The Fall of Man

The floor is all yours sir!

#1. That "is not a quote" of my post. Please try to get at least something in your setup "Correct".

#2. What I said was that Calvin and Spurgeon are in close agreement on the ELECT! As are infant-baptizing Calvinist Presbyterians!!

#3. I also pointed out that your "election is based on GENETICS" heresy was never a teaching of Calvin, or Spurgeon and that NO CALVINIST here has come out claiming that it was !!!

Is this where you rub salt into your "own wound" of claiming that churches like Presbyterians who are CALVINIST believe in "Election by GENETICS"!!!???

Your bend a twist on this "children AND grandchildren" argument fails at every turn!

I had hopes for a little salt in a wound that was not YOURS!

In Christ,

Bob

 

Hello Bob.

I stand corrected and I accept that I erred in saying, You said that Calvin leaned towards Spurgeon on infant baptism.
What do you mean that Calvin, Spurgeon and the Presbyterian Church are in close agreement on the elect? That they believe the elect are elect? You confuse me by shuffling those shells too quickly I'm sure.
What's that to do with, "Calvin NEVER argued that the children and grandchildren of all the elect ARE ALSO elect!!"?

#1. Did Calvin express the belief that the Children of the Children of God are saved? Yes or no?

Yea? You say, "Calvin NEVER argued that the children and grandchildren of all the elect ARE ALSO elect!! Regardless of your attempts to make God's word look ridiculous that is what you said and now you stand by that after I showed Calvin himself say that the children of the elect are saved! A thing you claim he never believed in but I showed you that he says, "I am not moved by the objection, that the promise ought to be sufficient to confirm the salvation of our children. (This is in relation to the parents getting a greater confidence because of obedience in baptising their children.) And, ""...not merely visiting him with his grace and goodness, but his posterity also to the thousandth generation. Far more than my statement that my kids and their kids are saved by God's grace and promised to us.

Whether it is correct or not is not the question but you did say, "Calvin NEVER argued that the children and grandchildren of all the elect ARE ALSO elect!!

Since you said, "Calvin NEVER argued that the children and grandchildren of all the elect ARE ALSO elect!! I thought you meant that, "Calvin NEVER argued that the children and grandchildren of all the elect ARE ALSO elect!!
I answered "I am not moved by the objection, that the promise ought to be sufficient to confirm the salvation of our children.
Which to my mind is Calvin saying, ""...not merely visiting him with his grace and goodness, but his posterity also to the thousandth generation. Far more than my statement that my kids and their kids are saved by God's grace and promised to us.

That's not the argument is it? The argument is did you say, "Calvin NEVER argued that the children and grandchildren of all the elect ARE ALSO elect!!? And whether he did or did not say, "I am not moved by the objection, that the promise ought to be sufficient to confirm the salvation of our children.

Answer the question Bob. My question, #1. Did Calvin express the belief that the Children of the Children of God are saved? Yes or no? That's the question.

john.

 

I mean that they NEVER attribute arbitrary process used to select the ELECT - to "genetics".

Rather - as Spurgeon points out - TWO people in the SAME family - IDENTICAL - yet one chosen as ELECT and one not "Selected".

This is how Calvinists among the Prebyterians view it - and how Spurgeon viewed it.

Just the "obvious".

Well said -- Bob.


"Calvin NEVER argued that the children and grandchildren of all the elect ARE ALSO elect!!

You are attempting a bend-and-twist of Calvin that NEITHER Calvin NOR Presbyterian Calvinists today EVER claimed about the elect!

Nobody in that group claims that 1000's of generations of the elect (by genetic lineage) are all saved one Adam is saved.

Were this even remotely true about ALL children and grandchildren SAVED - then ALL of Noah's children and grandchildren down to TODAY would STILL be ALL saved!!

No need to "preach the gospel in all the world" back in MAtt 24!!

In Christ,

Bob

 

Hello Bob.

It was you that introduced genetics into the argument not me and then you successfully argue against it. Well done.

"Calvin NEVER argued that the children and grandchildren of all the elect ARE ALSO elect!!

Why then did Calvin insist that children be baptised? Ask the Anabaptists.

I said the children's children and their children are saved as does Calvin but Calvin goes further than me.
Your denial is worthless and meaningless because I used his own words and you reject the testimony of the man himself and just offer your own opinion.
Show me where he denies the secrurity of the children's children and you win as I did by showing you, "I am not moved by the objection, that the promise ought to be sufficient to confirm the salvation of our children."
The promise of our children is a promise from God but that is not the argument. The argument is did Calvin believe that promise. Yes he did now you prove he did not your opinion is of no concern in the matter.

"...not merely visiting him with his grace and goodness, but his posterity also to the thousandth generation.
You are obviously wrong. Your opinion is not an answer.
"...not merely visiting him with his grace and goodness, but his posterity also to the thousandth generation.

So?

Rebellion is it Bob?

john.

 

"God is the Sovereign despot of all men (II Pet. 2:1). A thing the bible does not say? HaHa.
That bait I left dangling for a while until I knew you had swollowed the hook by the way. You're onto a loser hook, line and sinker."

such pride...



There is much more I could say but it would be a waste of time.

 

Hello KJ.

I admit mine.

"God is the Sovereign despot of all men (II Pet. 2:1). A thing the bible does declare to be true though regardless of the sinner that message flowed though isn't it?

john.

 

Johnp...you assume I don't admit my own pride.

"God is the Sovereign despot of all men (II Pet. 2:1)." Maybe that means KING. It may not mean despot the way you think it does. We can't liken God to a MAN. Worse yet, a man such as Hitler, etc.

I saw you mention us being "slaves" somewhere on here. I don't agree. God calls us FRIENDS. We are a slave to righteousness but I don't see anywhere in Scripture where God specifically says we are His slaves.

And when I said this: "There is much more I could say but it would be a waste of time." it had nothing to do with the 'despot' verse that you used in reply to it. I was simply saying it is a waste of time to try to reason with a Calvinist.

I wish you well and don't bother replying because this whole debate is a waste of time and nobody's mind is going to be changed. Frankly, I think they should just get rid of this section of the site.

 

Hello KJ.

I said I admit mine are you so insecure? What is common to man is what I've got. If you say you have no pride I believe you.

No we can't can we but human despots try to be like Him. Hitler was a tinpot god. The word is Despot and the word Despot means Despot not a Not Despot. Why have you such an aversion for looking at words as if they have a meaning? What's so bad that election means election and predestination means predestination and Despot means Despot?

Yea sure! Find the quote and I will answer the point. I find it most unlikely that I would have said that to an Arminian but there is nothing wrong with it. He bought us. Us He adopts as children, a common procedure I hear, but the reprobate is a slave forever.

What then?

Tis no bother to reply. Isaiah 55:11 so is my word that goes out from my mouth: It will not return to me empty, but will accomplish what I desire and achieve the purpose for which I sent it.
I now cease activity on being your defence over your allegation that Calvin did murder most foul. Think and say as you please for I do not know if you will be here after I do the work.

john.

 

Johnp...Calvin was a murderer. haha

 

Hello KJ.

I see you fear no libel from a dead man but I remind you that He is not the God of dead men.

john.

 

John...I was doin that for a laugh. Cuz I'm sick of arguing with you. Take it for what you will. Have a good day.

 

Hello KJ.

Everywhere I go I find you saying good-bye to me!

Is it something I said?

john.

 

Nope.

 

Just courious, Kj, if you are sick of arguing with John, why did you engage him in this forum?

 

I'm sick of arguing with him. But now I'm just having a little fun. I don't feel I'm arguing.

 

Hello kj.

You sound like my wife!

john.

 

You sound like my wife!

john. </font>[/QUOTE]You have a bigger ego than mine.

 

Presbyterians today (that reject your mythology about election being determined by genetics) ALSO accept infant baptism as did Calvin.

NONE of these teach "election by genetics" as you do!

Perhaps "you wish they did" to save face - but they did not.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Hello Bob.

I've shown you where Mr Calvin spoke of the Christians assurance being improved by the baptising of their children. That the promise given by God is not insufficient in itself but as He has provided a means by which assurance increases with obedience in the baptising of one's children. Ordained that this should be.
I disagree with Calvin about the why but not about the fact that the elect's children are elect as well. I believe infant baptism is legit but not for the reasons he gives.
Regardless of the proof given you still deny Calvin believed that the children's children are the elect but the evidence you give is your own opinion against the facts.
I can't see the problem you have except that you said he did not say such a thing and I showed he did. There is no doctrine hanging on this but only a mistake by you.

This is not relevant is it? Did Calvin believe that the children's children are elect or not is all? If Presbyterians today do not what is that to do with Calvin. Did Calvin believe that the children's children are elect or not is all?

And you include Calvin in this after I showed you, "I am not moved by the objection, that the promise ought to be sufficient to confirm the salvation of our children.
And:
"...not merely visiting him with his grace and goodness, but his posterity also to the thousandth generation."

I only care about Calvin at the moment because it is you that has lost face by denying against the evidence. Obviously you are unable to disprove what I say as you have not brought any evidence to bear but your own opinion a load of irrelevance and the twisting of what I said.

john.

 

Hello KJ.

Bigger than your wife's? That might be true but you sound like mine.

john.