Calvinism needs to be Redefined

Frank,
Of course, all false doctrines need to be questioned, then dumped.

I agree... that's why all through history, Arminianism has been condemned as heresy and it's teachers pulled from thier pulpits...
Synod of Dort, Carthage, etc..

You REALLY don't know Spurgeon AT ALL... what did you do, take that from a out of context quote from some idiotic book like Dave Hunt's? ... What Spurgeon said there does not contradict Unlimited atonement in the least... you won't in fact find one Calvinist that doesn't agree with what he said... the problem is you don't understand what he believes in context to what he said!

 

Some do ... YOu don't. He was a five point Calvinist. If you wish to discuss it, start a thread about it.

Bad use of hte verse, not to mention plainly wrong. Calvinistic theology is what Scripture teaches.

What?? This makes no sense. Start a thread and try to explain what you are talking about.

The Bible says that God not only allows sin, but in fact ordains. Just this morning I was looking at Acts 4:27-28 where it plainly says that God ordain the sinful acts of men. Gen 50 teaches hte same thing. Scripture proves you wrong. If you want to discuss it, there is already a thread with this being discussed on it.

Weasel out of what? You made a false statement, one that wasn't even a challenge. I didn't even have to think about it.

If you want to discuss these issues, then start your own thread and do so. Don't hijack this one. You were previously told to do this. I edited your previous post (since I had already told you how to handle it) and answered this one. If you wish to respond, start a thread and respond.

 

POst deleted for being off topic. Poster is invited to start a thread on a different topic if he wishes to discuss it.

[ June 08, 2005, 03:37 PM: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

Here is Dr.'s Mohler and Akin's view on the election of all infants who die.

http://www.sbts.edu/mohler/FidelitasRead.php?article=fidel036

BTW not all infants are elect only those who die and those who grow up and are drawn to Christ. If all infants were elect then everyone would be elected as all infants who do not die in infancy grow up.

<><
YIC,
cbc

 

Did someone say all infants were elect? I think in the context here we were talking about all infants who die. That is my position at least ... that all infants who die are elect.

 

Interesting Larry...

all infants who die are elect....

ok the 64,000 dollar question

WHY?

 

Why are all infants elect? That is my theological conclusion based on 1) the elect are the ones that go to heaven and the non-elect don't; 2) Babies who die go to heaven. Given my beliefs about 1 and 2, the conclusion is that infants who die are elect.

People can certainly differ from me on that. I don't really care. That is just my conclusion.

 

Corry,

You can't argue this from man's point of view.

God knows everybody's life span to the very number of heart beats one takes. His decree for some to only beat 1,000 times verses millions only HE knows. Those who are reprobate will not die... they will suppress the truth in unrighteousness and will be judged for not giving glory to God according to the wise council of His will....

Soli Deo Gloria

 

Uh... I am a missionary and I am moderatly calvinistic because I think it is biblical. In fact if I did not believe that God sovereingly works to save men, I would be greatly discouarged!!

Almost all of the great Baptist missionaries of the past were Calvinists- William Carrey, Judson. Charles Spurgeon was a dynamic soul winner and a strong Calvinist so don't beleive that bunk that Calvinism kills missions. The opposite is true- if fules it. </font>[/QUOTE]Then why are youi "moderately" calvinist?

Seems there is question in the calvinistic theology? Of course, all false doctrines need to be questioned, then dumped.

God is Sovereign. Spurgeon was only a moderate calvinist, that is what kept him going. I am speaking from experience, friend. I know several churches that have adopted calvinism that are almost shutting their doors.

It is a direct contradiction to be actively soul winning and belive that God will save all that will be saved without the will of each being givne over to the will of God. And that not by force, but of a willing heart to repent. That which godly sorrow can only work.

Sure God is Sovereign in who can be saved, but it is still whosoever will. </font>[/QUOTE]Becuase I define limited atonment a little differnetly than some other Calvinists I have met, and I don't like the term irristible grace. I preffer "effecetual or effacacious grace".

Spurgeon was a strong Calvinist (he said Calvinism is the Gospel), but not a hyper-calvinist, and that is were most anti-calvinists are worng. They lump all Calvinists into what they define them to be instead of letting Calvinists speak for themselves.

Your experiences are sad, I have known churches that were Arminian that had the same problem though.

Some of the most envagelistic churches I know are Calvinistic. Early Bapitst Church planting in America was almost exclusivly done by calvinistic Baptist Churches.

But this is off the subject- perhaps we should start another thread on this.

 

Your problem is continued dishonesty. I said I had a theological conclusion, and gave two biblical reasons for it. That is hardly someone saying "I don't care whether it is Scriptural." That is someone saying, Based on my study of the Scriptures, this is my conclusion on a topic to which Scripture does not clearly speak.

Why is it wrong to be humble and gracious enough on matters of dispute to make your position known without saying derogatory things about others. I know people disagree with me. That is fine. But don't continue to be dishoneste about what I said.

Notice how you did not say what I said. I said "All infants who die are elect." I did not say "only all infants are elect." Had these infants who die survived, they would have been saved. God in his foreknowledge certailny too that into the conclusion. The Bible says that God knows all the days ordained for us when there was not even one of them. God is not caught by surprise with a dead infant.

That is my theological conclusion based on my study of the Scriptures.

With solid scriptural reasoning, and room to disagree about things that Scripture does not speak clearly? Yes.

 

Their election and salvation, like everyone else's is based on God's gracious and purposive choice to pursue his glory.

I didn't say "God would only elect all infants that die." Again, go back and read what I said here and other places.

1. Election is God's sovereign choice of individuals to salvation from before the beginning of the world.

2. I believe, based on 2 Sam 14 (David's son), that babies who die go to heaven.

3. Therefore, babies who die are chosen by God for salvation and eternal life.

God elects individuals to salvation (not just babies that die). The babies that die are a subset of the elect. I think that was clear from the beginning.

Your accusation that I cannot produce one Scripture to back this up was clearly false. The Scripture that backs my position has been given. You know that. Why did you say it hasn't been? Your debate tactics are shameful. I have repeatedly begged you to change them. Why won't you? Are you worried you can't debate if you actually say about us what we say about ourselves? I don't understand your need to use these tactics that you use.

 

sheeesh now ya'll making it hard for me to try and squeeze ol Larry on his viewpoints

Well Ok

Larry Three questions

1)Why are babies who die elected?

2)Are there stages within an elected person's life?

3) If yes, could you please detail and define them at least in rough?

 

Because God elected them.

I guess, depending on what you mean by stages.

Well ... so many options ... hmmm ... non-existent, unborn, born, dead; or how about unsaved and then saved; perhaps single, then married, then kids (preferably in that order). We could go through a lot of these stage sequences in the life of the elect. But as I say, it depends on what you mean by stages. The Bible speaks very clearly of the elect that are not yet saved (cf. 2 Tim 2:10). This is necessary because election is in eternity past (regardless of what you think election is; Eph 1:4; 2 Thes 2:13), and salvation happens in time.

 

Why does God elect dead babies?

stages in reference to pre to post salvation

 

What has a baby that dies done that would send the baby to hell?

Is being born into a life that you did not elect to have in the first place a sin?

Some of you argue that the wage of sin is death (in spite of the atonement), what sin did the infant commit? What law was violated? What sacrilage committed? What transgression?

Being born with a propensity toward sinning, is not a death sentence! Nor is it sufficient to keep one from entering heaven else no human spirit could enter heaven even after spiritual rebirth. I say that because I have never met a person who is born again that does not or cannot sin! That is why Jesus atoned for sin!

 

I do. The Bible doesn't speak directly to this, and so we are left to draw conclusions on what God has said.

I have not produced any mumbo jumbo. The fact that you think it is says a whole lot about you.

Nope. As I have demonstrated, my loyalty is to what Scripture says, even when it seems to be a contradiction logically. I am not interested in boxes. I am interested in God. Interestingly enough, there is a major inconsistency in my position that I am well aware on this topic. But you haven't brought it up. All I can imagine is that you are familiar enough with the issues to know what that particular issue is. I am not surprised by that, given your level of familiarity with the issues in this general topic.

What is wacky about that? Or unbiblical?

If the infant lives, they may or may not be elect. If he is, then he will believe and be saved.

I already answered this. Eph 1:4 and 2 Thess 2:13 say from the beginning, the foundation of hte world. The fact that you ask reveals yet again that you aren't interested in learnign what the Bible says. We might have a debate about what election is (Might), but there can be no debate about when it takes place. The Bible clearly says when.

His glory.

What is illogical about that? Doesn't "logic" say something about one's mental ability, rather than about a particular proposition? Of course it does. In addition, we don't really need logic on this. God has told us why in Eph 1.

There many things God does without giving a reason in Scripture. He never gave a reason why Joseph was chosen to go to Egypt, rather than one of the other brothers. He never explained to Job why he was treated in such a manner. He never explained why he chose Jonah to go to Nineveh. The Bible is full of things for which there is no reason. That is the point of Romans 9, where he says "Shall the thing formed say to the one who formed it, 'Why did you make me this way?'" You see that several places in the OT as well. You are way off base thinking that God has to give you reasons for what he does.

That is simply wrong. I have shown everything I have said from Scripture.