Do you have a problem with Calvinism?

well Praise the Lord!!

I have a few points to ponder.

1. To be saved man must believe and accept. Rm. 10:9,10,13.

2. Children who die in the womb or at an age that they are not able to believe and accept, it would seem the same requirement for salvation would be held to them. Do they go to a place of waiting til they are old enough to make a decision, well I know of no place unless your a Catholic. Maybe God in all His Wisdom and Knowledge knows which will/would have accepted Him and which ones would not. Don't know the Bible doesn't say, but it does tell us what we must do to be saved.And Jesus is the same today and forever, His Gospel has and will never change.Even the O.T. saints were justified by faith.

3. Man does have a part in salvation as he has to make the choice to accept Jesus and live or reject Him and spiritually die. I think God in all His power has given man the abillity to choose, this in no way takes away from God at all.
We are called when we hear the Word Preached, we are chosen as the Holy Spirit enlightens our hearts to the trueth. So we are called, chosen and elected through the Word." How will they believe unless they hear?"

4. Predestination as mentioned in Rm 8 is we are Predestined to be like Jesus.

5. The faith, we have to believe is His given to us so we can believe.

Thanks,
Craig

 

Me:So in the Arminian system there are really two ways to be saved - one for young children and one for everyone else.
Murph: Hog wash. there is only one way to salvation Eph 2 by grace are ye saved thru faith.
Me: So infants and the unborn who die in the womb are saved by their faith?

Now C. S. Murphy said:

No they have no ability to show their faith but they are saved just as I was by the grace of God,

So you do not, in fact, believe that infants are saved through their faith. Thank you for proving my point: you do, in fact, believe that there are two ways of salvation: by grace only with no exercise of faith for infants and small children, and grace through faith for everyone else.

That sir is a cop out, you failed to completely answer my question. which said simply and plainly does calvinist teach that all babies who die go to heaven.

I told you that some Calvinists believe this, and some Calvinists do not. If you misunderstood my answer (which was crystal clear) or you falsely assumed that all Calvinists are 100% agreed on this issue, then it's no good whining about it to me. What I have written, I have written.

 

No whining intended I just would like for calvinists to admit that they believe God chooses to send some babies to hell.
Murph

 

I am sorry, but as a Calvinist, I cannot do as you ask, as I believe that all who are unable to exhibit repentance and faith(those who die in the womb, in infancy or very young, those with mental disabilities) are among the elect and are regenerated by the Holy Spirit before they die.

I do not believe that God chooses to send anyone to hell. All people who end up in hell go there because of their sin. Reprobation is conditonal. Election is unconditional and is always unto salvation.

Ken

 

Aren't having faith and believing the same action?

Ken

 

Murphy, the following may be of interest to you:

http://www.baptistfire.com/books/calvinism.shtml

from which this link comes which in in line with your question:
http://www.mbts.edu/news/heartland/hrtlandsm99/stories/infant.htm

This Calvinist dances around it, mostly by lashing out at Arminians:
http://thecalvinist.com/theology/calvinism/infant.html
(when I read this I felt like I was reading some of the Calvinist arguments here verbatim! Or maybe it is the other way around?)

This Calvinist feels all babies who die are elect:
http://www.biblebb.com/files/babies.htm

John MacArthur uses Psalm 139 to affirm that all infants who die go to heaven.
http://www.biblebb.com/files/MAC/80-242.htm

Especially, what about the babies and people who have never heard the gospel? "Do non-elect infants go to hell the same as non-elect adults?" Leonard asked. "The question of the damnation of infants was and remains a significant question for Reform theology."
is from here:
http://sbcbaptistpress.org/bpnews.asp?ID=4005

A very good and short discussion of both Calvinism and Arminianism is here:
http://calvarychapel.com/library/taylor-larry/text/cva.htm#05

there is this statement as well:
Still others say that some babies are elect and some are not. Those that God has chosen will go to heaven and those he has passed over go to hell. For the record, the primary leaders of historic reformed theology or Calvinism have rejected this view. Spurgeon preached a classic sermon called Infant Salvation in which he said:

It has been wickedly, lyingly, and slanderously said of Calvinists, that we believe that some little children perish. Those who make that accusation know that their charge is false… They wickedly repeat what has been denied a thousand times, what they know is not true… We have never dreamed of such a thing… we have never imagined that infants dying as infants have perished, but we have believed that they enter into the paradise of God.1

The issue is not what do some Christians believe but what does the Bible teach. I can say without hesitation that I believe the Bible teaches that all infants, young children and mentally handicapped adults who lack the capacity to grasp the gospel message are elect of God, covered by His grace and ushered into heaven when they die. I do not say this out of sentiment. We don’t build doctrine on what we hope is true but by what the Bible reveals to be true. So for the next few minutes, let’s try to gain a biblical framework for wrestling with this question.
from here: http://www.cornerstonebc.com/Sermons/david/david24.htm

==============

That was an interesting time reading all that material!

Something has occurred to me because of the reading: if, as a number of Calvinists claim, all babies and retarded etc. are elect, then (and God forbid anyone should think this seriously -- but I'm just trying to be theologically logical...) wouldn't that be a good reason to kill any babies? To make SURE that the child you loved would go to heaven?

Otherwise, you have no way of knowing about that child you love so much...

As I said, that is simply a matter of logic for me; I cannot imagine anyone taking the Calvinistic doctrine THAT seriously!

 

Helen,

I have thought about the logic of that myself. But wouldn't that idea be the same for the non-Calvinist, as doesn't that side also make some kind of provision that babies that die go to heaven?

Of course, if someone killed their baby under such a scenario, wouldn't he be damning himself? If he did it to make sure his baby went to heaven, how could he repent of the act? How could he repent of an act that he was convinced in his own mind secured heaven for his baby?

Also, wouldn't that make salvation into a matter of happenstance or chance instead being in God's control?

Ken

[ November 13, 2002, 11:59 PM: Message edited by: Ken Hamilton ]

 

Please don't forget that John MacArthur is a "Calvinist."

You forgot to mention that the "Baptist Fire" site mentions that.
http://www.baptistfire.com/books/fisk.shtml

MacArthur answers a question on "Arminianism" at:
http://www.biblebb.com/macqaindex/c.htm

DITTO.

[ November 14, 2002, 12:07 AM: Message edited by: Rev. G ]

 

To Ken: LOL, I kept thinking about that after I posted. It's a double-edged logical sword, isn't it?

I'm personally extremely grateful that God is in charge of life and death and not me! I'm not going to go back and edit that out, but thinking about it now, it could be used even to condone abortions and God forbid we should do that, either!

So let's just count the infants as our wonderful blessings and let God take care of the rest in terms of life and death.

It's funny -- not ha ha -- but I was thinking about this sort of thing, sort of, in terms of my retarded son yesterday. I got a call from school that he was sick and please come pick him up. It was lower-end sick and it was a MESS! It took hours to clean him, his clothes, the car, the laundry room, etc. etc. And here he was only knowing he was sore down there but letting me clean it up with, literally, a single tear in his eye from the pain.

And all I could do when he was showered and dressed and all was hug him and say, "Oh you little sweetheart!" -- and he's bigger than me, now. But, somehow, in my mind, he's still my little guy.

And even while I was cleaning up everything all I could think of was how I loved this kid and how protective I felt about him.

And I knew I could not outdo God in that area!

[ November 14, 2002, 12:08 AM: Message edited by: Helen ]

 

Please don't forget that John MacArthur is a "Calvinist."
</font>[/QUOTE]I assumed that was a known.

Edit: and since I am not an Arminian, I'll let someone who is respond to MacArthur.

[ November 14, 2002, 12:10 AM: Message edited by: Helen ]

 

God bless you, Helen.

Ken

 

Why should we "admit" something that isn't true?
Very poor statement.

Rev. G

 

Why should we "admit" something that isn't true?
Very poor statement.

Rev. G</font>[/QUOTE]Okay, how about "many" Calvinists believe that or at least say they are unsure? R.C. Sproul comes to mind. Scott Bushey on this board seems to think this. On another thread, he discounted Mohler's views.

Karen

 

As much as I enjoy RC Sproul, he does not speak for all Calvinists. The scriptures concerning the fate of those dying in infancy are so scant and indirect that anyone who says they know with absolute authority the truth is over-reaching to say the least.

All we can do is speculate based on what we think God's will is based on His character. For this reason, as a calvinist, I believe anyone who dies before they are capable of discerning the gospel are saved.

In my opinion, it is those who pin salvation on man's free will that must believe these children are condemned.

 

C.S. Murphy said:

No whining intended I just would like for calvinists to admit that they believe God chooses to send some babies to hell.

Well, then, go find a Calvinist who believes that, and get him to admit it.

 

Karen asked:

Okay, how about "many" Calvinists believe that or at least say they are unsure? R.C. Sproul comes to mind. Scott Bushey on this board seems to think this. On another thread, he discounted Mohler's views.

Sproul is simply being honest by admitting that the clear Biblical teaching on the final fate of dying infants is next to nothing, and so nothing can be said for certain - it is presumptuous to say authoritatively that all people dying in infancy are elect.

The theological arguments in favour of infant salvation are, however, very persuasive, and the names of those who make them read like a "Calvinist theologian hall of fame": John Newton, John Gill, Charles Spurgeon, Charles Hodge, B. B. Warfield, John MacArthur, Ronald H. Nash, R. Albert Mohler. It is safe to say that the view that all infants who die are saved represents the mainstream of Calvinist thought on this issue. In all fairness to R. C. Sproul, he is only one man.

[ November 14, 2002, 11:05 AM: Message edited by: Ransom ]

 

I am sorry, but as a Calvinist, I cannot do as you ask, as I believe that all who are unable to exhibit repentance and faith(those who die in the womb, in infancy or very young, those with mental disabilities) are among the elect and are regenerated by the Holy Spirit before they die.

Ken am I to understand that although a calvinist you believe that all babies who die go to Heaven?

Murph

 

Yes. Although, I would probably change your sentence to say that "because I am a Calvinist" I believe all babies who die go to heaven.

Ken