The fate of those never had a chance.

[Rob Bowman]

SilverKnight,

You wrote:

And at that point they are damned, as soon as the first sin is committed - according to your theology. So virtually every man, woman, and child ever born on planet earth can expect to spend eternity in a lake of fire for this?

No. By my estimation, tens of billions of human beings will spend eternity in the kingdom of God. The number of humans that will enjoy eternal life will be a sizable percentage, perhaps even a majority.

You wrote:

You can quote all the scripture you like. But for most rational thinking people this belief approaches insanity.

You won't get anywhere with me by impugning my rationality or sanity.

[Kiviuq]

The belief that every person will have a chance to hear the Gospel is a fundamental strength of the LDS position. It

[Rob Bowman]

SilverKnight,

You wrote:

I've listened to Christians who feel it is their mission to evangelize mormons. (Rob Bowman has devoted his professional career to it in fact).

Not true. My formal professional career spans 26 years. In that time I have written a dozen books, none of which is on Mormonism. I have written nearly 60 published periodical articles, only eight of which deal primarily with Mormonism. My most substantial published work on Mormonism is a chapter in one book. I have taught over 40 courses in undergraduate and graduate institutions, most of which have nothing to do with Mormonism (e.g., biblical hermeneutics, systematic theology, courses on John, the life of Christ, Romans, apologetics, world religions, philosophy, etc.). I have partiicipated in nearly 40 conferences, and in only about four of those did I speak on Mormonism. I have participated in 11 public debates -- none with a Mormon.

You might try asking first before making statements about people you don't even know.

[SilverKnight]

No. By my estimation, tens of billions of human beings will spend eternity in the kingdom of God. The number of humans that will enjoy eternal life will be a sizable percentage, perhaps even a majority.

I assume you are talking about saved christians.

Good for them. Bad for the rest of us.

But everyone, your "tens of billions" included, are damned to hell from the get-go, at least according to your Calvinistic teaching.

So the lesson is: if you were lucky enough to be born into western protestantism, you are good to go. If not, we've got some bad news for you.

You won't get anywhere with me by impugning my rationality or sanity.

I am impugning nothing, and my comment was about the belief, not you.

But make no mistake, I personally view the concepts of original sin, especially total depravity as unmitigated, reason-devoid insanity.

Not true. My formal professional career spans 26 years. In that time I have written a dozen books, none of which is on Mormonism. I have written nearly 60 published periodical articles, only eight of which deal primarily with Mormonism. My most substantial published work on Mormonism is a chapter in one book. I have taught over 40 courses in undergraduate and graduate institutions, most of which have nothing to do with Mormonism (e.g., biblical hermeneutics, systematic theology, courses on John, the life of Christ, Romans, apologetics, world religions, philosophy, etc.). I have partiicipated in nearly 40 conferences, and in only about four of those did I speak on Mormonism. I have participated in 11 public debates -- none with a Mormon.

You might try asking first before making statements about people you don't even know.

Well then I do apologize for mischaracterizing your professional inclinations.

I edited the reference to you out of my previous post.

Your title listed on you signature "Director of research, IRR" provokes certain countercult connotations and anti-mormon prejudices.

It was a leap of ignorance on my part - I really have no clue what your level of professional interest in mormonism is.

[Vance]

No. Children who die in the womb or in infancy have not committed any sin because they are not able to do anything good or bad (Romans 9:11). Since hell is only for sinners, that Chinese baby will not go there.

But the child didn't accept Jesus as it's Savior, which according to your theology is a REQUIREMENT for salvation. Since you are a sola scripturist, you are going to need to show some verses that show that accepting Jesus isn't a requirement for children.

Especially in consideration of these verses.

Rom. 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

Rom. 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

So does "all" not really mean all? Or does Bible inerrancy get thrown under the bus on this issue?

[Vance]

You won't get anywhere with me by impugning my rationality or sanity.

Will alluding to being stupid work?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Will alluding to being stupid work?

Wha?....t?

[Vance]

Not true. My formal professional career spans 26 years. In that time I have written a dozen books, none of which is on Mormonism. I have written nearly 60 published periodical articles, only eight of which deal primarily with Mormonism. My most substantial published work on Mormonism is a chapter in one book. I have taught over 40 courses in undergraduate and graduate institutions, most of which have nothing to do with Mormonism (e.g., biblical hermeneutics, systematic theology, courses on John, the life of Christ, Romans, apologetics, world religions, philosophy, etc.). I have partiicipated in nearly 40 conferences, and in only about four of those did I speak on Mormonism. I have participated in 11 public debates -- none with a Mormon.

A non-denial denial.

What about non-"primary" dealings?

What about the less "substantial"?

What about the non-"most of which" that has something to do with Mormonism?

What about the other speakers at those other nearly 36 conferences that you attended to hear?

Sorry Rob, but your denial really is weak.

[Vance]

Wha?....t?

Rob said this,

Vance,

There is a thread discussing the claim that Mormons are stupid. I reject that claim as a generalization. In general, Mormons are no more stupid than Baptists, Catholics, etc., and in fact might just be somewhat better educated than many other demographic groups. However, some Mormons (like some Baptists, some Catholics, etc.) show a remarkable inability to understand certain things.

here

If that is not an allusion to being stupid, what is it?

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

The same epistle you quoted states in Romans 9:11 that children in the womb have done nothing good or bad (9:11) and that God will judge people according to their works (2:6, a verse you have quoted many times, though always out of context). From these two verses I conclude that children who die before committing any wrongdoing will not need to be "saved" from eternal condemnation because they don't deserve any such condemnation.

This means that the statements in Romans 3:23 and 5:12 are generalizations that have exceptions in the case of such humans as those who die in the womb or in infancy. This isn't throwing biblical inerrancy under the bus; it is allowing Paul's own words to qualify what he says.

But the child didn't accept Jesus as it's Savior, which according to your theology is a REQUIREMENT for salvation. Since you are a sola scripturist, you are going to need to show some verses that show that accepting Jesus isn't a requirement for children.

Especially in consideration of these verses.

Rom. 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

Rom. 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

So does "all" not really mean all? Or does Bible inerrancy get thrown under the bus on this issue?

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

I owe no one any explanation. Do your own homework and you will see that I am not misrepresenting my professional career. Start by looking up my dozen books on Amazon, for example.

A non-denial denial.

What about non-"primary" dealings?

What about the less "substantial"?

What about the non-"most of which" that has something to do with Mormonism?

What about the other speakers at those other nearly 36 conferences that you attended to hear?

Sorry Rob, but your denial really is weak.

[Hestia]

Will alluding to being stupid work?

Aren't we supposed to be adults. You can take a break from this discussion.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Don't forget me Rob.

[William the Conqueror]

Many years ago, when the Southern Baptist Convention held its annual meeting in Salt Lake, I took the then-editor of the Utah Evangel and then-director of Oklahoma-based Utah Missions, Inc. (an SBC pastor), and his wife out to lunch in Orem. (Lou Midgley came with us, and I believe that Bill Hamblin did, too.)

The conversation turned at one point to the fate of the unevangelized.

I raised the example of a rural peasant in ancient or medieval China who had never heard the name of Jesus. Was such a person damned? Yes, came the response, without hesitation. Somewhat shocked, I pursued the matter. Our guests were Calvinists, who even doubted the Christianity of Catholics. It seems, I said, that God favors the Dutch and the Scots (referring to two nationalities that had, at least historically, been prone to Calvinism, the True Faith). I got no objection. Returning to the matter of China, I said that it seemed pretty clearly unjust to set hundreds of millions, even billions, of people up in such a way that they had literally no chance at salvation. "Maybe God hates the Chinese," offered the pastor's wife. I looked for some sign of black humor or irony, but there was none. She was serious. I was stunned.

Just an anecdote, for what it's worth.

Some Christians are inclusionists, meaning that the unevangelized may go to Heaven if they have faith in a supreme power (Romans 1 &2) "When the gentile who has not the Law does the things of the law, he bears witness that the Law is written in his heart, his conscience bearing witness and his thoughts either excuse him or accuse him on that day when according to my gospel, the secrets of men will be revealed in Christ Jesus..." So they say a Hottentot in Africa might have faith in a supreme power from natural revelation and be thus saved. On the other hand some inclusionists such as Barth (the early Barth) and apparently Mormons believe the dead have a 2nd chance in the netherworld to accept the Gospel based on the Petrine passage, " for this reason the Gospel was preached to them who are dead, that though judged in the flesh like men they might live in the spirit like God..." The Inclusionist view is most likely a minority view among evangelical Christians. Liberals would be more likely to embrace it.

[Anijen]

Aren't we supposed to be adults. You can take a break from this discussion.

From what I read, he wasn't calling Rob stupid but paraphrasing what Rob said.

[paulhadik]

a couple misconceptions I just want to (again) try to clear up.

Calvinists don't believe people are separated from God due to NOT making a decision. Willful sin separates us. Even the Chinese peasant willfully sins and rebels against His Creator.

Secondly, we are not saved because "we accept Jesus Christ as our Savior". We are regenerated to life by the merciful act of God in our lives, by our faith that only He can reunite the fallen with the Creator. There will be people who have prayed and asked Jesus into their hearts who will not be in heaven; I believe there will be people who have never done that who will. Obviously no one in the Old Testament was "saved" by accepting Jesus into their hearts. I think sadly this phrase is an example of the watered down numbers chasing preaching we hear in too many churches today.

The newborn and young child who dies is as dependent on mercy as the rest of us. Having lost a child myself I cling to the words and faith of David.

Again, damnation is not a palatable doctrine, but truth can't all be ice cream and cotton candy. A scriptural understanding of the character of God, His definition of love (which is more than some grandfatherly figure who wants everyday to be Christmas day)and a true understanding of our sinfulness results in a better grasp of holy justice. Unless the LDS church wants to be universalistic, you still have the issue of some number of people spending eternity in some shape or form apart from God.

[Glenn101]

a couple misconceptions I just want to (again) try to clear up.

Calvinists don't believe people are separated from God due to NOT making a decision. Willful sin separates us. Even the Chinese peasant willfully sins and rebels against His Creator.

How can anyone willfully rebel against something of which he/she has no knowledge? The "willful" part intimates knowledge.

Secondly, we are not saved because "we accept Jesus Christ as our Savior". We are regenerated to life by the merciful act of God in our lives, by our faith that only He can reunite the fallen with the Creator. There will be people who have prayed and asked Jesus into their hearts who will not be in heaven; I believe there will be people who have never done that who will. Obviously no one in the Old Testament was "saved" by accepting Jesus into their hearts. I think sadly this phrase is an example of the watered down numbers chasing preaching we hear in too many churches today.

The newborn and young child who dies is as dependent on mercy as the rest of us. Having lost a child myself I cling to the words and faith of David.

Again, damnation is not a palatable doctrine, but truth can't all be ice cream and cotton candy. A scriptural understanding of the character of God, His definition of love (which is more than some grandfatherly figure who wants everyday to be Christmas day)and a true understanding of our sinfulness results in a better grasp of holy justice. Unless the LDS church wants to be universalistic, you still have the issue of some number of people spending eternity in some shape or form apart from God.

I don't quite understand your last point. The LDS doctrine recognizes that there will be people, many people, who will be spending eternity apart from God. That is a consequence of their own actions during the mortal probation.

Glenn

[paulhadik]

Hey Glenn

though a Calvinist myself, I am not really trying to defend Calvinism as much as I am trying to make others at least attempt to see the argument. To many the argument implies that there comes a time in one's life when he makes a clear decision to accept or reject Christ; that this decision has an eternal consequence; which raises the question of people who never make that decision due to not even knowing that a decision exists.

This is not Calvinism is all i am trying to say.

you mention in your last sentence that people are separated from God due to their actions during their mortal probation; I have no disagreement with that at all.

People sin, and I don't buy the argument that people sin from ignorance. People know when they are doing wrong. Our hope lay not in a decision on OUR part but on God's mercy

[LeSellers]

People sin, and I don't buy the argument that people sin from ignorance. People know when they are doing wrong.

Saul's son, Jonthan, sinned in ignorance, as did Uzzah, whose offense was to (reflexively, I believe) offer his strength to steady the ark.

I agree that most people sin in willful rebellion, asserting that what we want is more important than what He wants for us; in a word, pride. However, the "original sin" was in ignorance, in spite of the commandment not to partake, since Adam and Eve did not yet know the difference between Good and Evil. They may have known that God had commanded them not to partake of the tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil, but they did not know that disobedience was evil; they couldn't frame it in their minds, and therefore could not rebel. (Which is part of the reason we Saints do not term their act a "sin", but see it as a "transgression". The difference is subtle, but critical.)

Likewise, a child who is not accountable (accountable = he knows his actions are good or evil) cannot sin, in spite of the fact that his actions may be horrific (setting his little sister's hair afire or stabbing the dog with a knife.)It is not a "sin" because the child is incapable of planning rebellion.

Lehi

[William the Conqueror]

Hey Glenn

though a Calvinist myself, I am not really trying to defend Calvinism as much as I am trying to make others at least attempt to see the argument. To many the argument implies that there comes a time in one's life when he makes a clear decision to accept or reject Christ; that this decision has an eternal consequence; which raises the question of people who never make that decision due to not even knowing that a decision exists.

This is not Calvinism is all i am trying to say.

you mention in your last sentence that people are separated from God due to their actions during their mortal probation; I have no disagreement with that at all.

People sin, and I don't buy the argument that people sin from ignorance. People know when they are doing wrong. Our hope lay not in a decision on OUR part but on God's mercy

Romans 7: Yet I did not know sin except through the law,

Acts 17: God has overlooked the times of ignorance

Romans 4: but where there is no law, neither is there violation

[paulhadik]

William

I ain't the smartest tool in the lampshade, but I assume you are doing one of those solipsy thingies with the A=B, B=C therefore the two trains meet at half past 3.

Is your argument that if they don't have the LAW they aren't guilty under God? Are you arguing that there are people who have existed and come to the age of "understanding" who are completely free from God's Law of Holiness, simply due to its not being spelled out to them?

[William the Conqueror]

William

I ain't the smartest tool in the lampshade, but I assume you are doing one of those solipsy thingies with the A=B, B=C therefore the two trains meet at half past 3.

Is your argument that if they don't have the LAW they aren't guilty under God? Are you arguing that there are people who have existed and come to the age of "understanding" who are completely free from God's Law of Holiness, simply due to its not being spelled out to them?

Romans: "Those who are without the Law shall be judged apart from the Law..." "...and their thoughts alternately accuse them or excuse them on that day when according to my gospel..."

"He who did not know his father's will be judged with fewer stripes, but he who knew it will be judged with many..."

"You would have no power over me unless it were given you from above, therefore he who handed me over to you has the greater sin..."

"Therefore do not go on judging before the time but wait until the Lord comes, who will bring to light all that is in darkness and expose the motives of men's hearts, then each one shall receive his praise from God." St. Paul

[Rob Bowman]

LifeonaPlate,

You wrote:

Thanks for the speedy response, Rob. I think creatio ex nihilo is entirely relevant, myself. But I didn't know you were a traducianist. I think the same problem applies. God set up the scheme himself, so without providing for all of those produced by the scheme (since that is your particular view of it) I still find it an unreasonable explanation.

I am a traducianist, as you correctly inferred. I'm impressed that you are familiar with the term.

Again, God has the right to set up whatever kind of world he wants and to establish whatever parameters he thinks are right. Since we are all sinners, our sense of justice and fairness is likely to be somewhat distorted by sin. We must therefore defer to what God himself reveals in the Bible as to what he thinks is just, fair, or reasonable.

You wrote:

My position is more concerned about the love and mercy factor than the justice factor. As I noted before, though (in that long post you said you read already ), John Sanders described God as possessing a "universal salvific will," citing 1 Timothy 2:3-4 (from the Bible): "God...desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth." Other proof-texts I can think of include Titus 2:11, Ezekiel 18:23, and 2 Peter 3:9. Perhaps the most famous and eloquent is John 3:16-17.... According to these verses, the Father sent the Son to save the world, not condemn the sinners who justly deserve it, supposing I grant your point about everyone deserving it.

If you read any of these texts in context, you will find that these statements are qualified to make it clear that not everyone will in fact be saved. John 3:16 indicates that those who believe in Christ will have eternal life. It is of course true that God did not send the Son into the world to condemn the world. That is precisely the point I have been making: people are not condemned because they fail to believe in Jesus even if they have not heard of him, but they are condemned, if they are condemned, because of their sin. Thus, verse 18 says that those who have not believed in Christ are already condemned--because of their sin. Thus, the larger picture in John 3:16-18 is this: people are sinners who all deserve condemnation, who deserve to perish; but God sent his Son into the world to make a way to spare us from that condemnation and give us eternal life. That way is the way of trusting in Christ.

You wrote:

Doesn't saying God has "rights" contradict the sovereignty of God in a Calvinist view? It implies God is hemmed in by certain strictures.

I don't follow your line of thought here. No, saying that God has rights does not contradict his sovereignty in a Calvinist theology. God has the right to do with his creatures as he sees fit. That is basic to Calvinism.

You wrote:

I can't recall if you're Calvinist though. You spend more time condemning my beliefs than explaining yours, so it's tough to tell.

I've said a lot about my own beliefs, but little about Calvinism because I am not interested in "pushing" one particular brand or variety of evangelical theology over another. But yes, I hold to a broadly Calvinist theology.

[Vookman]

Ps 58:3

3 The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.

God makes us defective. Anyone who has had a child knows children lie. Is that level of "wickedness" sufficient for a loving parent to kill his own child? Apparently so, in Calvinism. Any sin separates us from God, and places us in an unrecoverable state of total depravity. So much so that unless God decides he wants us to respond to the call to repent, and moves us to accept the call, exercise faith and be regenerated, we are incapable of doing any good. In fact, we are incapable of actually discerning good from evil, because even if we choose good, it carries no merit.

This is for me the trap of Calvinism. The Bible explicitly teaches that sin done ignorantly, though worthy of death if done intentionally, is covered by the atonement and not attributable to people. Thus the capacity to reason and be moral becomes the critical element in determining our personal worthiness for death. God would be patently unfair if he forgave the unintentional transgressions of believers, but not unbelievers. That, in my opinion, is the message of Romans 2 and 3:

Rom 2:6-9

6 Who will render to every man according to his deeds:

7 To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life:

8 But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath,

9 Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile;

and

Rom 3:9 What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin;

and finally:

Rom 3:22

22 Even the righteousness of God [which is] by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:

Notice to whom it applies: "Unto all AND upon all them that believe: for there is no difference"

I find most folks like to sweep this last verse under the rug, since the final clause makes it clear that there are two groups in mind. Believers and non-believers. They are all the same. No difference. Grammatically you can't state there is no difference between two groups if you only have one group.

I am always amazed at the EV perspective on Romans, because unless exaltation is based on our personal works/deeds, then the explicit language of the text makes it clear that God's love and Justification by Jesus extends to everyone.

18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. Rom 5:18

So the wages of sin truly are death, but since we are the servant of him whom we obey (Rom 6:16). Paul is very, very specific in noting that despite all people being justified in Romans 5:18-20, continuing to sin, our actions, after being reborn does not save us from death.

Thus, to me, it is impossible to see that Calvinism represents the view of the scripture.

Thanks,

Bob

[Rob Bowman]

Bob,

You wrote:

God makes us defective.

According to whom? That certainly is not the Calvinist view.

You wrote:

Anyone who has had a child knows children lie. Is that level of "wickedness" sufficient for a loving parent to kill his own child? Apparently so, in Calvinism.

To the extent that what you say has any relevance to Calvinism, it is also relevant to the rest of evangelicalism, because all evangelicals agree that any and all sin is deserving of eternal punishment. But many if not most Calvinists (and many other evangelicals as well) believe that small children are not capable of committing morally culpable acts of evil and so have not yet arrived at a point where they would be judged sinners (see Romans 9:11 for the explicit case of children in the womb). The Bible has no "age of accountability" (wisely, because children mature morally and spiritually at different rates), but the concept has some biblical support and is consistent with Calvinism.

You wrote:

Any sin separates us from God, and places us in an unrecoverable state of total depravity. So much so that unless God decides he wants us to respond to the call to repent, and moves us to accept the call, exercise faith and be regenerated, we are incapable of doing any good. In fact, we are incapable of actually discerning good from evil, because even if we choose good, it carries no merit.

This is for me the trap of Calvinism. The Bible explicitly teaches that sin done ignorantly, though worthy of death if done intentionally, is covered by the atonement and not attributable to people. Thus the capacity to reason and be moral becomes the critical element in determining our personal worthiness for death. God would be patently unfair if he forgave the unintentional transgressions of believers, but not unbelievers.

If we are talking about truly ignorant, unintentional wrongdoing, such as the mischief of a toddler or the random acts of a mentally retarded person, I agree with you, and so do many other Calvinists. But if you're talking about responsible, grown people committing acts of theft, adultery, or violence, I'm afraid ignorance will not be an acceptable excuse on Judgment Day. Paul is explicit that the Gentiles who did not have God's Law revealed in writing knew the essence of that law in their hearts and would be held accountable for their conduct (Rom. 2:14-16).

You wrote:

That, in my opinion, is the message of Romans 2 and 3:

I fail to see the relevance of the texts (Rom. 2:6-9; 3:9, 22) you cited to the points you made above. The contrast in these texts is between Jews and Gentiles, not believers and unbelievers. On this point, you wrote:

I find most folks like to sweep this last verse under the rug, since the final clause makes it clear that there are two groups in mind. Believers and non-believers. They are all the same. No difference. Grammatically you can't state there is no difference between two groups if you only have one group.

I am curious to know to how many "folks" you have presented your understand of Romans 3:22 and how many of them really responded as you describe. I've been around a while and I've never even heard your interpretation. Let's take a look at Romans 3:22 in context.

"21 But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; 22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference: 23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; 24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus" (Rom. 3:22-24 KJV).

The statement "there is no difference" is not saying there is no difference between believers and unbelievers. The text does not mention unbelievers at all. The words "unto all and upon all them that believe" in the KJV do not refer to two groups of people. The Greek text that underlies the KJV here refers to one group of people twice, not to two groups of people. The word "all" in both occurrences functions as an adjective that modifies the substantive "them that believe" (literally, "the ones believing"). Thus, if we follow this text, what it means is not "unto all [unbelievers] and upon all believers," but rather "unto all [those who who believe] and upon all those who believe." (The earlier and generally more reliable Greek manuscripts have simply "unto all those who believe," but it doesn't matter because the meaning is the same.) The words "there is no difference" refers forward to the next statement, "for all have sinned," which in the larger context of Paul's argument throughout chapters 1-3 means that all, both Jews and Gentiles, have sinned (Rom. 1:18-3:20, note explicitly 2:9-10, 12; 3:9, 29; and cf. 1:16). Thus, Paul's point is that all people, both Jews and Gentiles, are sinners, and all people, both Jews and Gentiles, can be saved through believing the gospel of Christ.

You wrote:

I am always amazed at the EV perspective on Romans, because unless exaltation is based on our personal works/deeds, then the explicit language of the text makes it clear that God's love and Justification by Jesus extends to everyone.

No, Paul is explicit that it extends to those who believe (1:16-17; 3:22, 25-28, 30; 4:24; 5:1). And Paul does not make any distinction between exaltation and salvation. Those whom God justifies, he also sanctifies and glorifies (Rom. 8:30).

You wrote:

So the wages of sin truly are death, but since we are the servant of him whom we obey (Rom 6:16).

Something seems to be missing at the end of the above sentence, so I'm not exactly sure what you meant to say. Eternal life is God's gift to those who are redeemed in Christ; it is in stark contrast to the wages that we all deserve (Rom. 6;23).

Paul is very, very specific in noting that despite all people being justified in Romans 5:18-20, continuing to sin, our actions, after being reborn does not save us from death.

Paul does not say in Romans 5:18-20, or anywhere else, that all people are justified. Paul has just said in verse 17 that it is "those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness" who will "reign in life." Back in verse 1 he had said that we are "justified by faith." Consider the first half of verse 18: "So then, as through one transgression [came] condemnation to all people...." This condemnation is universal in a generalized or potential sense, but it is not actualized or put into effect in a person's life until he in effect "ratifies" Adam's sin by committing sin personally. Now read the second half again: "...even so through one act of righteousness [came] to all people justification of life." The point parallels the first half of Paul's statement: the justification that is the basis for life eternal is not actualized or put into effect in a person's life until he in effect "ratifies" Christ's act of righteousness by putting faith in Christ.

You wrote:

Thus, to me, it is impossible to see that Calvinism represents the view of the scripture.

We've only scratched the surface here, and you may still not agree, but I hope this gives you some sense of where Calvinists and other evangelicals are coming from in their interpretation of Romans.