A question the Reformed cannot answer

  • Thread starter Thread starter bogeydogg
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

bogeydogg

Guest
I used to be Reformed in my thinking. I would not say I was a Calvinist much less a five pointer, but I could see the reasoning in the Calvinists’ arguments and it seemed to explain the Scripture about as well as anything else did. For my personal view of election etc I always leaned a little more toward Augustine than I did toward Calvin, but I found certain value his teaching.

Until I asked this question and got kicked out of my Baptist Church for refusing to stop asking it.

One of the hallmarks of Reformed theology is that man, in Adam, is born dead in sin. This deadness is interpreted as spiritual inability to anything pleasing toward God at all. This teaching comes from Calvin’s teaching that the Fall was so radical in nature that it destroyed the Imago Dei in our original parents. This destruction meant that unregenerate man could not know anything of God at all and therefore original sin was not something we do, but something we inherit.

This seemed off but I could not think why until I read this…

Romans 1:18-21 *18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. *

Now it seemed quite clear to me that the Apostle Paul was saying that all men, and not the elect only but all men, knew God, further could but refused to worship Him or be thankful. Furthermore they suppressed this knowledge because they are unrighteous and therefore all men are without excuse before God.

The implication of this is that original sin is not that we know nothing of God and therefore only the elect ever can know God, but that all men know God by Creation. Furthermore this knowledge can only be considered grace, after all to receive anything positive from God is grace, (and surely knowledge of God is a positive) and therefore the Calvinist argument that only the elect receive grace fell on its head right away.

Then I read Augustine and he said that the Fall is not that we inherit our parents’ sin (which the Bible says the children are blameless of their parent’s sin so Calvin explain that one please) but that we inherit their tendency toward self-worship. Thus, though we know God, we would rather worship ourselves than God, and therefore original sin is not a sin we are born with, but rather when we act upon the sinful nature we inherit from our parents and in spite of God’s gracious revelation of Himself we choose self idolatry rather the Creator of all things who is blessed forever amen.

If that is true then all men receive grace, the Fall does not prevent us from knowing God, such knowledge is not exclusive to the elect, and therefore all men stand guilty before God because of what they do, not what they were born with.

When I pointed this out I was told to hush. When I refused I was asked to leave.

So my question is, how does a Reformed person deal with this clear statement in Romans without losing the presupposition of inherited spiritual death upon which all of Calvin’s other doctrines (which are meant to explain grace in light of the radical nature of the Fall and sin) are built?

If this question cannot be answered, then doesn’t the rest of Calvinism fall like the house of cards it is?

God Bless
 
For that matter, how do the ‘total depravity’ guys explain the obvious examples of goodness in non-christians? How do they explain a Ghandi? If man is totally depraved, then why are there non-christians that lay down their lives for their friends?

These are not problems for catholics, who subscribe to the “good, but fallen” explanation of the effects of original sin.
 
manualman said:
For that matter, how do the ‘total depravity’ guys explain the obvious examples of goodness in non-christians? How do they explain a Ghandi? If man is totally depraved, then why are there non-christians that lay down their lives for their friends?

These are not problems for catholics, who subscribe to the “good, but fallen” explanation of the effects of original sin.
Click to expand...
They reply “civic righteousness is not Godly neither is it pleasing to God.” That is why it is important to see this is directly from the Bible.

God Bless
 
I think that original sin is more a state of being that we inherit from the fall of Adam. We don’t inherit Adams personal sins. Rather, Adam was in a state of grace. And he left this state of grace after the fall. So we inherit his fallen state.

In Catholic theology we are in a wounded state, not completely deprived like in Lutheranism.

Through Faith and baptism we enter into the state of grace that was lost by Adam. However, we still have tendencies to sin which means we need to be cleaned up and made holy in this life in preparation for the next.

When we are in a fallen state God gives us Actual grace to move us to repentence. He gives everyone grace to move to conversion, but not everyone chooses to do so. Through faith and baptism we receive sanctifying grace that changes us to be more like Christ.
 
I am in the middle of an online public debate with a Calvinist on the topic of “limited atonement” that ties in much of what is in this thread. If anyone is interested, it is located here. I post there by the name “MrPolo”. :o
 
Protestantism is based on the Bible – primarily the New Testament. What one believes depends on one’s private interpretation or the interpretation of the founder of one’s denomination.

Catholic doctrine came through Christ to the lips of the Apostles, leaders and instructors of the Church… The NT is comprized of 27 of the Church’s own writings. When one knows what the Church teaches, one understands the NT. Catholics don’t have to figure it out for themselves, If they have questions, they can ask the Church. Deo gratias!
 
Have you gone to a Reformed forum and asked the same question to see if they had an answer?
 
bogeydogg said:
I used to be Reformed in my thinking. I would not say I was a Calvinist much less a five pointer, but I could see the reasoning in the Calvinists’ arguments and it seemed to explain the Scripture about as well as anything else did. For my personal view of election etc I always leaned a little more toward Augustine than I did toward Calvin, but I found certain value his teaching.

Until I asked this question and got kicked out of my Baptist Church for refusing to stop asking it.

One of the hallmarks of Reformed theology is that man, in Adam, is born dead in sin. This deadness is interpreted as spiritual inability to anything pleasing toward God at all. This teaching comes from Calvin’s teaching that the Fall was so radical in nature that it destroyed the Imago Dei in our original parents. This destruction meant that unregenerate man could not know anything of God at all and therefore original sin was not something we do, but something we inherit.

This seemed off but I could not think why until I read this…

Romans 1:18-21 *18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. *

Now it seemed quite clear to me that the Apostle Paul was saying that all men, and not the elect only but all men, knew God, further could but refused to worship Him or be thankful. Furthermore they suppressed this knowledge because they are unrighteous and therefore all men are without excuse before God.

The implication of this is that original sin is not that we know nothing of God and therefore only the elect ever can know God, but that all men know God by Creation. Furthermore this knowledge can only be considered grace, after all to receive anything positive from God is grace, (and surely knowledge of God is a positive) and therefore the Calvinist argument that only the elect receive grace fell on its head right away.

Then I read Augustine and he said that the Fall is not that we inherit our parents’ sin (which the Bible says the children are blameless of their parent’s sin so Calvin explain that one please) but that we inherit their tendency toward self-worship. Thus, though we know God, we would rather worship ourselves than God, and therefore original sin is not a sin we are born with, but rather when we act upon the sinful nature we inherit from our parents and in spite of God’s gracious revelation of Himself we choose self idolatry rather the Creator of all things who is blessed forever amen.

If that is true then all men receive grace, the Fall does not prevent us from knowing God, such knowledge is not exclusive to the elect, and therefore all men stand guilty before God because of what they do, not what they were born with.

When I pointed this out I was told to hush. When I refused I was asked to leave.

So my question is, how does a Reformed person deal with this clear statement in Romans without losing the presupposition of inherited spiritual death upon which all of Calvin’s other doctrines (which are meant to explain grace in light of the radical nature of the Fall and sin) are built?

If this question cannot be answered, then doesn’t the rest of Calvinism fall like the house of cards it is?

God Bless
Click to expand...
Actually, I think Augustine (as a Platonist) sees original sin as the cause of physical decay and death, rather than spiritual death. For example, see City of God 14:12 “The effect of that sin was to subject human nature to all the process of decay which we see and feel, and consequently to death also.” The affects of original sin (concupiscence) is in the body, not the soul, although the body can drag the soul into sin.
 
Dave_Noonan said:
The affects of original sin (concupiscence) is in the body, not the soul, although the body can drag the soul into sin.
Click to expand...
I think City of God 14:3 suggest otherwise, no? For instance:*But if any one says that the flesh is the cause of all vices and ill conduct, inasmuch as the soul lives wickedly only because it is moved by the flesh, it is certain he has not carefully considered the whole nature of man. … At present, then, the corruptible body presses down the soul, and the earthly tabernacle weighs down the mind that muses upon many things, nevertheless they are in error who suppose that all the evils of the soul proceed from the body.*I think the incorporeal fallen angels are an example of those without a body sinning too.
 
bogeydogg said:
So my question is, how does a Reformed person deal with this clear statement in Romans without losing the presupposition of inherited spiritual death upon which all of Calvin’s other doctrines (which are meant to explain grace in light of the radical nature of the Fall and sin) are built?
Click to expand...
Calvin deals with this in Institutes, Book 1, chaps. 2-6. See especially 1.5.14-15, and 1.6.1, with its famous metaphor of the near-sighted old gentleman who needs spectacles! (Also, of course, in his Romans commentary.) Calvin argues that natural knowledge of God is not enough to bring us to God, but enough to render us inexcusable. I have always found this pretty hard to swallow as well. I agree that it’s a weak point in Calvinism.

The standard response, as you can see from the references I gave, is that the problem is in us and not in the testimonies of nature, and that’s why we remain without excuse even though we are incapable of profiting by natural revelation in order to be saved. In short, Calvin would argue that Romans 1:18-21 isn’t saying something about human capacity but about the message given by God’s creation to those who can receive it (as unregenerate human beings cannot). Still, he goes on in the next section (6.1) to compare fallen human beings not to blind people but to people who can’t make out letters, even though they can see that there are letters on a page. In other words, he recognizes that humans do need to have some capacity to receive the message or they wouldn’t be accountable. And I have trouble seeing how this doesn’t betray his whole position. This is a problem for me when I teach Calvin, since I try to avoid presenting my primary sources as incoherent or intrinsically flawed–I want students to understand why the author said what he did. I may not be entirely fair to Calvin on this point, but I’ve honestly tried!

Edwin
 
MarcoPolo said:
I think City of God 14:3 suggest otherwise, no? For instance:*But if any one says that the flesh is the cause of all vices and ill conduct, inasmuch as the soul lives wickedly only because it is moved by the flesh, it is certain he has not carefully considered the whole nature of man. … At present, then, the corruptible body presses down the soul, and the earthly tabernacle weighs down the mind that muses upon many things, nevertheless they are in error who suppose that all the evils of the soul proceed from the body.*I think the incorporeal fallen angels are an example of those without a body sinning too.
Click to expand...
To me this seems to be about sin more generally than the specific effects of original sin.
 
Dave_Noonan said:
To me this seems to be about sin more generally than the specific effects of original sin.
Click to expand...
But he says “they are in error who suppose that all the evils of the soul proceed from the body.” So if a man’s sin can originate from somewhere other than his body, why would Augustine think original sin did not also result in that deprivation? Where else is it going to come from?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top