Implications of Calvinism

[Rushing Jaws]

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.

[Littlejoe]

I'm in complete agreement with you here!

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)

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 . That is to say, simply on the basis of their faithanything

[KingsGambit]

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).

[Littlejoe]

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"

[Hornet]

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.

[KingsGambit]

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.

[Rushing Jaws]

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.
is

[Rushing Jaws]

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.

[Hornet]

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.
is

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.

[One Bad Pig]

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.

[Rushing Jaws]

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.

[Scrawly]

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.

[lee_merrill]

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

[KingsGambit]

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.

[One Bad Pig]

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.