Calvinist Interpretation

[Mitbulls]

I've often heard strict Calvinists use 1 Corinthians 15:21-22 to defend the strict Calvinist interpretation of Original Sin (i.e. that we inherited Adam's very sin and are condemned by it at birth). Here is the passage, from the Basic English Bible.

1 Corinthians 15

20. But now Christ has truly come back from the dead, the first-fruits of those who are sleeping.21. For as by man came death, so by man there is a coming back from the dead.22. For as in Adam death comes to all, so in Christ will all come back to life.23. But every man in his right order: Christ the first-fruits; then those who are Christ's at his coming.24. Then comes the end, when he will give up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he will have put an end to all rule and to all authority and power.

Here's my question for strict Calvinists:

It seems that if you're going to interpret this verse to say that we inherited Adam's sin itself (not the capacity or nature of sin, but the very sin), then you also have to interpret the parallel in verse 22 to teach that we all inherit salvation from Christ (not the capacity for salvation, but the salvation itself). In other words, it seems that if you're going to interpret this verse to defend the Original Sin in the strictly Calvinistic sense, then you also must interpret it to defend Universalism.

Can any of T-Webs many Calvinists post their own interpretation of this passage and point out what I might be missing with my reading?

[harmonmsp]

I'd like to hear about that as well.

[Gideon Brook]

I am unaware of what a 'strict' calvinist would be, or of what a non-strict Calvinist is. However, the main Calvinist (or rather, Reformed) scheme is built on the Federal idea. Just as Levi paid tithes in Abraham, being 'in his loins' to use KJV-speak, so all humanity sinned 'in Adam', and are therefore culpable of the original sin, as well as their own sins. Since death is the penalty of sin, all die in Adam, being in him. Our death is the proof that we sinned in him, before we committed any of our own sins. The Bible, to Reformed understanding, deals with these things corporately, or Federally, as far as the headship of Adam and Christ is concerned.

[harmonmsp]

I am unaware of what a 'strict' calvinist would be, or of what a non-strict Calvinist is. However, the main Calvinist (or rather, Reformed) scheme is built on the Federal idea. Just as Levi paid tithes in Abraham, being 'in his loins' to use KJV-speak, so all humanity sinned 'in Adam', and are therefore culpable of the original sin, as well as their own sins. Since death is the penalty of sin, all die in Adam, being in him. Our death is the proof that we sinned in him, before we committed any of our own sins. The Bible, to Reformed understanding, deals with these things corporately, or Federally, as far as the headship of Adam and Christ is concerned.

Alright, so what problems are there with this for the Arminian?

[Gideon Brook]

Wesley believed this, AFAIK; someone more knowledgeable can confirm this perhaps. It is not primarily Calvinist, but Augustinianism seen through the Protestant Reformation filter.

[Mitbulls]

I am unaware of what a 'strict' calvinist would be, or of what a non-strict Calvinist is.

By strict Calvinist, I am referring to those who are not semi-Calvinists (like myself). We would tend to interpret the passages about the Original sin as the inheritance of the sin nature, not necessarily meaning that we are culpable for Adam's sin ourselves.

However, the main Calvinist (or rather, Reformed) scheme is built on the Federal idea. Just as Levi paid tithes in Abraham, being 'in his loins' to use KJV-speak, so all humanity sinned 'in Adam', and are therefore culpable of the original sin, as well as their own sins. Since death is the penalty of sin, all die in Adam, being in him. Our death is the proof that we sinned in him, before we committed any of our own sins. The Bible, to Reformed understanding, deals with these things corporately, or Federally, as far as the headship of Adam and Christ is concerned.

Thank you for this, though I do already understand the Calvinist position. My question, though, is how Calvinists can then avoid interpreting the above passage to also teach Universalism. The verse clearly compares Christ's saving act to Adam's act of death. If Adam's act of death spread literally to all men, then so must Christ's saving act; if all men are culpable for Adam's sin, then also all men are purified by Christ's death, according to this passage.

[harmonmsp]

But there is a problem with your interpretation, based on the context which surrounds the passage:

"22. For as in Adam death comes to all, so in Christ will all come back to life."

The passage juxtaposes those in Adam with those who are in Christ. It does not say that all are in Christ, it just says that all in Christ will come back to life. This is furthered by the immediate verse:

23. But every man in his right order: Christ the first-fruits; then those who are Christ's at his coming.

And, perhaps, if you don't like this way of interpreting the verse, I could always say that the verse isn't even addressing spiritual death but rather literal death. In this view, all Paul is saying is that just as physical death came to all men, the resurrection of all men will happen because of Christ. But this I consider shaky.

[Mitbulls]

The passage juxtaposes those in Adam with those who are in Christ. It does not say that all are in Christ, it just says that all in Christ will come back to life. This is furthered by the immediate verse:

I don't believe this is true, simply because the word ALL is repeated for both. In Adam ALL die, in Christ ALL are made alive. It's not juxtaposing them as different subsets of people (especially from a Calvinistic viewpoint, which says that all people do indeed inherit Adam's sin and die).

As for the next verse, that doesn't necessarily contradict Universalism. Is there a reason given this context to assume that "those who are Christ's" does not include everyone?


Just to clarify, I'm not a Universalist. I'm not trying to argue that Universalism is true. I'm simply wondering how a Calvinist can interpret this passage to mean that all men inherit Adam's sin, but only those who accept Christ go to heaven when this passage seems to make a direct parallel between those who die in Adam and those who are resurrected with Christ.

[Gideon Brook]

Thank you for this, though I do already understand the Calvinist position. My question, though, is how Calvinists can then avoid interpreting the above passage to also teach Universalism. The verse clearly compares Christ's saving act to Adam's act of death. If Adam's act of death spread literally to all men, then so must Christ's saving act; if all men are culpable for Adam's sin, then also all men are purified by Christ's death, according to this passage.

The answer to this would be that one does not build a doctrine on one text Mitbulls. While there are texts that seem to imply the universal aspects of Christ's death, yet there are texts that also speak of a limited aspect. The case is not so with Adam's sin however. For instance, Paul in the very same chapter refers to:

Scripture Verse:

1Co 15:17 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins.
1Co 15:18 Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished.
1Co 15:19 If in this life only we have hoped in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied.

That obviously does not include every single person since all do not have faith. Whatever one might say about the extent Christ's work - and I do believe it has some universal aspects - this is not such a situation. We have believed, we have hope in Christ. There are those who have not.

[PaulT]

Wouldn't the issue be centered around the group the Federal head represented. In the case of mankind in general Adam would be the head, in the case of Christ, He would be the head of His people, not all, just those He died for.

[Hitch]

I've often heard strict Calvinists use 1 Corinthians 15:21-22 to defend the strict Calvinist interpretation of Original Sin (i.e. that we inherited Adam's very sin and are condemned by it at birth). Here is the passage, from the Basic English Bible.

1 Corinthians 15

20. But now Christ has truly come back from the dead, the first-fruits of those who are sleeping.21. For as by man came death, so by man there is a coming back from the dead.22. For as in Adam death comes to all, so in Christ will all come back to life.23. But every man in his right order: Christ the first-fruits; then those who are Christ's at his coming.24. Then comes the end, when he will give up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he will have put an end to all rule and to all authority and power.

Here's my question for strict Calvinists:

It seems that if you're going to interpret this verse to say that we inherited Adam's sin itself (not the capacity or nature of sin, but the very sin), then you also have to interpret the parallel in verse 22 to teach that we all inherit salvation from Christ (not the capacity for salvation, but the salvation itself). In other words, it seems that if you're going to interpret this verse to defend the Original Sin in the strictly Calvinistic sense, then you also must interpret it to defend Universalism.

Can any of T-Webs many Calvinists post their own interpretation of this passage and point out what I might be missing with my reading?

I would change it but not very much.... In Christ we gain salvation directly through the value of his blood sacrfice. We do not become sinless but rather by grace and blood, guiltless. Since the redemption has been paid there is no usable evidence left for the enemy.
In Adam, in the natural, we inherit his rebellious nature, but more importantly his guilt.
We need to remember that as some take great pains to seperate distinctions in the scriptures wrt various times and administrations, our salvation, by grace is tied directly and eternally to the Law, and has no value outside the Law.

For us in chrst the Law which makes us guilty in Adam, is the same Law through which God applies the vicarious sacrfice and makes us acceptable.

clearasmudright ?


H

[AV1611]

It seems that if you're going to interpret this verse to say that we inherited Adam's sin itself...

We do not inherit Adam's sin but we inherit the sinful condition so that we are all born in sin which was also taught by Saint Augustine. :)