For the Calvinist: Romans 5:18-19

[Spiritus Naturae]

Help me out here, TWeb Calvinist's. What is your understanding of what is being conveyed to the reader in the following verses. Non-Calvinists feel free to bring your reading to the table as well.

Romans 5:18-19 KJV

"Rom 5:18 Therefore, as by the offense of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation;even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.
Rom 5:19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so, by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous."

Jonathan

[rhutchin]

Help me out here, TWeb Calvinist's. What is your understanding of what is being conveyed to the reader in the following verses. Non-Calvinists feel free to bring your reading to the table as well.

Romans 5:18-19 KJV

"Rom 5:18 Therefore, as by the offense of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation;even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.
Rom 5:19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so, by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous."

Jonathan

We must read these verses with those immediately before as the “Therefore” suggests that Paul is summing up his argument. That argument appears to be this.

1. Adam sinned and this resulted in physical death. Since it is appointed unto man once to die and after this the judgment, then we can say that judgment came as a consequence of Adam’s sin because all now die.

2. Adam’s sin also corrupted his nature and that corrupted nature was then inherited by his children with the result that all sin. Their sin then leads to the condemnation of v 18 that occurs as a consequence of the judgment.

3. Adam’s sin is likened to Christ’s death. As Adam’s sin lead to condemnation to all because all sinned, so Christ’s death leads to life for all who presumably do not sin.

4. In v 19, Paul emphasizes that the consequences of the actions of one man were not limited to himself. It spread to many (in fact to all). Commentators note the difficulty with “many” here and “all” in the previous verse, with some commentators equating “many” with “all.” I don’t see this as necessary on the assumption that Paul chose his words carefully and nothing he says is innocent of meaning. Thus, I read it as, “Just as Adam’s sin extended beyond himself, even so Christ’s righteousness extends beyond Himself.” Even as Adam’s sin led to the death of many more than just himself, so Christ’s righteousness will give life to many more than just Himself.

That's my very rough take on these two verses.

[rmwilliamsjr]

The offer of the Gospel is genuinely to all human beings. The images that Scripture uses show a universality of the call to humanity. The point of reformed thinking is that all will not respond. If Jesus was standing in the valley of bones, His offer to who ever should come forth will be saved is a genuine call to who ever will listen to him and respond. The point is that bones neither hear nor are able to respond. Like all the images of regeneration: new flesh, new heart, new ears. All point to the fact, that in order to hear the voice of the Lord calling "come forth and be saved" you must be given ears that can hear the voice of Jesus calling. Or the heart that can respond, or the body that can walk out of the valley of bones.

Rather than teaching some form of universalism these verses support the rest in Scripture in it's consistent demand that the call of God to believe is universal, but the response is particular, those whom God set His love upon are equipped to hear the call, the rest of humanity goes about it's business unable to hear the voice of their Creator, Sustainer offering to be their Redeemer.

[Mitbulls]

Just a few questions. I am not a Calvinist, and (like Spiritus) want to understand your standpoint.

1. Adam sinned and this resulted in physical death. Since it is appointed unto man once to die and after this the judgment, then we can say that judgment came as a consequence of Adam’s sin because all now die.

I'm not sure that this indicates a physical death. Verse 12 says "Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men." (NKJV) Regardless what type of death is meant, though, your conclusion makes sense: because of sin, we are judged.

3. Adam’s sin is likened to Christ’s death. As Adam’s sin lead to condemnation to all because all sinned, so Christ’s death leads to life for all who presumably do not sin.

I'm not sure what you mean by the last part of this...The first part is clear, that Adam's sin led to condemnation of all (especially highlighted in verse 14). But the indication is that Christ's death leads to life for all, since it is indicated in verse 15 that his death and grace are greater than the condemnation which entered through Adam's sin. If Adam's sin condemned all mankind, and Christ's grace is greater, then his grace must be offered to all men.

Overall, your interpretation seems completely valid. The question, then, is how do you reconcile this interpretation, especially verse 18 which indicates that the free gift came to all men, with the doctrine of predestination?

[themuzicman]

The offer of the Gospel is genuinely to all human beings. The images that Scripture uses show a universality of the call to humanity. The point of reformed thinking is that all will not respond.

This is not what reformers have told me. They've told me that man has no part in responding to anyting regarding salvation, but they are elected by God without any condition on their part, and that they will recieve grace irresistably, and will be saved.

Perhaps you can clarify this.

Michael

[Mitbulls]

Also, to RMWILLIAMSJR:

The offer of the Gospel is genuinely to all human beings. The images that Scripture uses show a universality of the call to humanity. The point of reformed thinking is that all will not respond.

Well said!

My question is found here:

Rather than teaching some form of universalism these verses support the rest in Scripture in it's consistent demand that the call of God to believe is universal, but the response is particular, those whom God set His love upon are equipped to hear the call, the rest of humanity goes about it's business unable to hear the voice of their Creator, Sustainer offering to be their Redeemer.

I fail to see the difference between saying "God called everybody, but only equipped certain people to listen" and saying "God only called certain people." If you speak to someone without them having any chance of listening, isn't that the equivelant of not speaking to them? For example, if, instead of posting this, I had simply read all of these words out loud, could I still expect you to respond? Or could I say that "I told you my points, I just wasn't close enough for you to hear them." In practicality, we would just say that I never told you. It seems like it would make the most sense to use the same practical application to this verse: if the Bible said that God's word went out to everyone, it would make logical sense that all of those people at least had the chance to hear it, just as if I spoke to a deaf person out loud, it's the same thing as me not speaking to them.

All of this is just personal speculation for understanding, not to incite an argument. Sorry for taking over the questions, Spiritus!

[rmwilliamsjr]

This is not what reformers have told me. They've told me that man has no part in responding to anyting regarding salvation, but they are elected by God without any condition on their part, and that they will recieve grace irresistably, and will be saved.

Perhaps you can clarify this.

Michael

from: http://www.sounddoctrine.net/Bible/p...gy_murrell.htm

The Holy Spirit and Salvation

Of primary concern is the work of the Holy Spirit in the area of salvation as He convicts of sin and calls souls to the Saviour. Because God is gracious any person may be exposed to the external call of the gospel, “Ho every one that thirsteth.” (Isa. 55:1) “Come unto me all ye that labor.” (Matt. 11:28) "The Spirit and the bride say, ‘Come.’” (Rev. 22:17) The external call to salvation is universal in that it is addressed to all people indiscriminately. Christ commands that the gospel be preached to every creature with compassion and clarity. "As ministers of the gospel are messengers between God and man, the first duty devolving upon them is to make a free offer of the grace of God, and the second is to strive with all might that it may not be offered in vain." (John Calvin) The gospel proclaims the terms of grace on which God is willing to save sinner. Though the gospel is freely, fully, and universally proclaimed, it is certain that not all people will come to faith. Nevertheless, a universal call is not inconsistent with a personal election, or non-election, because it is the means to the end in one case, and a ground of condemnation in the other. “The same sun which melts the butter hardens the clay.”

It is the way Calvin handles the all/universal verses about salvation, there is a universal genuine but ineffectual calling to all of humanity. Analogous to shouting the promises of faith in a valley of bones. The effectual call, OTOH to salvation IS accompanied by the power to believe, the new heart, ears that hear etc.....


How is it that God wills that all men be saved? That the offer of Jesus' sacrifice is made to whosoever will repent and believe. But the offer strikes deaf ears unless those ears are prepared and made alive before this calling is heard. In this way the universality of the call, of the offer, of grace is upheld but the application of it is for God's own elect.

I fail to see the difference between saying "God called everybody, but only equipped certain people to listen" and saying "God only called certain people." If you speak to someone without them having any chance of listening, isn't that the equivelant of not speaking to them? For example, if, instead of posting this, I had simply read all of these words out loud, could I still expect you to respond? Or could I say that "I told you my points, I just wasn't close enough for you to hear them." In practicality, we would just say that I never told you. It seems like it would make the most sense to use the same practical application to this verse: if the Bible said that God's word went out to everyone, it would make logical sense that all of those people at least had the chance to hear it, just as if I spoke to a deaf person out loud, it's the same thing as me not speaking to them.

the point is first to do justice to the teachings of Scripture. It teaches some form of a universal call. It teaches that the call falls on deaf ears. the point is that the deafness is not imposed from without. It is not like the Mongols did to captured cities to blind the inhabitants that they did not kill, our deafness is self-chosen, we love our sins, it is our nature not just to sin but to justify and take pride in those sins. It is not that God stops people from hearing this call, it is that He leaves them in their sins. The marvel is that He would choose to enliven, to give new ears to any of us, for He finds our sinful nature hateful to the max. Yet He calls some, and makes certain that they can hear the call.

The rest is mystery, and there is a sense that it is unfair, if you concentrate on the unsaved. God would have been just to condemn us all, the fact that He saves some is the great mystery, especially at what it costs. The great communion of the Father with the Son from all eternity was severed at calvary. This extraordinary love turned in a moment to the hatred for the sins that Jesus born. This is by far the greater mystery, not why God did not choose all. Justice demanded all, what it got wasn't all mankind, but all of God's love. truely amazing.

[themuzicman]

from: http://www.sounddoctrine.net/Bible/p...gy_murrell.htm
[/b]

It is the way Calvin handles the all/universal verses about salvation, there is a universal genuine but ineffectual calling to all of humanity. Analogous to shouting the promises of faith in a valley of bones. The effectual call, OTOH to salvation IS accompanied by the power to believe, the new heart, ears that hear etc.....

So, God calls, but fails to reach all of humanity, because God doesn't grant everyone the ability to respond? How cruel is that?

How is it that God wills that all men be saved? That the offer of Jesus' sacrifice is made to whosoever will repent and believe. But the offer strikes deaf ears unless those ears are prepared and made alive before this calling is heard. In this way the universality of the call, of the offer, of grace is upheld but the application of it is for God's own elect.

Again, those going to hell are headed there because of God's will? What happened to 1 Tim 2:4?

the point is first to do justice to the teachings of Scripture. It teaches some form of a universal call. It teaches that the call falls on deaf ears.

I'd like to hear a properly exegeted cite of this one. I think someone is taking a verse pointed at Israel and appropriating it to all mankind.

the point is that the deafness is not imposed from without. It is not like the Mongols did to captured cities to blind the inhabitants that they did not kill, our deafness is self-chosen, we love our sins, it is our nature not just to sin but to justify and take pride in those sins. It is not that God stops people from hearing this call, it is that He leaves them in their sins. The marvel is that He would choose to enliven, to give new ears to any of us, for He finds our sinful nature hateful to the max. Yet He calls some, and makes certain that they can hear the call.

He just picks the ones He likes? What happened to God loving the world? What happened to 1 TIm 2:4, where God wills that ALL MEN come to a saving knowledge?

What happened to staying scriptural?

The rest is mystery, and their is a sense that it is unfair, if you concentrate on the unsaved. God would have been just to condemn us all, the fact that He saves some is the great mystery, especially at what it costs. The great communion of the Father with the Son from all eternity was severed at calvary. This extraordinary love turned in a moment to the hatred for the sins that Jesus born. This is by far the greater mystery, not why God did not choose all. Justice demanded all, what it got wasn't all mankind, but all of God's love. truely amazing.

So, the fact that you can't reconcile scripture to itself is mystery? You don't see a problem here?

I'm not talking about fairness. I'm talking about a God who says that He loves the world (John 3:16), and wills for all men to come to a saving knowledge of Him, but you say that picks out a few to give the ability to come to Him. That is entirely inconsistent.

You are correct for avoiding universalism. However, placing the roadblock to universalism in God's will is where you go wrong. The roadblock to communion with God began with Adam, and continues to be each man and woman's will, not God's.

I realize you want to walk the fence, here, but if you're going to say that God's will is the roadblock to anyone getting saved, you're out of line with scripture.

Michael

[Spiritus Naturae]

Also, to RMWILLIAMSJR:

Well said!

My question is found here:
I fail to see the difference between saying "God called everybody, but only equipped certain people to listen" and saying "God only called certain people." If you speak to someone without them having any chance of listening, isn't that the equivelant of not speaking to them? For example, if, instead of posting this, I had simply read all of these words out loud, could I still expect you to respond? Or could I say that "I told you my points, I just wasn't close enough for you to hear them." In practicality, we would just say that I never told you. It seems like it would make the most sense to use the same practical application to this verse: if the Bible said that God's word went out to everyone, it would make logical sense that all of those people at least had the chance to hear it, just as if I spoke to a deaf person out loud, it's the same thing as me not speaking to them.
All of this is just personal speculation for understanding, not to incite an argument. Sorry for taking over the questions, Spiritus!

No prob, Mitbulls! My prob with a Calvinist reading of many of the scripture that refer to all of mankind, world etc. is that there is somehow a 'special reading' of these terms from the 'original languages'. Many Calvinist authors and apologists, such as James White, give the impression that only a 'degree' holding theologian has the proper understanding of context and phrasing in the scripture.

In the verses in Romans chapter 5 and on into the proceeding chapter, there seems to be according to the text a reference to a choice made by Adam. In chapter 6:

Romans 6:12-14 KJV

"12 Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof.
13 Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin: but yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God.
14 For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace."

Here Paul is speaking of choice, decisions that we as believers must make. This kind of shoots holes in predestination, just as Romans 5 does. We are to have faith, there is a great deal of reference in Paul's epistles to the 'free gift' of salvation recieved by our faith in Christ's shed blood. How does the Calvinist reconcile 'choice' and 'personal responsibility' to their theology?

[rhutchin]

Mitbulls
I fail to see the difference between saying "God called everybody, but only equipped certain people to listen" and saying "God only called certain people." If you speak to someone without them having any chance of listening, isn't that the equivelant of not speaking to them? For example, if, instead of posting this, I had simply read all of these words out loud, could I still expect you to respond? Or could I say that "I told you my points, I just wasn't close enough for you to hear them." In practicality, we would just say that I never told you. It seems like it would make the most sense to use the same practical application to this verse: if the Bible said that God's word went out to everyone, it would make logical sense that all of those people at least had the chance to hear it, just as if I spoke to a deaf person out loud, it's the same thing as me not speaking to them.

rmwilliamsjr
the point is first to do justice to the teachings of Scripture. It teaches some form of a universal call. It teaches that the call falls on deaf ears. the point is that the deafness is not imposed from without. It is not like the Mongols did to captured cities to blind the inhabitants that they did not kill, our deafness is self-chosen, we love our sins, it is our nature not just to sin but to justify and take pride in those sins. It is not that God stops people from hearing this call, it is that He leaves them in their sins. The marvel is that He would choose to enliven, to give new ears to any of us, for He finds our sinful nature hateful to the max. Yet He calls some, and makes certain that they can hear the call.

The rest is mystery, and there is a sense that it is unfair, if you concentrate on the unsaved. God would have been just to condemn us all, the fact that He saves some is the great mystery, especially at what it costs. The great communion of the Father with the Son from all eternity was severed at calvary. This extraordinary love turned in a moment to the hatred for the sins that Jesus born. This is by far the greater mystery, not why God did not choose all. Justice demanded all, what it got wasn't all mankind, but all of God's love. truely amazing.

rhutchin
We know that the unsaved physically hear the Gospel and logically understand what it says because we are told in 1 Cor 2 that they consider it foolishness. Further, in 2 Cor, we are told that the unsaved have been blinded to the Gospel by Satan. So, as a matter of physically knowing what the Gospel says and logically understanding what it means, none can claim that God has wronged them. The unsaved are able to recognize the possibility that the Gospel is true and are able to respond to that understanding. They are therefore without excuse when they stand before God. Thus, the Gospel includes two parts, the certainty of judgment and the means to escape that judgment. In one sense, the lost cannot hear, but in another sense, they hear but they just don't care. Much like a smoker who knows the effects of smoking but continues to smoke. The illogic is astounding.

So, the question becomes, what happens if God gives an unsaved person the ability to hear such that he does not now consider the Gospel to be foolishness (and thus is no longer blind). He should easily accept the Gospel and be saved. On what basis would he reject that Gospel? Can God only partially open a person’s ears or is that like being partially pregnant. I do not see a middle ground. Consequently, either God saves everyone, He saves some, or He saves none. Whatever action God takes determines the outcome.

[rhutchin]

Here Paul is speaking of choice, decisions that we as believers must make. This kind of shoots holes in predestination, just as Romans 5 does. We are to have faith, there is a great deal of reference in Paul's epistles to the 'free gift' of salvation recieved by our faith in Christ's shed blood. How does the Calvinist reconcile 'choice' and 'personal responsibility' to their theology?

What the Calvinist recognized early on is that God cannot give a person the ability to hear the Gospel without also determining how that person would respond to the Gospel. If a person who formerly thought the Gospel was foolishness wakes up one day and does not consider it foolishness, then what decision can he make but to accept salvation. All that prevented him before was his attitude that it was foolishness. The Calvinist grants all people choice because all can logically understand the Gospel.

Personal responsibility exists because people physically sin. It would be like a person shooting an arrow into the air and it kills a man three blocks away and unknown to the man who shot the arrow. That person is still responsible for what he did. People are responsible because they know that the things they do to others are not things that they want done to them. They are condemned by the law of their own conscience.