Announcement

Collapse

Christianity 201 Guidelines

orthodox Christians only.

Discussion on matters of general mainstream evangelical Christian theology that do not fit within Theology 201. Have some spiritual gifts ceased today? Is the KJV the only viable translation for the church today? In what sense are the books of the bible inspired and what are those books? Church government? Modern day prophets and apostles?

This forum is primarily for Christians to discuss matters of Christian doctrine, and is not the area for debate between atheists (or those opposing orthodox Christianity) and Christians. Inquiring atheists (or sincere seekers/doubters/unorthodox) seeking only Christian participation and having demonstrated a manner that does not seek to undermine the orthodox Christian faith of others are also welcome, but must seek Moderator permission first. When defining “Christian” or "orthodox" for purposes of this section, we mean persons holding to the core essentials of the historic Christian faith such as the Trinity, the Creatorship of God, the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection of Christ, the atonement, the future bodily return of Christ, the future bodily resurrection of the just and the unjust, and the final judgment. Persons not holding to these core doctrines are welcome to participate in the Comparative Religions section without restriction, in Theology 201 as regards to the nature of God and salvation with limited restrictions, and in Christology for issues surrounding the person of Christ and the Trinity. Atheists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 forum without such restrictions.

Additionally and rarely, there may be some topics or lines of discussion that within the Moderator's discretion fall so outside the bounds of mainstream orthodox doctrine (in general Christian circles or in the TheologyWeb community) or that deny certain core values that are the Christian convictions of forum leadership that may be more appropriately placed within Unorthodox Theology 201. NO personal offense should be taken by such discretionary decision for none is intended. While inerrancy is NOT considered a requirement for posting in this section, a general respect for the Bible text and a respect for the inerrantist position of others is requested.

The Tweb rules apply here like they do everywhere at Tweb, if you haven't read them, now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Implications of Calvinism

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Hornet View Post
    It is true that Adam is our representative and that human beings counted as guilty for Adam's sin. When people sin, they are held accountable for that. They deserve punishment for both Adam's sin imputed to them and for their own sin.
    Would it be fair of the Northern US to hang all Southerners now living for the support given by their forebears to the Confederate states & Jefferson Davis ? How is the analogy inapplicable ?

    If it would be unjust or tyrannical to punish Southerners living in 2018 for what happened between 1861 and 1865, how is it any less unjust of God to punish the descendants of Adam for his sin, in which they had no part ? It is useless to be Almighty, if one is not equally Good. An Almighty God who is not Infinite in Goodness, is not God. If God is Unrighteous, He is not worthy of worship. For if God is less good, less righteous, less equitable than His creatures, then something is very wrong with one’s doctrine of God. God must be better, by far, than His creatures, or He is no God in any sense worth discussing.

    That is why Romans 9 is unconvincing. St Paul resorts to bluster and browbeating - both fallacious proceedings - when he says, “Nay, but who art thou, O man, that answerest against God ?”.

    The answer might be something like:

    “Someone who is not impressed by your fallacious “arguments”, who would like very much to know why it is fine for the God you preach to act in a way that seems grotesquely unfair. You cannot, if you want to make a consistent (and persuasive !) argument, apply one ethical standard to what God does in choosing Esau and Jacob, while also making a big fuss about human unrighteousness; as you do earlier in Romans. If you are to be taken seriously when indicting mankind for unrighteousness in Romans 1-3, you cannot airily dismiss the seeming unrighteousness of God in hating Esau before he was even born. You have to apply the same ethical standard to God as to man, otherwise calling God righteous loses all meaning, and you might as well call Him a four-sided triangle, for all the sense that calling such a God righteous makes. For if God’s Righteousness looks like what human beings call unrighteousness, then one of the following must be true:

    1. Human words applied to God can mean anything.
    2. Human words applied to God have no meaning.
    3. God is unknowable.
    4. God is a hypocrite.
    5. God is beyond good and evil.
    6. God plays with people like a cat with a mouse.
    7. God is changeable.
    8. God is evil.
    9. Thinking about God and man is a meaningless waste of time, a “chasing of the wind”.

    What’s more, in Romans 9, you make an argument for what you believe. But that being so, you have no right to object when someone finds your argument unpersuasive, and says so. If you make your argument, you cannot with any justice or consistency object when a counter-argument is made by people who reject your premises, your reasoning, or your conclusions. You are not the only person capable of reasoning, and as you employ reason to set forth your case, those who are not persuaded by what you say cannot be browbeaten into silence by you, but have every right to reason in favour of their case, as you do in favour of yours.

    Sorry, Paul, but your argument in Romans 9 is unpersuasive. You make some good points, but weaken what you say by trying to switch off the use of reason when it causes difficulties for your argument. Reason is either a trustworthy means for exploring predestination, or it is not - you cannot have it both ways. If your position is, that reason is useful for exploring it, but only up to a point, and no further, that is an intelligible position; all you need do, is explain that this is your position. But what you cannot do, is resort to browbeating people so they don’t ask awkward questions - for you to do that, only awakes the suspicion that your position will not bear close examination. Which is self-defeating behaviour.”

    Unless there is some kind of “family likeness” between what is Righteousness in God, and what man means by that concept and word, then for all we know the word “Righteousness”, as applied to God, may (unbeknownst to us) mean that God is unrighteous, or something else, or nothing at all. It is pointless to ascribe attributes to God, if there is no knowable relation between what the name of the attribute signifies as applied to God, and what the same word signifies when used in human affairs. There may be only a very distant echo of God’s Righteousness in righteousness as named among men; but if righteousness in man bears not even the most distant likeness to the Righteous God, it is confusing and mischievous to ascribe the same named quality to God & man alike. A circle drawn by the hand of an expert draughtsman may be far more truly circular than the circle drawn by a three-year old child whose is guided by its mother; but there is not no likeness of the child’s circle to the draughtsman’s - the likeness may be faint, but a likeness there must be, and it must be knowable; otherwise, it is misleading to call both circles a circle. If Righteousness in God is what among men would be called unfairness, it is pointless to say God is Righteous.

    God cannot be less Righteous than an upright man. So Righteousness in God must be better, truer, fuller, more adequately and satisfyingly Righteously Righteous than righteousness in man. So something is wrong, when an argument seeking to vindicate God’s Righteousness instead makes God seem to be tyrannical and unrighteous, or else unintelligible. A Divine revelation of God’s Righteousness that makes His Righteousness seem meaningless, unrighteous, or purely baffling, is not revelatory.
    Last edited by Rushing Jaws; 07-17-2018, 10:54 PM.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Rushing Jaws View Post
      Would it be fair of the Northern US to hang all Southerners now living for the support given by their forebears to the Confederate states & Jefferson Davis ? How is the analogy inapplicable ?

      If it would be unjust or tyrannical to punish Southerners living in 2018 for what happened between 1861 and 1865, how is it any less unjust of God to punish the descendants of Adam for his sin, in which they had no part ? It is useless to be Almighty, if one is not equally Good. An Almighty God who is not Infinite in Goodness, is not God. If God is Unrighteous, He is not worthy of worship. For if God is less good, less righteous, less equitable than His creatures, then something is very wrong with one’s doctrine of God. God must be better, by far, than His creatures, or He is no God in any sense worth discussing.
      I'm in complete agreement with you here!

      That is why Romans 9 is unconvincing. St Paul resorts to bluster and browbeating - both fallacious proceedings - when he says, “Nay, but who art thou, O man, that answerest against God ?”.
      Ummm...what? If you think St. Paul is resorting to bluster and browbeating and thereby proceeding fallaciously, then you do not understand the argument he is making. Romans 9 isn't about deterministic individual salvation...that's not the point of the chapter. (Or Ch. 10 & 11 which are a continuation of the argument he IS making)

      The answer might be something like:

      “Someone who is not impressed by your fallacious “arguments”, who would like very much to know why it is fine for the God you preach to act in a way that seems grotesquely unfair. You cannot, if you want to make a consistent (and persuasive !) argument, apply one ethical standard to what God does in choosing Esau and Jacob, while also making a big fuss about human unrighteousness; as you do earlier in Romans. If you are to be taken seriously when indicting mankind for unrighteousness in Romans 1-3, you cannot airily dismiss the seeming unrighteousness of God in hating Esau before he was even born. You have to apply the same ethical standard to God as to man, otherwise calling God righteous loses all meaning, and you might as well call Him a four-sided triangle, for all the sense that calling such a God righteous makes. For if God’s Righteousness looks like what human beings call unrighteousness, then one of the following must be true:

      1. Human words applied to God can mean anything.
      2. Human words applied to God have no meaning.
      3. God is unknowable.
      4. God is a hypocrite.
      5. God is beyond good and evil.
      6. God plays with people like a cat with a mouse.
      7. God is changeable.
      8. God is evil.
      9. Thinking about God and man is a meaningless waste of time, a “chasing of the wind”.

      What’s more, in Romans 9, you make an argument for what you believe. But that being so, you have no right to object when someone finds your argument unpersuasive, and says so. If you make your argument, you cannot with any justice or consistency object when a counter-argument is made by people who reject your premises, your reasoning, or your conclusions. You are not the only person capable of reasoning, and as you employ reason to set forth your case, those who are not persuaded by what you say cannot be browbeaten into silence by you, but have every right to reason in favour of their case, as you do in favour of yours.

      Sorry, Paul, but your argument in Romans 9 is unpersuasive. You make some good points, but weaken what you say by trying to switch off the use of reason when it causes difficulties for your argument. Reason is either a trustworthy means for exploring predestination, or it is not - you cannot have it both ways. If your position is, that reason is useful for exploring it, but only up to a point, and no further, that is an intelligible position; all you need do, is explain that this is your position. But what you cannot do, is resort to browbeating people so they don’t ask awkward questions - for you to do that, only awakes the suspicion that your position will not bear close examination. Which is self-defeating behaviour.”
      Unless there is some kind of “family likeness” between what is Righteousness in God, and what man means by that concept and word, then for all we know the word “Righteousness”, as applied to God, may (unbeknownst to us) mean that God is unrighteous, or something else, or nothing at all. It is pointless to ascribe attributes to God, if there is no knowable relation between what the name of the attribute signifies as applied to God, and what the same word signifies when used in human affairs. There may be only a very distant echo of God’s Righteousness in righteousness as named among men; but if righteousness in man bears not even the most distant likeness to the Righteous God, it is confusing and mischievous to ascribe the same named quality to God & man alike. A circle drawn by the hand of an expert draughtsman may be far more truly circular than the circle drawn by a three-year old child whose is guided by its mother; but there is not no likeness of the child’s circle to the draughtsman’s - the likeness may be faint, but a likeness there must be, and it must be knowable; otherwise, it is misleading to call both circles a circle. If Righteousness in God is what among men would be called unfairness, it is pointless to say God is Righteous.
      God cannot be less Righteous than an upright man. So Righteousness in God must be better, truer, fuller, more adequately and satisfyingly Righteously Righteous than righteousness in man. So something is wrong, when an argument seeking to vindicate God’s Righteousness instead makes God seem to be tyrannical and unrighteous, or else unintelligible. A Divine revelation of God’s Righteousness that makes His Righteousness seem meaningless, unrighteous, or purely baffling, is not revelatory.
      You are correct that if Romans 9 is read with a deterministic view of salvation that Paul is being fallacious, but that is never the thrust of the argument....but it shouldn't be read that way because that's not the issue being addressed. The issue Paul is addressing is whether or not “the word of God to the Jews had failed” (Rom 9:6). That is to say, had God’s promise to be the God of the Jews and to have them as his covenant people been rescinded? This was the burning question for Paul, because to many Jews, this is shocking news and seemed to naturally follow from what Paul was preaching. Since most Jews of the day understood God’s covenantal faithfulness toward them to depend on two things: their nationality and their obedience to the law. If what Paul was preaching was true, however – that is, if salvation was available to anyone, including Gentiles, simply on the basis of their faith — then neither a person’s Jewish nationality nor their obedience to the law counted for anything (Gal 5:1-14). It seemed that the uniqueness of the Jewish identity and calling had been undermined. So, it "Looked" like the "word of God had failed." So, the way Paul answered this objection also showed that his concern was with God’s relationship to a nation, not with individual salvation. Paul shows that the idea that God’s covenant promises had not failed by showing that God’s covenant promises were never based on a nationality or external obedience to the law. Paul argues instead that, God had always exercised his sovereign right to choose whomever he wanted to choose as a people group to be in covenant with.

      In the examples Paul used, (Isaac over Ishmael, Jacob over Esau) he was defending God’s right to choose whatever people groups/nations he wants to covenant with and to do so however he so chooses. So, Paul is saying that it shouldn’t be shocking to Jews if God now chooses to enter into a covenant with Gentiles simply on the basis of their faith. He’s always been a God who could do whatever he wanted. At the same time, again, it's important to remember that in using Isaac and Jacob to illustrate God’s prerogative to choose whomever he pleases, Paul was not concerning himself with the eternal destinies of people. His concern was solely to show God’s sovereignty in electing people to a historical vocation (i.e. nation of Priests that was always God's desire).

      To emphasize God’s sovereignty and prerogative, Paul highlights the arbitrary way God brought about his chosen people, through Isaac and Jacob, whose mission was to serve God and the world by being a nation of priests (Isa 61:6) and a “light to all the nations” (Isa 42:6; 49:6; 60:3). They were to be the means by which all the nations of the world would be blessed by hearing about the one true God (e.g. Gen 12:2-3; 18:18; 22:18; Isa 2:2-4; 55:5; 61:9-11; 66:19-20; Jer 3:17; Rom 4:12-18). Their election as a nation was always primarily about service, not individual salvation.
      I believe Paul emphasized the "arbitrariness" of God’s choice of the Jews to jar those who thought "God’s word had failed" because he had rendered their nationality and external observation to the law obsolete in Christ. Throughout Romans 9 through 11 Paul took great pains to show that God’s goal all along had been to reach out beyond the borders of Israel and win the whole world (Rom 9:25-26, 33; 10:10-21; 11:11-12). So, Paul proclaims that God was still going to reach his goal. But since Israel as a nation had rejected the Messiah, Paul argued, God was now going to use their blindness rather than their obedience to achieve it (Rom. 11:11-32).

      So, bottom line, Calvinist's are reading far too much into Romans 9 if they think that Paul was suggesting that Ishmael or Esau, or anyone else not chosen in the selection process by which God formed the Jewish nation (like for instance, all of Joseph’s brothers?) — were individually and eternally damned. Paul is simply not concerned in this chapter with individual destinies. Indeed, he uses the examples he does precisely because they represent more than individuals: they represent nations.

      Therefore, St Paul's argument is not fallacious in the least.
      "What has the Church gained if it is popular, but there is no conviction, no repentance, no power?" - A.W. Tozer

      "... there are two parties in Washington, the stupid party and the evil party, who occasionally get together and do something both stupid and evil, and this is called bipartisanship." - Everett Dirksen

      Comment


      • #18
        Calvinists must go through great contortions to make sense of 2 Peter 3:9 IMO. John Piper at least attempts to honestly articulate the full implications of his view (as noted above).
        "I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by KingsGambit View Post
          Calvinists must go through great contortions to make sense of 2 Peter 3:9 IMO. John Piper at least attempts to honestly articulate the full implications of his view (as noted above).
          True! Most Calvinist/Reformed I've talked to will start backing up when you put forth those implications...at least John Piper does honestly "own" them. But his explanation basically boils down to: "it's a mystery of paradox"
          "What has the Church gained if it is popular, but there is no conviction, no repentance, no power?" - A.W. Tozer

          "... there are two parties in Washington, the stupid party and the evil party, who occasionally get together and do something both stupid and evil, and this is called bipartisanship." - Everett Dirksen

          Comment


          • #20
            Would it be fair of the Northern US to hang all Southerners now living for the support given by their forebears to the Confederate states & Jefferson Davis ? How is the analogy inapplicable ?

            If it would be unjust or tyrannical to punish Southerners living in 2018 for what happened between 1861 and 1865, how is it any less unjust of God to punish the descendants of Adam for his sin, in which they had no part ? It is useless to be Almighty, if one is not equally Good. An Almighty God who is not Infinite in Goodness, is not God. If God is Unrighteous, He is not worthy of worship. For if God is less good, less righteous, less equitable than His creatures, then something is very wrong with one’s doctrine of God. God must be better, by far, than His creatures, or He is no God in any sense worth discussing.
            Romans 5:18 which says, "So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men." When Adam sinned, everyone was counted as condemned. How can this be? It can be explained in this way: Adam is our representative. God saw us in Adam. When Adam sinned, it was like God saw us sinning along with Adam.

            Southerners living in 2018 don't have the same relationship with the people living during the American Civil War as Adam has with us.

            Comment


            • #21
              To briefly add: I don't have any emotional objections to Calvinism. (Being an annihilationist, the "sting" of people spending eternity in hell without any opportunity to avoid it is removed.) I simply don't find it to be an accurate model of Scripture.
              "I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Hornet View Post
                Romans 5:18 which says, "So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men." When Adam sinned, everyone was counted as condemned. How can this be? It can be explained in this way: Adam is our representative. God saw us in Adam. When Adam sinned, it was like God saw us sinning along with Adam.

                Southerners living in 2018 don't have the same relationship with the people living during the American Civil War as Adam has with us.
                It is one thing for Adam to represent us - but a very different matter, for the sin of Adam to be regarded as being chargeable to us as though we had in person committed it.

                If we are chargeable with Adam’s sin because he is our ancestor, and if it is just of God to hold us as chargeable for it. then it cannot be unjust to hold Southerners descended from the Southerners of 1861-5 responsible for the acts of their forefathers in 1861-65. If it is unjust to hold the Southerners of 2018 responsible for the acts of their forebears, then it cannot be just of God to charge us with the sin of Adam as though we had committed it.

                And if it is just of God to charge us with doing what Adam did, but not just for men to judge other men for the deeds of their ancestors, then there are two ethical standards involved, and God’s justice ceases to bear any relationship to human justice. If talk of God being just is to mean anything recognisable as justice, there has to be some family likeness between what is called justice in God and justice in man. To deny all family likeness between the two, is to present God as unknowable, and potentially as evil.

                A far less troubling notion of original sin, might be, to think of it as analogous to drug addiction. The offspring of an addicted mother can be affected by drugs in the womb, not because the offspring have done anything, but because they were “in” a parent who made a choice that harmed them. The basic point, that people’s sins harm their offspring, and not just themselves, is a perfectly valid one, that needs making; but to make of it a doctrine that makes God appear to act with an injustice that would be regarded as odious if men acted by it, is wrong.

                God’s justice is different from man’s - not because it is unrecognisably alien to it, nor as though man’s justice were nothing but sheer wickedness, but rather because God’s justice, unlike the flawed and incomplete attempts of men at justice, is perfect, much better in all ways, transcendantly good. The difference is like that between a firefly and the Sun, only far more so. The relationship between justice in men, and in God, is nonetheless real. And is a valuable means of coming to know God. There are not two, utterly dissimilar standards of justice, but only one, God Himself, Whose Justice is (inadequately) reflected by human justice. So it is not wrong to question whatever in the Bible seems unjustice.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Hornet View Post
                  Romans 5:18 which says, "So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men." When Adam sinned, everyone was counted as condemned. How can this be? It can be explained in this way: Adam is our representative. God saw us in Adam. When Adam sinned, it was like God saw us sinning along with Adam.

                  Southerners living in 2018 don't have the same relationship with the people living during the American Civil War as Adam has with us.
                  ”Everyone was counted as condemned” is not quite the same as “Everyone was counted as being personally guilty of Adam’s sin”. The verse can be understood as meaning that everyone descended from Adam was damaged by his sin, so as to share in his alienation from God, without being seen as personally responsible for his sin.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Rushing Jaws View Post
                    It is one thing for Adam to represent us - but a very different matter, for the sin of Adam to be regarded as being chargeable to us as though we had in person committed it.

                    If we are chargeable with Adam’s sin because he is our ancestor, and if it is just of God to hold us as chargeable for it. then it cannot be unjust to hold Southerners descended from the Southerners of 1861-5 responsible for the acts of their forefathers in 1861-65. If it is unjust to hold the Southerners of 2018 responsible for the acts of their forebears, then it cannot be just of God to charge us with the sin of Adam as though we had committed it.

                    And if it is just of God to charge us with doing what Adam did, but not just for men to judge other men for the deeds of their ancestors, then there are two ethical standards involved, and God’s justice ceases to bear any relationship to human justice. If talk of God being just is to mean anything recognisable as justice, there has to be some family likeness between what is called justice in God and justice in man. To deny all family likeness between the two, is to present God as unknowable, and potentially as evil.

                    A far less troubling notion of original sin, might be, to think of it as analogous to drug addiction. The offspring of an addicted mother can be affected by drugs in the womb, not because the offspring have done anything, but because they were “in” a parent who made a choice that harmed them. The basic point, that people’s sins harm their offspring, and not just themselves, is a perfectly valid one, that needs making; but to make of it a doctrine that makes God appear to act with an injustice that would be regarded as odious if men acted by it, is wrong.

                    God’s justice is different from man’s - not because it is unrecognisably alien to it, nor as though man’s justice were nothing but sheer wickedness, but rather because God’s justice, unlike the flawed and incomplete attempts of men at justice, is perfect, much better in all ways, transcendantly good. The difference is like that between a firefly and the Sun, only far more so. The relationship between justice in men, and in God, is nonetheless real. And is a valuable means of coming to know God. There are not two, utterly dissimilar standards of justice, but only one, God Himself, Whose Justice is (inadequately) reflected by human justice. So it is not wrong to question whatever in the Bible seems unjustice.
                    The doctrine of inherited guilt consists of more than just the fact that we are descendants of Adam and that Adam is our representative. The doctrine also consists of the idea that God thought of us all as having sinned when Adam sinned. God does not necessarily think that the Southerners who descended from the Southerners of 1861 to 1865 sinned when the Southerners of 1861 to 1865 sinned.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by KingsGambit View Post
                      To briefly add: I don't have any emotional objections to Calvinism. (Being an annihilationist, the "sting" of people spending eternity in hell without any opportunity to avoid it is removed.) I simply don't find it to be an accurate model of Scripture.
                      My main issue with Calvinism is increasingly that it removes all responsibility from the believer for his/her state. Where you end up depends entirely on God, and your inputs don't matter; what you do and what you believe are immaterial. I find that to be fundamentally incompatible with Scripture.
                      Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

                      Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
                      sigpic
                      I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Hornet View Post
                        The doctrine of inherited guilt consists of more than just the fact that we are descendants of Adam and that Adam is our representative. The doctrine also consists of the idea that God thought of us all as having sinned when Adam sinned. God does not necessarily think that the Southerners who descended from the Southerners of 1861 to 1865 sinned when the Southerners of 1861 to 1865 sinned.
                        That last sentence re-states the problem. If inherited guilt is theologically real in the one case, why not in the other ? And if not in the latter, why in the former ? Scripture denies that God is partial (Deut. 1.17, 10.17; 2 Chron. 19.7; Acts 10.34-5), but such a difference looks like Divine partiality. The suspicion that God is partial, is dangerously close to the idea that God is capricious, and not Righteous at all; or not in any recognisable sense. God is not Just, unless He can be seen to be Just. The Reformed understanding of OS, looks unjust. The doctrine itself, even in other forms, seems to collide with parts of the Bible. Maybe it should be dismantled, and re-thought.

                        The “addiction” model of original sin solves the problem, without raising awkward problems about God’s Righteousness/Justice and consistency. That model allows Adam to remain our federal head, without his sin being imputed to us as though we were guilty of a fault we had not committed, and had no control over. Our personal freedom from responsibility, does not mean we are not alienated from God by what Adam did. Ezekiel 18.2 & Jer. 31.29 seem to be relevant. The logic of Deut. 24.16 certainly applies: we cannot be condemned for what we did not do.
                        Last edited by Rushing Jaws; 07-25-2018, 02:19 AM.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                          My main issue with Calvinism is increasingly that it removes all responsibility from the believer for his/her state. Where you end up depends entirely on God, and your inputs don't matter; what you do and what you believe are immaterial. I find that to be fundamentally incompatible with Scripture.
                          Calvinists should (and most, I think, do) hold divine sovereignty and human responsibility in tension, believing the bible teaches both. It should be regarded as an apparent contradiction (from our finite pov) and not an ultimate contradiction; acknowledging God's often higher, unsearchable, and inscrutable ways.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Rushing Jaws View Post
                            That last sentence re-states the problem. If inherited guilt is theologically real in the one case, why not in the other ? And if not in the latter, why in the former ? ... The Reformed understanding of OS, looks unjust.
                            I've understood "in Adam all die" ( 1 Cor. 15:22) as in we all inherit a sin nature, which causes us to sin. So this would not be inherited guilt, but an inherited sin nature.

                            "Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people [because they sinned, because of a sin nature, cf. Rom. 5:12], so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people. For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous." (Rom. 5:18–19, emphasis mine)

                            Blessings,
                            Lee
                            "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                              My main issue with Calvinism is increasingly that it removes all responsibility from the believer for his/her state. Where you end up depends entirely on God, and your inputs don't matter; what you do and what you believe are immaterial. I find that to be fundamentally incompatible with Scripture.
                              This is one of the main philosophical arguments for Calvinism. They like to argue that removing any responsibility from God reduces his power and/or glory. It makes for a decent sound bite but begs the question of what God actually does.
                              "I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Scrawly View Post
                                Calvinists should (and most, I think, do) hold divine sovereignty and human responsibility in tension, believing the bible teaches both. It should be regarded as an apparent contradiction (from our finite pov) and not an ultimate contradiction; acknowledging God's often higher, unsearchable, and inscrutable ways.
                                Calvinists could hold that, but that very holding is in tension with Calvinism. If totally depraved humans are incapable of approaching God, and God's grace is irresistible, there is no room whatsoever for human responsibility. One CANNOT be responsible for what one cannot control.
                                Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

                                Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
                                sigpic
                                I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Thoughtful Monk, 03-15-2024, 06:19 PM
                                35 responses
                                166 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Cow Poke  
                                Started by KingsGambit, 03-15-2024, 02:12 PM
                                4 responses
                                49 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Thoughtful Monk  
                                Started by Chaotic Void, 03-08-2024, 07:36 AM
                                10 responses
                                119 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post mikewhitney  
                                Started by Cow Poke, 02-29-2024, 07:55 AM
                                14 responses
                                71 views
                                3 likes
                                Last Post Cow Poke  
                                Started by Cow Poke, 02-28-2024, 11:56 AM
                                13 responses
                                59 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Cow Poke  
                                Working...
                                X