ReformedRom 5:12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned—
Because Jesus was hung on a tree, therefore he was guilty. (If you want an innocent person to be guilty simply hang them on a tree and they are automatically guilty) (case in point: A Presbyterian writer, James M. Boice, asserted that when Christ died upon the cross [tree] he, “violated the law — through no fault of his own — [and] he became technically guilty of all of it [the law]” (“Galatians,” The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Frank Gaebelein, Ed., Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976, Vol. 10, p. 460).)
When a person is hung on a tree he is being treated as if he were accursed of God. It is not that he actually is accursed of God, but rather that's what those who hung him there are saying.
ReformedRom 5:18 Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of
"All sinned" is interpreted to mean that all sinned in Adam. Meaning that people, who weren't even alive in Adam's day, and therefore innocent of the crime he committed, are nonetheless imputed with his guilt and thus subject to condemnation.
First of all the very definition of injustice is to reckon people guilty of crimes one knows they didn't actually commit. And since God is just, I discard the Reformed interpretation. Rather the phrase "all sinned" is to be interpreted in light of what Paul previously stated. (Consider also that the verse starts with "Therefore" and so must not be interpreted in isolation to what was previously stated). In Rom 3:23 Paul also declared that all sinned, but from the context there he was referring to behavior, actions, deeds, actual crimes being committed of which he spend a great deal of the first three chapters describing.
Reformed2Cor 5:21 God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.
Once again the interpretation is that God reckons guilt of someone else's crime to those who didn't actually commit the crime. This is guilt by association, also known as prejudice.
Once again since God is just, impartial, the Reformed interpretation is discarded. Rather Paul is referring to the end results and not the process. Namely that due to Adam's sin, the human condition is such that we are born in an environment subject to temptation and corruption. But we are not born guilty. We are born with a sinful nature. Complying to that nature makes us guilty. So also with justification. Despite the fact that Christ died so all may live, justification is only given to those who put their faith in Christ, which is our compliance to the gospel.
ReformedIs 53:10 Yet it was the LORD’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer ...
God, though knowing that Jesus was innocent, reckoned him guilty of the sins of other people and thereby God reckoned Christ to be a sinner subject to wrath. Conversely by "we might become the righteousness of God" means that God views us as if we had lived Christ's 33 years of righteous living in his place, which is the imputation of Christ's righteousness to us.
For Christ to be subject to unjustified suffering through which he atoned for sin (see the Theory of Atonement), God orchestrated events such that Jesus would be viewed as a sinner in the public eye, but not in God's eyes. The phrase "we might become the righteousness of God" is to be taken in the context of the previous verse which states, "We are therefore Christ’s ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us." 2Cor 5:20a That is, that to the world we are Christ's ambassadors presenting God's righteousness through the presentation and preaching of the gospel.
ReformedIs 53:5,6 But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed. We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all.
God poured out wrath on Jesus, whom God knew was innocent but pretended him to be guilty.
It was God's will for Jesus to be subjected to unjustified suffering at the hands of evil men so as to offer his life a guilt offering to cancel out sin. God abandoned Jesus at the cross and was not involved at that point in what evil men carried out in his crucifixion.
ReformedRom 9:11-13 Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad— in order that God’s purpose in election might stand: not by works but by him who calls— she was told, "The older will serve the younger." Just as it is written: "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."
God imputed the guilt of sin to Christ
God laid on Christ the price of our redemption. His unjustified suffering paid for the penalty of our iniquities. (see the Theory of Atonement)
ReformedRom 9:18-20 Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden. One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?" But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’"
People's fate is forced upon them, consigned to them, before they are even born - whether to heaven or hell.
This would imply that God shows partiality. But since the scriptures are clear that God does not show partiality, "For there is no partiality with God" Rom 2:11, who are these two categories alluded to as analogous to Jacob and Esau? This passage is parallel to the passage in Gal 4 which speaks of an allegory of two covenants. "This is allegorically speaking, for these women are two covenants". Here Paul is doing the same with regards to Jacob and Esau, being the New and Old Covenants, and not referring to the double predestination dogma of Reformed Theology, which once again portrays God as unjust, seeing as in that case God would consigning innocent people to hell. For since God is just, he does not condemn people prior to them committing a crime.
People are merely puppets, inanimate objects incapable of free will. But God holds people accountable for things over which they have no control. God is not just in human terms.
Here Paul is making fun of the Reformed position which denies free will. He's saying that if you were merely inanimate objects as you claim, you would not be capable of criticizing God. But the fact that you do disproves your premise. The fact is Paul had been talking about matters of grace, of which God can freely do at his whim. But these skeptics misread him to be talking about matters of justice. God is not free to violate his judicial nature, just as God cannot lie. God cannot violate his character, whereas under Reformed Theology God can do whatever the hell he wants to do without regards to issues of character.
The Berean Christian Bible Study Resources