Calvinist assertions evaluated

[webdog]

Would you have us kill children while they remain in their innocence, knowing (KNOWING!) that they will inherit heaven? (God forbid!)

Seems that God has another plan in mind that shoots holes all over the concept of innocent children.

Your side is not immune. It has been said all infants are "elect", therefore the same question can be turned back on you.

 

[Iconoclast]

Would it be wrong to refer to aborted babies as innocent non-believers. They died before they had done anything good or bad. What we be wrong would be to conclude they will be tormented in the afterlife forever. So rather than say they are given belief and included in Christ, with no scriptural basis, I put forth an answer consistent with all scripture.

2 Thessalonians 2:13 says God chooses people based on faith in the truth. James 2:5 says God chooses those who are poor to the world as rich in faith.

it would be wrong as all died in adam

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Infants are unintentional sinners. Unintentional sin needs atonement. The atonement is Jesus Christ. God chooses & extends Grace unto these infants who die.

 

[Van]

it would be wrong as all died in adam

Not to put too fine a point on it, but Jesus referred to men who had "died in Adam" as innocents, Matthew 12:7. So referring to babies who died before they had done anything good or bad as innocents is not wrong.

Notice the quibbling over word usage, rather than a discussion of the thread. See a pattern? Calvinism is defended by evasion, shifting the subject and never putting the doctrines under the strong light of the Word.

 

[freeatlast]

Infants are unintentional sinners. Unintentional sin needs atonement. The atonement is Jesus Christ. God chooses & extends Grace unto these infants who die.

While I certainly think this is true it is going too far to make the statement as absolute as you have. There is simply not clear scripture to back it up.

 

[Van]

Not only is there no scriptural support for the idea, scripture actually precludes the view, because babies are "condemned already" because of unbelief. My view is consistent with all scripture, in my opinion.

 

[freeatlast]

Not only is there no scriptural support for the idea, scripture actually precludes the view, because babies are "condemned already" because of unbelief. My view is consistent with all scripture, in my opinion.

Van, yes I agree based on the teachings as to why we are lost as humans and what the prescribed method is to become saved excludes babies, however I am also aware that there is enough scripture to hold to the claim that babies are some how covered using systematic theology to come to the conclusion.
The big problem I have is when someone makes the statement in a dogmatic way. Then we have the problem with age and it carries so far that we would be better off not telling people about the gospel. I know people that teach that children are covered way up into the teen years and further which I totally disagree with. In fact I don't even include children, babies yes, children no, but neither do I put an exact cut off age on it. There is just not enough information. So I agree with you from a scriptural standpoint, but I also think there is room to at least hold that babies are covered somehow apart from faith.

 

[David Lamb]

The doctrine of infant salvation finds a logical place in the Calvinistic system; for the redemption of the soul is thus infallibly determined irrespective of any faith , repentance or good works, whether actual or foreseen. This quote comes from "11. Infant Salvation" on the Reformed Doctrine of Predestination site.

I've just tried a Google search for "The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination", and got 128,00 results. I wonder which one you meant.

Perhaps you mean a site about the book, "The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination" by Loraine Boettner?

 

[Van]

All of those dying in infancy are among the elect.

David Google the above and up will pop lots of sites, including those that indicate Boettner made the statement on pages 148-149 of his book.

If you are curious about any of the Calvinist assertions in the opening post, just try Googling them. Enjoy!

 

[Osage Bluestem]

Calvinists simply tell the biblical truth. They put God before man.

 

[freeatlast]

Calvinists simply tell the biblical truth. They put God before man.

You are so humble. :laugh::laugh::laugh:

 

[Allan]

Calvinists simply tell the biblical truth. They put God before man.

At least in and according to their understanding.
The Arminians and Non-Cals place God before man as well. Your descriptor precludes any possibility any another view does this, which in fact is nonfactual but an assumption.

 

[Van]

I disagree, Calvinism puts the cart before the horse. God is sovereign over man, but that does not mean God cannot allow man to exercise his will and make choices that alter the outcome of our lives, such as when God sets before us the choice of life or death and desires us to choose life.

Consider these verses:

James 2:5 says God chose the poor to the world. A Calvinist said this verse does not say God chose the poor while they were poor. This is not telling the biblical truth, this is rewriting scripture.

The redefine the meaning of words, choice includes the meaning Non-choice, etc, etc.

None of the TULI doctrines can be defended contextually. Not one. This is the biblical truth.

 

[webdog]

Calvinists simply tell the biblical truth. They put God before man.

False assumption and dichotomy. Non cals do the same thing. Calvinism is not immutable.

 

[Iconoclast]

it would be wrong as all died in adam

Not to put too fine a point on it, but Jesus referred to men who had "died in Adam" as innocents, Matthew 12:7. So referring to babies who died before they had done anything good or bad as innocents is not wrong.

Notice the quibbling over word usage, rather than a discussion of the thread. See a pattern? Calvinism is defended by evasion, shifting the subject and never putting the doctrines under the strong light of the Word.

Another day and another verse you totally misunderstand and pervert....not a surprise though....as you like to say..keep posting Van..hope springs eternal, eventually you might get a verse correct...by mistake.

 

[J.D.]

Is God merciful? Is God just? How can He be both if they are opposites?

O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out! For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counsellor? Or who hath first given to him, and it shall be recompensed unto him again? For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen.

 

[David Lamb]

All of those dying in infancy are among the elect.

David Google the above and up will pop lots of sites, including those that indicate Boettner made the statement on pages 148-149 of his book.

Thanks for that, Van. Your earlier post said nothing about a book, or Boettner, so assumed it was a quote from a website. I know it's easy to say with hindsight, but it would have been clearer if, instead of:

This quote comes from "11. Infant Salvation" on the Reformed Doctrine of Predestination site.
​

you had written something like:

This quote comes from "11. Infant Salvation" from Boettner's book, The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination which can be read online here.
​

Thanks again for your explanation.

 

[webdog]

O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out! For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counsellor? Or who hath first given to him, and it shall be recompensed unto him again? For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen.

...yet why don't you apply this same principle to man being a free moral agent? Of how God reacts to prayer? Or how God deals with His creation in and outside of time? Or kenosis?

 

[Van]

God knows all things He has chosen to know, and He could choose to know all things, but the bible says He chose not to know everything imaginable, such as the time of the Lord's return, and He forgives and remembers no more forever our sins. The Calvinist view is simply unbiblical.

 

[glfredrick]

God knows all things He has chosen to know, and He could choose to know all things, but the bible says He chose not to know everything imaginable, such as the time of the Lord's return, and He forgives and remembers no more forever our sins. The Calvinist view is simply unbiblical.

So, who decides when to send the Lord back if God doesn't even know?

Also, seeing as how you insist that THE BIBLE SAYS that "He chose not to know everyting imaginable..." could you please offer a verse reference for that?