An Anonymous Calvinist wrote:Let me explain something about Calvinism that really makes sense from the Bible. Here goes:
Do we sin? (yes)
Do we sin freely? (yes)
Could we not sin?
(We are slaves to sin, John 8:34)
Why can't we NOT not sin?
(because we are born sinners)
If you CANNOT not sin how can you be sinning FREELY?
(you act consistent with your nature)
Okay, the issue is FREE WILL!
There are two types of free will.
Libertarian- an act is free if you chose and could have done otherwise.
(I could have wore a red tie or blue)
Compatibalism- I choose what is consistent with my nature.
(I can be very creative at choosing how to sin)
In our natural condition our hearts are set against God.
We are confirmed in our rebellion.
This is what we chose in Adam, Romans 5:12.
A lot to think about!
My (Only) Reply
I posted this, as it came up in another discussion, in which we were talking about good hermeneutics and trying not to make the mistake of "asking the Bible wrong questions" and, thus, to come away with incorrect answers. My Calvinist friend, along with Augustine, "saw" answers to questions they had asked, in the scriptures. They missed the real (actual) context, and, in Augustine's case w/r/t Romans 5:12, misunderstood the verse. Augustine, perhaps, shouldn't be totally 'blamed' for this error. I'm sure some of us have held incorrect beliefs due to a bad translation; accepting it without knowing any better. However, Augustine knew he did not know Greek and put confidence in scholars who did. Let's learn from Augustine and not repeat this mistake!In John 8:34 and surrounding context we find Jesus in a 'debate' about 'ancestral' issues. The discussion's theme was: Who are the true children of Abraham? (that is, the actual children of God). Jesus' opponents laid claim to Abraham as their father - by way of their ethnic/racial ancestry. Jesus told them they had demonstrated they weren't the true children of Abraham, that their deeds had proven them otherwise (John 8:39).
Jesus confronted these contemporaries of his about their present state, that they are "slaves of sin" - as opposed to being "Abraham imitators" (who demonstrate they are truly God's children by their righteous deeds). Nothing is said to the effect that they couldn't change their ways. Nor more specifically that, in order to do so, they had to receive a "new nature" before doing so. Jesus knew nothing of persons having more than one will, nor a separate personality. The reason why is neither exist.
==========
Nothing Jesus said can be shown to be in concert with what would later be known as 'original sin' (the doctrine invented by Augustine, and later revived by Luther and Calvin). The Bible says nothing about one's choices being the fault of another. Jesus never held anyone responsible for someone else's actions or choices. He held all accountable for their own deeds, resulting from their own choices - because they were freely and fully responsible for themselves before God.
Augustine's understanding of Romans 5:12 was based on the Latin Vulgate translation of the Bible. He did not know Koine (NT) Greek.
The Latin Vulgate reads:
By one man sin entered the world, and death by sin; so death passed upon all men, for in him all men sinned.
The (incorrect) phrase "for in him all men sinned" is inadmissible as evidence in support of your argument.
The NASB (a literal translation from the Greek) reads:
Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned—
The (correct) phrase "because all sinned" means no more, nor less. A statement of existential fact in human experience.
============
Thus, your arguments, in which you cited two scriptures, are wrong on two accounts.
1) Re: John 8:34
Your Hermeneutical Errors are,
a) Eiesegesis, as evidenced by,
b) extracting a verse from its context with,
c) proof-texting, taking an individual verse to try make mean something other than what it does.
You said "We are slaves to sin", which was your first mistake. You quoted a verse in which "we" were not being spoken to. Jesus was speaking to his contemporaries about their lives and spiritual condition. You lifted the verse from its context (its original meaning) and imported an incorrect new meaning onto it from another source.
2) Re: Romans 5:12
Your Hermeneutical Error is, a) Accepting a doctrine which stemmed from a wrong translation.
As above, the original basis of Calvinist doctrine, in terms of Romans 5:12, came from misunderstanding it. Though correct translations have been made since, Calvinists still hold to Augustine's misunderstanding. There is no supporting evidence for holding to the doctrine of 'original sin' in Romans 5:12.
3) You also inferred, "We can't NOT sin because we are born sinners" with no scriptural support. Thus, though I disagree, I won't reply to it, other than to say you've provided no support for your argument.
Thanks,
