The Trouble With Calvin – Pt. 1 [Total Depravity]

Tim Staples' Blog ^ | May 1, 2014 | Tim Staples

[GonzoII]

The Trouble With Calvin – Pt. 1

---

Over my next five blog posts, I am going to critique the famous “five points” of Calvinist theology: 1. Total Depravity 2. Unconditional Election 3. Limited Atonement 4. Irresistibility of Grace 5. Perseverance of the Saints (“Once Saved, Always Saved”).

Pt. 1 – Total Depravity

In John Calvin’s magnum opus, The Institutes of the Christian Religion, Calvin presents a view of man that is very much like Luther’s, but contrary to what we find in the pages of Sacred Scripture. Calvin used texts like Gen.6:5,

The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually,

and Romans 3:10ff,

None is righteous, no not one; no one understands, no one seeks for God. All have turned aside, together they have gone wrong; no one does good, not even one…

in order to prove that man is totally and utterly depraved through the fall of Adam and Eve. Calvin’s conclusion from these texts and others was to say, “The will is so utterly vitiated and corrupted in every part as to produce nothing but evil” (Institutes, Bk. II, Chapter II, Para. 26).

What Say We?

The context of the texts Calvin used actually demonstrate the opposite of his claim. For example, if we read forward just four verses in Genesis 6, we find this:

But Noah found favor in the eyes of the Lord… Noah was a righteous (“just”) man, blameless in his generation (Gen. 6:8-9).

While we Catholics agree that God’s grace or “favor” was absolutely essential for Noah to be truly “just” before God; nevertheless, Noah was truly just, according to the text.

As far as the quote from Romans is concerned, the greater context of the entire epistle must be understood. One of the central themes of St. Paul’s Letter to the Romans is the fact that it is through “the goodness of God” that we are led to repent (cf. Romans 2:4), to be justified (Romans 5:1-2), and persevere in the faith (cf. Romans 11:22). It is solely because of God’s grace that we can truly become just:

Therefore, since we are justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. Through him we have obtained access to this grace in which we stand and we rejoice in our hope of sharing the glory of God” (Romans 5:1-2).

Further,

For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set me free from the law of sin and death…in order that the just requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit (Romans 8:2-4).

Notice the emphasis on the fact that man is truly made just so much so that he can fulfill “the just requirement of the law.” It doesn’t get any more just, or righteous, than that!

Thus, Romans 3:10ff simply does not teach total depravity in a Calvinist sense. It cannot when the context is understood.

Moreover, if we examine the very verses where St. Paul paints his picture of the wicked who have “turned aside” and “done wrong,” we find he actually quotes Psalm 14:3. The next two verses of this Psalm explain who these “evil ones” are.

Have they no knowledge, all the evil-doers who eat up my people as they eat bread, and do not call upon the Lord? There they shall be in great terror, for God is with the generation of the righteous.

The Psalmist clearly refers to both evil-doers and “the righteous.”

The impetus of these and other texts from Romans tell us that Christ came to make us just, not that there are absolutely none who are just. We must stress again that it is because of the justice of Christ communicated to the faithful that their actions, and indeed, they themselves, are truly made just. But they indeed are truly made just.

Little children, let no one deceive you. He who does right (Gr.—ho poion tein dikaiousunein—the one doing justice) is righteous (Gr.—dikaios estin—is just), as he is righteous (Gr.—kathos ekeinos dikaios estin—as he is just) (I John 3:7).

There is no way the Scripture could be any clearer that the faithful are truly made just in their being and in their actions through the grace of Christ.

The Problem Magnified

More grave problems begin to arise when we begin to follow the path Calvin lays for us with his first principle. Even when considering the unregenerate Calvin is wrong about total depravity because Scripture tells us even those who are outside of the law can,

… do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts” (Romans 2:14-15).

Though Catholics agree with Calvinists that grace is necessary even for these who are ignorant of the law in order for them to be just before God—in other words this text is not saying these pagans can be justified apart from grace—the text does infer that nature is not totally depraved because man can clearly act justly on a natural level, or by nature.

But an even more grave error comes to the fore when we consider his notion of the depravity of the just. “Depravity of the just?” Yes. That was not a typo. According to John Calvin, even those who have been justified by Christ “cannot perform one work which, if judged on its own merits, is not deserving of condemnation” (Institutes, Bk. III, Ch. 9, Para. 9). How far from “he that acts justly is just” (I John 3:7) or the plain words of the Psalmist who uses similar words as found in Gen. 15:6 with regard to Abraham being justified by faith: “[Abraham] believed the Lord; and he reckoned it to him as righteousness,” in Psalm 106:30-31: “Then Phineas stood up and interposed, and the plague was stayed. And that has been reckoned to him as righteousness from generation to generation.”

Phineas was clearly justified by his works and not just by faith. In other words, Phineas’ works are truly “just as he is just” to use the words of I John 3:7.

There are a multitude of biblical texts that come to mind at this point, but what about the words of our Lord in Matthew 12:37, “For by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.” Or, “by works a man is justified and not by faith alone” (James 2:24). Or,

But the tax collector, standing far off, would not even lift up his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, “God, be merciful to me a sinner!” I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other; for every one who exalts himself will be humbled, but he who humbles himself will be exalted (Luke 18:13-14).

These texts do not even come close to saying all of these works were “worthy of condemnation.” They say just the opposite!

We should be clear here: All “good works” man performs that contribute to his salvation are first and foremost God’s gifts, which, along with his cooperation, truly make him just and worthy to “walk with [Christ] in white; for [he is] worthy” (Rev. 3:4), by God’s grace and mercy. But we cannot escape the biblical fact that these works truly are just and they are truly the fruit of the just man himself.

The Problems Continue

Once Calvin deduces “total depravity” via poor exegesis of a relatively few texts of Scripture, all sorts of unbiblical notions follow. For example, Calvin also concludes from this that human nature is so totally depraved that free will is an impossibility. It’s a farce:

The grace offered by the Lord is not merely one which every individual has full liberty of choosing to receive or reject, but a grace which produces in the heart both choice and will (Institutes, Bk. II, Ch. 3, Para. 13).

According to Calvin, man’s total depravity means necessarily that he does not have the capacity to cooperate with God’s grace.

In fact, I argue that Calvin’s notion of grace and nature is a carbon copy of the theology of Sunni Islam. And I am far from alone in my conclusion. The famous Calvinist and anti-Catholic, Loraine Boettner, a graduate of Princeton Theological Seminary, provides:

Dr. Samuel M. Zwemer, who in a very real sense can be referred to as “apostle to the Mohammedan World,” calls attention to the strange parallel between the Reformation in Europe under Calvin and that in Arabia under Mohammed. Says he: “Islam is indeed in many respects the Calvinism of the Orient. It, too, was a call to acknowledge the sovereignty of God’s will… It is this vital theistic principle that explains the victory of Islam over the weak divided and idolatrous Christendom of the Orient” (Boettner, The Doctrine of Predestination, p. 318-319).

Strange bedfellows? Perhaps not. Islam and Calvinism agree based not only upon a distorted notion of the sovereignty of God, but also because of a distorted notion of man’s depravity. The two are very similar.

Understanding the Strange

When John Calvin says man is utterly dependent upon God for every single just thought in his mind (see Institutes, Bk. II, Ch. II, Para. 27), Catholics will happily agree. And they would be correct. We do agree. However, appearances can be deceiving because there is more meaning beneath those words that Catholics cannot agree with.

With Calvin, there is no sense of grace aiding and empowering our wills as St. Augustine taught and the Catholic Church teaches. For Calvin, being “dependent upon God” means our free cooperation or free wills have no part to play. God does not merely empower our wills; he operates them.

In the end, this may well be the most disturbing idea stemming from Calvin’s notion of total depravity. Man is essentially a puppet of God’s, which led to Calvin attributing both the good and the evil actions of man to God.

And mind you, Calvin rejects and ridicules the Catholic notion of God merely permitting evil and working all things together for good. In his words:

Hence a distinction has been invented between doing and permitting, because to many it seemed altogether inexplicable how Satan and all the wicked are so under the hand and authority of God, that he directs their malice to whatever end he pleases… (Institutes, Bk. I, Ch. XVIII, Para. 1).

Evildoers do not commit acts of depravity in spite of the command of God, but because of the command of God, according to Calvin (Ibid. Para. 4)! In fact, Calvin uses Is. 45:7 and Amos 3:6 to teach that there is no evil that occurs that is not “impelled” by God’s positive command (Ibid. Para. 2).

God is the author of all those things which, according to these objectors, happen only by his inactive permission. He testifies that he creates light and darkness, forms good and evil (Is. [45:7]); that no evil happens which he hath not done (Amos [3:6]) (Ibid. Para. 3).

As Catholics we understand—as St. Paul teaches—“since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a base mind and to improper conduct” (Romans 1:28). This means God may well remove grace that is rejected. He may also hold back grace as well, but this is, as St. Augustine said, God’s “just judgment.” But, according to Calvin’s unbiblical teaching, God does not give grace in the first place and then “impels” men to act sinfully. As quoted above, according to Calvin, God causes evil. And we are not talking about physical evil here; we are talking about moral evil. That is categorically absurd! God cannot “do” or “impel” moral evil because He is infinitely and absolutely good!

God cannot lie (Heb. 6:8, Number 23:19), “he cannot deny Himself” (II Timothy 2:13)—or act contrary to His nature. If God’s nature is one of love and pure being, it is absurd to say that he can “do” evil, which is by nature a lack of some perfection that ought to be present in a given nature. In fact, James 1:13 tells us that God not only cannot cause this kind of evil, but he cannot even tempt anyone with evil. That is contrary to his nature.

The Bottom Line

When Is. 45:7 and Amos 3:6 say God “creates evil” and “does evil,” this must be seen only in a sense in which it does not contradict God’s nature and what is clearly revealed to us about God in Scripture. God can directly cause physical evil, such as the ten plagues he released against Egypt in Exodus. But this was an act of justice, which in and of itself was morally upright and justified. We can also say that God permits evil in view of the fact that he chose to create us with freedom. But even there, God only permits evil in view of his promise to bring good out of that evil as is most profoundly demonstrated through the greatest evil in the history of the world—the crucifixion of our Lord Jesus Christ. Through this greatest evil God brings about the greatest good—the redemption of the world. God did not kill Christ, nor did he “impel” anyone to kill Christ. But by virtue of his omnipotence, he brings good out of the evil acts committed.

[Greetings_Puny_Humans]

Don’t tell Jesus: Now after John was arrested, Jesus came into Galilee, proclaiming the gospel of God, and saying, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel.”

The only thing these verses reveal is your misunderstanding of calvinism (the gospel), and the retort is the obvious and the easiest one:

Act_13:48 And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.

At no time have we ever taught that any of those who were ordained to eternal life did not believe, or that they believe against their will. Consider Augustine's explanation, a man who preceded both Calvin and Luther in these teachings, of how God brings a man infallibly to Christ:

"No man comes to me except he whom the Father shall draw. Do not think that you are drawn against your will. The mind is drawn also by love. Nor ought we to be afraid, lest perchance we be censured in regard to this evangelic word of the Holy Scriptures by men who weigh words, but are far removed from things, most of all from divine things; and lest it be said to us, How can I believe with the will if I am drawn? I say it is not enough to be drawn by the will; you are drawn even by delight. What is it to be drawn by delight? Delight yourself in the Lord, and He shall give you the desires of your heart. There is a pleasure of the heart to which that bread of heaven is sweet. Moreover, if it was right in the poet to say, Every man is drawn by his own pleasure, — not necessity, but pleasure; not obligation, but delight—how much more boldly ought we to say that a man is drawn to Christ when he delights in the truth, when he delights in blessedness, delights in righteousness, delights in everlasting life, all which Christ is? Or is it the case that, while the senses of the body have their pleasures, the mind is left without pleasures of its own? If the mind has no pleasures of its own, how is it said, The sons of men shall trust under the cover of Your wings: they shall be well satisfied with the fullness of Your house; and You shall give them drink from the river of Your pleasure. For with You is the fountain of life; and in Your light shall we see light? Give me a man that loves, and he feels what I say. Give me one that longs, one that hungers, one that is travelling in this wilderness, and thirsting and panting after the fountain of his eternal home; give such, and he knows what I say. But if I speak to the cold and indifferent, he knows not what I say. Such were those who murmured among themselves. He whom the Father shall draw, says He, comes unto me." (Augustine, Tractate 26)

All men who receive it from heaven to believe, therefore, do not convert against their will, but are given a new heart of flesh to see and to hear the things of God (Deu 29:4), and once equipped are drawn by the delight of the Gospel revealed to them, so that all who believe are willing believers. And all those who are damned are also willing infidels, happily sinning against God.

The verses I presented from John prove, beyond any doubt, that it is indeed the grace of God, and not man's willing or running, which brings him infallibly to salvation and never lets him go (Rom 9:16). I have never seen any individual who claimed otherwise really take the time to tackle or acknowledge the plain meaning of these verses, which declare, without blushing, that the reason for those Jews' disbelief was in God not giving it to them to believe, and not for any other reason.

Submit to God, not to your own understanding. Holding on to the false premise that it man who gives himself to God, and not God who takes the man, does not save you from the things you wish to avoid. It is a fact that not everyone has heard the Gospel, and many millions, including those Jews as mentioned by Christ, have never been "given" anything by the Father to believe. There are out there, right now, even in American cities, people who will never hear the Gospel and will never have any sort of chance for salvation. They will die in ignorance, without the "chance" you all deem so important to justify God. How do you save yourself from the charge of "unfairness" then, when God does not give an equal chance to all the world to be saved? But the true answer to these problems is not to rob from God His sovereignty in salvation, but rather it is to submit to the scripture:

"As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated. What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid. For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy." (Rom 9:13-16)

And again,

"Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?" (Rom 9:19-20)

This is hard medicine, but it is the best medicine.

It is God's will that all men believe and come to repentance. Scripture says it in so many words.

This is true, but we must not confuse the prescriptive will of God with His secret decree, or, in other words, His will that all should repent and be saved, with His will to save and cause men to repent. On the one hand, He desires men to be saved, but, on the other hand, there are those whom He will give His mercy to, and those whom He will not, according to His own pleasure.

The scripture only teaches regarding man's will two things. That we will to sin, and that, abundantly, and cannot, without the Holy Spirit, do anything different, for none "seek or understand" God (Rom 3). We are voluntary slaves.

Secondly, the scripture teaches that whomever Christ sets free, they are free indeed, and none whom God begins a work in ever fail to have it completed. And all those who do not believe are specifically told that they were not "given" it by the Father to believe, and not because of any foreknowledge of rejection or faithlessness on their part.

These facts knock down any role in man's willing and running in his salvation, but give all the glory to God, who sees a depraved world and chooses for Himself His own people and does not fail to bring them happily, and willingly, into His arms.

[Elsie]

Act_13:48 And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.

2 Peter 3:9
The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

[Greetings_Puny_Humans]

2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

The longsuffering of God is salvation:

2Pe 3:15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;

And therefore His longsuffering does not fail to save. It is, again, to "us-ward," and manifestly different from the toleration of ungodly men who, with the Earth, are reserved to judgement, and are called scoffers, and are not the subject of this message of salvation:

2Pe 3:7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

Jud_1:4 For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.

[Mr Rogers]

“This is true, but we must not confuse the prescriptive will of God with His secret decree, or, in other words, His will that all should repent and be saved, with His will to save and cause men to repent.”

God has not hidden his will from us. He never states that he will save some men because he wants to, and damns all others because it pleases him to do so.

In Scripture, faith comes before spiritual life:

“But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God,”

“these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.”

Scripture never speaks of saving faith as something given to us by God. It is always something within us: “When Jesus heard this, he marveled and said to those who followed him, “Truly, I tell you, with no one in Israel have I found such faith.”

We do not do it apart from God, because God reveals himself to man first - always taking the initiative. But man is allowed to respond, and sometimes Satan is allowed to resist: “”The ones along the path are those who have heard. Then the devil comes and takes away the word from their hearts, so that they may not believe and be saved.”

Sometimes people respond initially, but not in a way that takes root: “”And the ones on the rock are those who, when they hear the word, receive it with joy. But these have no root; they believe for a while, and in time of testing fall away.”

Being elect in the New Testament is related to being the Chosen People in the Old Testament - it is a corporate election and predestination. God doesn’t create a list of names who will be saved regardless, and a list of names of those who will be damned regardless, but sets conditions and those who accept his will are then the Chosen Ones.

“(3) Election in Christ is primarily corporate, i.e., an election of a people (Eph 1:4-5, 7, 9). The elect are called “the body of Christ” (4:12), “my church” (Mt 16:18), “a people belonging to God” (1 Pe 2:9), and the “bride” of Christ (Rev 19:7). Therefore, election is corporate and embraces individual persons only as they identify and associate themselves with the body of Christ, the true church (Eph 1:22-23; see Robert Shank, Elect in the Son, [Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishers]). This was true already of Israel in the OT (see Dt 29:18-21, note; 2Ki 21:14, note; see article on God’s Covenant with the Israelites, p. 298)....

...Summary. Concerning election and predestination, we might use the analogy of a great ship on its way to heaven. The ship (the church) is chosen by God to be his very own vessel. Christ is the Captain and Pilot of this ship. All who desire to be a part of this elect ship and its Captain can do so through a living faith in Christ, by which they come on board the ship. As long as they are on the ship, in company with the ship’s Captain, they are among the elect. If they choose to abandon the ship and Captain, they cease to be part of the elect. Election is always only in union with the Captain and his ship. Predestination tells us about the ship’s destination and what God has prepared for those remaining on it. God invites everyone to come aboard the elect ship through faith in Jesus Christ. [Life in the Spirit Study Bible, pp. 1854-1855]”

http://evangelicalarminians.org/A-Concise-Summary-of-the-Corporate-View-of-Election-and-Predestination/

Also see:

“Finally, the Apostle Paul would argue, God limited his election even further to Christ as the head of the New Covenant (Gal. 3–4; see especially 3:16; cf. Rom. 3–4; 8), which is the fulfillment of the Old. Paradoxically, this also widened the election of God’s people because all who are in Christ by faith are chosen by virtue of their identification with Christ the corporate covenantal head, opening covenant membership to Gentiles as Gentiles. Just as God’s Old Covenant people were chosen in Jacob/Israel, the Church was chosen in Christ (as Eph. 1:4 puts it). And as Ephesians 2 makes clear, Gentiles who believe in Christ are in him made to be part of the commonwealth of Israel, fellow citizens with the saints, members of God’s household, and possessors of the covenants of promise (2:11-22; note especially vv. 12, 19). Indeed, any Jews who did not believe in Jesus were cut off from the elect people, and any believing Gentiles who stop believing will likewise be cut off, while anyone who comes to faith, whether Jew or Gentile, will be incorporated into God’s people (Rom. 11:17-24).”

http://evangelicalarminians.org/corporate-election-quotes/

Calvin’s discussions of election tend to skip over the whole “in Christ” thing...

[Greetings_Puny_Humans]

God has not hidden his will from us. He never states that he will save some men because he wants to, and damns all others because it pleases him to do so.

Ignoring the idea that God takes pleasure in the death of any, it certainly does state that He saves some, and not all, according to His will. I posted the verses already. In Scripture, faith comes before spiritual life:

It certainly does not, and the scripture even explicitly declares that the "carnal man" cannot discern the things of God. You quote scriptures, but do not bother to explain their significance in your usage.

Scripture never speaks of saving faith as something given to us by God.

Yes it does. In fact, the scripture even says that everything we have, no matter what sort of blessing, is given to us from above (John 3:27). Don't just ignore what I say. I already posted many such verses proving it beyond a doubt. I hate doing it over and over again.

Sometimes people respond initially, but not in a way that takes root:

These verses do not contradict my verses. The "good soil" is the elect. They are not themselves good, but are made so.

Being elect in the New Testament is related to being the Chosen People in the Old Testament - it is a corporate election and predestination.

This is mere assertion. You cannot argue that the elect that Christ speaks to, on individual terms, using individual names, are a corporation that has no individuals.

Also see:

The use of websites is pure laziness. I have no interest in taking down a whole website, though I could if it pleased me. Respond to what I have written. Do not dance around or toss red herrings at me.

[Mr Rogers]

What it states is that God sets the terms of salvation, but it does not say that God has a list of men he will damn because he does not want them to be saved. On the contrary, it says God wants all to be saved...but all are not. Why? Hmmm?

There is no puzzle for those who understand that God will not FORCE faith on others.

“In Scripture, faith comes before spiritual life:

It certainly does not, and the scripture even explicitly declares that the “carnal man” cannot discern the things of God.”

Actually, it does. We believe to live. We do not live, and then believe. “ and that by believing you may have life in his name”

“This is mere assertion.”

No. It makes clear why election is “In Christ”.

“The use of websites is pure laziness.”

No. I have no intention of posting a few hundred pages of scholarly arguments and discussions of the meanings of Greek words. I gave a decent sample, and anyone who wants to read a 50 page discussion can follow the links and find them.

“Do not dance around or toss red herrings at me.”

I’ve done neither. I have pointed out that scripture says we are saved by grace thru faith, not grace thru by-name predestination. There are roughly 500 verses in the NT alone on the importance of faith and believing, and about 20 or so on election. To base one’s interpretation of 500 verses on 20 verses that one has not bothered to research the meaning and context of is a poor approach to studying the Bible.

Pointing out that election could refer to individual names OR to corporate election is not throwing out red herrings. It is a valid, logical point, well substantiated at the links provided. Trying to read in by-name election into Romans 9-11 simply ignores the text. When Paul writes, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated”, he is quoting MALACHI, not Genesis. He is discussing nations, not individuals.

[Greetings_Puny_Humans]

What it states is that God sets the terms of salvation, but it does not say that God has a list of men he will damn because he does not want them to be saved. On the contrary, it says God wants all to be saved...but all are not. Why? Hmmm?

These are, again, just assertions and rhetorical statements, which do not address anything I have said, which actually already address these topics.

No. I have no intention of posting a few hundred pages of scholarly arguments and discussions of the meanings of Greek words. I gave a decent sample, and anyone who wants to read a 50 page discussion can follow the links and find them.

But why must we read a few hundred pages of "scholarly arguments" when I've made very specific challenges here and now? Will you or will you not address my points on the John 6 scriptures and other verses I have presented? Just pointing to some other verse, which you claim contradicts, is nothing but distraction. If the scripture cannot be broken, then you must answer my challenges already made to previous objections, not keep piling on objections without meeting challenges.

I have no intention of reading material from your websites, or anyone's website, until my challenges are respectfully met, not ignored or lost in the wilderness you are trying to plant. I'm doing this, by the way, because I remember the last time we debated, and you did not address my points back then either. I have sworn not to be distracted with an infinite number of objections, but, rather, to make my opponents address my points before moving on to anything else.

1Co_14:40 Let all things be done decently and in order.

[metmom]

It is true that there is no such thing as free will. However, God commands all men everywhere to repent and it is His will that all come to a knowledge of salvation. Those He foreknew He predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son. Those He knew would accept His gift of salvation He chose to save instead of letting them go to hell even though they deserved it. So yes, He also showed mercy to those to whom He would show mercy, those who would believe in Him given the opportunity.

And yes, He knew there would be people who would be born and live and die and ever accept His gift offered to them, so in that case, yes, there’s no reason for Him to not use them as He sees fit, which He has the right to do anyway.

But that is different than Him picking and choosing to save some and to damn others.

It is true that He hardened people, like Pharaoh, but Pharaoh hardened his heart first, then God hardened it.

God created man for fellowship with Himself. He is love and takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked. I’m sure that He would rather that every person He created in His image would be saved. That would be the Father’s heart. But we’re not robots and love is not love if it’s not freely given.

I absolutely believe that we cannot come to God without His drawing us and enlightening us. We are slaves to sin and love it, but I just don’t see that Scripture supports the kind of predestination that does not give man a choice. God draws men. Some respond and most don’t.

[GGpaX4DumpedTea]

These threads of ‘blogs’ are a relatively poor excuse about learning ‘theology’, in my humble opinion. These are all the interpretations of man interpreting man, with a ‘necessary’ reference to Scripture to bolster whatever argument is being made.

Salvation, you might remember once that I cited in a thread that my dad, confronted by a ‘learned pastor’ in Des Moines who said that he was the man who the other pastors in that city came to when they had a question about what the Bible said. My dad’s response was that he, my dad, was the man, when he had a question about what the Bible said, he, my dad went to the Holy Spirit for answers.

I am more and more becoming a ‘chip off the old block’ so to speak, at my nearly 4 score years I find that works better for me than all the theological discussions/dissertations in the world.

I might say though, that Luther and Calvin were not much better than the Inquisitor’s when it came to dealing with those with whom they were in theological disagreement. Consider the Anabaptists, tied to a long pole and dunked in the river...and some of those so dunked drowned. My understanding is that both Luther and Calvin resorted to this...or their followers did.

[Gamecock]

My understanding is that both Luther and Calvin resorted to this...or their followers did.

So which was it?

[GGpaX4DumpedTea]

My understanding is that while Luther and Calvin my not have been on the dipping end of the pole, they sanctioned it. Is that so hard to understand?

[Gamecock]

No. But your post is disjointed.

Please provide a reference. Shouldn’t be hard, should it?

[GGpaX4DumpedTea]

Luther sanctioned capital punishment for doctrinal heresy most notably in his Commentary on the 82nd Psalm (vol. 13, pp. 39-72 in the 55-volume set, Luther’s Works, edited by Jaroslav Pelikan et al), written in 1530, where he advocated the following:

If some were to teach doctrines contradicting an article of faith clearly grounded in Scripture and believed throughout the world by all Christendom, such as the articles we teach children in the Creed — for example, if anyone were to teach that Christ is not God, but a mere man and like other prophets, as the Turks and the Anabaptists hold — such teachers shuold not be tolerated, but punished as blasphemers . . .

By this procedure no one is compelled to believe, for he can still believe what he will; but he is forbidden to teach and to blaspheme.

(Luther’s Works [LW], Vol. 13, 61-62)

Is this merely my interpretation of his words and thoughts? Hardly. The famous Luther biographer Roland Bainton wrote:

In 1530 Luther advanced the view that two offences should be penalized even with death, namely sedition and blasphemy. The emphasis was thus shifted from incorrect belief to its public manifestation by word and deed. This was, however, no great gain for liberty, because Luther construed mere abstention from public office and military service as sedition and a rejection of an article of the Apostles’ Creed as blasphemy.

In a memorandum of 1531, composed by Melanchthon and signed by Luther, a rejection of the ministerial office was described as insufferable blasphemy, and the disintegration of the Church as sedition against the ecclesiastical order. In a memorandum of 1536, again composed by Melanchthon and signed by Luther, the distinction between the peaceful and the revolutionary
Anabaptists was obliterated . . .

Melanchthon this time argued that even the passive action of the Anabaptists in rejecting government, oaths, private property, and marriages outside the faith was itself disruptive of the civil order and therefore seditious. The Anabaptist protest against the punishment of blasphemy was itself blasphemy. The discontinuance of infant baptism would produce a heathen society and separation from the Church, and the formation of sects was an offense against God.

Luther may not have been too happy about signing these memoranda. At any rate he appended postscripts to each. To the first he said,

I assent. Although it seems cruel to punish them with the sword, it is crueler that they condemn the ministry of the Word and have no well-grounded doctrine and suppress the true and in this way seek to subvert the civil order.

. . . In 1540 he is reported in his Table Talk to have returned to the position of Philip of Hesse that only seditious Anabaptists should be executed; the others should be merely banished. But Luther passed by many an opportunity to speak a word for those who with joy gave themselves as sheep for the slaughter.

. . . For the understanding of Luther’s position one must bear in mind that Anabaptism was not in every instance socially innocuous. The year in which Luther signed the memorandum counseling death even for the peaceful Anabaptists was the year in which a group of them ceases to be peaceful . . . By forcible measures they took over the city of Munster in Westphalia . . .

Yet when all these attenuating considerations are adduced, one cannot forget that Melanchthon’s memorandum justified the eradication of the peaceful, not because they were incipient and clandestine revolutionaries, but on the ground that even a peaceful renunciation of the state itself constituted sedition.

(Here I Stand: A Life of Martin Luther, New York: Mentor, 1950, 295-296)

Moreover, Luther wrote in a 1536 pamphlet:

That seditious articles of doctrine should be punished by the sword needed no further proof. For the rest, the Anabaptists hold tenets relating to infant baptism, original sin, and inspiration, which have no connection with the Word of God, and are indeed opposed to it . . . Secular authorities are also bound to restrain and punish avowedly false doctrine . . . For think what disaster would ensue if children were not baptized? . . . Besides this the Anabaptists separate themselves from the churches . . . and they set up a ministry and congregation of their own, which is also contrary to the command of God. From all this it becomes clear that the secular authorities are bound . . . to inflict corporal punishment on the offenders . . . Also when it is a case of only upholding some spiritual tenet, such as infant baptism, original sin, and unnecessary separation, then . . . we conclude that . . . the stubborn sectaries must be put to death.

(Martin Luther: pamphlet of 1536; in Johannes Janssen, History of the German People From the Close of the Middle Ages, 16 volumes, translated by A.M. Christie, St. Louis: B. Herder, 1910 [orig. 1891]; Vol. X, 222-223)

[GGpaX4DumpedTea]

http://www.a-voice.org/tidbits/calvinp.htm

” Calvin and Persecution “
Why the Silence!
“...that an end could be put to their machinations in no other way than cutting them off by an ignominious death” (John Calvin).

The great declaration of the Reformation was “Sola Scriptura,” Scripture Alone. To this we give a hearty amen. But for John Calvin it clearly was not Scripture alone. It was Scripture plus some key leftovers of the Roman Catholic Church: notably: infant baptism, a state church, and persecution of those who did not fall into line. As H.R Pike writes, “It was Scripture plus the sword of the state, hangings, burning at the stake, prison, tortures...” (The Other Side of John Calvin, p. 54).

Below is evidence that this is not overstatement!

Most who call themselves Calvinist say very little about the famous Reformer having a persecuting side. This reflects a selective silence that began quite early. We are greatly indebted to John Foxe and his Book of Martyrs for detailing the terrible atrocities meted out by Papal Rome. But Foxe, a contemporary and friend of Calvin (he outlived Calvin by 23 years), gives not one paragraph to the many persecutions that took place at Calvin’s Geneva and elsewhere across Europe. Only those who suffered at the hand of Rome are mentioned (Pike, n.122).

That Rome’s crimes were much greater in magnitude does not excuse this silence concerning the considerable persecution Protestants meted out. Nor can we accept the excuse that “Calvin’s actions must be seen in light of the standards of that age”. Regardless of the age, the New Testament is the standard against which actions are judged!

CHRONOLOGY OF CALVIN’S LIFE

1509 — Born at Noyon, northwest of Paris. His father was lawyer-secretary to the local Catholic bishop.
1521 — Placed on church payroll as a “benefice.”

1523 — Sent to the University of Paris to study for the priesthood. Begins to be attracted to anti Romanist views.

1528 — His father and older brother are excommunicated from the Catholic Church. Leaves Paris to study law at Orleans and then at Bourges. Comes under the influence of the reformer Melchoir Wolmar.

1531 — After death of father he returns to Paris to study Greek and Hebrew, but shortly after resumes law studies at Orleans. There he receives a doctorate with highest honours.

1533 — Comes under the influence of a cousin, Olivetan, a Waldensian pastor and translator of the Bible into French. Makes final break with the Catholic Church and declares himself a Protestant. His writings do not give a clear testimony of his own salvation experience (Pike, pp.7-9).

1533-36 — Flees Paris, takes up residence in Basel. Finishes first edition of his Institutes of the Christian Religion.

1536 — Arrives in Geneva, a city that had recently declared itself free from the Catholic Church. Is persuaded by William Farel to develop a church-state system for Geneva. All in the city are required to attend the Reformed Church. All must give an oath of allegiance to a code of faith and discipline on fear of banishment from the city. In less than two years Calvin and Farel are forced to flee Geneva because of the harshness of their system.

1538 — Oversees a church of French refugees in Strasbourg. Comes under the influence of Martin Bucer. Revises his Institutes. Writes a commentary on Romans. Does all in his power to oppose the Anabaptists.

CALVIN’S STATEMENTS SUPPORTING PERSECUTION
Prefatory Address in his Institutes to Francis, King of the French, 1536. “But when I perceived that the fury of certain bad men had risen to such a height in your realm, that there was no place in it for sound doctrine, I thought it might be of service if I were in the same work both to give instruction to my countrymen, and also lay before your Majesty a Confession, from which you may learn what the doctrine is that so inflames the rage of those madmen who are this day, with fire and sword, troubling your kingdom. For I fear not to declare, that what I have here given may be regarded as a summary of the very doctrine which, they vociferate, ought to be punished with confiscation, exile, imprisonment, and flames, as well as exterminated by land and sea. This, I allow, is a fearful punishment which God sends on the earth; but if the wickedness of men so deserves, why do we strive to oppose the just vengeance of God?”

Letter to William Farel, February 13, 1546. “If he [Servetus] comes [to Geneva], I shall never let him go out alive if my authority has weight.”

Letter to the Lord Protector of Somerset, adviser to King Edward VI, October 22, 1548. “[They] well deserve to be repressed by the sword which is committed to you, seeing that they attack not the King only, but God who has seated him upon the throne, and has entrusted to you the protection as well of His person as of His majesty.”

Letter of August 20, 1553, one week after Servetus arrest. “I hope that Servetus will be condemned to death.”

Defense of Orthodox Faith against the Prodigious Errors of the Spaniard Michael Servetus, published in early 1554. “Whoever shall now contend that it is unjust to put heretics and blasphemers to death will knowingly and willingly incur their very guilt. This is not laid down on human authority; it is God who speaks and prescribes a perpetual rule for his Church. It is not in vain that he banishes all those human affections which soften our hearts; that he commands paternal love and all the benevolent feelings between brothers, relations, and friends to cease; in a word, that he almost deprives men of their nature in order that nothing may hinder their holy zeal. Why is so implacable a severity exacted but that we may know that God is defrauded of his honour, unless the piety that is due to him be preferred to all human duties, and that when his glory is to be asserted, humanity must be almost obliterated from our memories? Many people have accused me of such ferocious cruelty that I would like to kill again the man I have destroyed. Not only am I indifferent to their comments, but I rejoice in the fact that they spit in my face.”

Preface to Commentaries, July 22, 1557. “To these irreligious characters. and despisers of the heavenly doctrineŠ. I think that there is scarcely any of the weapons which are forged in the workshop of Satan, which has not been employed by them in order to obtain their object. And at length matters had come to such a state, that an end could be put to their machinations in no other way than cutting them off by an ignominious death; which was indeed a painful and pitiable spectacle to me. They no doubt deserved the severest punishment, but I always rather desired that they might live in prosperity, and continue safe and untouched; which would have been the case had they not been altogether incorrigible, and obstinately refused to listen to wholesome admonition.”

Comments on Ex. 22:20, Lev. 24:16, Deut. 13:5-15, 17:2-5. “Moreover, God Himself has explicitly instructed us to kill heretics, to smite with the sword any city that abandons the worship of the true faith revealed by Him.”

Letter to the Marquis Paet, chamberlain to the King of Navarre, 1561. “Honour, glory, and riches shall be the reward of your pains; but above all, do not fail to rid the country of those scoundrels [Anabaptists and others], who stir up the people to revolt against us. Such monsters should be exterminated, as I have exterminated Michael Servetus the Spaniard.”

PERSECUTIONS AT CALVIN’S GENEVA
The Minutes Book of the Geneva City Council, 1541-59 (translated by Stefan Zweig, Erasmus: The Right to Heresy):

“During the ravages of the pestilence in 1545 more than twenty men and women were burnt alive for witchcraft.

From 1542 to 1546 fifty-eight judgements of death and seventy-six decrees of banishment were passed.

During the years 1558 and 1559 the cases of various punishments for all sorts of offences amounted to four hundred and fourteen.

One burgher smiled while attending a baptism: three days imprisonment.

Another, tired out on a hot summer day, went to sleep during a sermon: prison.

Some workingmen ate pastry at breakfast: three days on bread and water.

Two burghers played skittles: prison.

Two others diced for a quarter bottle of wine: prison.

A blind fiddler played a dance: expelled from the city.

Another praised Castellio’s translation of the Bible: expelled from Geneva.

A girl was caught skating, a widow threw herself on the grave of her husband, a burgher offered his neighbour a pinch of snuff during divine service: they were summoned before the Consistory, exhorted, and ordered to do penance.

Some cheerful fellows at Epiphany stuck a bean into the cake: four-and-twenty hours on bread and water.

A couple of peasants talked about business matters on coming out of church: prison.

A man played cards: he was pilloried with the pack of cards hung around his neck.

Another sang riotously in the street: was told ‘they could go and sing elsewhere,’ this meaning he was banished from the city.

Two bargees had a brawl: executed.

A man who publicly protested against the reformer’s doctrine of predestination was flogged at all the crossways of the city and then expelled.

A book printer who in his cups [columns] had railed at Calvin, was sentenced to have his tongue perforated with a red-hot iron before being expelled from the city.

Jacques Gruent was racked and then executed for calling Calvin a hypocrite.

Each offence, even the most paltry, was carefully entered in the record of the Consistory, so that the private life of every citizen could unfailingly be held up against him in evidence.” (See Pike, pp. 61-63).
Sources quoted in Philip Schaff’s History of the Christian Church, vol. 8:
“The death penalty against heresy, idolatry and blasphemy and barbarous customs of torture were retained. Attendance at public worship was commanded on penalty of three sols. Watchmen were appointed to see that people went to church. The members of the Consistory visited every house once a year to examine the faith and morals of the family. Every unseemly word and act on the street was reported, and the offenders were cited before the Consistory to be either censured and warned, or to be handed over to the Council for severer punishment.”

Several women, among them the wife of Ami Perrin, the captain-general, were imprisoned for dancing.

A man was banished from the city for three months because on hearing an ass bray, he said jestingly ‘He prays a beautiful psalm.’

A young man was punished because he gave his bride a book on housekeeping with the remark: ‘This is the best Psalter.’

Three men who laughed during a sermon were imprisoned for three days.

Three children were punished because they remained outside of the church during the sermon to eat cakes.

A man who swore by the ‘body and blood of Christ’ was fined and condemned to stand for an hour in the pillory on the public square.

A child was whipped for calling his mother a thief and a she-devil.

A girl was beheaded for striking her parents.

A banker was executed for repeated adultery.

A person named Chapuis was imprisoned for four days because he persisted in calling his child Claude (a Roman Catholic saint) instead of Abraham.

Men and women were burnt to death for witchcraft. (See Pike, pp. 55,56).
From Other Sources:
Belot, an Anabaptist was arrested for passing out tracts in Geneva and also accusing Calvin of excessive use of wine. With his books and tracts burned, he was banished from the city and told not to return on pain of hanging (J.L. Adams, The Radical Reformation, pp. 597-598).

Martin Luther said of Calvin’s actions in Geneva, “With a death sentence they solve all argumentation” (Juergan L. Neve, A History of Christian Thought, vol. I, p. 285).

“About the month of January 1546, a member of the Little Council, Pierre Ameaux, asserted that Calvin was nothing but a wicked man - who was preaching false doctrine. Calvin felt that his authority as an interpreter of the Word of God was being attacked: he so completely identified his own ministry with the will of God that he considered Ameaux’s words as an insult to the honour of Christ. The Magistrates offered to make the culprit beg Calvin’s pardon on bended knees before the Council of the Two Hundred, but Calvin found this insufficient. On April 8, Ameaux was sentenced to walk all round the town, dressed only in a shirt, bareheaded and carrying a lighted torch in his hand, and after that to present himself before the tribunal and cry to God for mercy” (F. Wendel, Calvin, pp. 85, 86).
“Doth a fountain send forth at the same place sweet water and bitter?” James 3:11.

[GGpaX4DumpedTea]

Want more, Gamecock? Google is your friend. Dont know if you were offended by the Luther reference or the Calvin reference, so now you have substantiation for both...and so do the others interested in this thread!

And by the way, here is the link for the earlier post re Luther’s complicity...

http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2004/02/luther-death-penalty-for-anabaptists.html

[Greetings_Puny_Humans]

It is true that there is no such thing as free will. However, God commands all men everywhere to repent and it is His will that all come to a knowledge of salvation. Those He foreknew He predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son. Those He knew would accept His gift of salvation He chose to save instead of letting them go to hell even though they deserved it.

The problem, especially with the last statement, is that it nowhere actually says this in scripture. When Christ was explaining the unbelief of the Jews, He does not say that they do not believe because it was "foreknown" that they would reject, or that they even rejected at any time. He specifically says that the reason they do not believe is because it was not given to them to believe, and not for any other reason than that.

Joh 6:64 But there are some of you who do not believe." (For Jesus knew from the beginning who those were who did not believe, and who it was who would betray him.) Joh 6:65 And he said, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father."

Look closely at the verse. That He knew they did not believe is the reason why He kept telling them that "no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father."

While it is true that He commands men everywhere to repent, this does not mean that they will obey His command, or that He will not cause some to believe, or that He will not choose to cause any not to believe. God does not command things, and then refuse to cause His people to obey them, because He refuses to mess with their "free will." What God commands for His people, He also gives, and hence the scripture: "For He works in us both to will and to do of His good pleasure," and "I will put my spirit in you, and will cause you to walk in my statutes." Your statement, sweet sister, and I do not judge you for your opinion, mind you, and love you dearly, for we are saved by faith, not by faith in Calvinism or Arminianism, but your statement where you say "He also showed mercy to those whom He would show mercy, those who would believe in Him given the opportunity," is problematic. Since if we rightly locate sovereignty in God to show mercy on anyone, then we cannot say that God ever owes anyone mercy, no matter what they do. It also comes to even more direct conflict with the verse that comes right below for. "So then it is not him who willeth, or him that runneth, but God who has mercy." Since your statement would affirm that the "willing" is indeed the factor, and not the mercy of God. Either we believe that it is all of mercy, or we must believe that willing and running do indeed meet God half way, and it is not all of His mercy.

It is true that He hardened people, like Pharaoh, but Pharaoh hardened his heart first, then God hardened it.

By definition, all that God does is just, and none are condemned for anything, but for what they have incurred. But God foresaw Pharoah, and, rather than, say, letting him die at birth, or being replaced by someone else, God chose to "raise" him up, and use him according to his own purposes, foreseeing already that Pharoah would be perish. In fact, all things are worked by God. No man has any power, any authority, but by the divine establishment of God. Even evil spirits and men can only do what God permits, and in so doing accomplish His will, as it is God who regulates the darkness.

[Greetings_Puny_Humans]

Below is evidence that this is not overstatement!

The absurdity and complete waste of time of these exercises is that Calvin did not even invent the doctrine that has his name, but was given to us by Luther, and shared by all the reformers. And even Luther did not invent it, but it was held by many before, including Augustine from the 4th century. And even Augustine did not invent it, but it is the Apostles and Jesus Christ who gave it.

You will have to make them all guilty of one thing or another, if you want us to abandon the Gospel. Now, as for Calvin and his alleged mass murdering, I do not shed any tears of Servetus, and anti-Trinitarian heretic. And I'll add that this kind of law was the law of the whole world in those days, and I doubt you will be able to demonstrate how Calvin had anything to do with inventing laws against witch craft.

[GGpaX4DumpedTea]

“In the Religion forum, on a thread titled The Trouble With Calvin – Pt. 1 [Total Depravity], Greetings_Puny_Humans wrote:

Below is evidence that this is not overstatement!
The absurdity and complete waste of time of these exercises is that Calvin did not even invent the doctrine that has his name, but was given to us by Luther, and shared by all the reformers.”

Ah, how right you are. It is all absurdity and a complete wast of time...

[Mr Rogers]

“Will you or will you not address my points on the John 6 scriptures and other verses I have presented?”

You have not presented any to me. However, I assume you are referring to these passages:

“37 All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out. 38 For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me.”

“43 Jesus answered them, “Do not grumble among yourselves. 44 No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day.”

“And he said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.”

Those passage do not say anything about God having a list of names, or his choosing people as individual names to come to Christ. Nor does it discuss election.

“Ultimately the primary difference between Arminian and Calvinist readings of John 6 is that Arminians think that the drawing spoken of is God’s reaching out with grace and Calvinists believe the drawing is speaking of unconditional election.”

http://evangelicalarminians.org/proof-texting-presuppositions-with-john-644-65/

I have already said that God takes the initiative in reaching out and revealing himself to us, and that apart from God reaching out to us, none would ever be saved. Some call this prevenient grace, but I think it is simply grace - God reaching out to man, even knowing that many will reject Him. But it is certainly true that God reaches down to man, and man on his own can never reach up to God, nor will man try.

But who are the ones God gives Christ? Is it a list of names, or is it “whosoever believes”? That was answered 8 verses earlier: “Then they said to him, “What must we do, to be doing the works of God?” Jesus answered them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent.””

Those who believe in response to God’s initiative are those placed “in Christ”, and they are then part of the elect - in Christ. And what has the Father granted? That those who repent and believe - in response to God - will become part of the Kingdom. As Jesus says in verse 40: “For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.”

Also:

“A person only comes to be in Christ by grace through faith. Only those whose faith is in Christ Jesus will be raised up on Resurrection Day. Faith is the requirement and condition of salvation. So if Christ is to “draw all people” to Himself (John 12.32), and the Father also “draws” people to His Son, then the determining factor of who will be in Christ and experience the resurrection is the faith of the one drawn. The old adage comes into play nicely here. You can draw a horse to water, but you cannot make him drink.

Again, Forlines writes, “When Jesus said, ‘And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw [helkuo] all men by Myself’ (12.32), He definitely did not mean that He would drag every human being to Himself. He meant that there would go out from Him a drawing power that would make it possible for any person who hears the gospel to come to Him . . .

“If a person is going to interpret helkuo in John 6.44 and 12.32 to be an irresistible drawing, he must first find a passage elsewhere that irrefutably teaches that there is such an irresistible drawing. Then, he might suggest that as the meaning in John. These verses cannot be used as a part of a person’s arsenal of irrefutable proof of an irresistible calling.”3

http://evangelicalarminians.org/john-6-jesus-says-he-has-good-news-his-father-has-chosen-to-save-some-of-you/

You write, “I have sworn not to be distracted with an infinite number of objections, but, rather, to make my opponents address my points before moving on to anything else.”

You can swear what you want, but you neither own the forum not set the rules. In a forum debate, other posters can raise any objections they like. You can answer or remain silent as you choose, but you cannot decide they cannot raise objections at all.

There are hundreds of verses contradicting the spiritual world view of Calvin, so you will have to be content on an open forum to see more than one verse discussed. I am trying to be polite and answer an objection you have never actually raised with me, but I do not concede that you set the rules for the religion forum on FR.

[ctdonath2]

Because then they’d have to admit that Mary wasn’t sinless.

Thing is, by the reasoning given they should be worshiping Noah just as much as Mary.