His post at Reason to Stand is here.
Excerpt:
When dealing with the doctrine of “original sin” it is important to understand what this doctrine does and does not mean. Simply put, it does mean that because of the sin of Adam and Eve (though, Biblically, the full weight of responsibility for this sin falls on Adam’s shoulders) sinful proclivities have entered into the hearts of men.
[…]What the doctrine of original sin does not mean is that we are all borne owing the debt of sins Adam incurred.
[…]“Original sin”, if understood in the sense that we are guilty of sin from birth logically leads to the untenable conclusion that all children go to hell (unless one holds to the unbiblical stretch known as covenantal theology) for sins they did not freely choose to commit.
Romans 3:23, which tells us that “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God“, is not a prescriptive phrase, that we will by necessity sin, but rather a descriptive phrase about what we all freely choose to do. Given long enough, after reaching the age of accountability, we will come to know the difference between good and evil and we will freely choose to sin of our own accord.
The fact is that we are actually borne innocent and freely choose to sin thereby breaking ourselves and disqualifying ourselves from participating in a relationship with a holy God.
Do any of my readers have a different understanding of original sin than this one?
WINTERY KNIGHT 
Hi Wintery, I agree with this. I further think that the original man made in the image and likeness of God described in Genesis 1 is our true selfhood. But it’s our job to actively reflect it. If we sin, we experience the consequences. The sin is punished as long as the sin lasts.
LikeLike
Hey McSpinster, as a Christian Scientist you aren’t supposed to believe sin is real – it doesn’t exist!
LikeLike
Still a misnomer. Satan had already sinned against God prior to Adam’s “original” sin. Remember, sin is the transgression of God’s law. It isn’t solely the domain of human-beings as angels also have free will.
LikeLike
Angels HAD free will, but when the choice was made and Satan and his demons became fallen angels, their destiny was fixed.
LikeLike
Additionally the sin of angels wasn’t imputed in any form to human descendants of Adam…
LikeLike
Oh, P.S. I agree with your post. I just think the term “original sin” should be retired.
LikeLike
“Do any of my readers have a different understanding of original sin than this one?”
Yes, I have a different understanding.
LikeLike
Stan, you’re so polite. So I’m going to ask you to just outline your view for us in a couple of paragraphs.
LikeLike
David wrote, “I was brought forth in iniquity, And in sin my mother conceived me” (Psa 51:5). I take that to mean that he was a sinner (“in iniquity”) from birth (or, most accurately, from conception).
On the other hand, if babies are actually born sinless, completely innocent, without any sin at all, then 1) God was unjust when He ordered the deaths of children in the Old Testament and 2) Christians should be the biggest proponents of abortion since every child aborted gets a free ticket to heaven without any question or decision to face. (Of course, that also means that it is NOT QUITE true that Jesus is the only way to the Father. Just die before … what … the age of accountability, right?) ;)
LikeLike
“Christians should be the biggest proponents of abortion”.
2) No, because Christians don’t approve of murder, and that would be murder.
Re: 1) God has a right to take human lives, even of children. But humans did not create that life, and so they have no right to do it on their own will. Remember this was ordered when Israel was still a theocracy. I realize this is a difficult challenge, and I am not sure of the answer.
LikeLike
Of course, that was a brief outline. I’ll post something on it in my blog next week when I get the chance … right after my explanation as to why I don’t go with Middle Knowledge. ;)
LikeLike
“1) God was unjust when He ordered the deaths of children in the Old Testament”
I must admit I’ve wrestled with this one quite a bit and while the complete answer does elude me I can say this; Just because a person suffers the consequences of another person’s sin, it does not follow that that person was charged with the sin.
A good example of this would be the 70,000 people who died as a result of David’s sin in taking a census of the people of Israel. Only one person even had the ability to commit the sin that the punishment was issued for, but 70,000 people still suffered the consequences.
LikeLike
There has been much discussion in commentaries I have read as to what exactly Ps. 51:5 means. Were either of his parents committing sin when he was conceived? Was he considered a sinner the moment he was conceived? OR was it because his mother was a sinner as all are and he was brought forth in a sinful world? I think it’s a combination of the last two – we are all sinners whether or not we’ve sinned yet as a child because we have a sin nature, and we are born to sinful parents in a sinful world. But that doesn’t mean a child sins.
I think children are seen as innocent of sin in God’s mercy. If they haven’t the ability to determine right from wrong a just God will not condemn them (contrary to what some denominational teachings claim). Deut. 1:39 and Isa. 7:16 discuss the period of life when the child doesn’t know right from wrong, 2 Sam. 12:23 says David will see his son in heaven, 2 Cor. 5:10 and Rev. 20:12-13 say we are judged by what we do and Matt. 19:13-14 and parallels say heaven belongs to children.
God was not unjust when he wiped out the pagan societies, including children. The Canaanites practiced child sacrifice among the many evils perpetrated. God wanted the entire races destroyed, which means the children had to be destroyed also to prevent those tribes from being brought back to life in the future to pull Israel away from the worship of God. And in God’s mercy, the children would be with him.
LikeLike
My understanding is that when Adam & Eve ate of the fruit, this caused all their progeny to inherit a sin nature – meaning we will eventually sin when we are about to make conscious decisions. I believe a child is not a sinner until he is old enough to be able to determine right from wrong and this age differs with each child. Those who are mentally retarded, for example (I had a step-brother who was severely retarded and when I last knew about him 35 years ago he was in his teens with the mentality of a 2-year old), are as innocent as children. I think a good case can be made that children are indeed saved.
LikeLike
Hi Glenn. I’d be happy to discuss the distinction between reality and unreality from a Christian Science perspective with you via e-mail, but I don’t want to use Wintery’s site for that purpose. It just feels too much like dog pile on the wabbit. Can we take this offline, please?
LikeLike
McSPinster, I’m sorry – that was just a bit of humor!
LikeLike
Newsflash: Reports of my being dead in my sins have been greatly exaggerated!
LikeLike
I suppose more clarification is needed because it reads similar to a pelagian or semi-pelagian doctrine. In The Popular Encyclopedia of Apologetics: Surveying the Evidence for the Truth of Christianity by Ed Hindson and Ergun Caner on page 392 describes pelagianism has having the following points (summarized).
-Adams sin was only imputed to Adam alone and all humans are born in the same innocent state as Adam.
-Man is naturally good; not sinners by nature, but only by choice; man has a self capacity to obey God.
-Man is not dead in sin; grace is helpful but not essential.
-(As a side note) Denial of the imputation of Christ’s righteousness therefore denying substitutionary atonement.
LikeLike
Hey Mark, that’s not Wes’ view since he explicitly says that humans are prone to sin. Given time to choose past the age of accountability, they will sin. So he would deny all 4 of those points, I would expect.
LikeLike
I’m not sure that pelagianism nor semi-pelagianism does not allow one to be prone to sin. Either way, what I referenced said that people are born innocent which is what is stated in the post. As well as being a sinner by choice which seems like that is what you also stated. Also, there is no mention of God’s grace which seems warranted in a conversation about original sin.
These positions could possibly fall within my first three points. The fourth was added as an aside since it was in the text referenced. This is also why I mentioned semi-pelagian.
LikeLike
Well, I think you are misunderstanding the point. Suppose that flying was strictly forbidden somehow, and that birds are moral agents. All birds start out incapable of flying, but they are prone to fly because of what their parents, and their parents, and their parents have always done. They inherit a flying nature, and they have zero capacity to refrain from flying. They don’t fly as babies, because they haven’t developed the wing strength. But beyond a certain point they will have developed it and then they all will fly. So they are innocent before they start flying, but they inherit a propensity to fly from their parents, going right back to the first birds. That’s my view, anyway.
By the way, you may be interested in this discussion of Calvinism. It also contains debates on Calvinist theology featuring James White.
LikeLike
lol…I’m taking the words stated in your post, using a meaning of those words and comparing them to the source I referenced. I don’t think we’re at a point where an analogy is needed.
Rather, one could just take the words in your post with the ones that I referenced and explain how they are different, if they are.
I’m sorry if this sounds condescending. I don’t mean it to be. I’m trying to explain myself better.
Would you prefer if I laid out the parallels that I see so far?
LikeLike
BTW, since for some reason you directed me to a Calvinism discussion, you may be interested that Roger Olson in his book Arminian Theology would not agree with this post either. ;)
LikeLike
No, I don’t agree with him. We enter the world fallen creatures as a result of Adam’s fall, and our fall in him. We are born with [not “borne”] a corrupt, fallen, marred, “bent” nature. We are not sinners merely because we sin. We sin because we are sinners. And yet, we consent with this bentness, give our assent to it — this is where our personal guilt is joined with our forensic guilt.
Anyone who thinks they are not a sinner by nature have either not tried to obey the ten commandments or the heart-motive teachings of Jesus, or have not sufficiently contemplated the depths of the self-giving obedience of Christ towards his Father, or are self-delusional — which is in and of itself a seriously sinful state to be in.
We have a measure of free-will, but it is a free-will proscribed by our bent nature, our compulsions, inclinations, lusts, misguided desires, etc.
Infants can be saved because of the atoning work of Christ in which he paid for the sins of the whole world — so God can, justly, forgive whom he chooses.
LikeLike
hi Richard:
I don’t think I am a sinner by nature and I try very hard to obey the 10 Commandments. I am not delusional. I pray everyday to see what God has in store for me and work daily to eliminate from my thought and life any sin. I work at this in a conscientious way every day. I do it because I love Christ and want to emulate him. I am not perfect but the imperfection is a small part of my identity. The larger part is sin-free. You may find this hard to believe, but there are some things you can’t judge unless you are living them yourself.
My question, since I am not an evangelical Protestant but I am a serious Christian church goer is this: if we are born into sin, if it is our nature, then why do we need Christ? If we’re born sinning, then what is our incentive to change? I guess my other question is how you can be so sure that we are born sinners? I mean, the Bible does say that we are made in the image and likeness of God. So how do you square that with your view?
And if you could answer that please without attacking my personal values of character, I would appreciate it.
Thank you.
LikeLike
Here are some verses about everybody sinning, nobody being able to do good, and everybody needing a savior and Jesus death being an atonement for our sins. We could not be saved by our own efforts at being good, we needed someone to pay the price for their sins so that they could even begin to have a relationship with God.
Romans 5:1-12
Romans 3:9-12
Romans 3:21-28:
Ephesians 2:4-10:
Everybody sins, and everybody needs the Savior, Jesus. The idea of grace is that God takes the initiative to rescue sinful humans by having his divine Son Jesus become a man and die to pay the penalty for sin. That’s what Christians call being saved by grace.
The occasional good works that people do don’t really count against their sins any more than occasional driving under the speed limit counts against speeding tickets. If you’re speeding and you get caught, then the rest of your driving under the limit doesn’t help. The law is the law. Somebody has to pay. It’s either going to be you or Jesus.
LikeLike
“I don’t think I am a sinner by nature and I try very hard to obey the 10 Commandments.”
1st. Trying hard doesn’t count. Re-read James.
2nd. If you are “in Christ”, then you are no longer a sinner. You are re-constituted a righteous person. Only once in the New Testament are Christians referred to as “sinners”; everywhere else, we are referred to as “saints” — did you know this?!
“if we are born into sin, if it is our nature, then why do we need Christ?”
Because we need Christ to pay the penalty for our sins (justification), and give us a new nature (regeneration/sanctification), and to perfect us in heaven (glorification), all of which he does.
“if any one is in Christ, he is a new creature.”
“If we’re born sinning, then what is our incentive to change?”
On the negative side, judgment, damnation, hell, punishment, torment, perishing, destruction, the wages of sin is death.
On the plus side, because God has placed in us, by prevenient grace, a desire for righteousness, to be better than who we are apart from Christ and God’s grace.
The whole point of Christ’s teaching is to set the standard for acceptable righteousness so high, that we all realize that we can never, by our own efforts, stuck as we are with our unregenerate nature, be good enough to merit heaven or be worthy of God. So, we can have the incentive to change, and we can even, by God’s grace, have the desire to change, but the power to change only comes from regeneration which results from personal faith in Christ.
Or, do you think your personal righteousness apart from Christ exceeds that of the Pharisees?
“I guess my other question is how you can be so sure that we are born sinners? I mean, the Bible does say that we are made in the image and likeness of God. So how do you square that with your view?”
Paul says, “in me, that is in my flesh, there is no good thing”. Chew on that one! Jesus says, that which is flesh is flesh, that which is spirit is spirit — you must be born again/from above (by the Holy Spirit — see other verses on regeneration). Elsewhere, Paul writes, “the flesh (and fleshly effort) counts for nothing”.
The image and likeness of God refers to things like rationality, free-will, creativity, moral sense, etc. We are indeed in the image of God, but, unlike God, we are bent, we predisposed to sin — and we do! Calvin taught of total depravity — this does not mean that we are as bad and vile as possible; it simply means that there is no part of the human being that is untainted, unaffected by sin.
Grace be with you, bud.
LikeLike
Hey, listen. You asked if anyone believed differently, and I believe differently. No, not evangelical, which would explain why I don’t follow the “original sin” argument.
Thanks for your reply.
LikeLike
I’m sorry that I was mean. You are more than welcome to give your view. I was just trying to explain WHY Christians believe in things that they do.
LikeLike
I think Calvinism messes everything up because it has everyone predestined either for heaven or hell, and God is the author of sin. The best book I have found for the discussion is Dave Hunt’s “What Love is This?”
LikeLike
Oh Glenn, say it isn’t so! Dave Hunt is the same guy who quotes Acts 13:48 out of the Jehovah’s Witness translation (New World Translation) to make his case against what every other translation says!
He completely misinterprets Spurgeon as not being a Calvinist when Spurgeon definitely was.
There’s a lot more; I’ve got my copy at home full of multiple notes on each page of his errors and misunderstandings. Hunt’s understanding of Calvinism is so far off and I sincerely hope you don’t think that is a the “best book” on Calvinism. It’s certainly the worst book without question.
LikeLike
I would highly recommend looking for a better book. Dave Hunt’s book is a bonfire of strawman arguments wholly misrepresenting anything “Calvinist”.
But … since the Bible says that “God works all things after the counsel of His will” and the Bible says that those who would be saved were written in the Lamb’s Book of Life before the foundation of the world, and since God knows all things and knows it perfectly including who will or won’t be saved, on what basis would you argue that everyone is NOT predestined either for heaven or hell? (I ask because I SUSPECT there is a disconnect between what Reformed theology teaches and what you think it teaches.)
LikeLike
Oh, by the way, Stan you just did the classic Calvinist (not a strawman)claim that foreknowledge is the same as foreordination. Sorry, but those are two different horses. God is outside of time and knows everything that will happen but it is a non sequitur to say he therefore pre-ordained it to happen. You just proved the Calvinist belief that we are nothing more than pre-programmed robots and that God even causes sin.
LikeLike
I’m confused. I SUSPECT you are using “foreordination” in a different sense than I would. Are you saying that “foreknowledge” simply means He knows it but can’t in any way, affect it? It would seem that if you DON’T mean that then you’ve a problem. On one hand, it could be that God could know all things in advance and simply refuse to act, which brings into question either His omnipotence or His goodness, or, on the other hand, He ORDAINS (as in “decrees”, not necessarily “directly causes”) what He foresees.
Let’s see … that’s three possibilities. 1) He cannot change what He foreknows. 1) He CAN change it but won’t. 3) He only foreknows what He intends to happen. Which is it.
LikeLike
There is a range of possible creatures, and each creature can make free decisions to act a certain way in certain circumstances. God DECREES a universe in which a specific group of individuals who COULD respond freely to him if put in certain circumstances WILL respond freely to him – because he DECREES those circumstances. Once God decrees the circumstances by creating the universe, that group of people are going to be saved. And he knows each one of them. The rest of the people who are created are not saved, because there was no set of circumstances in which they would freely respond.
LikeLike
There is only one meaning for “fore-ordination,” and that is “ordained everything that will happen before it happened,” i.e., “Caused”. Foreknowledge – knowing what will happen – is not the same as causing it to happen. Calvinists I have read say that God can’t know something will happen unless he caused it to happen – fore-ordained, decreed. Therefore God must cause, decree, force who will choose him, with no freedom of choice by the man. God can allow free choice because he knows before the choice what it will be. But this is really getting too involved for this string and I’d prefer not to continue – as I noted before; I find it fruitless. Just don’t misrepresent what I say.
LikeLike
Oh, good, I feel better now. As I suspected, you and I are using different definitions of “ordain”. (Of course, you are using a different definition than most of the Calvinists I know are as well.) I SUSPECT that when they use the term to mean what I mean — declare without necessarily causing — and you interpret it by what you mean, that MIGHT be part of the misunderstanding. That helps.
LikeLike
Amen Glenn!
LikeLike
Calvinists always say Hunt uses strawmen, but I have found it to be quite an accurate reflection of Calvinism – I deal with Calvinists on a routine basis. I really want to know, based on the idea of Calvinist-predestination (vs biblical) how a Calvinist can even KNOW he is one of the “elect”!
I have a couple more books which also dismantle Calvinism, but I won’t be home for a few days so I can’t give you the titles.
Talk about misrepresentation – saying Hunt uses the JW Bible is inane.
LikeLike
Glenn,
I really want to know, based on the idea of Calvinist-predestination (vs biblical) how a Calvinist can even KNOW he is one of the “elect”!
“If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness” (1 John 1:8-9).
I believe these words, Glenn. Unfortunately, you’re just setting up a straw man. If you deal with Calvinists on a routine basis, why don’t you just ask them? It’s like asking a believer how they know they are a child of God. Am I living a life of repentance? Am I taking up my cross daily? Have I confessed my sins and called upon the name of the Lord? Do I desire to glorify God with my words, thoughts, and actions? The answer is yes. Christ has saved me from my sins and I know this, much like you probably know this too. And for that, I am thankful that God is merciful to Calvinists and Arminians!
Talk about misrepresentation – saying Hunt uses the JW Bible is inane.
Glenn, I wouldn’t say it if it wasn’t true. No reason to imply that I have no sense either. Here is how every other translation handles this passage:
KJV: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.
NASB: and as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed
NIV: and all who were appointed for eternal life believed.
ASV: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.
ESV: and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed.
ISV: Meanwhile, all who had been destined to eternal life believed.
NET: and all who had been appointed for eternal life believed.
NAB: All who were destined for eternal life came to believe.
NKJV: And as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed.
NLT: and all who were appointed to eternal life became believers.
NRSV: and as many as had been destined for eternal life became believers.
GNB: and those who had been chosen for eternal life became believers
Jerus.: all who were destined for eternal life became believers.
How does Hunt translate it? He says the word “disposed” is a better translation of the Greek in place of “ordained” or “appointed”. Even though he has also gone on record saying, “I do not read Greek”, he thinks that he has the better translation out of every other major English translation. And amazingly, his translation matches with the New World Translation of the Jehovah’s Witnesses. I kid you not. What would you conclude from his exegesis? Does he or does he not agree with the NWT?
Also, I noticed you didn’t address Spurgeon. Is Hunt right in saying that Spurgeon wasn’t a Calvinist or was he wrong? Could it be that when Hunt reads Spurgeon, he doesn’t realize that this is actually what Calvinists believe?
As Spurgeon says, “It is no novelty, then, that I am preaching; no new doctrine. I love to proclaim those strong old doctrines that are nicknamed Calvinism, but which are surely and verily the revealed truth of God as it is in Christ Jesus.”
Has Hunt ever gone on record saying that he was mistaken about Spurgeon? Isn’t this dishonest?
LikeLike
I can’t believe I forgot to cite that 1 John 1 verse when we were talking about whether it’s possible for people not to sin!!! The last sermon I heard in church was on THAT PASSAGE!!! And I forgot it! (This was just last Sunday)
Anyway, I’m thankful that you guys are all debating fair and not being mean to one another. I know it’s a touchy subject so I’m glad if everyone can be gentle. As Henry V says, “when levity and cruelty play for a kingdom, the gentle gamester is the soonest winner”.
LikeLike
I did address Spurgeon but you missed it before you wrote this. Hunt did not misrepresent Spurgeon.
You cannot know, in Calvinist theology, that you are saved because you don’t know if you are one of the elect. You might believe you are but if God didn’t choose you, all your belief and works is to no avail.
I’m not going to debate the hermeneutics of that passage except to say that in none of those versions does it say that God pre-ordained who was to be the elect without their choice. It is from the view of foreknowledge of God, which is not fore-ordination.
LikeLike
The doctrines of election and predestination preserve the high honor of God. Without it, God is at our mercy, waiting and hoping that somebody down here will take him up on his offer of salvation. This is unthinkable to the apostolic mind! God is not dependent upon our response — we are dependent upon his initiative! And so, those whom the Lord calls are saved.
Where does your faith really rest — in God’s initiatives on your behalf, or in your response to him?
Or, to put it another way, are you saved because you accepted Jesus, or because Christ died for your sins? Are you born again because you accepted Jesus, or because Christ rose from the dead?
Let’s not forget: predestination and election are biblical doctrines. They are not terms and concepts invented by a guy named Calvin.
At the same time, there’s a mystery involved in all of this. Let’s not try to be overly precise in our formulations. Usually taking something that is biblically true to its logical conclusion gets us into error.
LikeLike
I forgot one thing – Hunt NEVER says Spurgeon wasn’t a Calvinist, in fact he emphasizes that he was! He just points out when Spurgeon had problems with the theology.
The biblical version of predestination and election have nothing in common with the Calvinists view, a view which does NOTHING to honor God. God made the CONDITION of salvation the fact that we must accept it – that is biblical. We are saved because Christ died for our sins, but the individual must appropriate that salvation by taking it. The old canard that this therefore makes us save ourselves is like taking the life preserver thrown to us and then claiming we saved ourself from drowning. Or if one hands a birthday gift to me and I take it, then claim I gave the gift to myself?
Calvinism is illogical – God created people for the sole purpose of sending them to hell, gave them no ability to choose God and then blamed them for not choosing HIM! Totally nonsensical.
But since this wasn’t the topic of the post, let’s get back to the question of sin.
LikeLike
Actually, the first topic of sin is the problem at hand, isn’t it? Does Original Sin mean that all are sinners or does it simply mean that all have a leaning toward sin? Pelagius argued that it is only the leaning and it is possible not to sin. Paul said that ALL have sinned (Rom 3:23), that there is NONE good (Rom 3:12), that Natural Man CANNOT understand the things of God (1 Cor 2:14). God said that Man was inclined only to evil from childhood (Gen 8:21). David said, “The wicked are estranged from the womb; they go astray from birth, speaking lies” (Psa 58:3). Paul said humans are DEAD in their sins and trespasses (Eph 2:1-3). Those who oppose so-called Calvinism argue “Well, only MOSTLY dead” I suppose?
Note to self: While I think “totally nonsensical” has crossed the line from friendly to insulting, don’t go there yourself.
Note to Glenn: That sentence where you say, “God created people for the sole purpose of sending them to hell …” is NOT what Calvinism believes. Neither is the accusation that Calvinism rejects faith as a condition of salvation … just FYI.
LikeLike
Dead in sins is an analogy – it is not the same as physical death. The physically dead can do nothing at all, while spiritually dead still make day to day choices.
Calvinism does indeed teach that God chose specific people for salvation without their consent and he chose to regenerate them so that they could place faith in Christ by God’s force of irresistable grace. If God did not choose someone for salvation, then they were chosen for damnation. When you choose one, you also choose the other.
Calvinism says faith is a work and that it may be a condition, but that the condition of faith is forced on the person when God predestined them and regenerated them, whereas the Bible says we have the free will choice whether or not to exercise that faith. That free-will choice is the condition that Calvinism denies.
LikeLike
Glenn,
Honestly, you are not being fair. You are not addressing my comments in any meaningful way and you seem more interested in arbitrarily saying things like “Calvinism is illogical”. Glenn, I can do that too about your position but I realize that saying it is different than proving it.
Clearly, you don’t understand Calvinism. I know you think you do, but you don’t. Read some more Spurgeon or get yourself a copy of Wayne Grudem’s Systematic Theology.
Spurgeon wasn’t confused about what he believed. Hunt just thinks Spurgeon is because Hunt doesn’t understand Calvinism or Spurgeon. There has been several scholars who have corrected Hunt on this but Hunt has refused to listen.
I’d be happy to chat about this perhaps on another forum or over email. I honestly respect your position, Glenn and I would enjoy speaking about these things further. You clearly don’t respect my position. But you don’t seem interested in going further so I can let it drop.
LikeLike
I think we should call it quits on this thread. I was actually just curious to see all the different sins. My best friend Andrew e-mailed me to tell me that babies DO sin, but that God doesn’t hold them accountable until they reach the age of accountability. I could go with that view, too.
LikeLike
I do indeed understand Calvinism and have read Calvinists for years. One of my favorite authors is John MacArthur and I even have his study Bible and one-volume commentary. I am also familiar with Grudem’s sysematic theology (although I personally own and prefer Norm Geisler’s)
I truly find chatting about Calvinism to be an exercise in futility because I will never change my position and I’ve never met a Calvinist who has changed theirs!
LikeLike
Glenn,
We’re not getting anywhere. It is rather difficult to speak with someone who a) doesn’t listen and b) refuses to interact with what Calvinism actually is and c) says that he would never change his mind.
You said earlier in response to Stan, “Just don’t misrepresent what I say.” Remember that it goes both ways.
Anyhow, I would challenge you to simply read Dr. David Doran’s review of “What Love Is This?” Dr. Doran is the president of Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary and is a fundamental baptist (pretty sure you are too). His review is in no way attempting to defend Calvinism but is simply pointing out the immense amounts of factual, historical, and exegetical errors that Hunt makes. You should check it out:
Click to access hunt_review.pdf
LikeLike
First, I started to wade through the 30-page review of Hunt’s book and decided it really isn’t germane to the central argument Hunt makes – that Calvinism is unbiblical. Other books I would suggest which demonstrate this, if you don’t like Hunt (and the alleged misuse of quotations, etc), would be Norman Geisler’s “Chosen But Free,” Robert Picirilli’s “Grace, Faith, Free Will,” and Walls’ & Dingell’s “Why I Am Not a Calvinist.”
Tom didn’t like that I said I would not change my mind concerning Calvinism; would it also bother you that I won’t change my mind concerning Mormonism? If one knows a teaching is false, why change one’s mind about it.
I am accused of misusing the word “ordain.” To ordain something is to “establish as a law; order; fix; decide; appoint.” So when a Calvinist says God fore-ordained the elect to salvation, by extension this leaves the non-elect fore-ordained to hell. Ergo, logically God created them for hell. As Hunt says, God could have chosen to save all (and Scripture says he desires all to be saved) but He decided to not save all and give them no chance one way or another.
I am accused of misrepresenting Calvinism: would you accept Duane Spencer’s book “TULIP” as properly representing it? T means total depravity, and Calvinism does say that this means man is unable (vs. unwilling) to come to God of his own free choice. So then God is sending man to hell for not choosing to follow Him when He knows man is unable to do so. Hmmmm. Not in the Bible. Man is certainly able to come to God on his own. U for Unconditional election – which means God chooses people without their say so, which means there is no condition for election; God regenerates who he chooses and once they are regenerated they come to faith in Christ. Hmmmm. So God forces them to have faith in him? The Bible says the condition is faith in Christ and that all have that ability, but not all are willing to exercise it. Limited atonement – sorry, not in Scripture. The atonement is good for all, but it is only effective for those who take it. A gift handed to a person is not good if they don’t take it. Irresistible grace – God forces people to love him – robot time. All through Scripture we find people resisting God’s grace! Perseverance- sort of a tautology – those who are saved will persevere. I have no problem with P, it is TULI which I find problematic and unbiblical. I do indeed understand Calvinism, and I think Spencer spells it out quite succinctly.
LikeLike
Without engaging in an argument, and only for your benefit, I need to point out a couple of things, Glenn.
First, please note that neither “decide” nor “appoint” says “cause”. If my child is holding a ball and I know she’s going to let it go, I know it will fall. If I do nothing to stop it, I “ordain” it without causing it. It WILL happen, but I didn’t MAKE it happen. That is part of “ordain”.
Second, I don’t know about Duane Spencer’s book, but I do know that the explanation you offered misrepresents or, most likely misunderstands “TULIP”. I get it. To be honest, it’s a rotten acronym. It doesn’t explain itself well at all. So, for instance, “Unconditional Election” does NOT mean “God chooses people without their say so.” It means that there is nothing with the elect that causes God to choose them. He doesn’t choose them based on their works or their choices or … well, you know, like Romans 9 explains. The seriously most misunderstood one is that stupid “L” thing — “limited atonement”. What nonsense! I heard one pastor say, “It’s wrong! We know the atonement is efficient for all, but it is only effective for some.” I heard another pastor say, “It’s right! We know the atonement is efficient for all, but it is only effective for some.” Yes, the very same words. The “L” thing isn’t about the efficiency of the Atonement. The question is what did Christ intend when He died? Did He intend to save everyone … and fail? Or did He intend to save some … and succeed?
Anyway, like I said, not intending to argue. It’s just that I’ve seen so many misunderstandings about it all that I wish people would examine it without the mistakes before shooting it all down.
Oh, and by the way, I’m not a Calvinist. I’m a biblicist. My beliefs came from Scripture LONG before I ever heard anything from someone named Calvin. I was just pleased that Calvin agreed so often with what I saw in Scripture. You say “Not in the Bible” and my beliefs come from nowhere but.
LikeLike
You analogy with the ball is extremely flawed. All you are doing is recognizing physics – you didn’t ordain anything. God created physics – he ordained them! TULIP is actually a perfect acronym – it’s just how it’s explained that gets people upset. Your explanation still has God deciding from eternity past who will or who will not be saved, without their doing anything, yet the Scripture says all have the free will to choose and God saves those who choose to exercise their faith. Jesus did indeed die for the entire world – it says so over and over. He paid the penalty for all, so that anyone who appropriates that penalty for himself is save and those who choose to deny him have no payment for their sin and are therefore damned. Free will does not in any way affect God’s sovereignty. God can do anything he wants in relation to what people choose to do – either allowing it or blocking them. But when it comes to choosing to accept Christ’s payment, God forces no one, nor does he regenerate a select few so they can exercise their faith – regeneration comes AFTER placing faith in Christ not before. Romans 9, by the way, in context is about God choosing people and nations for service – not salvation. Another problem with the Calvinist viewpoint.
After I came to the Lord I read nothing but the Bible. It was 14 years before I bought a commentary and then other books and then learned about Calvinism, Arminianism and all the other isms. It’s amazing that just reading the Bible (I didn’t attend a church for that 14 years either because I worked Sundays) led me to see totally opposite of the Calvinist viewpoint, and much closer to the Arminian viewpoint, but neither do I follow. I am Christian with the Bible as my doctrinal standard. And there are no TULIPs there.
LikeLike
Sorry. Trying to be helpful.
LikeLike