Introducing Christian Doctrine by Millard Erickson (Part 2)

I really hesitated before answering this post. Our interactions have been less-than-civil and your response, I would argue, demonstrates a reason that our discussions have been not-so-nice. Now, why I hesitated is this: Your post is a total misrepresentation of the Calvinist position. Whether intentional or not, it is still a misrepresentation.

Calvinists DO NOT believe in being saved without responding to God in repentance and faith. Maybe you didn't read my follow-up post to Allan? If that is the case, I posed it below:

So, as has been pointed out to you before (by me and others) we (the Calvinists) do not believe in election/salvation without us having to respond. Please do not continue to misrepresent our position.

Further, Baptists do not believe that baptism saves, in any way, shape, or form. I don't know exactly what the Presbyterians believe about infant-baptism (I know the Catholics believe it actually removes original sin). The Bible never says baptism is anything more than a outward sign of an inward change.

As for infant death/salvation, the Bible is not clear. They are sinners (by nature) and they are legally guilty for Adam's sin. I believe God saves infants in some way, but I cannot prove it scripturally. At best I can say I trust God to do what is right in every situation. To say more than that is getting into sentimentality which often leads us away from scripture--and that is a road down which we, as Christians, do not want to go.

Many Blessings,

The Archangel

PS. I do not think we should chase this rabbit too much further, it will get the thread off topic.

 

One aspect of sanctification is the setting aside a people for Himself. That is why the elect are called saints. They are sanctified, will be sanctified (or currently going through sanctification) and will be finally sanctified or glorified.

I believe if a baby dies, it is one of the elect. I can't prove that with scripture however.

To answer your earlier question about babies; Has any baby who has ever existed or will exist been perfect? There has only been one perfect baby. Jesus
What is sin? Sin is to fall short of the glory (perfection) of God. There are no perfect babies. For a baby to die just shows that he/she is less than perfect.
We must understand the perfection of God, and when we do, then we will understand that babies are not perfect....... unless you are ready to start worshiping them! :laugh: I've almost felt like worshiping some of my grandchildren.... until they have been with me for a while.

 

Exactly. We will get into eternal justification, and I don't think Tim wants to go there right now. Do you Tim?

 

We are in total agreement here so I assume our difference (if there is one when we boil it down) is probably further down the line of threads to the 'why'.

Agreed again, but to clarify, it is still 'Love' just a different form or aspect that is not in the same manner or privilage of the Covenant aspect of Love.

Again, here I agree but with distinction on my part. That each 'type or aspect' of the Love He shows in 100%. If His love is presented in the aspect of goodness toward all in His creation (ex. the rain) it is absolutely perfect goodness toward all. And His convenant Love is absolutely perfect in itself as well toward only those OF the Covenant Love. Agreed? Maybe?

I agree in respect to the Covenant Love aspact. In Eternity whoever is not Coventantally Loved by contrast must be hated. However, at the same time God's hate is not arbitary is it? I believe scripture is specific in that it is relegated toward those who have chosen to continue in sin just as His love is relegated toward those who have acted in faith (not continuing in sin). His hatred is in relation to His judicial decree against those who have chosen to continue in sin. This is why I state it is referencing (while living) a contrast. (I'm just trying to explain myself here more that refute anything brother)

Agreed brother.

 

Please, I have been reading Hunt and White debating Calvinism and I guess I just carry over their "diatribes" which I can hardly believe are in publication! raying:

[quoe]Now, why I hesitated is this: Your post is a total misrepresentation of the Calvinist position.[/quote] That is the FIRST excuse Calvinists always give. It's NEVER that Calvinists don't understand free will. It's ALWAYS the fault of the free will believers, isn't it? But let us resume, shall we?

If Calvinists believe that people are "regenerated" without first responding to God, then they believe they are saved without responding. It's as simple as that. It is some change on a personal level that "triggers" regeneration/rebirth/salvation. But here's what Calvinists believe -- that they are "elect" in eternity past and they respond later, in time. You actually express the "ideal" truth -- saved upon response. That is not what Calvinists believe. They believe in "response upon salvation/regeneration -- "regeneration precedes faith" to quote most of them.

I agree! Calvin believed infant baptism saved (as do Catholics -- go figure). But the baptism of which I speak is baptism of the Spirit. Water baptism is symbolic, yes. Symbolic of the Spirit resurrecting us from spiritual death unto eternal, spiritual life, right?

No, no, no. That is Calvinism again!

You believe RIGHT!! He saves them according to INNOCENCE! "Sin guilt" of infants/fetuses is a FALSEHOOD. Ezek 18:20 tells us as much!

Well, now "at best you can do" is believe that God includes them in the "resurrection of the just" -- those who either believed in the OT before Christ or who are considered to have not sinned because they lacked accountability.

Pls, let me "shake your world." It is not "rocket science" to know that 1) Calvinism just carried on the tradition of Catholicism in this respect and 2) that sin nature emerges from the flesh though it is NOT "sin guilt!"

skypair

 

ABSOLUTELY!! And the NT saints are "set aside" by the indwelling Spirit and OT saints were "set aside" by the law until Messiah would come. When Messiah comes, He will resurrect them and sanctify them ON EARTH the same way we are sanctified today -- indwelling Spirit! And in fact, that is SPECIFICALLY why God calls the believing church "elect!" Have you ever considered that this is why Jesus parable says "Many are called [re: Israel] but few are chosen [re: the CHURCH, the bride]?" Oh, you have so much to learn -- so little time! maranatha!

Not "elect." "JUST" and resurrected to choose Christ if he/she so chooses! Read Isa 49:20-23. Read about "Who hat begotten me these children?" Read "I will lift up My hand among the Gentiles, and set up My standard to the people; and they will thy sons in their arms... for they shall not be ashamed who wait for Me."

How do you condemn an infant? Please! They neither believe nor know nor "inherit" sin! They are not, as you say, PERFECT or perfected --- they are INNOCENT! They have NEVER sinned!

But I can appreciate you comments about grandchildren. Me too! :laugh: But they "try" you in complete innocence, no?

Look, as I pointed out on another thread -- the reason you don't understand God's love of EVERYONE is that you don't see that He loves EVERYONE as if they were an infant. as if they had a whole world to discover and a "child's" potential!! It does not amaze me that Jesus said, "Of such is the kingdom of God!"

skypair

 

To the two items I bolded.

Maybe

You are the iron that sharpens mine bro. I couldn't do without you.

 

skypair, you wrote:

My statement wasn't an excuse it was a statement of fact. You consistently misrepresent the Calvinist view, as is in evidence below.

You know, this is why few people like to discuss these things with you--you simply do not listen.

In my post, I explained what the majority of Calvinists believe about the necessity of the elect to respond to God's effectual call. It is a fact--the majority of Calvinists believe we (the elect) must respond to God.

Now, you are trying to tell me what I believe???? You are trying to tell the majority of Calvinists what we believe????

Calvinists believe regeneration precedes redemption and Calvinists believe that man, as a result of the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit, must respond to God. Your conclusion (as shown above) misrepresents the Calvinist claim. You can disagree with the claim, as many do, but you are not free to misrepresent the claim, as you have done here.

Personally, one of the reason I believe that regeneration must precede redemption is that the Bible suggests the same thing. In fact, John 3:3 (where Jesus tells Nicodemus "you must be born again") suggests as much.

But, as this is not a thread about Calvinism, I won't go into details.

You continued:

You tone here is not appreciated. You speak as if I do not understand you position (the freewill position). I used to be a "Freewiller" but have since, after much kicking and careful study, come to believe in the Calvinist position, somewhat reluctantly.

Unfortunately, I doubt that this response will help you see what Calvinists actually believe. You seem either unable or unwilling to take a Calvinist's word for what we actually believe.

For this reason alone, it may be better not to answer your posts.

Many Blessings,

The Archangel

 

Sky, I wish for once you would listen. It is not only Calvinist who say you misrepresent us. You need to listen.
This is not a debate about Calvinism. Let it go on this thread ok?
If you disagree with someone ( Calvinist ) then state what you believe and let it go. This is an educational thread, not a thread to win someone over to your theology. These people are interested in gaining an understanding of what Reformed and Non Reformed believe, and then they will draw their own conclusions with scripture.
You are right. I have a lot to learn. I'll be the first to admit that. For now, lets allow others to learn from our discussions, and leave the C/A debates for later. We will probably have to go there later in the book. Thank you for listening. Grace and peace.

 

skypair,

To, my friend reformedbeliever, you wrote:

As one who took offense to my saying "There are so many problems, I don't know where to begin" these comments should not come from you!

Unfortunately, your responses show you believe you should not be "attacked" or "belittled" but you believe you are free to "attack" or "belittle" anyone who doesn't agree with your positions (most of which are odd). It's like the pot calling....oh nevermind!

How much longer do we really need to put up with this?

The Archangel

 

I'll start off and begin with Miracles.

Dictionary.com states Miracle means:
1. an effect or extraordinary event in the physical world that surpasses all known human or natural powers and is ascribed to a supernatural cause.

However, I think we as christians use the term to loosely and far to often. Let me explain:
Let's say a person was a reletively new hiker, was hiking in the mountains and at some point much later in hike slipped and broke their ankle. Another person who was also hiking heard them cry out and come to their aide, and called for help on their radio. Now being that it is late fall, the weather can get pretty bad/cold in the mountains at night. So someone would state that it was a 'miracle' that another person was hiking close by in that area.

The above is set forth to illistrate what I mean about using the term to loosely. What is actaully descibed above is not a 'miracle' but Gods providence. What would have make it a miracle is if that other person would have 'healed' the broken ankle right then and there.

Providence is:
1. (often initial capital letter) the foreseeing care and guidance of God or nature over the creatures of the earth.
2. (initial capital letter) God, esp. when conceived as omnisciently directing the universe and the affairs of humankind with wise benevolence.
3. Care or preparation in advance

Providence is not a miracle, though it is a miraculous thing to know and realize that God is in control even in the most out of control situations.

Though God can use miracles within His providence, miracles are not the same things as Gods providence.

SECONDLY:
Why does God use Miracles?

The primary purpose is as a sign of authentication and valadation that 1) the person who performs the miracle is a servant of the True God, 2) that it IS God who has done these things (2b) and to establish the absoluteness of God's power to those He chooses to reveal it, 3) to declare His majesty, power, and Glory that His creation will both praise and worship Him.

THIRDLY:
How are miracles performed?

However He chooses to work them (ex same miracle different application - Jesus healing the blind), and through whom He chooses. The 'whom' however, is always a believer but the miracle performed is not always on a believer.
Sometimes God miraculously heals a person who was not even seeking it. Take the lame man that called out to Peter and John for money (Acts 3) but nothing to do with healing nor do we have any indication he thought they COULD heal him. Yet Peter states I have neither silver or gold but such as I have to give, stand up and walk.
Yet at other times, like with Jesus, He states 'thy faith has made the whole' or 'thy faith has healed thee'.

The miracle performed is never performed by the power of the person but God working through that person. Peter healed the lame man in Acts 3 because he was walking in the Spirit and was led to heal the man God intended to heal. We can infer this partly because there was garenteed to be more lame and sick there that just the one but only the one was healed. Another reason is because though they had the gift of healing they did not always heal everyone around them like Jesus did. Take Paul for example. He had the gift of healing but he still did not heal some of even his own team who became sick on his missonary journeys (2 Tim 4:20, Phil 2:26-27)

FOURTH:
Do you see miracles all around you?

No, I see God's amazingness and work all around me (providence) but not miricles.
Though I have seen miracles and in fact have had them happen TO me.

FIFTH:
Are miacles rare?

Define rare? Do you mean around me specifically? I would say yes. Do you mean globally? I would say most likely not.

 

Dear Brethren,

Here is a quote from brother Archangel:

I have a question regarding this, but do not want to alter the focus of this discussion thread. I will ask my question, if it is viewed as derailing the thread, I will start a new topic thread related to my question.

Here is the question in light of the above quote.

To whom do the elect under obligation to 'respond'?

Does the statement above mean the elect must respond to people?

If so to whom and how many?

This is enough for one question...don't ya'll think?:laugh:

If I am encroaching upon this thread let me know and I will move my questions to another topic.

bro. Dallas:wavey:

 

Dallas,

Great Question! I would say the elect must respond to God in repentance and faith. I'm not sure what the "response to people" means? My assumption is that you are asking if the elect respond to the person sharing the Gospel with them. If that is the case then, no, that doesn't happen.

Ultimately, the good Arminian and the good Calvinist will both affirm that the response of the (I would say elect) is to the Holy Spirit--He is the agent of regeneration and salvation.

I hope that helps clarify...

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

:thumbs:

Amen, I agree. But don't forget about us non-Cals (who are also non-Arm) But I know what you mean

 

Yes, after they are already regenerated, right? In the "effectual call" regeneratation comes first else there is nothing, right?

I am well-versed in the apologetics of Calvinism as presented by Calvinists (Sproul, Spurgeon, Calvin, Luther, Packer, etc.). Perhaps the issue is, as it also is among Catholics, that the adherents don't ever hear the controversial side of the issues.

One thing I have come to wonder about is whether Calvin and early Reformers ever really knew what "regeneration" meant. To me, they used a word that means "indwelling" and "new birth" and "saved" to describe what the Anabaptists would have seen as the "power of the gospel unto salvation" Rom 1:16. That is a debate that "lives" to this day! Regeneration is not indwelling because indwelling comes AFTER salvation.

You are right -- I am not "longsuffering" even though I am determined. I find that same in projects I take up around the house. I actually will try to work on that. I apologize.

skypair

 

I'll dismiss my "publicist" this very day! It is kinda inconvenient what you have to go through to get to the facts, isn't it?

skypair

 

Tim,

There is one miracle done every day -- even many times a day. It is the miracle to which most other miracles seem to point. That with God, there is a "way out" of affliction and corruption and purposelessness. It is SALVATION.

Though common (not rare), it is not natural but supernatural. In times past, it would be likened to alchemy -- changing iron into gold. Man studied alchemy and salvation from every angle but could never seem to accomplish it, not even by accident.

Amazingly, this salvation miracle can be "performed" by a few words called "the gospel of Jesus Christ." But the reliability of the effect is relatively low owing to the fact that the "soul and spirit" of a person must be "divided asunder" (We call this part "conviction.") and then put back together as God takes up His throne in the soul and the Holy Spirit indwells the person's spirit in salvation. Obviously, all this "heart surgery" is God's "work."

skypair

 

No sir you are not well versed in reformed apologetics.
Why do you say we never hear the contraversial side? Don't you know that most of us came from your free will background? It was through diligent study of the scriptures that we came to our position. For some of us... it was a struggle to give up what we had been taught our whole life. Now instead of trying to make something out of what I just said........... just listen to what I said. I just directly refuted what you had to say. STOP it sky!

The difference between you and the reformers is that they had the ability to use exegesis. They knew exactly what regeneration meant in the original languages.......... You should try it!

The problem is that you think you have the facts when in FACT you don't. Try listening to people sky. What you accuse others of the most is in FACT exactly what you yourself do.