What is wrong with Calvinism ?

[QvQ]

It changes nothing. Adam's guilt is still imputed to us.

Absolutely. I like reality. This world certainly looks like East of Eden to me. Genesis 3:17 - Genesis 3:19
Adam was sentenced to death. Genesis 2:17
Adam was banished to East of Eden. Genesis 3:24
Adam's sons were mortal men. Genesis 4:8
All of Adam's heirs shared Adam's residence in East of Eden and all were mortal men.
Adam's guilt is imputed. The sentence was inherited.
Before Christ, all men died, regardless of individual sin
After Christ, men died for their individual sins.

 

[zoidar]

A son can inherit his father's house, and in his father's house his character is formed.
As Sons of Adam:
Adam was banished from Eden, into East of Eden, the current neighborhood. Adam was alone. He had to survive in a hostile land. That shaped Adam's character.
We inherited East of Eden from Adam and that formed our character.
Now I may be wrong, not a bible scholar but:
The sentence on Adam was death and all his descendants inherited death. That is true throughout the entire Old Testament.
That sentence was not earned by the Sons of Adam. That death was inherited, not merited and not annulled or abrogated by acts of will.
A dog dies. The dog inherited that death as he inherited East of Eden and a mortal body. The dog did not merit the death and cannot change it by an act of will. Or do you believe all good dogs go to heaven? Then substitute any flora or fauna for dog to arrive at the correct answer. The dog is not responsible for his acts of will. In fact, a dog doesn't have a will. Dogs are just doing what dogs do.
Is it Just? Presume to judge God? I hesitate....

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

 

[Fervent]

So, Adam's guilt is not imputed to us? The Greek, 'epi', like most prepositions has many uses. But the one you claim doesn't change the meaning at all, as far as I can tell. "In Adam" or not, the mention of pattern (in verse 14) allows for even "after the manner of" or "since", both sequences of a sort. Big deal. It changes nothing. Adam's guilt is still imputed to us.

The same thing happens in 1 Corinthians 15:22, except the word is 'en'; it changes nothing by being 'en' instead of 'epi'.

No, Adam's sin is not "imputed" to us. We are born under a curse, but our guilt is our own. The notion of vicarious guilt is both morally reprehensible and Biblically inaccurate. It's a doctrine that has its origin in Augustine's inability to control his libido, and resurrected because Luther had a deep sense of inconsolable guilt. But it is neither what the Bible teaches, nor what historically was taught by the church prior to Augustine.

Aren't you the one who was a couple posts back complaining that I wasn't using language according to common meaning? Now you want me to dive into hermeneutics for the sake of argument.

My "complaint" is that you're inventing ways of understanding words that are contrary to their common usage in any context. There is no inconsistency between that statement and holding that the understanding of words that reflect the historical context of the original audience and authors is preferrable to meanings that reflect a different historical context.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Absolutely. I like reality. This world certainly looks like East of Eden to me. Genesis 3:17 - Genesis 3:19
Adam was sentenced to death. Genesis 2:17
Adam was banished to East of Eden. Genesis 3:24
Adam's sons were mortal men. Genesis 4:8
All of Adam's heirs shared Adam's residence in East of Eden and all were mortal men.
Adam's guilt is imputed. The sentence was inherited.
Before Christ, all men died, regardless of individual sin
After Christ, men died for their individual sins.

Not sure I'm understanding you here: Between Adam and Christ men all men died physically, because of Adam's imputed guilt, but after Christ some do not? What are you saying? To me, there is no difference. Christ's sacrifice applies the same before it happened in time, as it does after. There has only ever been one way to Heaven.

 

[Mark Quayle]

No, Adam's sin is not "imputed" to us. We are born under a curse, but our guilt is our own. The notion of vicarious guilt is both morally reprehensible and Biblically inaccurate. It's a doctrine that has its origin in Augustine's inability to control his libido, and resurrected because Luther had a deep sense of inconsolable guilt. But it is neither what the Bible teaches, nor what historically was taught by the church prior to Augustine.


My "complaint" is that you're inventing ways of understanding words that are contrary to their common usage in any context. There is no inconsistency between that statement and holding that the understanding of words that reflect the historical context of the original audience and authors is preferrable to meanings that reflect a different historical context.

Like with the rest of us, your 'method' will be judged by your own rules.

 

[Jesus is YHWH]

No, Adam's sin is not "imputed" to us. We are born under a curse, but our guilt is our own. The notion of vicarious guilt is both morally reprehensible and Biblically inaccurate. It's a doctrine that has its origin in Augustine's inability to control his libido, and resurrected because Luther had a deep sense of inconsolable guilt. But it is neither what the Bible teaches, nor what historically was taught by the church prior to Augustine.


My "complaint" is that you're inventing ways of understanding words that are contrary to their common usage in any context. There is no inconsistency between that statement and holding that the understanding of words that reflect the historical context of the original audience and authors is preferrable to meanings that reflect a different historical context.

I've been studying the early church up until Augustine came on the scene. He brought Manicheanism, Gnosticism, paganism and platonic thought into the church and blended those ideas into Christianity. He made pelagius his scapegoat and pelagius in many of his letters taught grace precedes mans response to God. .

 

[Fervent]

I've been studying the early church up until Augustine came on the scene. He brought Manicheanism, Gnosticism, paganism and platonic thought into the church and blended those ideas into Christianity. He made pelagius his scapegoat and pelagius in many of his letters taught grace precedes mans response to God. .

As with a lot of named heretics, it is questionable whether Pelagius actually taught what he was accused of. Though I'd be careful to vindicate him too quickly, because what he is accused of teaching is a serious error that needs defending against. Much of Augustine's impact is because he was willing to use the newly acquired state powers to bully his rivals combined with a voluminous output of material. His inability to read Greek was a major detriment, though I'm not sure he alone is responsible for the gnosticism that polluted Latin thought around his day.

 

[Jesus is YHWH]

As with a lot of named heretics, it is questionable whether Pelagius actually taught what he was accused of. Though I'd be careful to vindicate him too quickly, because what he is accused of teaching is a serious error that needs defending against. Much of Augustine's impact is because he was willing to use the newly acquired state powers to bully his rivals combined with a voluminous output of material. His inability to read Greek was a major detriment, though I'm not sure he alone is responsible for the gnosticism that polluted Latin thought around his day.

ditto like every other theologian that has ever lived they didn't get everything right. what is important is that they have the basic essentials of the Christian faith right, the things which are salvific.

In the essentials unity
In the non essentials charity
In all things liberty

 

[QvQ]

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

Good point! A son could not be punished for a father's sin in East of Eden (responsibility,) however the punishment (consequences) for sins was identical for father and son.
However, All sons of Adam have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.
All those sinners, before Christ's redemption, are responsible for their own sins and the consequences, death, was the punishment, because the father, Adam, and the sons were deserving of the same punishment, in the Old Testament.
In the New Testament, sins are forgiven. It is still East of Eden. All men are still sinners but the sins are forgiven through Jesus Christ.
The point is that all men in East of Eden are sinners. All men are born with the consequences and the responsibility of their own sin, it is only through Christ that some men are redeemed.
The idea is Adam sinned. All men since Adam have sinned. It is both responsibility for your own sins and consequences (judgement) of Adam sins.

 

[Fervent]

ditto like every other theologian that has ever lived they didn't get everything right. what is important is that they have the basic essentials of the Christian faith right, the things which are salvific.

In the essentials unity
In the non essentials charity
In all things liberty

Easy to say, though defining those "essentials" vs "non-essentials" is a difficult task. Just look how many evangelicals seem to believe the gospel is synonymous with Calvin's theory of penal substitution.

 

[Jesus is YHWH]

Easy to say, though defining those "essentials" vs "non-essentials" is a difficult task. Just look how many evangelicals seem to believe the gospel is synonymous with Calvin's theory of penal substitution.

Agreed its why the Atonement is an essential , not a particular theory on it as many of the different theories all contain some element of truth in them.

 

[zoidar]

Good point! A son could not be punished for a father's sin in East of Eden.
However, All sons of Adam have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.
All those sinners, before Christ's redemption, are sentenced to death collectively.
The Old Testament men were therefore responsible for their own crimes and being collectively sinners without the redemption of Christ were under the Judgement rendered to Adam.
Therefore you are responsible for your own sins but judged collectively before Christ's redemption
After Christ's redemption you are judged individually for the sins, weighed and measured and sentence according to the New Testament.
The point is that all men in East of Eden are sinners. All men are born with the consequences and the responsibility collectively of their own sin, it is only through Christ that some men are saved.
The idea is Adam sinned. All men since Adam have sinned. It is both responsibility and consequences.

No, God didn't hold everyone collectively responsible before Christ. Each person was like today, responsible for his/her own choices and was judged accordingly.

If you compare it to a virus. Adam caught the virus from eating from a contaminated source. From him it spread to all men. Were all other men responsible for being infected by Adam? Did God hold all men responsible for Adam's virus? No, but sure it had consequences for everyone.

 

[Clare73]

I've been studying the early church up until Augustine came on the scene. He brought Manicheanism, Gnosticism, paganism and platonic thought into the church and blended those ideas into Christianity. He made pelagius his scapegoat and pelagius in many of his letters taught grace precedes mans response to God. .

Bum rap. . .Augustine is not the origin of these things in the church.

 

[Jesus is YHWH]

Bum rap. . .Augustine is not the origin of these things in the church.

Yes he is take of your revisionist lens .

 

[Mark Quayle]

No, Adam's sin is not "imputed" to us. We are born under a curse, but our guilt is our own. The notion of vicarious guilt is both morally reprehensible and Biblically inaccurate. It's a doctrine that has its origin in Augustine's inability to control his libido, and resurrected because Luther had a deep sense of inconsolable guilt. But it is neither what the Bible teaches, nor what historically was taught by the church prior to Augustine.

I asked before if you can show where your textual criticism of Augustine's writings can demonstrate his inability to control his libido, or, more particularly if that is why he "came up with" what he did. You have only asserted it, not proved it.

My "complaint" is that you're inventing ways of understanding words that are contrary to their common usage in any context. There is no inconsistency between that statement and holding that the understanding of words that reflect the historical context of the original audience and authors is preferrable to meanings that reflect a different historical context.

(Ha! I could go cheap and say, "Wait a minute. You said it was Augustine —not me!" But that isn't, to me, quite fair, since I know we all are given to inconsistent words behind an at least purportedly consistent argument.) I will just say that you too, do the same thing. I am a bit curious why you prefer historical context above the other logically necessary hermeneutic principles.

 

[Clare73]

Yes he is take of your revisionist lens .

Are you sure about who is the revisionist?

 

[Mark Quayle]

I've been studying the early church up until Augustine came on the scene. He brought Manicheanism, Gnosticism, paganism and platonic thought into the church and blended those ideas into Christianity. He made pelagius his scapegoat and pelagius in many of his letters taught grace precedes mans response to God. .

It appears you get your information from only one point of view, as I have seen no evidence that Augustine held to any of your mentioned views —in fact, that he denies them, unless certain aspects of one or more of them. But if this is the common notion among Arminians, and you think Calvinists and Reformed also hold to those view, I can see why you might think Augustine is revered among them. Nevertheless, I, like many of us Reformed, have hardly studied Augustine at all. He is not important to me. And those points of view are none of them my basis for what I believe.

 

[Fervent]

I asked before if you can show where your textual criticism of Augustine's writings can demonstrate his inability to control his libido, or, more particularly if that is why he "came up with" what he did. You have only asserted it, not proved it.

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.

(Ha! I could go cheap and say, "Wait a minute. You said it was Augustine —not me!" But that isn't, to me, quite fair, since I know we all are given to inconsistent words behind an at least purportedly consistent argument.) I will just say that you too, do the same thing. I am a bit curious why you prefer historical context above the other logically necessary hermeneutic principles.

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.

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.

 

[Mark Quayle]

No, Adam's sin is not "imputed" to us. We are born under a curse, but our guilt is our own. The notion of vicarious guilt is both morally reprehensible and Biblically inaccurate. It's a doctrine that has its origin in Augustine's inability to control his libido, and resurrected because Luther had a deep sense of inconsolable guilt. But it is neither what the Bible teaches, nor what historically was taught by the church prior to Augustine.


My "complaint" is that you're inventing ways of understanding words that are contrary to their common usage in any context. There is no inconsistency between that statement and holding that the understanding of words that reflect the historical context of the original audience and authors is preferrable to meanings that reflect a different historical context.

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.

 

[QvQ]

Not sure I'm understanding you here: Between Adam and Christ men all men died physically, because of Adam's imputed guilt, but after Christ some do not? What are you saying? To me, there is no difference. Christ's sacrifice applies the same before it happened in time, as it does after. There has only ever been one way to Heaven.

I can only speak from my experience.
I read books, 1 or more a day. I would either agree in part or not agree in part.
However, when I read the Bible, I agreed in whole. It was the Truth. Therefore, Christ was the Truth.
I didn't have any intention of changing or doing anything differently as sin was fun.
I didn't have any motive for believing in Christ's resurrection or any motivation other than to accept that as true. I wasn't going to renounce my wicked ways as I was very attached to my own way of going. But I didn't realize the Power of God.
Psalms 23 He leads me on the path of righteousness for His namesake.
I started following God for the sake of God. God was fascinating. I was intrigued so,
I started in East of Eden and ended in Psalms 23.
Now, I know the consequence of believing in God, Jesus and the Bible:
“He restoreth my soul. He leads me in paths of righteousness for His name's sake” Psalms 23
So the question is what happens on Judgement Day, when all souls are resurrected? and the New Testament Judgement is applied to all, I don't know.
I know that accepting Christ as the truth, the way and the life leads from East of Eden to Psalms 23.
So not all men are saved in East of Eden. What happens to All men after death, I am not certain. I do know that "Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life: And I shall dwell in the house of the Lord for ever Psalms 23:6.