Do you raise YOUR Children this way?

[Brother Bob]

ReformedBaptist;
Originally Posted by Brother Bob
What part is misunderstood, you tell me.

Certainly. And re-reading my sentence I can see how you came to your conclusion. It was poorly worded.

What I meant is that there are true Christians, who disagree with some or all the 5-points of Calvinism, who have accurately represented Calvinist theology. I have not read any of their arguments/books/treatise, but I am sure there are some.

So, I am not saying all who disagree with Calvinism are unsaved. I have never believed such a thing. I hope that clears it up.
__________________

A lot of difference between this and what was posted before.

I am sure there has to be people who disagree with Calvinism, are true Christians, and do not misrepresent Calivinistic theology. I haven't seen one yet though, but I haven't read everybody

We all make mistakes, forget it.

I am leaving this thread, it serves no purpose whatsoever. I pray, we can have better discussions than this.

 

[npetreley]

That is the full introduction to the sermon. The sermon can be read in its entirety here http://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/0411.htm

Great sermon! I wasn't aware of it. Thanks for the link! Even though I am a big fan of Spurgeon, I half expected him to make a false argument about innocence. I was really glad to see he didn't go down that road.

 

[webdog]

That is the full introduction to the sermon. The sermon can be read in its entirety here http://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/0411.htm

To make the claim you are webbdog, you have to ignore everythign else Spurgeon taught in the sermon.

Maybe you can show me (or Donna, since she seems to know it all) from the sermon where Spurgeon goes on to show that he didn't really mean infants are incapable of having faith. Does his sermons need that little decoder ring to understand what he is really saying?

And webbdog, I am curious, do you believe as some asserted on that thread that faith is from man, and not a gift of God?

Faith is a gift of God in the same way our arms and legs are. ALL men are capable of conscious, mindful decisions leading to faith. In a sense, then, all men are given the ability to have faith from God. That's what makes it such a special gift.

Then, as you rightly say, we must have true saving faith in Christ to be saved, how does an infant child exercise their own inherent faith in Jesus?

BINGO! An infant CANNOT have faith as Spurgeon rightly pointed out in his sermon! His problem, though, is the fact he states they are saved since they are "elect"...and not through faith. This is why an infant is NOT born guilty of augustinian original sin!

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Maybe you can show me (or Donna, since she seems to know it all) from the sermon where Spurgeon goes on to show that he didn't really mean infants are incapable of having faith. Does his sermons need that little decoder ring to understand what he is really saying?

Faith is a gift of God in the same way our arms and legs are. ALL men are capable of conscious, mindful decisions leading to faith. In a sense, then, all men are given the ability to have faith from God. That's what makes it such a special gift.

BINGO! An infant CANNOT have faith as Spurgeon rightly pointed out in his sermon! His problem, though, is the fact he states they are saved since they are "elect"...and not through faith. This is why an infant is NOT born guilty of augustinian original sin!

Ok. So your stance is based in the innocence of the child and a denial of original sin. I understand your position now I think.

 

[webdog]

Not innocence, since they are still tainted with the sin nature (only Adam, Eve were created innocent) and will still die the first death, but a judicial "not guilty" (due to being judged on sin they commit) on the part of the Judge, Jesus Christ.

 

[npetreley]

Not innocence, since they are still tainted with the sin nature (only Adam, Eve were created innocent) and will still die the first death, but a judicial "not guilty" (due to being judged on sin they commit) on the part of the Judge, Jesus Christ.

I'd love to see this applied in a court of law. "We find the defendant not innocent and not guilty. You have the right to not appeal this not verdict."

 

[webdog]

I'd love to see this applied in a court of law. "We find the defendant not innocent and not guilty. You have the right to not appeal this not verdict."

This really makes no sense.

Maybe it's just semantics on my part, but my understanding of innocent is not being corrupted by evil, and the definition of "not guilty" is the plea of someone who has not commited the crime. Since even infants are still corrupted by evil, they are not innocent...but since they also haven't commited any crime to deem them a criminal (sinner) they are not guilty. Seems pretty easy and straight forward to me.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Not innocence, since they are still tainted with the sin nature (only Adam, Eve were created innocent) and will still die the first death, but a judicial "not guilty" (due to being judged on sin they commit) on the part of the Judge, Jesus Christ.

If my goal was to persude you concerning the way I view it, then I would say this discussion should turn to the topic of original sin. Adam's sin was imputed to all his posterity. In other words, Adam sinned in our place, or as our representative. Would you like to discuss the biblical doctrine of original sin/imputed sin?

RB

 

[webdog]

If my goal was to persude you concerning the way I view it, then I would say this discussion should turn to the topic of original sin. Adam's sin was imputed to all his posterity. In other words, Adam sinned in our place, or as our representative. Would you like to discuss the biblical doctrine of original sin/imputed sin?

RB

If you would like to start another thread, that's fine. I still feel they are interwoven with infant salvation, but that's me. If Adam sinned in our place as our representative (all mankind to ever exist), then Scripture also gives the flipside that Christ also died for mankind (all mankind to ever exist) that all are made righteous. This is masked universalism.

1Co 15:22 For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.

We die in Adam the way he died...by sinning, not by automatically having his sin applied to us. The "so also" connects Adam and Christ in this way. We live in Christ the same way He lived...by being crucified and resurrected in Him. If all humans died by having Adam's sin spread to us, then all humans are also justified by having Christ's righteousness spread to us. I don't think you really believe that.

 

[charles_creech78]

(Do you raise your children this way) I raise my children in the fear of the Lord. I tell them when they get older that they will get into trouble on the count of there sins and there is a God that will forgive them. I tell them that Jesus die for each and everyone of us. I have told them about Jesus Christ the son of God. And have told them that there is no other name under heaven where by me and you and all man kind can be saved then Jesus Christ and that there is no respecter of person with God that we have all sin and come short of his glory. I have told them God him self will inlighten you of what you have done wrong before him and that it is up to you to take heed and repent and that it is requirement to repent of them evil deeds that we have done and that he will not make you love him and that it is by faith through grace that we are saved because he LOVED US. I pray to God with them that he will show them his LOVE and that it is ok to trust in him. I love him because he first LOVED me . I do not deserve to be loved by him or for him to chose me before the foundation of the world. I believe that it was his love that I felt that caused me to repent. I have feld God in all points and am not worthy of his love. I thank him yet when I was a sinner God his Son died for me. So I can be free from all that is wrong with me and serve the true and living God that so much deserves it. With all love I write this unto all of you and only the pure in heart shall see GOD. As I crie I can see that pure in heart in my kids.Amen

 

[ReformedBaptist]

If you would like to start another thread, that's fine. I still feel they are interwoven with infant salvation, but that's me. If Adam sinned in our place as our representative (all mankind to ever exist), then Scripture also gives the flipside that Christ also died for mankind (all mankind to ever exist) that all are made righteous. This is masked universalism.

1Co 15:22 For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.

We die in Adam the way he died...by sinning, not by automatically having his sin applied to us. The "so also" connects Adam and Christ in this way. We live in Christ the same way He lived...by being crucified and resurrected in Him. If all humans died by having Adam's sin spread to us, then all humans are also justified by having Christ's righteousness spread to us. I don't think you really believe that.

Your almost correct. And you logically saw the inevitability of universalism if the concept of universal redemption is true--something I don't believe. I believe in particular redemption. But I am sure you knew that. All are born IN Adam. Not all are born-again IN Christ. But all who are born-again in Christ shall live.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

(Do you raise your children this way) I raise my children in the fear of the Lord. I tell them when they get older that they will get into trouble on the count of there sins and there is a God that will forgive them. I tell them that Jesus die for each and everyone of us. I have told them about Jesus Christ the son of God. And have told them that there is no other name under heaven where by me and you and all man kind can be saved then Jesus Christ and that there is no respecter of person with God that we have all sin and come short of his glory. I have told them God him self will inlighten you of what you have done wrong before him and that it is up to you to take heed and repent and that it is requirement to repent of them evil deeds that we have done and that he will not make you love him and that it is by faith through grace that we are saved because he LOVED US. I pray to God with them that he will show them his LOVE and that it is ok to trust in him. I love him because he first LOVED me . I do not deserve to be loved by him or for him to chose me before the foundation of the world. I believe that it was his love that I felt that caused me to repent. I have feld God in all points and am not worthy of his love. I thank him yet when I was a sinner God his Son died for me. So I can be free from all that is wrong with me and serve the true and living God that so much deserves it. With all love I write this unto all of you and only the pure in heart shall see GOD. As I crie I can see that pure in heart in my kids.Amen

I hear your heart brother, and I am too a father. We have 4 children ages 9,7,4, and 2. Our fifth child is due at the end of year. We will be having a girl. All glory to God.

Now I am wondering about this pure heart you see in your kids. Give your advice how you got it into them. Cause my kids are apparantly selfish. My 2 year-old is learning to say words more clearly, and apart from Mommy and Daddy being the first ones, his most favortie seems to me "MINE!!!!" which is usually accompanied by violently ripping whatever is "MINE!!!" from another child's hands (usually my 4 year old) and wacking him in the head with it.

In response, my 4-year old yells at the top of his lungs, "You poopy-head!!" and pushes him down.

My 7-year old when frustrated tells his brothers how much he doesn't love them. Only my 9 years seems to act different (now) but I suspect the Lord covnerted her.

Please share the secret!

 

[charles_creech78]

I hear your heart brother, and I am too a father. We have 4 children ages 9,7,4, and 2. Our fifth child is due at the end of year. We will be having a girl. All glory to God.

Now I am wondering about this pure heart you see in your kids. Give your advice how you got it into them. Cause my kids are apparantly selfish. My 2 year-old is learning to say words more clearly, and apart from Mommy and Daddy being the first ones, his most favortie seems to me "MINE!!!!" which is usually accompanied by violently ripping whatever is "MINE!!!" from another child's hands (usually my 4 year old) and wacking him in the head with it.

In response, my 4-year old yells at the top of his lungs, "You poopy-head!!" and pushes him down.

My 7-year old when frustrated tells his brothers how much he doesn't love them. Only my 9 years seems to act different (now) but I suspect the Lord covnerted her.

Please share the secret!

First of all I did not give them a pure heart God did. Ps 128:1 A song of degrees. Blessed is everyone that FEARTH the Lord; that walketh in his ways. Ps 128:2 For thou shalt eat the labour of thine hands: happy shalt thou be, and it shall be well with thee. Ps 128:3 Thy wife shall be as a fruitful vine by the sides of thine house: thy children like olive plants round about thy table. Ps 128:4 Behold, that thus shall the man be blessed that feareth the lord. ps 128:5 The Lord shall bless thee out of Zion and thou shalt see the good of Jerusalem all the days of thy life. ps 128:6 Yea, thou shalt see thy children's children, and peace upon Israel.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

First of all I did not give them a pure heart God did. Ps 128:1 A song of degrees. Blessed is everyone that FEARTH the Lord; that walketh in his ways. Ps 128:2 For thou shalt eat the labour of thine hands: happy shalt thou be, and it shall be well with thee. Ps 128:3 Thy wife shall be as a fruitful vine by the sides of thine house: thy children like olive plants round about thy table. Ps 128:4 Behold, that thus shall the man be blessed that feareth the lord. ps 128:5 The Lord shall bless thee out of Zion and thou shalt see the good of Jerusalem all the days of thy life. ps 128:6 Yea, thou shalt see thy children's children, and peace upon Israel.

I was trying to make a funny before..I don't guess it worked...:saint:

 

[menageriekeeper]

TCGreek, Dale, ya'll around yet? Webdog and ReformedBaptist have done gone off on some sort of tangent I haven't quite figured out yet, but I have some questions left unanswered from last night. Let's start back here:

Originally Posted by menageriekeeper
<begin sarcasm> Wow! That is some love that our Savior felt for this young man! I want some of that love. <end sarcasm>

I like my version of love better than yours mine comes from John 3:16. Where's your's come from?

1. Then why don't all of us just simplify our theology and become universalists?

2. Why would a loving God create a world where image-bearers of His would choose to reject him and spend eternity in the Lake of fire?

3. Not only must the Calvinists answer these questions, but every other soteriological approach must answer these questions.

1. Not the first time I've been called a universalist because I believe God draws every man (not that every man responds). This does tend to simplify matters.

2. This goes back to the idea that God choose to! I can't understand why you have a hard time with the idea that God could choose to create man knowing that man would reject Him. He did it because He wanted to. "let us create man in our image" He wanted to!

Why did He create Lucifer? Could He not have seen that Lucifer would eventually become filled with pride and want to become greater than his creator? He did it because He wanted to!

Now I have no problem with the idea that God stands outside our time and was perfectly capable of seeing all the decisions that man would ever make and preparing for just those decisions. He prepared hell for the devil and his angels. He prepared heaven for those who would follow Him. Those who do not choose to follow condemn themselves to a punishment that was not intended for them.

You keep talking about God's will. Explain why a God who is "not willing that ANY should perish" allows a single person to taste the flames of hell. Why would a loving God do such?

3. By who's rules do you say that every theology must answer these questions? Is it not enough to say God did and leave Him to figure out why?



Next question:

Originally Posted by Dale-c
Because God ISN"T going to save you anyway.
Don't you see?
The fact that you believed and repented was because of God's regenerating power in your heart.
Just because God has created an end does not mean that that end will happen with out the means that He has ordained.

See, God not only predestined you to eternal life, He predestined you to regerneration and to soften your heart to the Gospel.
It was part of His plan to bring whoever it was into your life to share the Gospel with you. It was all pat of God's will for your life.

I know of no other way to explain it, except to point out these texts (Acts 18:9, 10; 2 Thess. 2:12, 13).

While I think I get what Dale is saying (highlighted), I can't seem to figure out what the Acts passage has to do with that or with the Thess passage.

Now, to what did God predestine me is where we part ways. It is your belief (if I'm correctly understanding you) that God looked down at all the possible humans He had to choose from, in all the ages that mankind has dwelt or will dwell on this earth and started pickin' and choosin'. He choose me, you and a couple bazillion other folks for reasons of His own. Then He started spinning the world around until it all worked out that those He chose on "choosin' day" heard the word and believed it (right? ya'll still think man must take the action of belief once faith has been proferred upon a man?).

Now, my version of what God predestined goes along like this: God looked down through the ages that He created and KNEW that man was going to reject Him. Now He had a choice, not create or create and make provisions for those rebellious humans to be able to come back to Him. That provision was the sacrifice of His own Son. With that sacrifice, man was again given a choice. Adam made the first choice and it was wrong. Christ made the ultimate choice and it was right. Individuals must choose for themselves, as Joshua put it, "whom they will serve".

 

[charles_creech78]

TCGreek, Dale, ya'll around yet? Webdog and ReformedBaptist have done gone off on some sort of tangent I haven't quite figured out yet, but I have some questions left unanswered from last night. Let's start back here:



1. Not the first time I've been called a universalist because I believe God draws every man (not that every man responds). This does tend to simplify matters.

2. This goes back to the idea that God choose to! I can't understand why you have a hard time with the idea that God could choose to create man knowing that man would reject Him. He did it because He wanted to. "let us create man in our image" He wanted to!

Why did He create Lucifer? Could He not have seen that Lucifer would eventually become filled with pride and want to become greater than his creator? He did it because He wanted to!

Now I have no problem with the idea that God stands outside our time and was perfectly capable of seeing all the decisions that man would ever make and preparing for just those decisions. He prepared hell for the devil and his angels. He prepared heaven for those who would follow Him. Those who do not choose to follow condemn themselves to a punishment that was not intended for them.

You keep talking about God's will. Explain why a God who is "not willing that ANY should perish" allows a single person to taste the flames of hell. Why would a loving God do such?

3. By who's rules do you say that every theology must answer these questions? Is it not enough to say God did and leave Him to figure out why?



Next question:



While I think I get what Dale is saying (highlighted), I can't seem to figure out what the Acts passage has to do with that or with the Thess passage.

Now, to what did God predestine me is where we part ways. It is your belief (if I'm correctly understanding you) that God looked down at all the possible humans He had to choose from, in all the ages that mankind has dwelt or will dwell on this earth and started pickin' and choosin'. He choose me, you and a couple bazillion other folks for reasons of His own. Then He started spinning the world around until it all worked out that those He chose on "choosin' day" heard the word and believed it (right? ya'll still think man must take the action of belief once faith has been proferred upon a man?).

Now, my version of what God predestined goes along like this: God looked down through the ages that He created and KNEW that man was going to reject Him. Now He had a choice, not create or create and make provisions for those rebellious humans to be able to come back to Him. That provision was the sacrifice of His own Son. With that sacrifice, man was again given a choice. Adam made the first choice and it was wrong. Christ made the ultimate choice and it was right. Individuals must choose for themselves, as Joshua put it, "whom they will serve".

Amen, amen, amen, God bless you. :applause:

 

[Andy T.]

You keep talking about God's will. Explain why a God who is "not willing that ANY should perish" allows a single person to taste the flames of hell. Why would a loving God do such?

You answered your own question when you said this earlier:

This goes back to the idea that God choose to! I can't understand why you have a hard time with the idea that God could choose to create man knowing that man would reject Him. He did it because He wanted to. "let us create man in our image" He wanted to!

Why did He create Lucifer? Could He not have seen that Lucifer would eventually become filled with pride and want to become greater than his creator? He did it because He wanted to!

There's your answer to your own question: God loves a person's free will more than he loves the person.

 

[menageriekeeper]

I know I did Andy. Dale and TC seem to think something different and I was trying to get clarification.

TC asked "2. Why would a loving God create a world where image-bearers of His would choose to reject him and spend eternity in the Lake of fire?" I gave him my opinion and now I'd like for him to tell me his own answer to this question.