Original sin strikes many people as unfair. To be accountable for what a second party did. For the same reason, many people also reject penal substitution.
On the other hand, it’s quite easy to cite real life illustrations in which many people, a number of whom would repudiate original sin or penal substitution, embrace the vicarious principle in another context.
Consider the way in which Obamatons identify with the One. I tried my best yesterday to avoid coverage of his coronation…I mean…inauguration, but I caught glimpses of the event despite of my evasive maneuvers. Scenes of worshipful followers, with tears streaming down their cheeks.
The Obamatons have a profound personal investment in the One. Whatever happens to him, for good or ill, might as well be happening to them—collectively and individually. They take any criticism of the One as if it were a personal slight to their one person.
Likewise, they fervently believe that Americans in general are somehow tainted by the Adamic sin of slave-owners who died a century ago, and the only way to atone for our corporate complicity is to elevate a racial token to the highest office in the land.
As one pundit pointed out last summer, this is utterly confused—even at the purely symbolic level: “Apologists for preferences explain these policies as a remedy for long family histories of discrimination, but Obama’s background features no such legacy of oppression. His mother was white and his father’s family, in Kenya, had never been enslaved or subjected to American ‘Jim Crow’ laws or segregation.”
http://michaelmedved.townhall.com/blog/g/efc77c6e-84a7-4137-ab92-5c5a8e12c5fa
But black supporters project their own stories onto the One while Caucasian supporters project their white guilt onto the One, seeking vicarious absolution at the ballot box. The political Redeemer acts on behalf of, and instead of, the body politic. His biography becomes their very own. It’s a secular parody of federal headship, from Adam to Christ.
Total inherited depravity is the reverse of the Genesis story whether it is fair or unfair. Calvinists say that Adam knew good and evil, that God gave him a "covenant of works" consisting of the moral law (at least the 10 commandments) and said "If you keep these Laws, if you do all these works, you will earn heaven," but say the Calvinists, Adam blew it, and as a result none of us knows good and evil anymore and thus we need revelation to tell us good and evil. The Biblical story is quite the opposite, God creates Adam and Eve with zero concept of good and evil, places a tree in the garden that can give them that knowledge, tells them not to eat its fruit or they will die, the devil tricks them into eating the fruit, and now because they disobeyed God they have the knowledge of good and evil and pass it down to all their descendants. Fact is, the Calvinists have it backwards from the Bible. Adam was totally disabled before the fall, and now we are enabled to do good only since the fall because the fall is what made us know what is good! Adam could not have had any concept of moral law prior to eating the fruit, otherwise the whole fruit fiasco would be no big deal. If Adam already knew good and evil why command him not to eat the fruit that would give him redundant knowledge? And how is it that he has the epiphany that public nudity is wrong only after eating the fruit, if the fruit took away his knowledge of morality rather than bestowed it on him?
ReplyDeleteThis is like a gigantic warehouse sale of strawman arguments against Calvinism. In fact, it doesn't really resemble Calvinism at all. Can you quote any notable Reformed theologians to back up all of these assertions? How about some of them, at least?
ReplyDeleteI love who you guys always claim you are being misrepresented when you are caught in twisting scripture, just like the Catholics when you catch them worshiping Mary. The CoW (covenant of works) might not represent Baptist Calvinists (I don't know), but it clearly does Presbyterians. Go read all the past posts on http://greenbaggins.wordpress.com/ You're the one who's uneducated, or just obfuscating (and I'm sure its the later). Go get your own Reformer quotes - its your doctrine, not mine.
ReplyDeleteCalvinists say that Adam knew good and evil, that God gave him a "covenant of works" consisting of the moral law (at least the 10 commandments) and said "If you keep these Laws, if you do all these works, you will earn heaven," but say the Calvinists, Adam blew it, and as a result none of us knows good and evil anymore and thus we need revelation to tell us good and evil.
ReplyDeleteWoah, Calvinists say this? Which ones? Not I, said the duck!
The Biblical story is quite the opposite, God creates Adam and Eve with zero concept of good and evil
Really? Zero concept? Adam and Eve were created without even a conscience? The conscience is, in fact, a part of man which was added on as a result of the fall?
places a tree in the garden that can give them that knowledge
I don't think you are differentiating between kinds of knowledge. You are aware that in Scripture the term "know" typically represents at least procedural, rather than propositional knowledge, right?
tells them not to eat its fruit or they will die, the devil tricks them into eating the fruit, and now because they disobeyed God they have the knowledge of good and evil and pass it down to all their descendants.
The procedural knowledge, yes.
If Adam already knew good and evil why command him not to eat the fruit that would give him redundant knowledge?
Even assuming only one kind of knowledge is in view, a question isn't an argument.
And how is it that he has the epiphany that public nudity is wrong only after eating the fruit, if the fruit took away his knowledge of morality rather than bestowed it on him?
"Took away his knowledge of morality"? Are you saying that Calvinists believe Adam had no concept of morality after the fall? That none of his descendents have a concept of morality? I'm gonna have to ask you to document this claim. Simply waving at the Prezzies isn't gonna cut it.
Regards,
Bnonn
"I love who you guys always claim you are being misrepresented when you are caught in twisting scripture, just like the Catholics when you catch them worshiping Mary. The CoW (covenant of works) might not represent Baptist Calvinists (I don't know), but it clearly does Presbyterians. Go read all the past posts on http://greenbaggins.wordpress.com/ You're the one who's uneducated, or just obfuscating (and I'm sure its the later). Go get your own Reformer quotes - its your doctrine, not mine."
ReplyDeleteAre this dense naturally or do you have to work at it? You have a burden of proof to discharge. There's far more wrong with your post than just the covenant of works. So no, you don't get to come in here and post massive inaccuracies about Calvinism and just expect us to accept it. If you're going to gratuitously assert all sorts of strawmen about Calvinism, then all we have to do is gratuitously deny it. So either put some effort into your burden of proof, or just admit that your arguments are horrible.
PaulSceptic is the reverse of rationality whether he has flair or unflair. PS says that he knows everything about everything, that God gave him a mystic Paul-is-Marcion vision consisting of the true books of the Bible (at least 10 are valid, if you believe in binary and count Adversus Marcionem twice) and said "If you read my blog, if you pretend it's logical, you will earn cookies," but says PS all y'all blew it, and as a result none of us knows how to end a long-winded bloated sentence. The Biblical story is quite the opposite, as commas are not used as periods, unless you are, in, a Gen-X, Bible, where God creates a Skittle Rainbow with Unicorns with zero concept of plot structure or cohesive, furniature, places a tax on beverages that can give them that which is, as, you see and the debil trixes dem dat dey is da Marcion!!!11!! and now because they disobeyed God they have all the knowledge of good and evil and pass it down to PS via transmutation and carrier pigeons. Fact is, this next sentence will be a mere repetition of the previous sentence because repetition makes it look like I really have something to say when, in fact, I'm just filling up empty space. By the way I should note that at this point a paragraph break woul,d probably be a wise investment--wouldn't it be cool if someone went on the interweb and invented one of those pesky "carriage returns" so you could actually see a carriage get re,turned, or at least, a train of thought with only a, few unnecessary commas. Anyway, PS was totally disabled before he beg,an typing, and now we are enable to mock him on,ly since his opening of his mouth is what made us know he is disab,led! PS could not have had any concept of his inherit stupidity prior to opening his mouth and gnawing off his entire foot,, otherwise the whole foot fiasco would be no big deal. If PS already knew good and evil why command him not to eat his foot, th,,at would give him redundant knowledge almost on par with redundant, unweildy, sentences. Com,ma. And how is it that he has the epiphany that public nudity is wrong only after he exposes himself to preteen boys who mock him if, in fact, it was the eating of his foot that took away his, man,li,nes,ses, rather than bestowing it on ,him?
ReplyDelete,
Total inherited depravity is the reverse of the Genesis story whether it is fair or unfair. Calvinists say that Adam knew good and evil, that God gave him a "covenant of works" consisting of the moral law (at least the 10 commandments) and said "If you keep these Laws, if you do all these works, you will earn heaven," but say the Calvinists, Adam blew it, and as a result none of us knows good and evil anymore and thus we need revelation to tell us good and evil.
ReplyDeleteStrawman argument. The Calvinist does not say that man does not know good and evil, but that because the image of God (which comprises of rationality) is marred by the fall, he no longer accepts the things of God. He stands guilty before God because there still remains in him a remnant of the image (John Calvin), but he will not accept or submit to the truth. Sinning presupposes rationality and voluntary decision. Animals cannot sin. Man can sin because man is responsible, and responsibility depends upon knowledge. Morality presupposes rationality. Clark writes, “Free will is not the basis of responsibility. In the first place, and at a more superficial level, the basis of responsibility is knowledge.” The Calvinist position is not that man cannot understand that they are evil in the eyes of God, but that in knowing the truth, in their darkened and depraved hearts, they suppresses the knowledge of the truth and opposes it.
Rom 1:18-21 the wrath of God is revealed from Heaven against all ungodliness and
unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because the thing which may be known of God is clearly revealed within them, for God revealed it to them. For the unseen things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being realized by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, for them to be without excuse. Because, knowing God, they did not glorify Him as God, neither were thankful. But they became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Rom 1: 25 - they exchanged the truth about God for a lie...
The Biblical story is quite the opposite, God creates Adam and Eve with zero concept of good and evil, places a tree in the garden that can give them that knowledge, tells them not to eat its fruit or they will die, the devil tricks them into eating the fruit, and now because they disobeyed God they have the knowledge of good and evil and pass it down to all their descendants.
Again... error. Adam and Eve knew good and evil. They knew right from wrong even before the fall. As mentioned before, morality presupposes rationality. If man has no knowledge of the truth, they cannot be held morally accountable. Animals cannot sin. Man can sin because man is responsible, and responsibility depends upon knowledge. In Genesis, we see God commanding Adam not to eat of the fruit and Adam understood what was required of him. He was held morally accountable. Did Adam know what God was saying when God told him not to eat of the fruit? If he did, then he knew it was wrong to eat of the fruit – which by that definition, means he did not have zero concept of good and evil. 1 Tim 2:14 tells us that Adam was not deceived, but sinned wilfully, and to sin wilfully requires knowing what is not right (a concept of good and evil). 1Ti 2:14 and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.
Fact is, the Calvinists have it backwards from the Bible. Adam was totally disabled before the fall, and now we are enabled to do good only since the fall because the fall is what made us know what is good! Adam could not have had any concept of moral law prior to eating the fruit, otherwise the whole fruit fiasco would be no big deal. If Adam already knew good and evil why command him not to eat the fruit that would give him redundant knowledge? And how is it that he has the epiphany that public nudity is wrong only after eating the fruit, if the fruit took away his knowledge of morality rather than bestowed it on him?
Fact is, you demonstrate you do not know what Calvin taught. It is precisely because Adam had the concept of good and evil that he knew he should not have eaten from the tree. You ask why command Adam to eat of the fruit if that gives him redundant knowledge? Simple! The ability to understand good from evil allows Adam to sin. Dogs cannot sin unless they first have a rational and moral mind. Why command Adam not to eat if he could not understand good from evil? That is a problem for you, not the Calvinist. If Adam could not understand what God was telling him to do, the commandment not to eat from the tree becomes redundant.
The reformed position is that man knows good and evil since rationality is part of the image of God, and morality is a direct result of rationality. The ability to reason would include the ability to understand propositional truth, meaning that man can understand truth and falsehood (moral good and evil) when God commanded them not to eat of the tree. This rationality and moral-understand that existed before and after the fall (though marred after the fall), continue to exist so that those who reject God are without excuse.