Beowoof2k8 said...
Prominent Calvinist bloggers deny that Jesus is God
The great Calvinist super geniuses over at Triablogue have posted what is possibly their most idiotic post to date. Their title is "Why Jesus is a sinner" and here is the content of their post:
i) "All have sinned and fall short of God's glory" (Rom 3:23).
ii) All means all.
iii) Ergo, Jesus sinned and fell short of God's glory.
The reason their argument fails is that when it is said "All have sinned and fall short of God's glory," God Himself (and God alone) is clearly exempted from the statement. Not to mention that God obviously can't fall short of His own glory. Hence, Jesus, being God, cannot be included in the statement "All have sinned and fall short of God's glory." This is nothing but a classic example of Calvinists denying that Jesus is God. The only way to use this verse as proof that all doesn't mean all is to deny the divinity of Christ! So there you have it: Triablogue is run by Arians.
Prominent Arminian blogger denies that Jesus is human!
Jesus, being man, can be included in the Apostle's statement. It does say all after all. Man is not exempted from the statement. Not to mention that man obviously can fall short of God's glory. Hence, Jesus, being man, can be included in the statement "All have sinned." (That is, assuming the natural, common sense understanding of "all.") This is nothing but a classic example of Arminians denying that Jesus is human. The only way to use this verse as proof that all always means all is to deny the humanity of Christ! So there you have it: To the glory of Christ's grace blog is run by Docetists.
Hmm, is it worse to be a Docetist or an Arian?
ReplyDeleteMaybe I'll just convert to Anglican or something.
Paul,
ReplyDeleteSeriously, wouldn't there be an equivocation of terms here? Since Jesus is the God-Man He cannot be included in the definition of "all [man]" in the syllogism, correct?
Mark
The same equivocation would invalidate the parallel argument of the Arminian blogger. Manata is merely responding to him on his own terms.
ReplyDeleteIn addition, if "all means all," then "all" isn't limited to human beings. It includes angels, demons, God, trees, rocks, &c. Once an Arminian begins to limit the inclusive scope of "all," he immediately loses his silver bullet against limited atonement.
ReplyDeletePut another way, Manata is constructing a dilemma. A dilemma doesn't have to be internally sound. Indeed, it's supposed to expose internal tension. It only has to be a sound argument from analogy (in this instance).
ReplyDeletejohnMark said:
ReplyDeletePaul,
Seriously, wouldn't there be an equivocation of terms here? Since Jesus is the God-Man He cannot be included in the definition of "all [man]" in the syllogism, correct?
Mark
1/22/2009 11:55 AM
So out of the class of all men universally it means all kinds of mere men; specifically, the fallen kind. Seems like the same kind of reasoning Calvinists use. "Jesus died for all" means that he died for "all elect."
This shows clearly that consistent Arminian exegesis leads one to affirm bad doctrines.
ReplyDeleteSo, Paul, my friend, if we keep following your "logic" here we can either come to the conclusion that a) only the elect have sinned, if ALL refers to only all the elect, or b) Jesus was not God, since God cannot fall short of His own glory.
ReplyDelete(On a side note, I wonder if Christ is truly "over all" in Romans 9:5. Or if truly all who believe will be saved according to Romans 3:22)
It's obviously clear that Paul was speaking of all humanity, excluding the God-man, and author of salvation, Jesus Christ.
This is a ridiculously silly debate and libeling a fellow Christian is anti-biblical.
Brian, this is far far from a "consistent Arminian exegesis." This is a "Calvinist attempting to straw man Arminians" exegesis.
I just realized this post was tagged with "parody" and "sarcasm," but I'm gonna leave my last post because I made some good points.
ReplyDeleteBOSSMANHAM SAID:
ReplyDelete"It's obviously clear that Paul was speaking of all humanity, excluding the God-man, and author of salvation, Jesus Christ."
Since Paul never says that Christ is the author of salvation, why do you use that phrase to interpret a Pauline statement?
And, of course, "obviously clear" is what people say when they don't have an actual argument to back up their claims.
How is that exception "obviously clear" from the wording of the verse?
bossmanham said...
ReplyDeleteI'm gonna leave my last post because I made some good points.
1/22/2009 3:12 PM
Per usual, Employeemanham shows us that his "points" are about as deep as the water my newborn will take a bath in. He simply emotes and shoots from the hip.
So, since he claims that he's serious, then he thinks he has made "good points." Okay, let's press this:
"So, Paul, my friend, if we keep following your "logic" here we can either come to the conclusion that a) only the elect have sinned"
How so? First, you admit I wrote satire. So, are you saying that if we follow the admittedly satirical logic then that point would follow? If so, why think you're making a "good point?" I mean, the logic of Swift is that the Lilliputians are smaller than humans, so if Tom is a Lilliputian and Jim is a human, Tom is shorter than Jim. But, that "logic" says nothing about reality. So, what was your "good point?"
Second, you made the positive claim, so let me see you follow the logic out. Step by step. Do it.
"if ALL refers to only all the elect,
Show the "logic" Emploeemanham. Show this
[1] Paul believes that Jesus died only for the elect.
MISSING ARGUMENT
[C1] Paul believes only the elect are sinners.
Make the connection.
"or b) Jesus was not God, since God cannot fall short of His own glory."
Why do you think this is a "good point?" You said you "made good points." But you admit I was using satire. So, how was this a "good point?" if you can't show how it was, then you're a pompous liar thinking he's making good points when, actually, I've seen nothing substantive come out of your mouth since you've posted here.
"It's obviously clear that Paul was speaking of all humanity, excluding the God-man, and author of salvation, Jesus Christ."
There you Arminians go, limited "all" by context.
"This is a ridiculously silly debate and libeling a fellow Christian is anti-biblical."
This was a response to one of your Arminian buddy's posts saying that Calvinists deny the divinity of Christ. How come you didn't go over there and say the same thing? it's because you're a hypocrit and are in the tank for Arminianism. You don't care about truth, just your image.
"Brian, this is far far from a "consistent Arminian exegesis." This is a "Calvinist attempting to straw man Arminians" exegesis."
What Employeemanham fails to realize is that he's not undermining me or Calvinists; he's undermining the Arminian who made the stupid post that I responded to. But Emplyeemanham is too lazy to follow the bread crumbs and put my post into context.
Please demonstrate the "good points" you made otherwise risk having future posts deleted. Unsubstantiated assertions get real boring real quick.
Bossmanham said:
ReplyDelete"So, Paul, my friend, if we keep following your "logic" here we can either come to the conclusion that a) only the elect have sinned, if ALL refers to only all the elect, or b) Jesus was not God, since God cannot fall short of His own glory."
Me:
Um...no.
The "all" in Romans has a qualitative reference, not a bare quantitative reference.
In other words, the meaning of Romans 3:23 is that "[Both Jew and Gentile] have sinned."
The word, "all," in Romans 3:23 does not mean that each individual has sinned but that all races have sinned and are under God's condemnation (contrary to contemporary Jewish thought that said that a Jew was free from condemnation simply by being a member of the covenant through circumcision).
The fact that each individual has sinned must be inferred from the context, not the word itself.
We find such proof in Romans 5 where Paul states that all who are descended from Adam receive the guilt and corruption of his sin.
The above definition of the word, "all," is confirmed by 5:18:
"18Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon [both Jew and Gentile (the quantity undefined and determined only by the context)] to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon unto [both Jew and Gentile (the quantity undefined and determined only by the context)] justification of life."
Show the "logic" Emploeemanham. Show this
ReplyDelete[1] Paul believes that Jesus died only for the elect."
MISSING ARGUMENT
[C1] Paul believes only the elect are sinners.
Make the connection.
PaulthearmchairtheologianpretendingtobeRCSproul,
That wasn't the connection I was making. If, in the all verses when speaking of who is called to salvation, it only refers to "all the elect," as ALL 5 point Calvinists think, when the Bible says "all have sinned," then that must mean the elect only, since that's what all means. Romans 5:6 says Christ died for the ungodly. Certainly it's not only the elect who are ungodly.
Why do you think this is a "good point?" You said you "made good points." But you admit I was using satire. So, how was this a "good point?" if you can't show how it was, then you're a pompous liar thinking he's making good points when, actually, I've seen nothing substantive come out of your mouth since you've posted here.
There Paul Manta goes again, flying off the hook. You'd think he'd never heard of an "adult discussion" before. Paul, you'd get much further with people if you were more polite. Also, look up tongue-in-cheek sometime. I wonder if you'd speak the same way to me in person?
What Employeemanham fails to realize is that he's not undermining me or Calvinists; he's undermining the Arminian who made the stupid post that I responded to. But Emplyeemanham is too lazy to follow the bread crumbs and put my post into context.
You're right, I didn't. Is that my problem or the person who didn't make it clear in the post he made?
Saint and Sinner,
That's an interesting interpretation of the verse. I would be interested to know how you came to the conclusion that Paul is talking about corporate sinning here (and I do disagree with your interpretation), and not corporate salvation in Romans 9?
Calvin thought all meant all in Romans 3:23 without going through those hoops.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom38.vii.viii.html
bossman said:
ReplyDelete---
If, in the all verses when speaking of who is called to salvation, it only refers to "all the elect," as ALL 5 point Calvinists think
---
Since Arminians always mean "every single person on Earth" when they say "all" then Boss admits that every single person is a 5 point Calvinist.
Hey, I can use Boss logic too!
Oh, and one more thing. Bossy man said:
ReplyDelete---
Is that my problem or the person who didn't make it clear in the post he made?
---
Yes, it's your problem because you're the only one stupid enough to miss it.
"That wasn't the connection I was making. If, in the all verses when speaking of who is called to salvation, it only refers to "all the elect," as ALL 5 point Calvinists think, when the Bible says "all have sinned," then that must mean the elect only, since that's what all means. Romans 5:6 says Christ died for the ungodly. Certainly it's not only the elect who are ungodly."
ReplyDeleteEmplyeemanham fumbles the ball again.
You said something about "the logic" of my position. Well, I would like you to lay out "the logic." Show it "step by step." You said that "the logic" of my position was that "only the elect had sinned." So, that's the conclusion. Now, show the premises that I endorse which lead to that conclusion. Or, were you just bluffing?
Second, I don't say that "all must always mean the elect." that's the suppressed, straw man premise you're pinning on me. You shouldn't talk about "Christian charity" and "being nice" when you slander the position of others.
Third, why think "Christ died for the ungodly" means "all sinners whoever?" Why think that? Where's the argument? Does it say all? Did he die for Satan? People already in hell? What view of the atonement? Did he pay their sins? Why do they go to hell? Again, things aren't as "simple" as you think they are.
"There Paul Manta goes again, flying off the hook. You'd think he'd never heard of an "adult discussion" before. Paul, you'd get much further with people if you were more polite. Also, look up tongue-in-cheek sometime. I wonder if you'd speak the same way to me in person?"
You started off on the wrong foot here. You have an agenda and come into people's comboxes and post comments off-topic to their posts. You do this just to get off your "talking points." You then act pompous and tell people that you'll pray for them. And that they are sinners. (Indeed, I probably didn't make it into your nightly prayers, did I? :-( )
Second, oh, so you admit that you didn't make any "good points." But that was your reason why you didn't delete your post. So, will you now delete your post, or should I do that for you?
"You're right, I didn't. Is that my problem or the person who didn't make it clear in the post he made?"
It was very clear. I had a hyperlink in my post, I pasted in the other guy's post too, and if you noticed the post directly below mine you'll see the same point made. On top of that, everyone else seemed to be able to figure it out. You're the odd man out. The fault is yours. You're too lazy and to zealous. Bad combination.
Bossmanham said:
ReplyDelete"That's an interesting interpretation of the verse. I would be interested to know how you came to the conclusion that Paul is talking about corporate sinning here (and I do disagree with your interpretation), and not corporate salvation in Romans 9?"
Me:
I never said or implied the idea of corporate sinning. Paul is speaking of individual sinning. However, Paul's point is that condemnation has come to both individual Jews and individual Gentiles.
The point is that "all" does not mean 'every single last individual' (i.e. a quantitative reference) but rather '[individuals] of both Jew and Gentile nationalities' (i.e. a qualitative reference).
Thus, if Christ died for:
1 Mexican
1 American
1 Russian
1 Korean
1 German
...
1 from every tribe and tongue and people and nation...
then Christ died for "all men" in the qualitative sense.
Oh, and Romans 9 does have a corporate element to it but speaks to individual election: the majority of the Jewish people (corporate) have rejected the Messiah and are under eternal condemnation (individual). Its not about national blessings, and the idea of corporate election to the exclusion of individual election is absurd and exegetically untenable.
Bossmanham said:
"Calvin thought all meant all in Romans 3:23 without going through those hoops."
Me:
Biblical interpretation has moved far beyond Calvin. Try Douglas Moo's commentary on Romans (NICNT).
johnMark said: "Paul,/Seriously, wouldn't there be an equivocation of terms here? Since Jesus is the God-Man He cannot be included in the definition of 'all [man]' in the syllogism, correct?/Mark"
ReplyDeleteExactly. Anyone with half a brain can see I am not denying that Jesus is human. But the fact is that his also being God exempts him from the phrase "all have fallen short of the glory of God." That's like saying "Nobody looks exactly like Beowulf2k8." I am obviously exempted from that statement, since I am myself, and therefore do look exactly like myself. Jesus, being God, is exempted from "all have fallen short of the glory of God" because he is God and could not possibly have fallen short of his own glory. The author of the current blog entry is showing how little logic he possesses with his asinine response to me.
Beodoofus2k8 said: "Exactly. Anyone with half a brain can see I am not denying that Jesus is human."
ReplyDeleteExactly, anyone with half a brain can see that Steve wasn't denying that Jesus was God.
"Jesus, being God, is exempted from "all have fallen short of the glory of God" because he is God and could not possibly have fallen short of his own glory."
He's also man. Are you excluding some men from all? Only *kinds* of men, the non-divine kind?
"The author of the current blog entry is showing how little logic he possesses with his asinine response to me."
It all started from your initial illogic. All this response does is indict you. How's that for illogic? Self-refutation is the worse form of refutation; or so they tell me? Is it true?