What was accomplished at the cross?

Yes, but that still raises issues about His character, imo.

I don't let my kids go play ball on the expressway because I know what will happen.

If you know the end result of the choices someone is making is eternal torment, and you could prevent that happening, why wouldn't you? Do you just sit back and say "oh well - just be glad I gave you free will!"

I've yet to hear a case made that fits with "God so loved the world" in a way I find convincing...that's why I 'don't know' how to resolve it.

I mean, is it: "God so loved the world that He sent Jesus to die and then sat back and watched them choose hell anyway (most people, that is)"

*sigh*

 

Then how do you deal with these:

(Num 23:19 NKJV) "God is not a man, that He should lie, Nor a son of man, that He should repent. Has He said, and will He not do? Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good?

(Job 23:13 NKJV) "But He is unique, and who can make Him change? And whatever His soul desires, that He does.

One redeemed by Christ's blood,

Ken

 

Yes, it's odd, isn't it? It almost reads like no-one had told Him yet that He wasn't supposed to do that sort of thing

Or so it seems to me...

 

Ken Hamilton,

You are totally incorrect in your view that the Bible throughout is only about the fact that we are the created beings and He is totally sovereign. Sovereignty is a Calvinistic 'hangup.' Many theologians don't even give time to the sovereignty of God. Other attributes like His love, justice, mercy and so on are all kept in perfect balance. Neither of these attributes conflict with the other ones. When you get totally top heavy on Sovereignty you force the Bible to say things that are totally unthinkable like, for example, that God damns the majority autocratically, but hand picks His elect.

 

'God's sovereignty has allowed man to have a choice.'

Perfect! Well said and apparently well thought out through diligently studying His Word of truth.

 

Man damns himself by sin, not God.

One redeemed by Christ's blood,

Ken

[ June 09, 2002, 10:08 AM: Message edited by: Ken Hamilton ]

 

Ken Hamilton,

You said something to the effect that man damns himself because of sin.

As I recall from Genesis and Romans none of us asked to inherit at birth a sin nature. God in His sovereignty decreed this to be the situation for everyone of us. And on top of this Calvinists declare to us that God elects some to Heaven and 'bypasses' or decrees the rest to Hell. With this view, even a yell from the darkness of our sins, for help, won't bring about the new creation promised in II Corinthians 5:17.

The only way out of this situation is for a human being to hear the Gospel and look toward Heaven, as it were, and accept the free gift of everlasting life. Christ has died for our sins; praise be to Him alone.

 

Ken Hamilton...Doctor Berrian, PhD, seems to like a little "Sovereignty", but not too much. Like a woman likes a little bit of pregnancy, but not too much. (big laugh)

connieman (still laughing!)

[ June 09, 2002, 12:50 PM: Message edited by: connieman ]

 

connieman,

You are correct about the sovereignty issue. Try to keep the attributes of the Triune Godhead in balance and you will find, in time, that you are even more Biblical than you are now.

God's sovereignty allows Him the option of giving human beings a free will, just as He did to Adam and the archangel--now the fallen Evil one. Sovereignty does not mean that God runs everything and determines the final destiny of every person. I might say clearly, that He does run all major events such as when the Rapture, Second Coming, the Binding of Satan, the Millennium will take place, etc.

Clear teaching does not allow for 'an earthly, puppet show' manipulated from the courts of glory.

 

That is why most Calvinists I know believe that if an infant dies they are elect, they are born after the flesh but they have not committed a personal act of sin.

I am a single-predestinationist, not a double-predestinationist. I do not believe that God decreed anyone to Hell. A double-predestinationist would have to defend that position.

One redeemed by Christ's blood,

Ken

 

Actually this is a rather inconsistent position with election being unconditional...I mean, why should babies be elect just because they haven't sinned personally - yet? Why would God elect all human beings who die young but few of those who make it to adulthood?

I'd say it would be more consistent to shrug and say, some babies are elect, some aren't, since it's nothing to do with anything in us...

I wonder if at the extremes, emotional feelings moderate the implications of Calvinism so that its adherents can't quite say that tons of babies who died young went to hell.

I see nothing about the doctrine of unconditional election, per se, that would lead one to believe all who die as babies are saved. If it's from certain Bible passages, then, fair enough.

 

AITB,

There are some Calvinists who believe it is possible that not all infants are saved, while others, such as Charles Spurgeon, believe that all infants were atoned for(because of their flesh) by Christ and, thus, are saved. Then others do not take a position one way or the other since the Bible does not give a clear doctrine on this subject.

The only thing that makes me wonder if all infants are saved is because of the pictures of the final judgment in the Old Testament, such as the Flood, Sodom and Gomorrah, and the punishment of the Canaanites by Israel. When these took place, infants and young children were destroyed with the rest. Especially in the case of the Canaanites, from a human perspective, the infants could have been spared and raised among the Israelites and taught the truth.

It is a difficult subject and, without seeing myself as being wishy-washy , I see no reason for me to be dogmatic.

One redeemed by Christ's blood,

Ken

 

Well, a Calvinist who holds this position on the fate of infants who die probably doesn't believe God elects them BECAUSE they die young. They would more likely believe that since God is in control of everything, it is a very easy thing for him to prevent any unelect from dying before they have some actual sins on their account., and that it is only the elect that He allows to die before they commit any sins.

As to why God might do it this way--no Calvinist worth their salt ever claims to know why God elects anyone, except to say that it based on His purposes, to which we are not privy. We know several things that AREN"T the reasons God elects someone, but thats the extent of what we know.

You are right. There is nothing in the doctrine of unconditional election that suggests that all babies who die are saved. There is nothing that prevents that belief, either. Those who hold this belief probably base it on David saying that he will be going to be with his deceased infant.

Charles Spurgeon based his belief that all infants who die are elect on the scripture that says that in heaven there will be multitudes from every tribe, people, and nation. He thought that this was the way God accomplished that, since it seems pretty clear that there have been whole people groups wiped out before there was any chance of them hearing the gospel.

Anyway, this is not something that scripture addresses in any detail. Everyone who has any opinion on this is going on a few hints in scripture and a whole lot of hunches.

 

A theory behind this is that these children were already so warped and probably demon posessed, perhaps watching their own brothers and sister being sacrificed in the fire and all the other unspeakable stuff done, that out of mercy it was better to kill them. The Israelites could try to raise them godly, but enough of the demonism would have somehow infected them, and Israel didn't need any of that when they had enough influences of false worship (and the same could be true even of animals whom God also sometimes told them, to kill, as well as any animal used in an act of bestiality.)
Perhaps it was just to emphasize God's complete holiness; that nothing having any stain (association) or any hing to do with sin shall enter his kingdom. Infants were not being morally punished for anything they did, and in the resurrection it would not matter that they were killed as infants. His having them physically killed does not necessarily equate with a decree of damnation to Hell.
These are all of course speculative theories, that are not discussed in scripture.

[ June 09, 2002, 03:24 PM: Message edited by: Eric B ]

 

Actually, I don't think that appropriately addresses Total Depravity, to say it's possible to die before you sin and therefore qualify for heaven that way.

Original sin affects each human with a human father, as I have been taught, from conception, almost as if it were in the DNA...

But anyone feel free to correct me if I'm wrong - obviously. Not that I get the sense anyone would hold back from that, around here...

 

Oh, I don't think any calvinist would say that a baby actually QUALIFIES for heaven, even if they have not yet committed their own sins. No baby qualifies, due to the sin nature we are born with, and the guilt that is imputed to us. If all infants that die are elect infants, then they go to heaven because Christ's death is applied to them, just like it is applied to all the rest of the elect....

Well, yes, although I don't think its REALLY in the DNA.

 

Yeah, I know - it was just a metaphor

 

Greetings everyone! I've just come across this seemingly neverending debate and I just have to say something. Please excuse my English for any errors, not being my native language, but I will try to do my best.

Both parties I think have to realize that many times in our arguments we begin with the assertion of the necessity of "free will" (from the Arminian side) or with the necessity of "election" (from the Calvinist side), and only after establishing these necessities via philosophical argument do we encounter any biblical discussion. This is exactly backwards from the proper methodology: we begin with God's revelation concerning the nature of man and then move from revelation to reason!! A strict exagetical approach therefore is a must!!!

As all of you might already have heard, there was a book written by Norman Geisler 'Chosen but Free' a wellknown evangelical apologetic who tries to defend the freewill of man.
As a refute to this, James White came out with 'The Potter's freedom' recently and analyzed all of Geisler's thoughts. I would highly recommand the latter to all of you guys to read it since it pretty much covers all of these arguments listed above. It is a very well written book!

This doesn't mean however that we can not elaborate and discuss these issues here. This is how we grow!

Love you all
Felix

 

Some confusion could be eliminated if both sides of the argument, both Arminian and Calvinist, were understood. Natural man, in his fallen condition, does not cry out to God for mercy. Jesus said, "And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil." [John 3:19] The natural man loves darkness rather than light, and God must impart spiritual life to the dead sinner. Paul wrote in his epistle to the Romans, "There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God." [Romans 3:11] If God waited for sinners to come to Him according to their own will, God would be alone throughout all eternity while all mankind suffered for their own sins. Paul wrote in his second epistle to the Corinthians, "Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new." [II Corinthians 5:17] Paul did not mention the will of man in this text.

Where does the Bible state the Gospel is the power of God to anyone except to the saved?

Paul wrote in his epistle to the Ephesians, "In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:" [Ephesians 1:11] Again, Paul does not mention the will of man. God not only controls all major events, but even the smallest ones down to the falling of a sparrow. Jesus said, "Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? and one of them shall not fall on the ground without your Father." [Matthew 10:29]

Solomon wrote, "Man's goings are of the LORD; how can a man then understand his own way?" [Proverbs 20:24] I worship a God who works all things after the counsel of His own will, and He does not need to consult with man in order to get His decress approved.

The only thing man was free from before salvation was righteousness. Paul wrote in his epistle to the Romans, "For when ye were the servants of sin, ye were free from righteousness." [Romans 6:20]

A baby at conception is as guilty as a lost aged man. Both are under the condemnation of the law. The psalmist wrote, "Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me." [Psalms 51:5] If either one gets to Heaven, it will be by grace alone. The infant is as unclean as its mother. Job wrote, "Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? not one." [Job 14:4] If the baby is not a sinner, Jesus did not come to save the little one because Jesus came to save sinners.

 

Primitive Baptist,

God is busy all the time and ministers the conviction of the Holy Spirit on human beings. As the Apostle John closes the canon of Scripture God tells us something that must have been terribly important to Him and to us.

God says that the Holy Spirit, the Bride (meaning the church) invites people to come to Him, plus God says, 'Let him who heareth come, (plus) him that is athirst is to come. And whosoever will, let him take of the water of life freely.' There is no bondage of the will, as Martin Luther believed, in anyone who desires to take of this water of life freely. [note Revelation 22:18] In this Scripture, as well as all others, there is no cap by way of numbers as to how many elect will be allowed to drink of Him.

God the Spirit is the Person who convicts sinners of their need of Christ and He prompts the lost to yield to Him.

The Holy Spirit plus the church encourages all sinners to come and drink unto everlasting life. You are right, that they would not come to Christ apart from the ministry of the third Person of the Trinity.