Why Do People Hate Calvinst?

[dwmoeller1]

Rom 5 is clear on this, as is a verse like Psa 51:4. There are others. You are spitting in the face of the entire history of orthodox theology. This isn't really even disputed.

Can you define precisely what you mean by "sinner".

Personally I don't know of any defining document, counsel or theologian of orthodoxy which says we are born "sinners". I think a big confusion in the debate stems from an imprecise use of that term.

For instance, the Westminster Confession no where argues that men are born "sinners". Instead it says:
6.3 They being the root of all mankind, the guilt of this sin was imputed; and the same death in sin, and corrupted nature, conveyed to all their posterity descending from them by ordinary generation.

6.4 From this original corruption, whereby we are utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil, do proceed all actual transgressions.

Later in the same section its use of the word "sinner" is associated with one who sins, not one who is born with a corrupted nature.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Can you define precisely what you mean by "sinner".

Seriously? I am pretty sure that's not a big issue of debate or discussion. But the short answer is that a sinner is someone who is under the condemnation of sin. We are sinners in Adam in the same way we are righteous in Christ ... by imputation.

Personally I don't know of any defining document, counsel or theologian of orthodoxy which says we are born "sinners".

Isn't Westminster considered pretty defining? You cite it, but stop short for some reason of quoting what answers your question.

I think a big confusion in the debate stems from an imprecise use of that term.

No, not really. I have never seen anyone confused by that until you.

For instance, the Westminster Confession no where argues that men are born "sinners". Instead it says:

6.3 They being the root of all mankind, the guilt of this sin was imputed; and the same death in sin, and corrupted nature, conveyed to all their posterity descending from them by ordinary generation.

6.4 From this original corruption, whereby we are utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil, do proceed all actual transgressions.

Later in the same section its use of the word "sinner" is associated with one who sins, not one who is born with a corrupted nature.

6.6 that you reference makes it pretty clear when it says that "Every sin, both original and actual, being a transgression of the righteous law of God, and contrary thereunto,(1) doth, in its own nature, bring guilt upon the sinner..."

So it is clear that original sin brings guilt upon the sinner. The whole point of "original sin" is that it is prior to actual sin. It is Adam's sin imputed to us, making us a sinner in need of a Savior. In other words, he is a sinner by virtue of original guilt. I think that takes place at conception, where he or she becomes a person.

Furthermore, the WCS speaks of "original corruption" that makes us "opposite to all good." That is a sinner.

I suppose the other side of this is to ask you what a person is if not a sinner? So far as I can tell, there are two categories of humans: estranged and reconciled; sinner and righteous. I am not aware of any third category for those under the guilt and punishment for original sin yet not considered a sinner.

So this seems a very bizarre and confusing line of questioning. Harping on the precise English word is something I have never seen, and something that doesn't seem to be helpful in the least aside from upping the post count.

 

[dwmoeller1]

Seriously? I am pretty sure that's not a big issue of debate or discussion. But the short answer is that a sinner is someone who is under the condemnation of sin.

Scripture please.

We are sinners in Adam in the same way we are righteous in Christ ... by imputation.

We are guilty in Adam. Scripture doesn't say that we are sinners in Adam.

Isn't Westminster considered pretty defining? You cite it, but stop short for some reason of quoting what answers your question.

6.6 that you reference makes it pretty clear when it says that "Every sin, both original and actual, being a transgression of the righteous law of God, and contrary thereunto,(1) doth, in its own nature, bring guilt upon the sinner..."

That a person is guilty from birth is clear, both in Scripture and the WC. That they are a "sinner" (as Scripturally defined) from birth is not so clear either in Scripture, much less the WC. Even here it doesn't define "sinner" in the way you do.

I am not saying you are wrong, just that I am not seeing it yet.

So it is clear that original sin brings guilt upon the sinner. The whole point of "original sin" is that it is prior to actual sin. It is Adam's sin imputed to us, making us a sinner in need of a Savior. In other words, he is a sinner by virtue of original guilt. I think that takes place at conception, where he or she becomes a person.

Agreed with everything except the definition you give to sinner. Or more precisely, I don't see the basis for that definition. As far as I can tell, its a fairly modern usage to say that a sinner is one who is guilt of sinner verses one who sins.

Furthermore, the WCS speaks of "original corruption" that makes us "opposite to all good." That is a sinner.

I suppose the other side of this is to ask you what a person is if not a sinner? So far as I can tell, there are two categories of humans: estranged and reconciled; sinner and righteous. I am not aware of any third category for those under the guilt and punishment for original sin yet not considered a sinner.

Your basis for this as a Scriptural definition?

So this seems a very bizarre and confusing line of questioning. Harping on the precise English word is something I have never seen, and something that doesn't seem to be helpful in the least aside from upping the post count.

Harping? No, just trying to make clear what is evidently very disputed.

When two sides disagree on the definition (as they clearly do here) it is essential that it be clearly defined by both sides. Furthermore, when the word is used in Scripture, the thing which is the source of the disagreement, it becomes even more important. IOW, when Scripture uses the word "sinner" how do you know that your definition vs. say, Winman's, is the correct one?

It seems bizarre and confusing that you would find it bizarre and confusing...

 

[gb93433]

Asked and answered. Why do you ignore my answer?

It was just an assumption of what you thought I believe but did not deal with the text.

 

[webdog]

Seriously? I am pretty sure that's not a big issue of debate or discussion. But the short answer is that a sinner is someone who is under the condemnation of sin. We are sinners in Adam in the same way we are righteous in Christ ... by imputation.

sin·ner (snr)
n.
1. One that sins or does wrong; a transgressor.
2. A scamp.

So...if we have to do nothing but be conceived to be a sinner the Scripture connects Adam and us with Christ and that being the case, the same thing must apply as well. There is no need for faith if just being conceived places us in Adam "so as" it must also place us in Christ. We are "in Adam" in the same way Adam was...by violating God's law deliberately. We are in Christ by sharing in His death through faith.

Why do the reformed always use man being conceived and born with a sin nature as the definition of sinner? A sinner is one who sins. It is in our nature to walk upright and talk...why don't we refer to the child in the womb as a "walker" and "talker" using that same faulty logic?

 

[dwmoeller1]

Why do the reformed always use man being conceived and born with a sin nature as the definition of sinner? A sinner is one who sins. It is in our nature to walk upright and talk...why don't we refer to the child in the womb as a "walker" and "talker" using that same faulty logic?

Why do non-reformed always overstate their points?

Seriously though, I don't think even most, much less all, reformed argue as above - not if the history of reformed thought is in view. At the very least, I am an exception to your universal statement. Using the term sinner in that way seems to be a more modern habit as far as I can tell.

Thats not to say that I disagree with their basic reasoning and concepts. Nor would I even object if they were simply defining the term to suit their needs. However, it is also a Scriptural term and it is best to make sure that we don't use such terms either too broadly or too narrowly. Hence, why historical reformed documents and theologians seem (as far as I can see) to refrain from associating "sinner" with conception or birth.

 

[Jim1999]

There are times in scripture when a word is used and one cannot use that same word to define a doctrine. The context, including cultural setting and time line, defines that word at that time.

Hence, theology is not developed around one word or one passage of scripture, but the whole. There is a place where human logic aids in the development just so we don't contradict the others in so doing.

Yes, we all teach that the sinful estate originatd with Adam and we have all inherited the adamic sinful estate. There are different views at what point the soul enters the human; at conception; at birth and somewhere inbetween.

This is why most reformed theologians practice infant baptism. With some, this rids the infant of original sin whilst others develop the "age of responsibilty" thought. Still others simply call the baptism a covenant promises of believing parents to raise that child in the Lord.

Baptists deviated on the baptism part, but still varied on just when the soul entered the human being. Here is where logic plays a vital role. There is not enough definitive scripture to do else.

Cheers,

Jim

 

[TCassidy]

It was just an assumption of what you thought I believe but did not deal with the text.

Uh, yes, it did deal with the text. That was perfectly clear.

 

[Pastor Larry]

sin·ner (snr)
n.
1. One that sins or does wrong; a transgressor.
2. A scamp.

One thing that is always good for a laugh is defining a theological word by the dictionary.

So...if we have to do nothing but be conceived to be a sinner the Scripture connects Adam and us with Christ and that being the case, the same thing must apply as well. There is no need for faith if just being conceived places us in Adam "so as" it must also place us in Christ. We are "in Adam" in the same way Adam was...by violating God's law deliberately. We are in Christ by sharing in His death through faith.

You both get the point and miss the point at the same time.

The point of Romans 5 is the MO of sin and righteousness. It is how it works. The point is that we become righteous in the same way we become sinners ... by imputation. If you become a sinner by your own acts of sin, then you must also become righteous by your own acts of righteousness. That's heresy, and that is exactly what Paul points out.

The reason we can be credited with Christ's righteousness even though we don't have personal acts of righteousness, is because we were credited with Adam's sinfulness even when we didn't have personal acts of sin.

The passage has nothing to do with faith per se,. It is answering a different question.

Why do the reformed always use man being conceived and born with a sin nature as the definition of sinner?

OI don't know that they always do, but they usually do because that is what the Bible teaches.

A sinner is one who sins. It is in our nature to walk upright and talk...why don't we refer to the child in the womb as a "walker" and "talker" using that same faulty logic?

Because that's a dumb argument, as you well know. Walking and talking is different than sinning. It's ludicrous to suggest they are somehow similar. The sin nature is a moral issue.

And being born a sinner is the only thing that gives us hope of salvation. That's the good news.

 

[webdog]

One thing that is always good for a laugh is defining a theological word by the dictionary.

Last I checked we both speak english...and words have meanings. If you find that funny you have an odd sense of humor.

You both get the point and miss the point at the same time.

The point of Romans 5 is the MO of sin and righteousness. It is how it works. The point is that we become righteous in the same way we become sinners ... by imputation. If you become a sinner by your own acts of sin, then you must also become righteous by your own acts of righteousness. That's heresy, and that is exactly what Paul points out.

The reason we can be credited with Christ's righteousness even though we don't have personal acts of righteousness, is because we were credited with Adam's sinfulness even when we didn't have personal acts of sin.

The passage has nothing to do with faith per se,. It is answering a different question.

The point of the text are those in Adam and those in Christ. We don't become both or one or the other by simply being conceived. We cannot be guilty of another's sin, which you imply with your use of "credited with Adam's sinfulness".

OI don't know that they always do, but they usually do because that is what the Bible teaches.

Actually the Bible teaches we are bent towards sin and will sin because of our nature...not we are labeled sinners because of it (words have meanings).

Because that's a dumb argument, as you well know. Walking and talking is different than sinning. It's ludicrous to suggest they are somehow similar. The sin nature is a moral issue.

They are all acts committed by humans due to our human nature. They are indeed similar. If talking is not a moral issue as well as physical (sin is also a material and immaterial act) then the warnings about the tongue being deadly are mute.

 

[Jerome]

This family in my church believes I have directly taught this form the pulpit which I don't believe to be true.

Could the OP please clarify what he means by not "directly teaching Calvinism from the pulpit."

 

[Pastor Larry]

Last I checked we both speak english...and words have meanings. If you find that funny you have an odd sense of humor.

I find it funny because the dictionary is not where you define the theological meaning of a word.

The point of the text are those in Adam and those in Christ. We don't become both or one or the other by simply being conceived. We cannot be guilty of another's sin, which you imply with your use of "credited with Adam's sinfulness".

Then, according to the text, you cannot be credited with another's righteousness. The whole point of "just as/so then" language is that they work the same way. If you cannot be guilty for another's sin than you cannot be credited with another's righteousness. Don't take my word for it. Just read the text.

Actually the Bible teaches we are bent towards sin and will sin because of our nature...not we are labeled sinners because of it (words have meanings).

I am not familiar with the Bible's teaching on "bent towards sin" but I am reaching for a dictionary to see what "bent" means. Obviously, I jest, but clearly the Bible teaches far more than a simple "bent" towards sin.

They are all acts committed by humans due to our human nature. They are indeed similar. If talking is not a moral issue as well as physical (sin is also a material and immaterial act) then the warnings about the tongue being deadly are mute.

No, that's silly. The act of walking and talking are not acts of the nature. Many humans do neither, though they are still human. Furthermore, the fact that something can be moral (talking at times) does not make the ability to do so a moral ability.

This reminds me why I stopped these discussions. It borders on the absurd. People will say just about anything to try to defend something.

Why not just go to the Bible and accept what it says? It's a lot easier.

 

[webdog]

I find it funny because the dictionary is not where you define the theological meaning of a word.

I see, so we should not take the straight forward understanding of the word...we should interpret a simple word using our soteriology. So much for the Gospel being a simple message a child can understand.

Then, according to the text, you cannot be credited with another's righteousness. The whole point of "just as/so then" language is that they work the same way. If you cannot be guilty for another's sin than you cannot be credited with another's righteousness. Don't take my word for it. Just read the text.

You fail to understand the meaning. We die in Adam, we live in Christ. It is not about "imputation" of righteousness.

I am not familiar with the Bible's teaching on "bent towards sin" but I am reaching for a dictionary to see what "bent" means. Obviously, I jest, but clearly the Bible teaches far more than a simple "bent" towards sin.

Let me help you out then...
Gen. 8:21 The LORD smelled the pleasing aroma and said in his heart: "Never again will I curse the ground because of man, even though [a] every inclination of his heart is evil from childhood. And never again will I destroy all living creatures, as I have done.

in·cli·na·tion (nkl-nshn)
n.
1. The act of inclining or the state of being inclined; a bend or tilt: The inclination of the child's head suggested sleep.
2.
a. A deviation or the degree of deviation from the horizontal or vertical; a slant: the steep inclination of a roof.
b. An inclined surface; a slope.
3. A tendency toward a certain condition or character: the alkaline inclination of the local waters.
4. A characteristic disposition to do, prefer, or favor one thing rather than another; a propensity: "I shall indulge the inclination so natural in old men, to be talking of themselves" (Benjamin Franklin). See Synonyms at tendency.

No, that's silly. The act of walking and talking are not acts of the nature.

Oh really? You would say characteristics of the human race as a whole is not to walk upright and talk? It's not in a human's nature to do that? Talk about silly!

Many humans do neither, though they are still human. Furthermore, the fact that something can be moral (talking at times) does not make the ability to do so a moral ability.

Yes, point out the exception

This reminds me why I stopped these discussions. It borders on the absurd. People will say just about anything to try to defend something.

I agree...words don't really mean words, humans are not inclined to walk upright and talk, yadda yadda.

 

[dwmoeller1]

Actually the Bible teaches we are bent towards sin and will sin because of our nature...not we are labeled sinners because of it (words have meanings).

This is the main point of contention. Where does Scripture use the word "sinner" in association with the concept of original sin or one being born with a corrupt nature?

 

[The Archangel]

Let me help you out then...
Gen. 8:21 The LORD smelled the pleasing aroma and said in his heart: "Never again will I curse the ground because of man, even though [a] every inclination of his heart is evil from childhood. And never again will I destroy all living creatures, as I have done.

in·cli·na·tion (nkl-nshn)
n.
1. The act of inclining or the state of being inclined; a bend or tilt: The inclination of the child's head suggested sleep.
2.
a. A deviation or the degree of deviation from the horizontal or vertical; a slant: the steep inclination of a roof.
b. An inclined surface; a slope.
3. A tendency toward a certain condition or character: the alkaline inclination of the local waters.
4. A characteristic disposition to do, prefer, or favor one thing rather than another; a propensity: "I shall indulge the inclination so natural in old men, to be talking of themselves" (Benjamin Franklin). See Synonyms at tendency.

I hate to have to be the Hebrew police again...but the word "Inclination" is not in the original text. The word is the Hebrew noun ִיֵצֶר This word can, at times, mean "inclination" but in this instance it clearly means "intention" and it refers to the content of the heart or the reasoning of the heart.

In fact, the very same word is what we find in Genesis 6:5 "The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually" (ESV; Emphasis mine).

So, it does not mean "inclination" or bent. The English dictionary is really no help in trying to determine the meaning of Hebrew words, Greek words, or Aramaic words.

The Archangel

 

[psalms109:31]

Fallen Short

Gen 6:5 ¶ And GOD 3068 saw 7200 that the wickedness 7451 of man 120 [was] great 7227 in the earth 776, and [that] every imagination 3336 of the thoughts 4284 of his heart 3820 [was] only 7535 evil 7451 continually 3117.

I wasn't born a sinner, but with a sin nature.

I do not have to pay for the sins of my father of the flesh Adam, but for my own sins. The sins I committed.

Everyone has sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, so we all owe a debt that we can't pay death; No matter what we do. So we have to trust in Jesus and what He did on the cross. That He was the Lamb with no spot or blemish that took my place and bore my shame and took what I deserved. Praise God that He raised from the grave and because of Him I do also, by simple putting my trust in Him.

 

[Pastor Larry]

I see, so we should not take the straight forward understanding of the word...we should interpret a simple word using our soteriology.

No you don't see. A word means what it means based on its use. In theology, words are developed to communicate theological ideas. Those are not always fully understood or communicated by a dictionary. This is basic, entry level stuff.

This whole idea about defining "sinner" is a red herring. It really is not where the debate is at.

So much for the Gospel being a simple message a child can understand.

This has nothing to do with that, as you well know. You just throw that in here to distract from the problems you have created.

You fail to understand the meaning. We die in Adam, we live in Christ. It is not about "imputation" of righteousness.

Did you read the text? I am kind of embarrassed for you here because this isn't even controversial.

V. 12: By sin comes death, so all die.
v. 15: By the transgression of the one the many died (and that death is because of sin).
v. 16: one transgression ... many transgressions
v. 17: Transgression of the one.
v. 18: one transgression
v. 19: One man's disobedience

So quite clearly, if you had actually read the Bible you would see that it is about sin and the death that results from it. The point is that we die in Adam, but it's more than that: It is why we die in Adam. We die in Adam because Adam's sin is imputed to us; we don't earn death by our own sin. In the same way, we live in Christ because Christ's righteousness is imputed to us; we don't earn life by our own righteousness.

The whole point is the idea of federal headship ... That Adam represents us just as the second Adam, Christ, represents us. And their acts affect us in the same way.

Any standard commentary will bear this out.

Let me help you out then...

That doesn't help. The word "inclination" is actually "intent" or "purpose." Again, you make the fundamental mistake of defining a word by the wrong dictionary. You should be defining it by a HEbrew dictionary such as BDB or HALOT or something of that nature.

Oh really? You would say characteristics of the human race as a whole is not to walk upright and talk? It's not in a human's nature to do that? Talk about silly!

Yes, silly. I am saying you are using "nature" wrongly. "Nature" is a complex of attributes. The idea of "nature" in theology is not things like walking and talking.

I agree...

No you don't.

 

[psalms109:31]

Surely die

I see in that is death come to us because of his sin not his sin was given to us but our sin nature. Even believes is going to die until God takes us up before our death. Through this one man we were given death and it was because of his sin. Through one man life eternal by trusting in him. Though adam a physical eternal death through Jesus a Spiritual eternal life. If I die, i do not die for the sins of my own, because i did not believe in the one He sent His only Begotten Son.

 

[psalms109:31]

Opps

My last sentense should read I do not lose my salvation from eternal death for the sins of adam but for my own sins for not believing in the one that was sent by the Father His only begotten Son.

 

[psalms109:31]

I tried to write last two post on my phone without a smart phone i couldn't edit. I will try to fix it ,now that i am on my pc

I see that death came to us because of his sin not his sin was given to us but our sin nature. Even believers are going to die unless God takes us up before our death like Enoch, Elijah or like the rapture. Through this one man we were all given death and it was because of his sin. Through one man life eternal by trusting in him. Though adam a physical eternal death through Jesus a Spiritual eternal life. I do not lose my salvation from eternal death for the sins of adam but for my own sins for not believing in the one that was sent by the Father His only begotten Son.

I am not going to pay for the sins of my father or adam, but for my own sins.

We are all going to die because of Adam, but God gave us a way out through His Son Jesus Christ. Trust in Him and learn from Him, because Jesus word is Spirit and life, and His word is not His own but the Father who sent Him.

John 6:63
The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are Spirit and they are life.

John 14:24
He who does not love me will not obey my teaching. These words you hear are not my own; they belong to the Father who sent me.

John 6:
43"Stop grumbling among yourselves," Jesus answered. 44"No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day. 45It is written in the Prophets: 'They will all be taught by God.'[Isaiah 54:13] Everyone who listens to the Father and learns from him comes to me.

Luke 10:21
At that time Jesus, full of joy through the Holy Spirit, said, "I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children. Yes, Father, for this was your good pleasure.