What if God, willing to. . . .

[Josheb]

Yes, but He created the conditions under which those already-dead-in-sin would be already dead in sin.

Are you suggesting there is some condition that exists that was not created by the Creator?

 

[JIM]

A preconceived position is not always false. One preconceived is right---and that would be the position of the Bible.

When a verse is difficult to understand or appears to be contradictory to other things in the Bible, it is the scriptures that are clear that clear up the confusion, such as the two uses of "all" in that passage. We cannot automatically assume that they both reference the same thing. And I suppose everyone already has in mind when they read that the trespass of Adam affected all men, that it is obvious from reality and the Bible both, that yep, Adam sinned, all men do sin and always have since Adam, and all are condemned.

So what comes to mind when we read, that "by the one man's obedience (righteousness) leads to justification and life for all men."?

We know from Scripture that not all men are justified, since it speaks of those who have faith being justified through faith in Christ. And we know from reality and Scripture that not all men without exception have faith in Christ, and that many are doomed for judgement and destruction.

So it is not preconceived doctrine that works through this per se, and arrives at a different nuance of "all" in the sentence. It is properly using the word of God, so there are no inconsistencies. The first all is universal. The second all cannot be. So what is it?

The gospel is available to all regardless of gender, nationality, race, creed, social standing. It is preached to all nations---but not all in those nations respond. In addition, and very important, it is stating that there is no other Savior and no other way of being given eternal life than the one Savior, Jesus Christ. No other than the one and through faith in Him, can pay for our sins, purchase a people with His shed blood on the cross, provide eternal life, take someone out of Adam and bring them into Himself.

What you fail to understand is that just as the effect of Adam's disobedience of condemnation for all men is applied at birth, then so also the justification and life for all men is applied at birth. That is the stated comparison. It is not a statement of anything beyond that. The verse says nothing about the effect of our own disobedience or our own obedience. Therefore what you would see in that verse is Original Sin, I see as Original Grace. What is the effect of our own sins is given later (Rom 5:20 and beyond).

 

[Josheb]

What has to happen first...............

Nothing new there. All of it has been covered and addressed. That entire post was spent on the condition of the elect and not God.

Why would it say something about God not desiring something inherently contradictory to reality?

According to those dissenting from Post 84 , it does say something about God not desiring something inherently contradictory to reality. That is the entire point of my telling everyone they are not dealing with the contradiction in their own interpretation of the verse!

That is not even the subject or intent of the OP.

It is. The op picked a verse that explicitly specifies God does not desire any should perish and interpreted that verse to mean it's applicable soteriologically only to the elect..... BUT it does so despite the fact we ALL agree the elect cannot perish.

And why would anyone address God not desiring something inherently contradictory to reality when no one believes that He would?

Because it contradicts what this op believes is Calvinist soteriology applied to 2 Peter 3:9. I posted Calvin's commentary on the verse, and it was ignored, and everyone continued with their dissent.

The problem you continue to say has been neglected,denied,or ignored, is what does not exist. There is no such problem.

In which case it would/should be very easy to explain and yet no one has done so....

For Pete's sake. Let me address it directly.

Since God does not desire something omnisciently known to be soteriologically impossible, when Peter writes:
This is now the second letter that I am writing to you, beloved. In both of them I am stirring up your sincere mind by way of reminder, that you should remember the predictions of the holy prophets and the commandment of the lord and Savior through your apostles, knowing this first of all, that scoffers will come in the last days with scoffing, following their own sinful desires They will say,"Where is the promise of his coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all things are continuing as they were from the beginning of creation." For they deliberately overlook this fact, that the heavens existed long ago, and the earth was formed out of water and through water by the word of God and that by means of these the world that then existed was deluged with water and perished. But by the same word the heavens and earth that now exist are stored up for fire, being kept until the day of judgement and destruction of the ungodly.

But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.---

When he uses the word perishing it can only apply soteriologically to the saints in an eschatological sense, not perishing, and cannot apply to His not desiring anyone to perish as in anyone without exception. Eschatologically we have the unbelieving perishing......

You've done the same thing everyone else has done: address the elect's not perishing and NOT God not desiring something that's contradictory to reality.

I'll try once more with a comparative analogy.

God does not desire that He perish. We should all immediately dismiss that sentence as nonsensical because God cannot perish.

God does not desire the elect perish. We should all immediately dismiss that sentence as nonsensical because the elect cannot perish.

But that is exactly what this op has done. A verse that states God does not want any to perish has been interpreted to apply soteriologically to the elect even though the elect cannot soteriologically perish. Because the elect cannot soteriologically perish there are only two remaining options for interpreting the verse, either the verse applies to all the unsaved, those who might actually soteriologically perish, or the verse is not soteriological. Since 99% of the letter is about the imminently occurring event, the soon coming day of the Lord, the perishing should be understood eschatologically, not soteriologically.

It is not rational to have God not desiring what is logically impossible. The elect cannot perish.

 

[Alive]

What you fail to understand is that just as the effect of Adam's disobedience of condemnation for all men is applied at birth, then so also the justification and life for all men is applied at birth. That is the stated comparison. It is not a statement of anything beyond that. The verse says nothing about the effect of our own disobedience or our own obedience. Therefore what you would see in that verse is Original Sin, I see as Original Grace. What is the effect of our own sins is given later (Rom 5:20 and beyond).

Not true. All men are not and will not be justified. Nonsense.

 

[JIM]

No. It’s not clear to me because it’s not clear to me what your point is. Still isn’t. This is why I asked nicely, for you to elaborate. I am fine if you don’t. No sweat.

My point is that Original Sin (and the even worse Total Depravity) is false. We do not come into this world condemned due to someone else's (Adam's) sin. We come in this world with a spirit formed in us by God, Himself (Zech 12:1; Eccl 12:7 etc.), which is alive and undamaged.

 

[JIM]

Contraire. . .

A text without context is a pretext.

In context of the NT, there is the greatest reason of all (the word of God) to think that "all" means both
"all without exception" regarding condemnation, and
"all without distinction" regarding justification:

Is that the meaning of "all" in the first phrase of Romans 18 and 19? Or is that the meaning only where you want or need it to be?

1) all sinned (Ro 5:12, 3:9--not one is righteous). . .that means "all without exception" in regard to condemnation of Ro 5:18;
2) only the called (Jew and Gentile), not all mankind, are justified (Ro 8:30). . .that is "all without distinction" in regard to justification.

The word of God does not contradict itself.
The word of God in Ro 5:18 does not contradict the word of God in Ro 3:9, 5:12, 8:30.

Romans 5:12 says that death spread to all men because all sinned, not because of Adam's sin. Do you really believe that the unborn child sinned, that is, disobeyed God?

Romans 3:9 doesn't say anything about being condemned because Adam sinned.

Romans 30 follows from Romans 28 and 28. That passage is dealing specifically about all things working together for good for those who love God. That is where the discussion about being called starts.

 

[JIM]

Not true. All men are not and will not be justified. Nonsense.

Not all men will be condemned either. Some will believe, repent and be saved.

 

[Eleanor]

Still not answering my question.

Which assume a statement I never made. . .therefore, there is no answer.

Quote my statement verbatim about which you have your question.

 

[Alive]

Why is it that every man sins?

 

[JIM]

Are you suggesting there is some condition that exists that was not created by the Creator?

No. But I am suggesting that there are conditions that were not created by the Creator and do not exist. I am suggesting that God did not form an already dead spirit in the unborn.

 

[JIM]

Why is it that every man sins?

The same reason that Adam sinned. They choose to.

 

[David1701]

Nothing new there. All of it has been covered and addressed. That entire post was spent on the condition of the elect and not God.

According to those dissenting from Post 84 , it does say something about God not desiring something inherently contradictory to reality. That is the entire point of my telling everyone they are not dealing with the contradiction in their own interpretation of the verse!

It is. The op picked a verse that explicitly specifies God does not desire any should perish and interpreted that verse to mean it's applicable soteriologically only to the elect..... BUT it does so despite the fact we ALL agree the elect cannot perish.

Because it contradicts what this op believes is Calvinist soteriology applied to 2 Peter 3:9. I posted Calvin's commentary on the verse, and it was ignored, and everyone continued with their dissent.

In which case it would/should be very easy to explain and yet no one has done so....

You've done the same thing everyone else has done: address the elect's not perishing and NOT God not desiring something that's contradictory to reality.

I'll try once more with a comparative analogy.

God does not desire that He perish. We should all immediately dismiss that sentence as nonsensical because God cannot perish.

God does not desire the elect perish. We should all immediately dismiss that sentence as nonsensical because the elect cannot perish.

But that is exactly what this op has done. A verse that states God does not want any to perish has been interpreted to apply soteriologically to the elect even though the elect cannot soteriologically perish. Because the elect cannot soteriologically perish there are only two remaining options for interpreting the verse, either the verse applies to all the unsaved, those who might actually soteriologically perish, or the verse is not soteriological. Since 99% of the letter is about the imminently occurring event, the soon coming day of the Lord, the perishing should be understood eschatologically, not soteriologically.

It is not rational to have God not desiring what is logically impossible. The elect cannot perish.

Why, in your view, can the elect not perish?

 

[David1701]

Why is it that every man sins?

There are so many answers to this!

God has ordained it to be so.

The devil tempted Adam.

Adam fell, then passed on his corrupt nature.

Man's evil desires lead to sin.

Man cannot prevent himself from sinning, because without Christ we can do nothing.

I'm sure that there will be several others, but these are off the top of my head.

 

[Eleanor]

Is that the meaning of "all" in the first phrase of Romans 18 and 19? Or is that the meaning only where you want or need it to be?

Romans 5:12 says that death spread to all men because all sinned, not because of Adam's sin.

Ro 5:12-14 also says
1) death is caused by sin (Ro 6:23),
2) where there is no law there is no sin (sin is not taken into account) (Ro 5:13)
3) there was no law between Adam and Moses (sin was not taken into account, not charged against them) (Ro 5:13),
4) yet they all died anyway (Ro 5:14),
5) so what sin caused their death, when they did not sin (i.e., sin was not taken into account?*

The answer to #5 is the answer to your following questions:

Do you really believe that the unborn child sinned, that is, disobeyed God?

Romans 3:9 doesn't say anything about being condemned because Adam sinned.

See Ro 5:18. . ."through one trespass (by Adam) was condemnation for all men."


*the trespass of Adam which was imputed to all men (born of Adam). . .("all sinned," Ro 5:12, by imputation of Adam's sin),
just as Christ's righteousness is imputed to all men (born of Christ) (Ro 5:18). . .(all righteous/justification by imputation of Christ's righteousness).

 

[Arial]

According to those dissenting from Post 84 , it does say something about God not desiring something inherently contradictory to reality. That is the entire point of my telling everyone they are not dealing with the contradiction in their own interpretation of the verse!

Then it isn't reality. I went back and read post 84 to see what the heck you keep yammering about. And you began by focusing all the attention of an irrelevancy. That God has more that one desire. Of course He does. That is not the point of either of the OP passages. If God did not desire any to perish, none would perish. No matter how long it is before His return some will perish. God cannot be waiting just in case. He already knows the exact number He will save and the exact number who will perish. He knew that before : "In the beginning God---."

The entire dispute began because you brought Calvin into the mix and what he wrote about it as though that settled the issue and all must believe what Calvin said Which was a total irrelevancy to the thread. Can you at least acknowledge that much?! I heartily disagree with what you posted of Calvin. He brought things into the interpretation that are not there as far as I concerned----creating an unnecessary tangle in understanding the passage. And you followed in his footsteps. The OP is not about Calvin or what Calvin wrote.

There is no contradiction ---in reality---in what anyone posted. Posters can post from their own viewpoint, they can word it any way the want, focus on what details etc they want. They do not have to post according to one single member or be bullied and insulted for not doing so.

It is. The op picked a verse that explicitly specifies God does not desire any should perish and interpreted that verse to mean it's applicable soteriologically only to the elect..... BUT it does so despite the fact we ALL agree the elect cannot perish.

Oh brother! Check the OP question again. It used two scriptures that at first glance appear contradictory and asked in effect if they could be reconciled. And they were. Many times by many people.

Because it contradicts what this op believes is Calvinist soteriology applied to 2 Peter 3:9. I posted Calvin's commentary on the verse, and it was ignored, and everyone continued with their dissent.

Calvin and Calvinism are not even mentioned in the OP.

In which case it would/should be very easy to explain and yet no one has done so....

In fact everyone has. And the next time that fallacy is repeated it should be accompanied by quoted evidence.

You've done the same thing everyone else has done: address the elect's not perishing and NOT God not desiring something that's contradictory to reality.

The elect are the only ones who do not perish, therefore God's desire is that the elect do not perish---not the non-elect. That pretty much deals with Him not desiring something that is contradictory to reality wouldn't you say? Or is that too simple for the pallette?

God does not desire that He perish. We should all immediately dismiss that sentence as nonsensical because God cannot perish.

Well that is out of the blue. Are you sure that is how you meant to word that? It sure is a moved goal post. And irrelevant to the discussion.

God does not desire the elect perish. We should all immediately dismiss that sentence as nonsensical because the elect cannot perish.

Which is where the longsuffering and patience come in----as has been repeatedly stated. Those two things are connected.

But that is exactly what this op has done. A verse that states God does not want any to perish has been interpreted to apply soteriologically to the elect even though the elect cannot soteriologically perish. Because the elect cannot soteriologically perish there are only two remaining options for interpreting the verse, either the verse applies to all the unsaved, those who might actually soteriologically perish, or the verse is not soteriological. Since 99% of the letter is about the imminently occurring event, the soon coming day of the Lord, the perishing should be understood eschatologically, not soteriologically

No it has not. You have done that to the OP. See above post that begins "Oh brother!"

It is not rational to have God not desiring what is logically impossible.

That isn't even a rational sentence. Adjust the focus. Change the lens.

 

[Arial]

What you fail to understand is that just as the effect of Adam's disobedience of condemnation for all men is applied at birth, then so also the justification and life for all men is applied at birth. That is the stated comparison. It is not a statement of anything beyond that. The verse says nothing about the effect of our own disobedience or our own obedience. Therefore what you would see in that verse is Original Sin, I see as Original Grace. What is the effect of our own sins is given later (Rom 5:20 and beyond). what about those born before the crucifixion and resurrection?

What about those born before the crucifixion and resurrection?

 

[Eleanor]

Still not answering my question.

Still not showing my error.

 

[Eleanor]

Why is it that every man sins?

Adam's sin is imputed ("all sinned," Ro 5:12-14) to all those of Adam, just as Christ's righteousness is imputed to all those of Christ (Ro 5:18).

 

[Eleanor]

Is that the meaning of "all" in the first phrase of Romans 18 and 19? Or is that the meaning only where you want or need it to be?

God does not contradict himself in his word.
If our understanding of his word is contradictory, our understanding is in error.

Your understanding of Ro 5:18 is in contradiction of Ro 3:22, 28, Gal 2:16, 3:22 and, therefore is in error.

Romans 5:12 says that death spread to all men because all sinned,

Death is the result of sin (Ro 6:23).

"All sinned" refers to Adam's sin imputed to all those of Adam (as Christs' righteousness is imputed to all those of Christ, Ro 5:18),
because all died between Adam and Moses when there was no law and no personal sin was accounted against anyone (Ro 5:12-14),
yet they all died anyway (Ro 5:12).

Of whose sin? Not theirs. . .there was no sin counted against them (Ro 5:13).
All those of Adam died of Adam's sin imputed to them. . .and who is a pattern of the one to come (Ro 5:14), i.e., Jesus Christ and his imputed righteousness to all those of Christ.

 

[Josheb]

No. But I am suggesting that there are conditions that were not created by the Creator and do not exist.

They have no bearing on this conversation. Calvinism/monergism does not assume conditions that do not exist and if you think that is the case then you've not correctly understood Calvinism.

I am suggesting that God did not form an already dead spirit in the unborn.

Calvinism does not teach God formed an already dead spirit in the unborn. Everything you've built on that premise is faulty because the foundation is incorrect.

• That which God originally made was good. This is plainly stated in Genesis 1:31.
• That means Adam and Eve were good people prior to Genesis 3:7.
• Good people did something bad. That is the report of Genesis 3:7. They disobeyed God and disobeyed Him twice!
• The effects of that disobedience were pervasive. According to Romans 5 Adam's disobedience brought sin into the world. In other words, the entire world was changed. What was previously good and sinless was suddenly not-good and sin-filled. Sin came upon all men, and through sin came death. Whether born sinful or not scripture explicitly states all would sin. What may or may not have been a possibility or a likely probability suddenly became an inevitability. That is not a Calvinist or non-Calvinist set of statements. It is straight out of scripture and Arms and Cals do not get to debate it and call themselves believers of God's word.
• Although the text of Genesis 3 does not use the specific word "estranged," we see from the report of the text Adam became estranged from God, estranged from himself, estranged from Eve (others), and estranged from the creation of which only moments earlier he'd been the divinely mandated steward! No more.
• The moment that change (sin entering the world) happened a set of entirely different rules set in. God made those rules and He told Adam and Eve about them beforehand and He told them the consequences. For whatever reason, they ignored the existing rules and brought upon them a new and different set of rules. One of those new rules was that all would sin. Transgressional death would come upon all future humans. That is not the way God made humans. It is the way Adam made his progeny. Stop blaming Calvinism for blaming God when neither is true.
• Now I am not sure whether it was you with whom I earlier traded posts describing the physiological effects of sin and how natural biology supports the ancient doctrine of original sin, but if you'd like me to review that with you I can. The point is Adam and Eve experienced physiological changes at a cellular level that modern science can now prove get passed on to people's offspring. It is not what the ECFs had in mind when they formed that doctrine, but their ignorance does not change the fact one man's sin brought about changes on all his progeny.

The persons God originally formed were good and sinless. No one since then has been that way.

One more point. You chose to specify the unborn. 99.9% of scripture is about the born, not the unborn. What you've done is called an appeal to extremes. You've chosen a statistical and normatively outlying example and if you did it just to find a flaw in someone else's soteriology that's a fallacious argument.


Here's what Calvinism teaches:

• God made humans good and sinless.
• God also made humans corruptible, not corrupted. Humans, as God originally made them, were good, sinless, and corruptible. If humans had not been made corruptible then not only would Adam and Eve been incapable of disobeying God..... they also have been incapable of of obeying God . I can make my nephew's action figures do whatever I make them do. They are not obeying me. Obedience necessarily requires volitional agency.
• God made humans with volitional agency, but they were not free. The word "free" means autonomous, and not under outside influence or control and there were piles of limiting conditions existing back in Genesis 1:31. No human could jump off a mile-high clif and expect not to be splattered by the sudden stop at the end of the fall. S/he could choose to jump off the cliff, but s/he could not choose to change the laws of physics and the consequences of that choice. Humans have always had liberty, not freedom. Big difference.
• The good, sinless, corruptible, volitional agents God created violated the rules and brought upon themselves sinful death, or transgressional death. Sinful death is not identical to physical death. This same good, sinless, corruptible volitional agent also brought sin into the world and changed the conditions into which every single human who would ever live was born. No one after Genesis 3:7 was born into a good and sinless world as a good and sinless corruptible person with the exact same volitional agency the pre-Genesis 3:7 Adam and Eve possessed. Death spread to all men because all sinned. That happened as a consequence of Adam's doing, not God's God did not force Adam to do what Adam did.
• What God ordained from eternity God ordained without being the author of sin, without doing violence to human volition, and without doing violence to the contingency of secondary causes (WCF 3.1). God did not make sin, and He did not make sin happen. God created volitionally agent creatures, called humans, and at no point in His eternal ordaining did He violate human volitional agency. Likewise, while God is the uncaused first cause, a serious of subsequent causations occurred and God did not violate any of them. In other words, Calvinism affirms human volitional agency and does not deny it. God did not make anyone inherently evil.
• All have sinned and fall short of God's glory. It is from the group of already sinful people that God chose, selected, elected some for salvation. God did not make good people and bad people. What God made was good and sinless (Gen. 1:31). Humans cr@pped on themselves and the good and sinless world He made, volitionally choosing disobedience that adversely affected all humanity. It is from that group of self-adulterated humans that God chose to save some.
• Whether He saves some or not He is glorified. He is glorified when He metes out the just recompense for sin. He is also glorified when by grace He chooses to save some from what would otherwise be the same results for all sinners: dying dead while dead in sin. Both options glorify God. There is no option where He is not glorified by Himself and He is not dependent on the sinful creature for His glorification.

There are no God-made dead spirits in the unborn. Not in Calvinism. It was by one man's disobedience that death came to all men and all would sin. Stop blaming Calvinism for something it does not teach. Start accepting God's word exactly as written and stop appealing to the extremes to find fault with what God's word explicitly teaches.