A question for you calvinist?

I was under the impression that we are saved, through faith, and faith comes from hearing. How then does a mentally handicapped person or newborn have not only the ability to hear and believe, but to have faith in what they hear? </font>[/QUOTE]If you want to understand this, read the book "Petey" by Ben Mikaelsen. Just because man cannot understand those we classify as "mentally handicapped", does not mean they are indeed spiritually handicapped. </font>[/QUOTE]If this were the case, this would have to apply to all men, not just babies and the handicapped, as God is impartial. I don't believe that. Faith is linked with man's mental abilities. If what Ben Mikaelsen says is true, then faith would be a gift, which it is not. </font>[/QUOTE]Are you saying that the mentally handicapped, cannot have faith?

Do you know that the mentally handicapped cannot possess mental knowledge sufficient to gain faith? Remember the mustard seed?

Mentally handicapped does not equate to mentally dead!

 

I cannot answer for Calvin, however, it seems to me, that David was expressing faith that he would be joining his son!

 

Pastor Larry,
Is natural revelation enough to say there is clear evidence that every individual 'hears'?

Natural revelation is certainly evident in scripture; but is the only source of revelation the natural man can receive, therefore, the myriad of world religious systems, superstitions, occults, etc.

Bro. Dallas

 

I was under the impression that we are saved, through faith, and faith comes from hearing. How then does a mentally handicapped person or newborn have not only the ability to hear and believe, but to have faith in what they hear? </font>[/QUOTE]If you want to understand this, read the book "Petey" by Ben Mikaelsen. Just because man cannot understand those we classify as "mentally handicapped", does not mean they are indeed spiritually handicapped. </font>[/QUOTE]If this were the case, this would have to apply to all men, not just babies and the handicapped, as God is impartial. I don't believe that. Faith is linked with man's mental abilities. If what Ben Mikaelsen says is true, then faith would be a gift, which it is not. </font>[/QUOTE]Are you saying that the mentally handicapped, cannot have faith?

Do you know that the mentally handicapped cannot possess mental knowledge sufficient to gain faith? Remember the mustard seed?

Mentally handicapped does not equate to mentally dead! </font>[/QUOTE]Then this would leave open for those who are not mentally handicapped to benefit from the same terms. Do you think the "age of accountability" is whatever age they accept Christ? One could argue they didn't have "sufficient mental knowledge" until they were 50. No, faith comes from hearing, and hearing from the Bible. If one does not posses the ability to hear and understand, they do not posses the ability to accept of reject God. If one does not have the ability to accept or reject God, I believe God still makes a means for that person, (whether an infant or MD) to spend eternity with Him.

 

I would say yes according to Romans 1 where it says that natural revelation leaves all men "without excuse." It does not contain the gospel, the message about Christ, but it is enough revelation so that rejecting it is inexcusable.

 

Dear Pastor Larry,
Perhaps I should open another topic related to natural revelation.

I do not mean to sound argumentative, I would like to discuss this. I believe your statement is more contradictory and less logical than the common calvinistic belief of an age of accountability.

But that is why I wish to discuss it. I have never heard anything stated like that.

It is not the natural revelation of God that the Bible says is the topic of the foolishness of preaching.

You know this, but I am interested in at least reading some of your further thoughts on this subject as you would have time.

If natural revelation has the means to accomplish the 'acceptance' of the truth, but if that same revelation has no mention or form of the gospel of Christ in it, then is natural revelation enough to exact from man (either calvinistic or arminian) the required humble repentance?

I would say not, should I open another topic of discussion? Has this already been dealt with?

Bro. Dallas

 

Another article by Mohler.

http://www.crosswalk.com/news/weblogs/mohler/?adate=1/5/2005#1305028

 

Dallas,

Feel free to open another topic if you wish. Here's my poitn in a nutshell (and I am not sure what more I would say). Romans 1:18-21 seems clear that natural revelation is enough to condemn, to leave man without excuse for his rejection. It is not enough to save. The message preached is the foolishness that saves -- a crucified Christ. So natural revelation is enough to condemn but not to save. Natural revelation does not have "the means" to accomplish acceptance of the truth. It has "the means" to show God's "Romans 1:20 nvisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature," and leaves all without excuse for rejecting God. One who rejects natural revelation will also reject special revelation. I rather imagine we agree on this because I don't think natural revelation can "exact from man the required humble repentance" to use your words. It can condemn him, and natural revelation is the reason why those who "don't hear" are still liable for eternal hell. They did "hear" God; they simply rejected it.