Calvinism needs to be Redefined

[icthus]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />How can all those babies get to heaven without a personal relationship with Jesus?

You have finally done it. After 11 pages, you have brought up the legitimate issue. I said several times that in the midst of all of Icthus misunderstandings and misidentification of problems, he was missing the actual problem.

The problem with my position is that it results in people going to heaven without faith in Christ (cf. Rom 10:17). It opens the door to adults in places that have not heard of Christ. To be honest, I don't have a complete answer to that. I believe that babies go to heaven, based largely on 1 Sam 14. I believe people who have never heard of Christ go to hell as stated in Rom 1 because they reject what they do know.

For all those who accuse Calvinists of being driven by logic, this is clear evidence that many of us are not. If I was driven by logic, I would say that babies go to hell because they do not have faith. But I am willing to let the tension stand. </font>[/QUOTE]Larry, stop trying to sound dogmatic about something that you cannot be sure about. I believe, that, since we have a Just God, no one who is meant to be in hell will be in heaven; and no one who is meant to be in heaven, will be in hell. The rest is in God's power.

 

[Pastor Larry]

I do not hold that babies are born "sinners",[/qutoe]The problem is that Scripture says that are. That puts you at a decided disadvantage.

A "sinner" to me, is someone who has comitted an "act of sin" against God.

A sinner is to God is someone who was born in the likeness of Adam (Rom 5). Doesn't your position kind of blow that whole "For all have sinned" thing out of the Bible? If all babies are not sinners, then "all" haven't sinned, unless "all" doesn't really mean all. Are you really comfortable redefining words to fit your theology?

The really sad this is, that the Great God Whom we serve, has more love and compassion for the lost, then do our Calvinistic brothers.

God also has more love and compassion for the lost than you do. Face it, God's love and compassion is perfect and infinite; man's never will be. Which is not what you were saying. You were trying to slam Calvinists by making a totally prejudicial and unsupportable statement. That's unfortunate.

The best news of all is, that God is NOT a Calvinist.

You wouldn't know that by reading what God said. Everything he said points to what Calvinism teaches. Where did you get anything different?

 

[icthus]

Larry, its seems that when it suits you, then the word "all" means exactly that, as you are showing from your quote of Romans 5:23. Why not adopt this same meaning of "all" in 1 Timothy 2:4, where we read of God, "Who will have all men to be saved"? On what grounds, other than your theological bias, will you not allow the "all" here in 1 Timothy to mean exactly that?

Typical Calvinistic twisting of Scripture and its meaning!

 

[johnp.]

Hello KJ & icthus.

How can all those babies get to heaven without a personal relationship with Jesus? Easy. God knows us even before we're born and He can whisper into a little baby's ear and put faith in his heart just as easily as He does it for grownups. After all, that is how He does it for grownups according to Calvinism, no?

We know God can save whoever He wants man! That is not the point. The point is you deny God acts in peoples wills, why is it you now agree that God takes liberties with peoples wills? It is a contradiction you have. You cannot attack and hold our views. Only Calvinists can do that.

I do not hold that babies are born "sinners", though with a sinful human nature.

That's more consistant but then you lose the question don't you?
If there is an age of responsibilty, and for such there is no scriptural warrant, then the child becoming an adult and sinning is the reason God blames us but you lose the question!
"Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?" Romans 9:19.
What's the problem with Paul don't he know as much as you do? God blames us because we chose to sin. Why does Paul ask such stupid questions? But he tells you the question you must ask if you have the correct doctrine. God tells you the question you are to ask. why does God still blame us? Then He rebukes you for talking back! Believe that! Expect that rebuke. When your doctrine is correct then that question cannot be avoided. It points to the correct doctrine. A fail safe.

...but you know the Holy Hounds will be after you now eh?

Not sheep dogs shepherds.

I am a ONE point Calvinist...

That is translated by a Calvinist as, "I only go so far with scripture! HaHa! Woof.

]I do not hold that babies are born "sinners", though with a sinful human nature.

And just what does that mean? And I wonder what David was on when he uttered this truth?
PS 51:5 Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.
And you were.

A "sinner" to me, is someone who has comitted an "act of sin" against God.

The wages of sin is death. Babies die. Ergo: You shall love the Lord your God with all your being is not being done by the fetus as it should be but the fetus is dead in it's sins and transgressions and that is how God created us.

These, like those who are menatlly handicaped from birth, have been "purcahsed" by Christ.

Trying to prove a non-scripture thing is like describing nothing. Isaiah 8:20 To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, they have no light of dawn.
That statement of yours has no light of dawn unless you can scripture and verse it.
Yet another group making it into Heaven without their will and a personal relationship with Christ? If you keep expanding like this you will soon be a universalist. You are almost there with all kids and all brain dead? going free. Largeses with the Lord's bounty! You are very free with your salvation. Has everyboby been told? Yes or no?
What about those who never get the chance to accept Christ?
Those who haven't been told?


john.

 

[OCC]

Johnp, you said: "We know God can save whoever He wants man! That is not the point. The point is you deny God acts in peoples wills, why is it you now agree that God takes liberties with peoples wills? It is a contradiction you have. We know God can save whoever He wants man! That is not the point. The point is you deny God acts in peoples wills, why is it you now agree that God takes liberties with peoples wills? It is a contradiction you have. You cannot attack and hold our views. Only Calvinists can do that.


I am not going to debate this too much anymore therefore I am not answering everything in your post. I will respond to this though.

You need to pay better attention. I myself have never said God does not act in people's wills. Quite the contrary...the Holy Spirit convicts them of sin...against their will. They weren't asking for that to happen. But when it does THEN men freely decide to repent or not to repent. There...no contradiction.

"You cannot attack and hold our views. Only Calvinists can do that." Only Calvinists can attack and hold their views?

I can do what I want. Calvinists enjoy "rather foolishly" attacking what they THINK we believe. Therefore I can attack what you believe. But I'm not going to bother...it is an exercise in futility.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Larry, stop trying to sound dogmatic about something that you cannot be sure about.

It is clear that on this particular topic, more than any other perhaps, I have been non-dogmatic. I have plainly said that these are theological conclusions that are not cut and dried. I have plainly said that others with legitimate basis come to different conclusions.

I believe, that, since we have a Just God, no one who is meant to be in hell will be in heaven; and no one who is meant to be in heaven, will be in hell. The rest is in God's power.

As do I. But this sounds pretty Calvinistic. When you say "No one who is meant to be in hell will be in heaven," it calls for the question of who is the subject of "meant" ... Who is doing the "meaning"?

Larry, its seems that when it suits you, then the word "all" means exactly that, as you are showing from your quote of Romans 5:23.

I quoted Roman 3:23, not 5:23. But as always, a Calvinist allows the word to be determined by context. You yourself have now shown at least two places where you don't believe that "all" means "all." That means that you are no different than the charge you make against Calvinists. You attach a meaning of "all" based on the desired outcome. The question is, which meaning is legitimate? I think your method is perfectly acceptable ... even clearly necessary. No one believes that "all" means "all men without exception." The Bible is too clear on that issue. But you guys claim that whenever you need to in order to support your doctrine. And Calvinists deny that when they need to to support their doctrine. The bottom line is that we must be very rigorous in our study so that we use the proper definition in the passage at hand, whatever passage that may be.

Why not adopt this same meaning of "all" in 1 Timothy 2:4, where we read of God, "Who will have all men to be saved"? On what grounds, other than your theological bias, will you not allow the "all" here in 1 Timothy to mean exactly that?

I do allow it to mean "all." The word "will" there is the word "thelo" which usually talks of a desire of the emotions, not a deliberate volition (which typically uses boulamai, a different verb). God is not desiring that men perish and go to hell. He does not delight in teh death of hte wicked.

Typical Calvinistic twisting of Scripture and its meaning!

An argumentative problem here. For something to be "typical," it must be done many times. It has yet to be proven to be one once, much less many times which is required to be "typical." Second, it is a bad argumentative technique to assert something perjorative such as this without proof. If you are going to make this assertion, then provide evidence of it. So far, every time you have tried, we have refuted it by showing our interpretation is justified from Scripture.

 

[OCC]

Larry, I'm not getting involved in your debate with this person. I just want to point out that Calvinists use the word "typical" alot as well, about Arminians. If they don't use the word, they have the attitude. They do consistently tend to assume that we deny God's sovereignty, etc. when in all honesty we see God using His sovereingty in a different way.

 

[Pastor Larry]

I agree. No one should misuse the word. But remember, "typical" is often used to describe what many or most do, in order to avoid a categorical blanket statement. For instance, if we say "typically, the home team wears white jerseys," that means "usually, they do, but there are exceptions, the atypical." If we make a categorical statement such as "The home team wears white," we would be incorrect. They do not always wear white.

In this discussion, it is appropriate to use "typical" in that manner. It is inappropriate to use it as Icthus did, to describe that is not typical inasmuch as it is not even true, for the most part. I will agree that some Calvinists misuse Scripture, apply wrong definitions, etc. But typically, they don't (no pun intended). Watch the intramural discussions even among the arminians who disagree with each other on what certain passages mean. Neither side is monolithic so a word like "typical" has its benefits. But we must use it properly.

 

[OCC]

like the pun

agree with almost everything you said. except for the pun part. lol

The home team wearing white was a good analogy...I totally understood what you meant. Thanks. I'm a huge sports fan.