Predestination:

[AndyMartin]

Psalm 51:5 - at the moment of our conception.

taking your reasoning, then all, including infants will be damned who are not born-again, because they are "sinners" from conception? This is the double-talk of Calvinism!

 

[Van]

God gives to his own their saving faith!

Your false claim is absurd, we are chosen through faith, therefore we had faith before we were chosen to be His own.
Our faith in Christ provides our access to the grace in which we stand.

 

[TCassidy]

It says "believeth not", not cannot believe, but they choose not to.

1 Corinthians 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

 

[TCassidy]

taking your reasoning, then all, including infants will be damned who are not born-again, because they are "sinners" from conception? This is the double-talk of Calvinism!

I am not sure why you want to condemn all infants (infant damnation is a Roman Catholic heresy), but David made it clear where his infant child was after his untimely death.

 

[AndyMartin]

Your false claim is absurd, we are chosen through faith, therefore we had faith before we were chosen to be His own.
Our faith in Christ provides our access to the grace in which we stand.

The Bible says that "So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ", which is the "power of God to salvation".

 

[AndyMartin]

I am not sure why you want to condemn all infants (infant damnation is a Roman Catholic heresy), but David made it clear where his infant child was after his untimely death.

His infant does not mean all?

 

[AndyMartin]

1 Corinthians 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

Agree, but the Gospel of Jesus has the power to salvation through conviction of sin

 

[JonC]

I don't think that we should try to be like God!

Neither do I. But I think that this is what we do when we sin. We put ourselves in the place of God (in terms of doing our will rather than His will).

 

[JonC]

Psalm 51:5 - at the moment of our conception.

At the moment of our conception we are under the curse of sin (as Jesus was under the curse of sin), so I agree at least here. The effects of sin (death) begin at conception. And we are children of Adam (when faced with the choice of our will vs God's will, we will choose to do things our way) at conception.

 

[TCassidy]

Jesus was under the curse of sin

No, He wasn't. That is the whole point of the Virgin Birth. Jesus was not born under the Federal/Seminal Headship of Adam.

 

[TCassidy]

At the moment of our conception we are under the curse of sin

Yes, that is what it means to be a sinner. You seem to want to redefine words to fit your doctrine rather than fit your doctrine to the words found in the bible.

I tried to illustrate this for you but apparently I didn't do a very good job. I am an American. Being an American is not what I do. It is what I am.

I am a sinner. Being a sinner is not what I do. It is what I am.

I think one of the problems of the Evangelical abandonment of Liturgy (which I tend to agree with) is that we have raised several generations of Christians who do not know what they believe nor why they believe it.

I grew up in an Evangelical, Protestant, Liturgical church and repeated, by rote, every Sunday, the Liturgy including: "Most merciful God, we confess that we are by nature sinful and unclean. We have sinned against You in thought, word, and deed, by what we have done and by what we have left undone."

This important part of the Liturgy tells us our sin is two fold. We are by nature sinful and unclean and that sin nature results in our sinning against God.

To deny the sin nature is to deny the very necessity of the Sacrifice of Christ on the Cross.

 

[AndyMartin]

Yes, that is what it means to be a sinner. You seem to want to redefine words to fit your doctrine rather than fit your doctrine to the words found in the bible.

I tried to illustrate this for you but apparently I didn't do a very good job. I am an American. Being an American is not what I do. It is what I am.

I am a sinner. Being a sinner is not what I do. It is what I am.

I think one of the problems of the Evangelical abandonment of Liturgy (which I tend to agree with) is that we have raised several generations of Christians who do not know what they believe nor why they believe it.

I grew up in an Evangelical, Protestant, Liturgical church and repeated, by rote, every Sunday, the Liturgy including: "Most merciful God, we confess that we are by nature sinful and unclean. We have sinned against You in thought, word, and deed, by what we have done and by what we have left undone."

This important part of the Liturgy tells us our sin is two fold. We are by nature sinful and unclean and that sin nature results in our sinning against God.

To deny the sin nature is to deny the very necessity of the Sacrifice of Christ on the Cross.

I must come back to this. if we are all sinners "at conception", and not simply of a "sinful nature" where no actual sins have been committed. Then infants who are also "sinners", who die in infancy, are going to heaven as unrepentant sinners? Does this mean that repentance is not necessary for salvation? What of Boettner, who said, "infants have never committed any actual sin themselves". If actual sins have not been committed, then how can they be "actual sinners"?

 

[AndyMartin]

At the moment of our conception we are under the curse of sin (as Jesus was under the curse of sin), so I agree at least here. The effects of sin (death) begin at conception. And we are children of Adam (when faced with the choice of our will vs God's will, we will choose to do things our way) at conception.

Galatians 3:13 says, "Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree”" Jesus became a "curse" on our behalf (this is the force of the preposition "for"), not for any sins of His own, as He is 100% sinless!

 

[AndyMartin]

I am not sure why you want to condemn all infants (infant damnation is a Roman Catholic heresy), but David made it clear where his infant child was after his untimely death.

On the contrary, dear brother, I believe that ALL infants are saved, not because they are "elect" which has zero Scripture support, but because they have not yet done "any wrong", as Deuteronomy 1:39, "And as for your little ones, who you said would become a prey, and your children, who today have no knowledge of good or evil, they shall go in there. And to them I will give it, and they shall possess it". Isaiah 7:15-16, " He shall eat curds and honey when he knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good. 16 For before the boy knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good". And, Romans 9:11, "though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad". Teach. Which clearly shows that there must be a time of "innocence", or else these passages mean nothing.

 

[MennoSota]

I know what you are saying. However, when you say, "If God chooses to extend grace, they are elect", surely you must have Scripture support for this? I don't see a single verse that says this. I am open to correction.

Scripture for election?

Scripture that infants go to heaven if they die, which by transitive process means they were elect?

I'm not sure what you are fishing for in the waters of God's grace.

Are you looking for a reason to reject the grace of God and make salvation be through a process of works? That would be the ultimate Arminian proposal.

 

[AndyMartin]

Scripture for election?

Scripture that infants go to heaven if they die, which by transitive process means they were elect?

I'm not sure what you are fishing for in the waters of God's grace.

Are you looking for a reason to reject the grace of God and make salvation be through a process of works? That would be the ultimate Arminian proposal.

But, if all are sinners from conception, and these infants die before they can actually repent, which is a requirement for salvation, the we are saying that unrepentant sinners will be in heaven! My argument is, that as I have already shown from Scripture, all human must be born "neutral", as the Bible says, "before they do good or bad", which can only mean that there is a time (which God only knows of), that infants are "not sinners". We cannot base our understanding only on Romans 5:12, where it is clear from the Greek text, that it does not necessarily mean that all sinned in Adam.

 

[MennoSota]

But, if all are sinners from conception, and these infants die before they can actually repent, which is a requirement for salvation, the we are saying that unrepentant sinners will be in heaven! My argument is, that as I have already shown from Scripture, all human must be born "neutral", as the Bible says, "before they do good or bad", which can only mean that there is a time (which God only knows of), that infants are "not sinners". We cannot base our understanding only on Romans 5:12, where it is clear from the Greek text, that it does not necessarily mean that all sinned in Adam.

Where is repentance required by God before God can save someone?

Did God save Saul on the road to Damascus or did Saul have to go into deep repentance and penitent actions before God could save him?

Why do you force works salvation as a requirement for God to save a person out of sin?

 

[TCassidy]

On the contrary, dear brother, I believe that ALL infants are saved, not because they are "elect" which has zero Scripture support, but because they have not yet done "any wrong"

So, salvation is earned by not doing anything wrong?

I don't think so.

It seems much more likely to me that God numbers those who die in infancy among the elect according to his Mercy and Grace.

As for election not being scriptural, I will not post all 145 verses teaching election as I am sure you can find them for yourself.

 

[TCassidy]

if we are all sinners "at conception", and not simply of a "sinful nature" where no actual sins have been committed.

This seems to me to be a Neo-Orthodox redefining of the historically held meaning of theological terms.

You draw a distinction between being a sinner and having a sinful nature when, in fact, they are the same thing as I have amply pointed out on several occasions in this thread.

You have invented a distinction without a difference.

We are by nature sinful and unclean. We have sinned against God in thought, word, and deed.

The sinner sins because that is his nature.

 

[JonC]

Yes, that is what it means to be a sinner. You seem to want to redefine words to fit your doctrine rather than fit your doctrine to the words found in the bible.

I tried to illustrate this for you but apparently I didn't do a very good job. I am an American. Being an American is not what I do. It is what I am.

I am a sinner. Being a sinner is not what I do. It is what I am.

I think one of the problems of the Evangelical abandonment of Liturgy (which I tend to agree with) is that we have raised several generations of Christians who do not know what they believe nor why they believe it.

I grew up in an Evangelical, Protestant, Liturgical church and repeated, by rote, every Sunday, the Liturgy including: "Most merciful God, we confess that we are by nature sinful and unclean. We have sinned against You in thought, word, and deed, by what we have done and by what we have left undone."

This important part of the Liturgy tells us our sin is two fold. We are by nature sinful and unclean and that sin nature results in our sinning against God.

To deny the sin nature is to deny the very necessity of the Sacrifice of Christ on the Cross.

No, there is no redefining of words, on my part anyway. I did request Scripture in support of "sin nature" divorced from sin and proof (Scripture) that Jesus was born without a nature that is common to mankind. But I suspect the charge that I am denying sin nature by emphasizing human will is a smokescreen, but I can't know as we have not defined "nature" nor established it's inherent sinfulness apart from sin.