Need A True Explaination of Calvinism

[webdog]

Exactly, the point. The child has not committed their own sin, yet they die. And death is the result of sin. You deny this?

Yes, because it's the effect of Adam's sin, not Adam's sin itself...the Augustinian view.

So why do infants experience death if they have no sin of their own to perish for?
The answer is because they are sinners, made such by Adam's sin.

No, the answer is because of the effects of sin that they experience death. If I were to cheat on my wife and contract AIDS and then give it to her unknowingly, did she get AIDS because I passed on my sin, or because of the results of my sinful actions? My sin wasn't given to her, the result of my sin was. The same is true of Adam. We don't inherit his sin, we inherit the results of that sin.

No one has addressed why Paul says "death came to all men, because all sinned". vs. 12
Notice Paul does not say, "they have sinned", nor "they are sinful".

Does the text state "all sinned" or "alll are sinners"? The word in question...

G264
ἁμαρτάνω
hamartanō
ham-ar-tan'-o
Perhaps from G1 (as a negative particle) and the base of G3313; properly to miss the mark (and so not share in the prize), that is, (figuratively) to err, especially (morally) to sin: - for your faults, offend, sin, trespass.

If it dies, then it is affected by sin. Death came because of sin.

I agree with this, it's the effects of sin. This is not what you have been saying, however. You imply the infant is a sinner, by definition one who commits sin. What sin was committed?

I'm not following. Can you elaborate?

Maybe I jumped the gun...do you believe infants are in Heaven or Hell?

I don't see univeralism in this verse.
I see it as talking about those who are "in Christ".
Don't you?

For that verse to only be talking about those in Christ, you would have to conclude that only those in Christ die. That verse is dealing with the effects of Adam's actions, and the effects of Christ's actions.

 

[Isaiah40:28]

Yes, because it's the effect of Adam's sin, not Adam's sin itself...the Augustinian view.

That's not what the verses says.
So, what else can I say.

We don't inherit his sin, we inherit the results of that sin.

Again that's not what the verse says.

Does the text state "all sinned" or "alll are sinners"?

It says both.
Verse 12-- in this way death came to all men, because all sinned.
Verse 19--through the disobedience of one man, the many were made sinners.
We have both phrases.

I agree with this, it's the effects of sin. This is not what you have been saying, however.

I was sloppy in my wording. It is affected by sin because it was conceived. It is a sinner.

You imply the infant is a sinner, by definition one who commits sin. What sin was committed?

Adam's sin.
When Adam disobeyed, we were all made sinners. aka verse19

Maybe I jumped the gun...do you believe infants are in Heaven or Hell?

I lean towards the heaven-view, but I recognize that the Bible isn't clear.

For that verse to only be talking about those in Christ, you would have to conclude that only those in Christ die. That verse is dealing with the effects of Adam's actions, and the effects of Christ's actions.

I'd like to look at this verse more closely, but I don't have the time right now.
I think what I'm saying is right, but it requires more study.
Hope you can understand that.

 

[Skandelon]

Larry, I can't help but interject myself into this convo. Israel was responsible and the COULD keep the law --- through faith!

The law is no different today that it was then. It brings us to faith. And so, yes, as Allan has been trying to say, we ARE responsible because we ARE able by choosing Christ to be obedient to the law.

skypair

AMEN!!!

I just got through reading through Pastor Larry's and Allan's discussion and you took the words right out of my mouth. The Lord HAS provided the means by which all men can keep the law, yet Calvinists still use this as their example of how God demands that which he has not allowed.

 

[Skandelon]

Isaiah and Webdog,

I hope you don't mind if I join in your discussion. I understand the point you both are making and I believe each of you has a good argument.

Isaiah's argument: When Adam sinned every person became a sinner.

Webdog's argument: When Adam sinned every person was affected by the results of his sin.

The significance of this distinction centers around the issue of personal culpability versus inherited culpability. I think we would all agree that the very idea that I am guilty/responsible/culpable for another man's free choice is repulsive. Yet, I think we would all agree that we must accept the revealed truth of scripture regardless of how repulsive it might appear on the surface. The question is should we accept these seemingly repulsive doctrine based upon the texts being presented. Would you all agree so far?

Assuming so, let's just consider one other point. When Adam actually sinned did you Isaiah become a sinner at that point in time even prior to your being conceived or born? Think about it. You don't become a sinner at least until you exist. You must be created and actually exist before you can be a sinner, right? So, if that is the case then there must be some point in time that you become sinful. When is that? When you are conceived in the womb as the seed fertilizes the egg, or sometime thereafter? Maybe its at birth? Whenever it is you must at least acknowledge that you were not a sinner UNTIL some point in time following the Fall in the garden when you came to exist. So, what's the point?

The point is that we all agree (or at least we should) that men become sinners at some point after the fall and so the question should be, "when does that occur?" Is it from conception, birth or at some time where the child matures to understanding of such things? And, does this passage tell us enough to determine that with certainty?

Think about it, we all agree that when Adam sinned it affected all of mankind in such a way that everyone would become sinners, I just wonder if this passage says enough to determine when that occurs in our existance. Isaiah40, you insists that it must mean from birth, but what about this passage indicates that must be the case? Why couldn't Paul simply mean that we would all experience the affects of sin and become sinners ourselves?

The point is that we must look at this from the perspective in which Paul is writing. For example, when he writes, "in this way death came to all men, because all sinned." Was he literally saying that you, before even being created or having any existance, sinned in the garden? Of course not. How could someone who has not yet even been created commit a sin? Couldn't Paul simply be expressing that when Adam sinned it affected all of mankind in such a way that we too would inevitably become sinners?

Or when Paul wrote, "through the disobedience of one man, the many were made sinners," does Paul mean to communicate that you and I became sinners even prior to our existance, or that we would eventually become sinners ourselves due to the results of this fall?

Additionally, even Calvinist admit that the righteousness attained by the elect is not applied apart from faith, thus when this passage goes on to speak of the many being made righteous through Christ's obedience you can't ignore the means by which one attains that righteousness. In other words, you didn't become righteous at the point Christ died on the cross...you were not born righteous. You didn't get credited with righteousness until you believed, which is sometime later in your life. Likewise, one may not be deemed as a culpable "sinner" until he actually sins. This passage would be much more consistant and not nearly as difficult to swallow if you accept this interpretation.

 

[webdog]

Good post, skandelon. I wanted to touch on this...

Think about it, we all agree that when Adam sinned it affected all of mankind in such a way that everyone would become sinners, I just wonder if this passage says enough to determine when that occurs in our existance. Isaiah40, you insists that it must mean from birth, but what about this passage indicates that must be the case? Why couldn't Paul simply mean that we would all experience the affects of sin and become sinners ourselves?

I think the bolded is exactly what that text says. Not only that, but the greek for "sinned" that I posted above agrees with this notion, IMO. Also, 1 Corinthians 15:22 seems to say the exact same thing, that it is the effects of Adam that we all die and all are held accountable of our sin.

Additionally, even Calvinist admit that the righteousness attained by the elect is not applied apart from faith, thus when this passage goes on to speak of the many being made righteous through Christ's obedience you can't ignore the means by which one attains that righteousness. In other words, you didn't become righteous at the point Christ died on the cross...you were not born righteous. You didn't get credited with righteousness until you believed, which is sometime later in your life. Likewise, one may not be deemed as a culpable "sinner" until he actually sins. This passage would be much more consistant and not nearly as difficult to swallow if you accept this interpretation.

Excellent :thumbs:

 

[johnp.]

When is that? When you are conceived in the womb as the seed fertilizes the egg, or sometime thereafter?

PS 51:5 Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.

The righteousness of Christ has been imputed to us, we will not be actually perfect until we die. ...You have come to God, the judge of all men, to the spirits of righteous men made perfect... Heb 12:23 and finally at the end of the age we will be made perfect as flesh and blood people, Heb 11:40 God had planned something better for us so that only together with us would they be made perfect.
Adam was the pattern from which we are all made. He was a sinner and so was Eve and we take after them from conception. God bound all men over to sin... Rom 11:32.

john.

 

[skypair]

Actually, nowhere does Romans 5 talk about "temptation" or "sin nature".
That's you reading it into the passage, just like you did with the Proverbs, et al and saying God determines "consequences".

Hi Isaiah!

Sovereignty again -- man's controls his own DECISIONS, God controls the CONSEQUENCES. Did God not tell Adam he would die if he ate from that tree? God didn't say, "I'm going to put angels around that tree so you won't be able to choose it," did He? But He did warn of consequences.

And where do you think sin came from? Want. Desire. Adam never lacked any want or desire in the Garden, did he? But cast out, everything came with a cost. Same with us.

What the passage definitely says that in Adam, all sinned.
Not that they became sinful, but that they were made sinners.

Yes, I buy that -- "made sinners," not born sinners.

And thanks to Dr. Martin Lloyd-Jones for helping me understanding this next important point. Why do infants, not having practiced their own sin, die?
Because, death is always the punishment for sin, therefore if an infant dies, it has died because it is guilty of sin.

Really now? So why aren't you and I dead? Were we not guilty at birth? Have you managed not to sin? Lloyd-Jones explanation is simplistic to say the least! Would he allow that some of those that die are "elect," too?

Here's a way you might try looking at it -- say mom's a crack addict. Did the fetus DECIDE to smoke crack? Is the it guilty of smoking crack? No, but the baby will have physical CONSEQUENCES because its mother smoked crack, right? Same with us! We didn't eat the fruit -- we just got the "rotten core!" :laugh:

In each case, we are represented by our federal head, Adam first, then Christ.

Yes, I've said before -- Adam was our PHYSICAL federal head, Jesus our SPIRITUAL federal head.

skypair

 

[skypair]

Should I post this as a separate thread?

I tried that but the issue is somewhat clouded by the various uses of the term "soul" in scripture. Of course, I can see why Cists are not wont to go there, either.

I was studying it last night a little -- Father, Spirit, Son vice soul, spirit, body. God does lots of things in 3's. Almost parallel in my mind are these:

Abraham (father), Isaac (spirit), and Jacob (head of 12 bodies) of ethnic Israel.

Or this: Abraham, Moses, Jesus -- father, spirit, body of spiritual Israel.

And like C.S. Lewis observes, we all do have a "light" (which Cist's also deny). And since they don't account for the separate "soul," I believe we can trace the error to that and the fact that their leader was a lawyer by training! :laugh:

Hebrews says that scripture "is sharper than any 2 edged sword able to divide asunder the soul from the spirit" and yet we find no attempt on their part to do so. To me, there really is a large body of circumstantial evidence for it though.

skypair

 

[Andy T.]

And like C.S. Lewis observes, we all do have a "light" (which Cist's also deny).

Oh you follower of man! You worship at the feet of C.S. Lewis! Not me, I just follow the Bible! The only interpretation of Scripture that is important is MINE! No one else's interpretation matters - only mine! Otherwise, I would be a follower of man! Thank you Lord, that I am not like the followers of men.



Disclaimer: The above was sarcasm and a caricature. But yet, we often see that same line of argumentation used on this board, don't we?

P.S. - I like C.S. Lewis, too. But he certainly wasn't Baptist in his theology.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Israel was responsible and the COULD keep the law --- through faith!

So what does the Bible mean when it says that they were not able to keep the Law?
Acts 15:10 "Now therefore why do you put God to the test by placing upon the neck of the disciples a yoke which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear?
Galatians 3:21 Is the Law then contrary to the promises of God? May it never be! For if a law had been given which was able to impart life, then righteousness would indeed have been based on law.

I think this is a case where your theology causes you to have to deny clear teachings of Scripture.

They were not able to keep teh Law, and Scripture plainly says so.

The law is no different today that it was then. It brings us to faith. And so, yes, as Allan has been trying to say, we ARE responsible because we ARE able by choosing Christ to be obedient to the law.

The Law is no different, but our relationship is far different. We are not under the Law. The "schoolmaster to bring us to faith" was a time reference, not a purpose reference. It served the time until faith came.

Furthemore, you don't chooes Christ to be obedient to the Law. Christ was obedient to the Law, and to all God's commands of righteousness. That is no a choice you make.

The Lord HAS provided the means by which all men can keep the law, yet Calvinists still use this as their example of how God demands that which he has not allowed.

This is not even logical. The reason we need Christ, as Paul makes so plain in Galatians, is because the Law was not able to bring salvation.

Again, as I say, ths is a point where your commitment to a theology has overuled your willingness to take Scripture for what it says.

 

[skypair]

Oh you follower of man! You worship at the feet of C.S. Lewis! Not me, I just follow the Bible! The only interpretation of Scripture that is important is MINE! No one else's interpretation matters - only mine! Otherwise, I would be a follower of man! Thank you Lord, that I am not like the followers of men.



Disclaimer: The above was sarcasm and a caricature. But yet, we often see that same line of argumentation used on this board, don't we?

P.S. - I like C.S. Lewis, too. But he certainly wasn't Baptist in his theology.

Andy -- you had me going there for a minute! :laugh:

No, C.S. was Anglican. I'm not even sure I like his description of salvation but I do like his entering argument.

skypair

 

[skypair]

So what does the Bible mean when it says that they were not able to keep the Law?
Acts 15:10 "Now therefore why do you put God to the test by placing upon the neck of the disciples a yoke which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear?
Galatians 3:21 Is the Law then contrary to the promises of God? May it never be! For if a law had been given which was able to impart life, then righteousness would indeed have been based on law.

I think this is a case where your theology causes you to have to deny clear teachings of Scripture.

They were not able to keep teh Law, and Scripture plainly says so.

Here's the original convo. Larry:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pastor Larry
The fact is that Israel was responsible to keep the whole Law, but was unable to do so. So responsibility, in Scripture, is clearly not based on ability.

Larry, I can't help but interject myself into this convo. Israel was responsible and the COULD keep the law --- through faith!

The law is no different today that it was then. It brings us to faith. And so, yes, as Allan has been trying to say, we ARE responsible because we ARE able by choosing Christ to be obedient to the law.

Do you see the issue? Israel could have had faith, couldn't they have?? If so, they could have kept the law so far as God is concerned. Show me the one with faith that God condemns under the law.

Think about Rom 1 again, Larry. There was no command/law and yet there was no excuse -- no way to avoid responsibility for rejecting God. Nature or the "law" was the Holy Spirit convictor -- glorifying God and being thankful was the required response for salvation, for complying with the "law" through faith.

I think YOUR theology just wants to take the free will and ability and choice out of the equation, right?

The Law is no different, but our relationship is far different. We are not under the Law. The "schoolmaster to bring us to faith" was a time reference, not a purpose reference. It served the time until faith came.

It's both Larry. That's what Paul says.

Furthemore, you don't chooes Christ to be obedient to the Law. Christ was obedient to the Law, and to all God's commands of righteousness. That is no a choice you make.

You are righteous in Christ, are you not? Is there one "law" that can be held against you?

This is not even logical. The reason we need Christ, as Paul makes so plain in Galatians, is because the Law was not able to bring salvation.

And so in order to keep the law, FAITH has always been the ONLY option, right?

Again, as I say, ths is a point where your commitment to a theology has overuled your willingness to take Scripture for what it says.

Is having faith the ability to comply fully with the law or not? God does NOT require anyone to comply with the law who is not able have faith in its place -- including infants.

skypair

 

[Pastor Larry]

Do you see the issue? Israel could have had faith, couldn't they have?? If so, they could have kept the law so far as God is concerned. Show me the one with faith that God condemns under the law.

You are confusing the issue. The argument was about whether responsibility requires ability. The example of hte Law shows that Israel was responsible to keep the Law, though they were not able.

To claim they were able to offer sacrifices for forgiveness proves my point. the reason they needed forgiveness was because they were responsible to keep the Law but were unable.

Think about Rom 1 again, Larry. There was no command/law and yet there was no excuse -- no way to avoid responsibility for rejecting God.

There was a law, the law written on their hearts. That isdifferent than teh Law.

I think YOUR theology just wants to take the free will and ability and choice out of the equation, right?

No, not at all. I don't want to. But I see no other option. And your answers aren't providing any option.

It's both Larry. That's what Paul says.

No it's not. Read the Greek text and study it out. It is a time issue.

You are righteous in Christ, are you not? Is there one "law" that can be held against you?

Yes and no, but becuase of what Christ did. That is not really the topic here though.

And so in order to keep the law, FAITH has always been the ONLY option, right?

Yes, because of man's inability.

Is having faith the ability to comply fully with the law or not?

No. First, we don't have to keep teh Law. That was for Israel. Second, having faith is not complying with the Law. Faith accepts that someone else was perfect for us.

God does NOT require anyone to comply with the law who is not able have faith in its place -- including infants.

Based on what?

 

[skypair]

Larry

No. First, we don't have to keep teh Law. That was for Israel.

The law is for everyone who is unsaved.

[/quote]Second, having faith is not complying with the Law. Faith accepts that someone else was perfect for us.[/quote] Rom 10:4 -- "For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth." Why? Because those who choose to believe obeyed perfectly in Him!

And believing on Christ is the "ability" that we have to obey God.

I would guess that you are a Covenant Theologist, right? This is the one place that I should think you would know this. If there is one covenant throughout history between God and man. It is where God takes away sin according to our faith in Him -- faith that is given us on account of our belief. Or do you truly see salvation as an unconditional covenant? If so, where in scripture?

skypair

 

[Pastor Larry]

The Law is not for everyone who is unsaved. It is for Israel, as a nation.

But regardless of that, believing on Christ is not keeping the Law. Christ is necessary because we could not keep the Law.

I am not a covenant theologian. I am a dispensationalist.

 

[Allan]

The Law is not for everyone who is unsaved. It is for Israel, as a nation.

But regardless of that, believing on Christ is not keeping the Law. Christ is necessary because we could not keep the Law.

I am not a covenant theologian. I am a dispensationalist.

Since I am the one who brought it up law as the example, I will 'attempt' to speak intelligently on my view as the law being a revealer and guide.

Yes the law was a teporary thing in place, a schoolmaster for the Israelites, to bring them a place of understanding. But God also stated the Israelites are OUR example as well.

Regarding the law, Pastor Larry you are correct (and I have not contended otherwise) that no one can keep or live out consistantly the Law on a day by day basis. This is the purpose for God giving the law - to show man they can not ever be good enough to merit salvation and dispayed the nature of man apart from God. Man can do physically no good or salvic thing because man is spiritually corrupt. That is the common ground we all agree on.

However, the Law is not just about what NOT to do Larry. The Law includes something for those who have transgressed it, and that is something we are trying to bring forth.
In the LAW God provided a means to cover the transgression and present the transgressor as blameless ACCORDING to the Law before a Holy and Righteous God. Notice it maintains consistantly according to the Law God established.

Though Man can not live out the law consistantly due to his fallen nature, we see the Law provides the means through which man can be atoned for. However, man must choose to appropriate and accept this means on his behalf provided by God to bring man back into a relationship with God as being without blame concerning the Law. They are not seperate issues but interwoven aspects that establish the fulness of the Law.

Though they could not live out the law in action or deed (as God knew full well) to any salvic sense they could live in the Law according to Faith according to Gods substitute He provided.

Man can not do anything (works) to obtain salvatin but through Faith alone in the substitute provided that God says is suffient on his behalf IF he will accept it as his own. That is how it has always been and how it always will be. The Law was that schoolmaster to bring them to that understanding.

This shows though man can not keep the law through consistant action and deed they COULD keep the Law by Faith. But they had to choose to accept their inablilty to physically be or do things righteously (in a salvic or meritorious way) because of their fallen nature, but also choose within their ABILITY to receive from God His provisions on their behalf. Yes man is incapable (unable) of living out a completely righteous and holy life. But man is ABLE or capable of accepting or rejecting God provision for his inability.

So man is responsible for his sin because man is able to choose to receive Gods atoning provision on his behalf. This is why if man rejects that atoning provision he is held resposible for not living in complete righteousness and holyness.

I am becoming redundant so I will say this, Man can not of himself nor by himself be righteous or holy before God through his own merits of deeds because he is incapable of doing so. However, man is capable and therefore able to accept or reject the atoning provision of God just as they could under the Law of the OT.

 

[Isaiah40:28]

Think about it, we all agree that when Adam sinned it affected all of mankind in such a way that everyone would become sinners, I just wonder if this passage says enough to determine when that occurs in our existance. Isaiah40, you insists that it must mean from birth, but what about this passage indicates that must be the case? Why couldn't Paul simply mean that we would all experience the affects of sin and become sinners ourselves?

Because that's not what verse 18 and 19 say.
Verse18 says that "the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men."
You think Paul meant that "the result of one trespass was that all are affected by sin and become sinners upon their conception/birth"?
I see it as all men are already under condemnation because of Adam's sin.
Verse 19 says, "through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners"
When Adam sinned, men were made sinners.

G264
ἁμαρτάνω
hamartanō
ham-ar-tan'-o
Perhaps from G1 (as a negative particle) and the base of G3313; properly to miss the mark (and so not share in the prize), that is, (figuratively) to err, especially (morally) to sin: - for your faults, offend, sin, trespass.

I think the bolded is exactly what that text says. Not only that, but the greek for "sinned" that I posted above agrees with this notion, IMO.

Sorry, but I didn't get anything from your Greek post.
It literally was "Greek to me".

There's lots more I would like to say, esp. about infants dying, but frankly, I'm not sure I can wrap my head around all that's involved.
http://strangebaptistfire.com/2006/07/11/infant-election/
I skimmed this link and found it helpful.

 

[webdog]

Man, that link says a whole lot that contradicts one simple phrase...

Rom 7:9 I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin came alive and I died.

 

[Allan]

Man, that link says a whole lot that contradicts one simple phrase...

Rom 7:9 I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin came alive and I died.

Not to mention being able to hear and respond before becoming alive as says the scriptures.

Jhn 5:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

I embolded the portion that shows if they had NOT heard and believed thereby recieving eternal life (meaning they were dead before it), they would have come TO that condemnation. Instead however they are passed FROM death to life.

There isn't two 'lifes', as in one is regeneration and the other eternal. There is only one life that is given which removes us from being dead - that is salvation.

 

[Isaiah40:28]

Man, that link says a whole lot that contradicts one simple phrase...

Rom 7:9 I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin came alive and I died.

Just a question:
Have either you or Allan checked into what Paul meant by "I was once alive"?
I did.