the gap in calvinism

Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by Aki, Aug 1, 2003.

  1. Aki

    Aki
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2001
    Messages:
    454
    Likes Received:
    0
    i may have said this too many times already. yet with everything there is still this "gap" within the 5 points of calvinism.

    starting from Total Depravity, each man gets to be condemned at birth because of the sin of Adam that is passed to everyone. also, there is the sin nature that is transmitted to everyone, making everyone sin in their own, each sin worthy of condemnation.

    then comes Unlimited Atonement until Perseverance of the Saints, all focused on God and His dealing with His elects.

    come judgement, calvinists will simply end up the non-elects of being condemned due to their own sins. now what actually happened to that imputed sin? isn't it that it is the primary cause of each one's condemnation? but it cannot be heard from the calvinist camp, except that each one commits his/her own sins that are worthy of condemnation. in fact, the focus on the personal sins of everyone becomes to "over-clouding" an issue that it becomes forgotten that even if the non-elects do not commit a single sin all their life, they are still condemned due to that impuation.

    while some would say that "we are in Adam", this never satisfies for convincing anyone that each one is worthy of Adam's sin. the point is, it is of God! God is the one who sovereignly imputed the sin of Adam to everyone so that everyone will get to be condemned at birth. and it is without any regard for anyone's volition.

    now what is the purpose of that? well, God imputed Adam's sin to everyone so that Christ's death will reach everyone. calvinists cannot and would not say the same. in fact, they do not discuss the purpose of that imputed sin! there are, however, the double predestinarians, who believe that God cause the both the condemnation and salvation of everyone.
     
  2. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    Even reading your post here, I do not see this gap shown. Where is it? What are you talking about?

     
  3. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    Calvinism has demonstrated no reluctance to observe that all are condemned as Children of Adam AND all are slaves to sin without Christ.

    It has no problem stating (in That context) that God simply arbitrarily selects the elect - the FEW from among the MANY of Matt 7.

    Calvinism never makes a claim to "fair" but rather it argues that ONCE we conclude that God is just in condemning lost humanity (and even most Arminians would agree - He is) THEN EVEN if God "claims" to "So Love the World" He doesn't really "have to do it" - it is only "His Word" after all.

    Your idea that Calvinism must ignore the lost condition of all mankind as children of Adam - does not follow.

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  4. Primitive Baptist

    Primitive Baptist
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2002
    Messages:
    821
    Likes Received:
    0
    The only "gap" in this debate exists in the Arminian theory that the Lamb of God was a propitiation for the sins of some men who will ultimately be condemned. Of course there are many other gaps in Arminian theology, but time nor space will permit me to expound on the many errors of "free-will."
     
  5. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    On the contrary - it looks to me as though you have pretty much exhausted the point.

    The propitiation (atoning sacrifice) of Christ provides the currency in "suffering" owed by all lost humanity - but God holds application of that currency by His OWN rules - to "Whosoever Will" saying "I STAND at the door and KNOCK if anyone HEARS my voice AND OPENS the door I WILL come IN" Rev 3:21.

    The conditions are clear - God is not fire-hosing us with payment of our debt. Rather the blood of Christ - and suffering for our sins is carefully treasured - held for us to claim "IF we CONFESS our sins HE IS faithful and just to FORGIVE us our sins AND to CLEANSE us from ALL unrighteousness".

    It could not BE any clearer.

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  6. Aki

    Aki
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2001
    Messages:
    454
    Likes Received:
    0
    i would understand this remark should you be a beginner in this board. however, given your status, you should have at least an improved attitude towards other people here whenever their biblical position is different from yours. you do not know who i am, and with that you are not certain if what i believe is due to adjusting scriptures to what i want to believe or vice versa.

    herein is the gap. it is God who imputes Adam's sin to everyone as He imputes Christ's righteousness to believers. yup, imputed sin leads to imputed righteousness, therefore giving meaning in imputing righteousness to the elects. and to the non-elects, you gave no discussion about it. therein is the gap. the imputed sin of Adam gives way to imputing rigtheousness for the elects. to the non-elects, it gives no meaning for them, except that God caused the primary reason for their condemnation.

    doing the same for the elects, God made the imputation of righteousness possible. thus the sense of imputed sin for the elects. and for the non-elects?

    i readily can accept this. i said my point in reference to everything i've read here, which is not everything written here. as far as "me" i am here not just to debate but to learn. can you please give a link to the discussion of the purpose of the imputation of Adam's sin to the unbelievers here (i.e., C/A forum)?

    Primitive Baptist

    it is not the gap presented here. read my first paragrahps, and you'll see.
     
  7. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    I was making a general statement. The Bible declares what it does and that is what we are to believe. There are many who are willing to questino the justice of God because he does not work as they think he should. I did not direct that to you. It was a general statement.

    No discussion about what?? About imputing righteousness to the non-elect?? We do not discuss it becuase the Bible does not. If this is the gap you are compalining about, then it is a not a gap in Calvinism but a gap in Scripture. The scriptural discussion on imputation deals with modus operandi, nothing else. Imputation of sin does not require or deserve imputation of righteousness. Paul is only talking about the way that one becomes a sinner and one become righteous. He says that both happen in the same way.

    For the non-elects??? What is your point?? As I say, I do not see this gap that you are concerned about. The imputation of sin to the non-elects stems from their being "in Adam." The imputation of righteousness to the elect stems from their being "in Christ." To talk of imputation of righteousness to those who are not "in Christ" is useless. That "gap" is no gap at all.

    I don't remember where it has been discussed. Check out books like Schreiner's commentary on Romans, as well as Moo. There are some others as well. Again, I am not sure what you are looking for in terms of "purpose behind imputation of Adam's sin."
     
  8. Aki

    Aki
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2001
    Messages:
    454
    Likes Received:
    0
    there was a purpose for the elects: it gave way to the imputation of righteousness. what is the purpose of the same imputation of Adam's sin to the non-elects? that is the gap i am referring to.

    perhaps your answer to some additional qualifiers will clear the discussion.

    1. what is meant by the thought that we are in Adam? does that mean that we are personally, as individuals, responsible for his sin? or are we simply made responsible without consideration of our volition?

    2. Adam's sin was imputed to the elects. this gave way to the imputation of Christ's righteousness. the same sin was imputed to the non-elects? now why is that?

    3. why did God impute Adam's sin to the non-elects?

    this is not to question God or the scriptures. this is to solicit the teaching calvinists would have for these questions.
     
  9. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    I wouldn't say that the imputation of righteousness was the purpose of hte imputation of Adam's sin. I don't think that follows. Have you seen someone say this?? I guess I could be convinced but I am not sure that Scripture presents it in terms of purpose.

    It means that we are the descendants of Adam, that we are human, and that we have a sin nature passed down in traducianism.

    Federal headship is the most reasonable view ... that is that Adam sinned as our federal head and thus sinned for all of us. Some take a seminal headship view that we were in Adam when he sinned, as in more of a genetic connection. Either way, we are sinners because of his sin. Because of that nature, we sin and are guilty of our own sin.

    AGain, I am not sure I buy your first statement. Sin was imputed to all men because all are in Adam. That is irrespective of election. In other words, election is an "afterthought" for the purpose of imputation of sin.

    Because they are in Adam.

    Again, I am not sure what you are looking for here. Scripture does not talk in the terms that you talk of here. I can't recall this "purpose of imputation" becoming an issue though perhaps my mind slips. Where did you come up with this line of questioning? Perhaps a source for your question would help me understand what it is you are looking for.
     
  10. Aki

    Aki
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2001
    Messages:
    454
    Likes Received:
    0
    it's both, actually. seminally, each human being acquires the sin natures. this gets everyone to sin. before anyone gets to sin due to that sin nature, though, they are already imputed Adam's sin, thus the reason why everyone gets condemned at birth, without any regards to anyone's volition. it's mainly due to God's sovereignty.

    you see, God made the first move to get each one condemned, regardless of each one's volivtion. then He made all the necessary steps to get the elects saved. to the non-elects, still the same He imputed Adam's sin on them that get them condemned. come judgement, however, they will be judged as sinners with their personal sins, without any thought it was really God's imputation of Adam's sin that is the primary reason that they are condemned.

    here is another question: given both the imputed sin of Adam and the seminally transmitted sin nature that each one acquired without any choice, is anyone therefore personally responsible for his/her own condemnation?
     
  11. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    Wrong. Adam made that move when he chose to sin as our federal head.

    You are attributing sin to God and that is wrong. You cannot do that. I have already said that I don't buy the "primary reason" issue. They are condemned for their own sins. Read Rev 21:8; Rev 20:11-15, and a host of other passages that describe the condemnation that is brought on men for their own sin.

    I don't give the seminally transmitted sin nature. But to the point of the question, yes Scripture makes it clear that everyone is responsible for their own sin and their own condemnation.

    I don't buy your whole line of reasoning because I do not see it in Scripture. I am limited by that, rather than driven by the logic that you seem to be putting into this. Scripture declares imputation of sin and the righteousness of God in judgment. That is enough for me.
     
  12. Aki

    Aki
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2001
    Messages:
    454
    Likes Received:
    0
    yup, Adam made the first move. he decided in his own to sin, while knowing that he is taking the whole of humanity with him. this then gets us back to the question:

    1. are we personally responsible for Adam's sin, or are we made responsible? rest assured our personal volition was never tested. also, it is God, not Adam, who imputes Adam's sin to mankind. it was Adam's decision, but it was God's design. either way, each person was never tested with his volition to be condemned due to the imputed sin of Adam. and yup, that sin is the primary reason why each one is condemned - not personal sins. but then discussion of personal sin comes in judgment, but not the imputed sin of Adam, which is very critical. that is the gap.

    i am not attributing sin to God. God did not commit sin, nor did He make anyone to. nevertheless He imputed Adam's sin to everybody, just as He would impute Christ's righteousness to those who are in Christ.

    i know that personal sins are worth condemning. however, even before those personal sins, a person is already condemned, and that is due to the sin that Adam did and which God imputes. and even if one does not commit a single sin, which is impossible, he is still condemned. the point i am making is that, though each one's volition is tested in commiting personal sins that are worth condemning, none was ever tested to be attributed of Adam's sin, that got each one condemned since birth.

    however you put it, men are born with a sin nature that causes them to sin. also, men are born with an imputed sin of Adam. combined, each one is born condemned, without any consideration of volition.

    yes it does! it declares imputed sin. this got everyone condemned. is anyone's volition tried with this? no. come judgement, however, they will be tried with the personal sins they commit due to their volition. what ever happened to that imputed sin?
     
  13. Ray Berrian

    Ray Berrian
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Messages:
    5,178
    Likes Received:
    0
    There are many things to point out where Calvinists fall outside the safey-net.

    First, they violate the attribute of Divine Justice. He is never partial.

    Second, they violate the attribute of Divine Love; because in fact there is no love found in sending sinners to Hell, if they do not have a chance to believe in Jesus.

    Thirdly, they violate the attribute of Divine Mercy; Romans 11:32 indicates that the Lord has mercy on all Jews and Gentiles.

    Another gap is that man is not totally depraved because then God could not have access to any sinner to change their life. We are tainted with depravity but we are also created in the image of God. [James 3:9]

    They create a gap in God's panoply of grace by suggesting that the Lord picks some for eternal destruction without a shimmering of regret, coming from Augustine's understanding of God via the secular philosophy of Plato and Aristotle. To these philosophers God was an impersonal god.

    We could go on but this will point to the correction of these errors.
     
  14. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    You, as usual, have yet to hit one error. You have offered only your own philosophy without true understanding of what Calvinism teaches in a thread dredged up from over a year ago.
     
  15. Ray Berrian

    Ray Berrian
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Messages:
    5,178
    Likes Received:
    0
    Pastor Larry,

    Really I did not look back on old posts; and as usual you are wrong. Draw up the old post and you compare it for us.

    Regards,
    Ray
     
  16. Monergist

    Monergist
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Messages:
    1,122
    Likes Received:
    0
     
  17. pinoybaptist

    pinoybaptist
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2002
    Messages:
    8,123
    Likes Received:
    1
    Monergist:

    Think of it this way. If 'doctor' Berrian were an angel, he would probably be among the 1/3 who rebelled.

    He has no idea, none at all, of what Scriptural humility before God is, and what complete, unquestioning, total surrender to God's sovereignty means.
     
  18. npetreley

    npetreley
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2002
    Messages:
    7,359
    Likes Received:
    0
    It's not surprising. Here is the definition of theology:

    1 : the study of religious faith, practice, and experience; especially : the study of God and of God's relation to the world
    2 a : a theological theory or system &lt;Thomist theology&gt; &lt;a theology of atonement&gt; b : a distinctive body of theological opinion &lt;Catholic theology&gt;
    3 : a usually 4-year course of specialized religious training in a Roman Catholic major seminary


    Compare this to Ray's argumens, and you'll see that the irony is staggering.

    A theologian is nothing more than a philosopher whose focus is God. Whether or not a theologian uses some scripture in the process, the job of a theologian is not to focus on what scripture says, but to come up with opinions on the attributes of God and make these attributes the central point of their system of belief.

    Having established a system of theology, the theologian then re-interprets the scripture through those filters, tossing out whatever doesn't "rhyme" with his definition of God's attributes and re-interpreting whatever is necessary in order to make the scriptures "rhyme" with their concept of God's attributes.

    Put more simply, Ray either derived opinions from theology books or conjured up his own opinions (or both) on what constitutes "Divine Justice", "Divine Love", and other "Divine Attributes" of God. Then, having drawing his conclusions about these attributes, he extracted his concept of soteriology from these opinions.

    Wherever scripture plainly contradicts these opinions, that scripture must be either rejected or re-interpreted to match the theology.

    There are two amazing ironies here. First, Ray has unwittingly adopted the methodology of the very people he criticizes -- Plato and Aristotle, since his soteriology is based on theological philosophy, not scriptural exegesis.

    Second, this is the grave error of Popery against which the early reformers protested. Popes decided that it was within their right to redefine the meaning of scripture according to their philosophy, and it was assumed that whatever the Pope said was true, even if it contradicted scripture.

    The reformers, Martin Luther in particular, rejected that approach, which led to the catch-phrase "sola scriptura". To put it bluntly, "sola scriptura" means to hell with your theological philosopy - you have no right to impose it upon the scriptures. Let the scriptures, and the scriptures alone, be the final authority on what is true.

    In the end, Ray is making the classical Roman Catholic error, all the while claiming that Calvinism is an error that stems from Roman Catholicism. If it weren't so serious an error, it would almost be humorous.
     
  19. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    No, actually Ray, you are wrong. You dredged up a thread from over a year ago. Look at the date on teh post directly above yours. It is August 04, 2003. That is over a year ago (which is what I said).
     
  20. Ray Berrian

    Ray Berrian
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Messages:
    5,178
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ray,

    Check your PMs.

    Larry

    [ August 18, 2004, 04:40 PM: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]
     

Share This Page

Loading...