is what imputation is all about in God's economy (Romans 5:18-19),
where the first Adam is a pattern for the second Adam (Romans 5:14).

Imputing vs imparting. The bigger discussion should be that Calvinism is a non-starter. Peter and Paul say that God desires all to be saved in 2Peter 3:9 and 2 Timothy 2:4. And yet Calvinist argue over the process by which God strictly enables a predetermined select few to receive eternal life. If God desires all to be saved there must be a path open to all. Non-starter

 

[Der Alte]

Or better yet, read my post carefully enough to get a clue about what I`m saying and why next time. Then you can invade a conversation you haven't paid attention to without looking so foolish. I`ve posted every one of those verses on this thread during the course of this discussion.

If you were aware of Rom 4:15 and 5:13 and you agree that God is not going to punish children, infants, mentally handicapped, people in distant jungles, deserts etc. why did you you say this?

If we believe that God transfers Adams's sins then we must agree that the ignorant natives will auto burn in the lake of fire and that at the white throne Jesus will order the millions of aborted babies thrown in the lake of fire all due to Adams behavior.

 

[RickReads]

If you were aware of Rom 4:15 and 5:13 and you agree that God is not going to punish children, infants, mentally handicapped, people in distant jungles, deserts etc. why did you you say this?

What's wrong with you? I was talking about what Calvinism believes. You know, kinda the theme of the thread. Read the last line of my post which you conveniently have excluded. I would appreciate it if you just don't talk to me anymore and I will gladly ignore you in return.

 

[atpollard]

Adam's guilt is imputed only.
We do not inherit sin or guilt, we inherit only a sinful nature by natural generation.
Any "imparted" guilt would be through our own personal disobedience.

Then why do infants die?
By your argument, they are guiltless.

 

[RickReads]

We do not inherit sin or guilt, we inherit only a sinful nature by natural generation.
Any "imparted" guilt would be through our own personal disobedience.

Now you've changed your position

Oh well, at least you learned something

 

[Clare73]

Now you've changed your position

Or you are just now understanding it.

Please demonstrate your assertion of my change.

Oh well, at least you learned something

 

[RickReads]

Or you are just now understanding it.

Please demonstrate your assertion of my change.

No need. Half the battle against Calvinism has been achieved. I don't care if you want to tell yourself that you knew it all along.

 

[Clare73]

Imputing vs imparting.

Is that agreement or disagreement with imputing (Genesis 15:6; Romans 4:2-3) and imparting (Romans 6:16, Romans 6:19)?

The bigger discussion should be that Calvinism is a non-starter.

It's not my job to determine the big from the small.
Mine is to understand what is presented in the NT, and both imputed (Romans 1:17, Romans 3:20-21) and imparted (Romans 6:16, Romans 6:19) righteousness are presented there, and for which I do not apologize for explicating.

Peter and Paul say that God desires all to be saved in 2Peter 3:9

And the Psalmist says "there is no God." (Psalms 10:4)
Now what do we do?

Okay, let's have that discussion, and let's get down to context.

Does all mean "all without distinction" (Jews and Gentiles), or "all with exception" (everyone)?

In the context of:
Matthew 20:28:
"The Son of Man (came). . .to give his life as a ransom for many."

Revelation 5:9:
"with your blood you purchased men for God from all tribes and languages and peoples and nations,"

and many other Scriptural statements (e.g.; John 3:18, John 3:36; etc.)

I understand "all" in 2 Peter 3:9 and 1 Timothy 2:4 to mean "all without distinction"--from all tribes, languages, peoples and nations."

Not to mention the added benefit of it harmonizing with the rest of the NT.

And yet Calvinist argue over the process by which God strictly enables a predetermined select few to receive eternal life. If God desires all to be saved there must be a path open to all. Non-starter

And if God desires that all without distinction, rather than all without exception, be saved, there will be a path open to all without distinction, which there is--faith in and trust on the person and atoning sacrifice (blood, Romans 3:25) of Jesus Christ for the remission of one's sin, which is salvation.

 

[John Mullally]

Is that agreement or disagreement with imputing (Genesis 15:6; Romans 4:-2-3) and imparting (Romans 6:16, Romans 6:19)?

And the Psalmist says "there is no God." (Psalms 10:4)

Now, can we get down to context?

Does all mean "all without distinction" (Jews and Gentiles), or "all with exception" (everyone)?

In the context of:
Matthew 20:28:
"The Son of Man (came). . .to give his life as a ransom for many."

Revelation 5:9:
"with your blood you purchased men for God from all tribes and languages and peoples and nations,"

and many other Scriptural statements (e.g.; John 3:18, John 3:36; etc.)

I understand "all" in 2 Peter 3:9 and 1 Timothy 2:4 to mean "all without distinction"--from all tribes, languages, peoples and nations."

Not to mention the added benefit of it harmonizing with so much of the NT.


And if God desires that all without distinction, rather than all without exception, be saved, there will be a path open to all without distinction, which there is--faith in and trust on the person and atoning sacrifice (blood, Romans 3:25) of Jesus Christ for the remission of their sin, which is salvation.

We went over this before. 1 Timothy2:1-6 only makes sense if Paul is speaking of all without exception. Christ propitiation is for all men (1 John 2:2, 1timothy 2:6, Romans 5:18). Not all receive this promise by faith (Hebrews 4:1-2).

 

[Clare73]

Then why do infants die?
By your argument, they are guiltless.

They are not guiltless, for I am not saying we are guilty only by imparted guilt.
We are all first guilty at birth and condemned by the imputed sin of Adam (Romans 5:18).
No one escapes the guilt of condemnation for sin.