Featured Examining some of the misguided claims of 316 Tradionalists

Are all aborted babies elect infants?

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

 

In case anyone was wondering, this quote is from the gospel of Westminster.


Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

 

Not really making a tough call on babies dying in infancy though, is it?

"All elect octogenarians dying in old age shall be saved."
"All elect teenagers dying in adolescence shall be saved."

Steaver asked if all aborted babies were saved. You dodged the question by quoting a man-made theological document that states the obvious.

You can't answer his question because if you say some aborted babies are not saved you will be saying God predestines some to Hell.

Next up in your attempt at a defense: Appeal to mystery. God's ways are not our ways. Some things are a mystery and we can't understand them.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

 

Yes, the elect will be saved. Duh.

Your wishy-washy attempt to answer, "are all aborted babies saved?" was a failure. Your answer--"All elect babies that die in infancy are saved" is a dodge and trying to get clarity prompts the natural follow up question--Are all aborted babies elect?

Asking if all infants that die go to Heaven is not a ridiculous question, IMO. But apparently it is to Calvinists because they can't answer it without admitting that God predestines people, babies in fact, to Hell.

Oh, and nice ad hominem there..."If you understood the true nature of biblical salvation".

I submit that someone who can't answer the question about the eternal destination of infants that die is one who doesn't understand biblical salvation.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL

 

Yeah that's Bible. But have you captured the true meaning of words and concepts used hundreds of years ago. Ephesians 2: 3 states, "Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh..." I'll talk about the word "conversation". Do you believe the verse in context was talking about the words we speak? Or rather about our lifestyle. It's meant lifestyle. In the same way that you shouldn't be so caught up with the word conversation as meaning words, neither should you get so caught up with the word, WILL meaning what you think it does in John 1:13.

In regard to John 1:13 you also have to go back to vs 12 "But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name..."

That spells out the exact system of how Salvation is imparted...that is by receiving and believing on his name. Now the next verse, or the last part of the sentence..."who were born not of blood" or meaning it wasn't a hereditary things passed down by physical genetics "not the will of the flesh" meaning the way men might rather it be that different way should bring about bring about Salvation which doesn't.... and also quite possibly Salvation wasn't thought of as a necessary need by man BUT it was God's idea.. In other words this system of RECEIVING and BELIEVING on his name came from God. It by no means is suggesting that God puts the believing INTO a person. Their responsibility and everyone's responsibility is to believe and receive the gospel.

I guess the question I'd have for some dear Calvinists do you actually really believe it's just to hold someone responsible to do something that they have no capacity to carry out? God holds men responsible to receive the good news. The penalty is horrific if they don't.

 

If babies upon death are automatically received into the eternal presence of God, allowing to them to come to the mythical ‘age of accountability’, then seeing them die eternally lost, would then make the parents cruel in knowing that their child died and went to hell.

 

Please do not take this as me being snarky, but where can we find this explicitly stated in the Bible?

 

Now, I see 2 Samuel 12 as a father grieving his son’s death. We lost a pug that was our baby on 7/7/2017, as we can not have kids. To this day, I feel like digging into the grave, climbing in with her, and closing up the hole. To me, I see David saying that, that one day he will be with his son in the grave/tomb. But I could be wrong with that interpretation.

 

And you'd admit a great many choices about things people make are good choices? If one chooses to help out a friend? If one gives to the poor? If one speaks encouraging words to one discouraged? If one helps pay someone's medical bills? Or if one chooses to do good things for their children? (and the list can go on and on) Would you agree that even the unsaved can make good choices?

What does WILL have anything to do with being in bondage to the law of sin and death? Didn't Paul even state that according to the flesh he had a desire to want to live a righteous holy life? (Rom 7:19) but he found the flesh would keep drawing him into defeat? So was the problem with WILL? Or was it rather that he didn't have the power to rise above sin even though a person's will may want to. I suggest the latter was the reason. I've used this comparison before....if God told me to be acceptable I must run or at least move at 60 miles and hour...I can't do it.

I'm bound by the law of physical (the law of sin and death) I would need a recreation of my capabilities to be able to do this. STILL...even with that, such doesn't mean it's proof MY WILL was against God or that I'd reject an offer of an recreation he'd give me. You're wanting to lock in WILL as not possessing any capability to choose. No offense but it's a rather forced interpretation. I do understand though. It sounds or seems like a statement of more humility to God for it has a look to it that appears to give more glory to God...it is however I'd suggest a glory or praise that God wouldn't accept as it runs contrary to his character or nature.

That's correct. When one is born again they now have a capacity to walk FREE from the law of sin and death. It's still a capacity though and one still has to make right choices each moment and hour of the day to allow that newness of life to flow through them. (Rom 6:4) Your statement above, by the way when you said, "A saved man's will is bound to the law of new life in Christ" I think most people reading that would say it seems you're saying a saved person doesn't even have the capacity to even sin or choose to. Again your error I'd say is that you're wanting to lock up WILL in one room or another. If they're bound by the law of sin and death they simply can't have a WILL of anything for God and if they're free from the law of sin and death they don't have a WILL ever running contrary to God's. I think you know if you give it further thought such can't be true. Christians do at times hopefully only periodically choose YES by their will to sin. It's unfortunate and God will forgive them but it happens.

 

Please provide scripture to support that.

 

Works salvation.

 

The 1689 LBCoF also states this.

 

<run-on, rambling sentence snipped>

I'm guessing [Edited] you called me creepy, ungodly, and evil.

Whoa! Why are you so bitter?

Wrong. I'm trying to show you the flaws in your theology. You don't have an answer to the question, "Do all aborted babies go to Hell?"

TCassidy answered it. Why can't you?

And how can you speak as to my motivations?

An oft-repeated caricature would be you ascribing false motivations to my posts, calling me evil, saying I don't understand salvation, saying I'm ungodly, etc.

I'm not arguing against that. Men are guilty, men have sinned; God will judge them. What sin are aborted babies guilty of? What commandment have they broken?



Sent from my Pixel 2 XL