Types of Calvinists

[Brother Bob]

Never heard such a definition. I wonder where do people get such thoughts. Certainly not from the Scriptures.

receive the kingdom of God as a little child will by no means enter it.”

Receive it as humble as a little child and as the little child already has. So intent on the rest of the Scripture which does not change anything and forget the first part. That makes a lot of sense. Really the last part just reaffirms the first part. amen and peace

 

[LeBuick]

Also the innocense and obedience of a child. Grown folks can do what they want to do...

 

[Brother Bob]

Amen LeBuick;

 

[Blammo]

You forgot the rest of the quote...



Children are typically trusting, especially of their parents. Parents or other people they trust can tell them something totally absurd and they'll still believe it because they trust the person. As we get older, we become more skeptical, and it becomes a given that -- in the flesh -- we're not going to trust what the Bible says just because "it is written", let alone the trust in Jesus or the way of salvation.

People quote this passage from Luke all the time to "prove" children are saved. What they fail to note are the expressions "such as these" and "like a little child". Don't you know any little children who are NOT trusting? I do. Don't you know any little children who refuse to accept anything you say? I do. They are exceptions, but they exist. Surely Jesus was not talking about these exceptions, but of typical children, to make the point that unless we are as trusting as typical little children, etc. He was not teaching us that all little children are automatically saved.

Okay, you can believe 2 year olds die and go to hell. That's completely up to you. Sorry I offended you by believing otherwise.

 

[Blammo]

Really the last part just reaffirms the first part. amen and peace

I agree. It sure does. Amen

 

[npetreley]

Okay, you can believe 2 year olds die and go to hell. That's completely up to you. Sorry I offended you by believing otherwise.

You didn't offend me at all, and I'm sorry if I offended you. I'm not arguing that 2 year olds who die go to hell. I'm simply pointing out that the scripture you quoted isn't saying that children automatically go to heaven.

 

[Blammo]

You didn't offend me at all, and I'm sorry if I offended you. I'm not arguing that 2 year olds who die go to hell. I'm simply pointing out that the scripture you quoted isn't saying that children automatically go to heaven.

I realize it doesn't "prove" children are saved. I was simply pointing out God's attitude toward little children.

 

[TruthSeeker]

Deuteronomy 1:39 says:
Moreover your little ones, which ye said should be a prey, and your children, which in that day had no knowledge between good and evil, they shall go in thither, and unto them will I give it, and they shall possess it.

This verse is clearly a picture that children must have the knowledge of good and evil before they are held accountable for sin. God has mercy. It is obsurd to believe that children would be sentenced to hell when they have no ability to make a choice.

 

[npetreley]

I realize it doesn't prove children are saved. I was simply pointing out God's attitude toward little children.

Maybe, but I don't think it points out God's attitude toward ALL little children. I think this passage is comparative, and exists for the sake of adults. It compares the way children are prone to to be more trusting without need for proof or further explanation. These little children wanted to be with Jesus, they received him with trust and joy, and they were perfect examples for this comparison (as I pointed out before, not all children are like this). That's why the "such as these" is an important part of the passage.

 

[Blammo]

Matthew 19:14 But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.

Mark 10:14 But when Jesus saw it, he was much displeased, and said unto them, Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.

Luke 18:16 But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.



I don't see any indication of specific children. I don't see "such as these" in any of the verses above. I don't see "these" anywhere above.



Mark 10:15 Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein.

Luke 18:17 Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child shall in no wise enter therein.



Again, not specifyiing "these" children.



I believe Deut 1:39 is clearly showing children are innocent, in that, they do not know the difference between good and evil. I don't believe in a specific "age" of accountablility. But, I do believe there comes a time in every persons life when they begin to understand the difference, and begin to make choices between good and evil. The flesh will deceive them, causing them to make the wrong choice most of the time. Their God given conscience will convict them of the evil they do. If they ignore their conscience, or numb it with drugs and alchohol, which they will do, the conscience becomes weak and sin abounds. But, if a preacher comes along, bringing the gospel, the word of God and the Holy Spirit bring about Godly sorrow that leads to repentance. At this point most will still go there own way, but many will believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and be saved.

 

[npetreley]

Deuteronomy 1:39 says:
Moreover your little ones, which ye said should be a prey, and your children, which in that day had no knowledge between good and evil, they shall go in thither, and unto them will I give it, and they shall possess it.

This verse is clearly a picture that children must have the knowledge of good and evil before they are held accountable for sin. God has mercy. It is obsurd to believe that children would be sentenced to hell when they have no ability to make a choice.

You are making a very big stretch here. It says that people wrongly assumed that their children would be victims and die if they attempted to posess the promised land (real land, not heaven, by the way). God was angry that adults assumed that God would punish children who had no knowledge of good or evil the same way He intended to prevent disobedient adults from entering the promised land.

This DOES say that children have no knowledge of good or evil up to a point. It does NOT say at what point children gain knowledge of good and evil. It does NOT say that when children have no knowledge of good or evil they are therefore not accountable for their sin nature.

It also says nothing about choice. If you read the rest of the Bible, you'll see that everyone with the knowledge of good and evil chooses evil due to their sin nature, so the question as to what choice people will make once they know good and evil is moot. If these children live to make a choice, then except for the Grace of God, they will choose evil.

I agree with you that God has mercy. I don't think His mercy has anything to do with accountability, however. I think this passage simply says that when God makes a promise, He has mercy on children up to a point, accountable or not.

It certainly makes sense that, given how God was angry with their incorrect assumptions, God would have mercy on children who die before they have knowledge of good or evil when it comes to their eternal destiny. But I don't think it has anything to do with accounability. I don't think the Bible actually comes right out and says that all children who die before they have a knowledge of good or evil go to heaven. I think it's a safe assumption based on passages like this one, but I don't know of any passage that specifically says this.

 

[Brother Bob]

This DOES say that children have no knowledge of good or evil up to a point. It does NOT say at what point children gain knowledge of good and evil. It does NOT say that when children have no knowledge of good or evil they are therefore not accountable for their sin nature.

Have any of you ever tried to pull hen's teeth?:laugh:

 

[Blammo]

Have any of you ever tried to pull hen's teeth?:laugh:

No I haven't. Is this pretty close to the same thing? I do watch NASCAR. This kind of reminds me of that. I think we are on the back stretch heading into turn three. Won't be long till we are at turn one again.

:sleeping_2: Wake me when we get there.

Are we there yet? :smilewinkgrin:

 

[TruthSeeker]

Egads!
If you are already predestined, then why would anyone who believes that they are not the destined follow God's teachings?

 

[npetreley]

Have any of you ever tried to pull hen's teeth?:laugh:

This is not a response. It is a record for my own benefit.

 

[Brother Bob]

not worth it!

 

[Jarthur001]

Baptist_Pastor/Theologian

I would like to take up the study and debate on inclusivism some day, for my knowledge of it is limited to one-liners of those that oppose it. Your warning to me of falling into this is well taken. Let me also give you a bit of advice if I may. I do not say this as a rebuttal or point of debate. I cannot read your heart, and I lie not in judgment of you. So please do not take this wrongly. Being that you have debated, this subject, and know the dangers that follow, you may be carrying baggage of those fears. I’ll just end my statement there. Just think about it please.

Let me share the base of my so called "logic". It is two fold.

1) Is it in the Bible?
2) Am I putting God in a box?


Now right off I can just hear an inclusive believer say this “God in a Box” idea but do not shut this out from the start.

Is it in the Bible?

Every theologian, pastor, or student of Gods Word will claim support of scriptures. Yet each one of us can give conflicting views. There are always factors to consider when we read others viewpoints. It goes without saying that one factor is that of systematic theology. But this is not the only factor or it should not be. Many may claim I only consider systems of doctrine, from the post they read of mine. But, to get right to my own premise and root conviction of Bible study, I would claim it is context. Hardly a day goes by that I do not hear echoed in my mind “Context is King”. I never did learn much Greek, but this phase from Greek classes had an impact on my Bible study.

If anything gets my blood flowing it is to see people twist context. Some people will do anything to make the Bible fit their system and think nothing about it. I mean, this is not the New York Times we are talking about. It is Gods Word. I say this not to point fingers, but to show you where I’m coming from.

We have seen in this thread alone verses posted by some, trying to force a meaning drawn completely out of context and posted, as the poster would like to see it and wished it could be read. Now this is not all verses posted on this thread. Some indeed should be considered. I think some look at one word and never think of the chapter or the book and at times even the verse. I’m not just taking about syntactic and literary context. Cultural, spiritual and historical context are often never looked at. When I take up a debate on here and really get into it, I spend 75% of my time with post dealing with verses out of context. This often by the same poster, and using the same verse. It’s like no matter what, they are going to force their view on you and change the Bible if they need to do so. Frankly, I do not know how they sleep at night. Ok, I’m blowing off steam.

But how in the world does one think they can change context when it comes to Gods Word? If the word is truth, why change it? OK..well I’ll move on.

Do not put God in a box.

By putting God in a box I mean that we try to determine when God should move and when He should act and in some cases, how He must act. They look for verses that try to bind God. This is found all the time in the “name it claim it” faith. Now before I go to far with this, I agree that God is tied to His nature. But if the Bible is not clear, we should never force our views on God.

A brother I met years ago taught me this “God In A Box” thing. He pulled the rug out from under me a few times on my doctrine, by showing me I limit God in some of my wording. Some of the things we say, may have good intent, but are not worded with the Bible and we limit God.

Your statement…Can God lie? God can never lie for God is truth. I did not limit God by saying this, the Bible places limits for us to understand. But play this out…God is love…soo can God hate? Yes, God can hate and does. I have heard many people on here that have no problem putting limits on God saying He can not hate. They do this by forcing “God is Love” on all of Gods nature. Yet the Bible is clear on this. For one, God hates sin. That is just as much part of His nature as love. If God has any hate in his nature, then He can use hate when He wishes. I’m not saying you hold to this. I’m just showing how some limit God..or put God in a Box not even knowing that they are.

Some times we want something so bad to be true we look for a verse to try to force God into our thinking. This is nothing but wrong. Remember the Church years back that used a verse to smoke pot? This is using the Bible to back us..and not letting the Bible tell us.

I do not want to prove anything so bad that I change the Bible.




In Christ...James

 

[Brother Bob]

I can only speak for myself but would rather hear 2 or 3 words in the Spirit than 10 thousand words that make no sense. I am not speaking about no one in particular just some of the things I have read that are long and say nothing.

 

[Blammo]

...I spend 75% of my time with post dealing with verses out of context. This often by the same poster, and using the same verse. It’s like no matter what, they are going to force their view on you and change the Bible if they need to do so. Frankly, I do not know how they sleep at night. Ok, I’m blowing off steam.

I will assume you are not talking about me. Posting a verse, (without changing any of it, or adding my own words to it, which is something you have done repeatedly), and asking you what it means is not taking it out of context, it is asking you what it means.

 

[Jarthur001]

I can only speak for myself but would rather hear 2 or 3 words in the Spirit than 10 thousand words that make no sense. I am not speaking about no one in particular just some of the things I have read that are long and say nothing.

Then you must agree...

We should never change context.

We should never put God in a box.