Question to Calvinists

[Guest]

For if by the one man’s offense many died, much more the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abounded to many.

I have never understood this passage. If Adam's sin affected "all" universally, then in what sense did Christ's gift of grace abound "much more so"?

It can't be talking quantitatively, or else we would have universalism.

Hi Darin,

Doesn't verse 16 explain it?

Again, the gift of God is not like the result of the one man's sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. (Rom 5:16, NIV)

The verses that follow amplify the theme. From Adam's transgression, we inherit death, alienation from God, and sin, which we multiply by our own sin. But the gift of God through Christ brings atonement for the sins of many and justification and righteousness. So they are qualitatively different in their results!

It can't be talking quantitatively, or else we would have entire sanctification (and total depravity with regard to the death of "many" certainly can't be true).

(I assume you meant "qualitatively" here). But I don't understand the rest of what you're saying here.

Cheers,
Bob

[Guest]

For if by the one man’s offense many died, much more the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abounded to many.

I have never understood this passage. If Adam's sin affected "all" universally, then in what sense did Christ's gift of grace abound "much more so"?

It can't be talking quantitatively, or else we would have universalism.

Hi Darin,

Doesn't verse 16 explain it?

Again, the gift of God is not like the result of the one man's sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. (Rom 5:16, NIV)

The verses that follow amplify the theme. From Adam's transgression, we inherit death, alienation from God, and sin, which we multiply by our own sin. But the gift of God through Christ brings atonement for the sins of many and justification and righteousness. So they are qualitatively different in their results!

It can't be talking quantitatively, or else we would have entire sanctification (and total depravity with regard to the death of "many" certainly can't be true).

(I assume you meant "qualitatively" here). But I don't understand the rest of what you're saying here.

Cheers,
Bob

Oops - yes, I meant qualitatively. I went back and edited that post in case someone quotes it without seeing this exchange. I don't have the time right now, but will come back and respond and elaborate later.

[Guest]

Hi Darin,

For if by the one man’s offense many died, much more the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abounded to many.

Paul was making a comparison between the effect of Adam's offense versus the effect of Christ grace.

Please read the verse again below because I will add the word How and I think the comparison will become more evident.

For if by the one man’s offense many died, How much more the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abounded to many.

Did you see the comparison?

Before I examine the text let's define the word many
Many according to Meriam webster dictionary
1 : consisting of or amounting to a large but indefinite number <worked>
2 : being one of a large but indefinite number <many> <many>
The Meriam dictionary define Many as indefinite therefore Many does not mean ALL . We can not interchange the word Many with the word ALL as many Calvinist do in order to prove their view.

Now let's examine the text:

For if by the one man’s offense many died

This phrase did not even used the word all but instead it uses the word many.

Paul is telling us that Adam's offense has significant effect to many people. Adam brought many people with him to die. But wait because Paul followed this with another phrase,

How much more the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abounded to many.

In this phrase Paul is also telling us that the grace of Christ has a significant effect to many people. Christ brought many people with Him in His Kingdom.

Conclusion: Paul is telling us that the effect of Adam's offense to humanity is nothing compared to the effect of Christ grace to humanity.

Darin is this clear if not please let me know.

[Guest]

Hi Darin,

For if by the one man’s offense many died, much more the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abounded to many.

Paul was making a comparison between the effect of Adam's offense versus the effect of Christ grace.

Please read the verse again below because I will add the word How and I think the comparison will become more evident.

For if by the one man’s offense many died, How much more the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abounded to many.

Did you see the comparison?

Before I examine the text let's define the word many
Many according to Meriam webster dictionary
1 : consisting of or amounting to a large but indefinite number <worked>
2 : being one of a large but indefinite number <many> <many>
The Meriam dictionary define Many as indefinite therefore Many does not mean ALL . We can not interchange the word Many with the word ALL as many Calvinist do in order to prove their view.

Now let's examine the text:

For if by the one man’s offense many died

This phrase did not even used the word all but instead it uses the word many.

Paul is telling us that Adam's offense has significant effect to many people. Adam brought many people with him to die. But wait because Paul followed this with another phrase,

How much more the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abounded to many.

In this phrase Paul is also telling us that the grace of Christ has a significant effect to many people. Christ brought many people with Him in His Kingdom.

Conclusion: Paul is telling us that the effect of Adam's offense to humanity is nothing compared to the effect of Christ grace to humanity.

Darin is this clear if not please let me know.

I believe your ultimate conclusion is how I've read the verse as a general matter (looking at it as how "wonderful" it is and not how effective), but I'm trying to square the verse through the supposedly consistent hermeneutic the calvinists say they use. I'm trying to give them the benefit of the doubt and intend to read it more closely in light of vs. 16, etc., but haven't had the chance to sit down with it as we had a houseful yesterday and am getting ready for church. I intend to respond further.

[Guest]

Hi Darin,

I don't think this verse can be use as one of the proof text for "Total depravity"

because the verse is just a comparison between the effect of Adam's guilt and the effect of Christ's grace.

[Guest]

oops!!!!!!!!

Darin, I'm sorry I was thinking of something else disregard my previous response. It is just above this post.

[Guest]

Do babies have a reprobate mind?

Answer:

All men who have not yet been regenerated by the power of the Holy Spirit still have a reprobate (i.e. corrupt, concupiscent, depraved, fallen, etc.) mind. It is only by God's grace that they can be renewed. This goes as well for small people as big people, since we were all part of Adam's family, with he being our natural father.

In short, assuming I have properly understood your question, the answer is (generally) yes.

-TurretinFan

[Guest]

So when I read this:

Psa 106:37 Yea, they sacrificed their sons and their daughters to demons,
Psa 106:38 and shed innocent blood, even the blood of their sons and of their daughters, whom they sacrificed to the idols of Canaan; and the land was defiled with blood.

naw-kee', naw-kee'
From H5352; innocent: - blameless, clean, clear, exempted, free, guiltless, innocent, quit. (Strong's Hebrew and Greek Dictionaries)

I have to think that it was very improvident of the Israelites to only pick on the justified babies. If only they had chosen the reprobate children instead, they should have been home free.

Suzana:

With respect, I think you're overreaching to view "innocent" there to refer to absolute innocence. It seems easier to understand that passage as referring to innocence in the eyes of man's law. Compare, for example, Deuteronomy 19:10, in which the person who kills his neighbor without malice is considered "innocent," even though surely you would agree that a person who is old enough to be out chopping wood has committed at least one sin in his life in view of "all have sinned ...."

If then it is simply a statement that the children did not commit any capital crimes, then there is no reason to infer absolute sinlessness to such people.

Incidentally, I think you'll find that the word used is actually: נקי

which is Strong's number (Hebrew) 5355.

It's actually a frequent idiom in Hebrew to say "shed innocent blood" as a way of saying "murder." (see, for example, 2 Kings 21:16, Proverbs 6:17, Isaiah 59:7, Jeremiah 22:3 & 17, and Joel 3:19).

-TurretinFan

[Guest]

Re Romans 5 Turretinfan wrote:

Calvinists affirm what Paul taught in Romans 5, that Adam's guilt was imputed to his family, just as Christ's righteousness is imputed to his family.

I suppose this statement seems correct when Romans 5 is read through the Calvinist lens. That is, if the following is referring to spiritual death:

Romans 5:12-15 (see above for full text).

Then this would also refer to spiritual death:

Romans 5:18-19 (see above for full text)

And if it does, you have a good proof-text for universalism.

a) Both refer to spiritual death.
b) They are only a "prooftext" for universalism to the extent that the "many" to whom the grace of Christ has abounded (in verse 15), the "all men unto justification" in verse 18, and the "many" that shall be made righteous (in verse 19) are co-extensive with the "all men" in verse 12, "all men to condemnation" in verse 18, and the "many were made sinners" in verse 19. If, however, (as we would suggest) the latter group is all in Adam (i.e. Adam's family) and the former group is all in Christ (i.e. Christ's family), then there is no reason to reach a universalist view from the text.

-TurretinFan

[Guest]

Has anyone ever seen someone try to diagram Paul's sentences here in 12-21? I'm making some headway in understanding it properly, but it may be the most difficult text I've ever dealt with.

In general, I see 14-16 specifically teaching away from a parallelism between being "in Adam" and "in Christ," and that the primary difference between what Adam did and what Christ did is two-fold:

(1) Though it affected many, Adam only had to sin once -- Christ had to bear the many-fold sins of the many.

(2) Adam's sin didn't impute guilt to his progeny in the way that Christ's atonement imputed righteousness to the many "in Him." Christ's atonement was complete (at least in the fullness of time) in removing the sin nature while Adam's was partial in that it created only a tendency to sin (thus no total depravity).

One thing I don't think Calvinists give non-Calvinists credit for is that we distinguish between "universal depravity" and "total" depravity. In virtually every debate or criticism, a Calvinist will suggest that non-Calvinists deny that everyone sins. What we (or at least I) deny is that we (reprobate or not) have no choice but to sin in every circumstance possible in the worst way possible. Whether that is inherent to man or due to prevenient grace doesn't change the fact that we all seem to agree that there is no one who hasn't sinned.