What is calvinism?

[reformedbeliever]

What sin has a baby committed to be included in Romans 3:23?

How about unconscious selfishness? Ever tried to take candy away from a baby? They will become very angry..... and that is not learned. They are selfish when they are born. Its human fallen nature.

 

[reformedbeliever]

What sin has a baby committed to be included in Romans 3:23?

How about the sin of falling short of the glory (perfection) of God. Is any baby perfect? If they die.... they are not perfect.

 

[psalms109:31]

Law, sin

Where there is no law there is no sin. I didn't know that murder was a sin until the law came

 

[Pastor Larry]

What sin has a baby committed to be included in Romans 3:23?

So you don't think all means all?

 

[webdog]

So you don't think all means all?

Yes, all that have sinned (past tense). What sin has the babies that are aborted today commited..."unconscious selfishness"?

 

[webdog]

How about the sin of falling short of the glory (perfection) of God. Is any baby perfect? If they die.... they are not perfect.

It's not about being perfect...are they sinners? The wages (payment) of sin is death. What is sin, and how is one counted as being a sinner?

 

[webdog]

How about unconscious selfishness? Ever tried to take candy away from a baby? They will become very angry..... and that is not learned. They are selfish when they are born. Its human fallen nature.

"unconscious selfishness" is an oxymoron. It's like "unconscious murder". To be found guilty, it has to be a conscious act.

 

[reformedbeliever]

It's not about being perfect...are they sinners? The wages (payment) of sin is death. What is sin, and how is one counted as being a sinner?

No, it is about being perfect. No one can. We all miss the mark... however slightly...... even babies.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Yes, all that have sinned (past tense).

Um, didn't you add a word there? The Bible doesn't say "All that have sinned." It says, "All have sinned." On what basis do you omit babies from "all"? Doesn't that leave you with less than "all"?

 

[reformedbeliever]

"unconscious selfishness" is an oxymoron. It's like "unconscious murder". To be found guilty, it has to be a conscious act.

Do you suck air? That is an unconscious act of self preservation. It is an automatic act. If there was only enough air for one person and there were two of you in a room... would you continue to breathe? Or would you stop breathing so the other could live? You will become unconscious, and start breathing.

 

[webdog]

Do you suck air? That is an unconscious act of self preservation. It is an automatic act. If there was only enough air for one person and there were two of you in a room... would you continue to breathe? Or would you stop breathing so the other could live? You will become unconscious, and start breathing.

Huh? Breathing is not a sin. What are you trying to say?

 

[webdog]

No, it is about being perfect. No one can. We all miss the mark... however slightly...... even babies.

According to Scripture, what sin has a baby committed? What is sin? I know it's not about being perfect, but it sure is about being a sinner.

 

[webdog]

Um, didn't you add a word there? The Bible doesn't say "All that have sinned." It says, "All have sinned." On what basis do you omit babies from "all"? Doesn't that leave you with less than "all"?

I didn't add a word to the text, I was clarifying who the "all" are. They are thos who have sinned. The two verses preceding 3:23 show who the "all" are. The "all" who have sinned is in contrast to the "all" who believe. Babies don't believe.

Rom 3:20 For no flesh will be justified in His sight by the works of the law, for through the law comes the knowledge of sin.
Rom 3:21 But now, apart from the law, God's righteousness has been revealed--attested by the Law and the Prophets
Rom 3:22 --that is, God's righteousness through faith in Jesus Christ, to all who believe, since there is no distinction.
Rom 3:23 For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.

 

[Pastor Larry]

I didn't add a word to the text, I was clarifying who the "all" are. They are thos who have sinned. The two verses preceding 3:23 show who the "all" are. The "all" who have sinned is in contrast to the "all" who believe. Babies don't believe.

Rom 3:20 For no flesh will be justified in His sight by the works of the law, for through the law comes the knowledge of sin.
Rom 3:21 But now, apart from the law, God's righteousness has been revealed--attested by the Law and the Prophets
Rom 3:22 --that is, God's righteousness through faith in Jesus Christ, to all who believe, since there is no distinction.
Rom 3:23 For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.

As I pointed out, the passage does not say that "all" are "those who have sinned." In the passage, the "all" is "both Jew and Greek" (v. 9) and Paul is pointed out that all, both Jew and Greek, have sinned.

He is not saying "all that have sinned have fallen short." He is saying "all have sinned and fallen short."

The "all" is not qualified by "those who have sinned."

 

[Brother Bob]

Web;
You need to start holding your breath all you can. Don't hold it too long but at least wait until you start to turn blue.

 

[skypair]

hello........

Okay, now that’s a different issue. If you don’t admit babies from “all have sinned,” then you and are aren’t that far apart. I believe Christ’s death covered them.

Then on what basis do people go to hell? This is part of the problem with your view. I have never seen a good answer for this question from your side. “Limited atonement” typically means that Christ’s atonement was sufficient for all sins, but efficient only for believers (the Calvinist’s elect who believe). To say that Christ died equally for all sins either changes the character of the atonement from a price paid, to a payment made available; or changes the salvation from “those who believe” to “those whose sins were paid for” (which I believe are the same group); or has God sending people to hell for sins that are paid for. I don’t really see any other option there.

Yes, and what does that mean? In the text, the contrast with “children of Satan” is “of God” (cf. v. 47). So it drawing two categories: Of God and of Satan. It seems to me those are the only two categories there are. One is either “of God” or “of Satan.” I believe one is born into “of Satan” and is “born again” into “of God.”

I don’t presume that. I don’t use this passage to argue for election, precisely because it doesn’t say it. I think it is related to election, but this passage is teaching something different. I think the theological concept of election is presupposed in this passage.
No, not there, and certainly not again since I have never delineated a chronological order with respect to faith and repentance and regeneration.

If you saw my ordo salutis (which I would be glad to post) you would see that I have no omitted the seed. That, as well, is one of my reasons for having regeneration logically subsequent to faith; though chronologically simulataneous.
Regeneration and salvation? Yes and no. Positional salvation takes place at the time of regeneration/faith/repentance. There is a final salvation as well that has not yet taken place.

The “soil” is supernaturally acted on to receive the word in true belief. I don’t think many disagree with that. Arminianism certainly agrees with it.

totally different topic in1 Cor 15. That is the resurrection at the end. It is not dealing with salvation.

First, veiled slang is inappropriate here. Second, Calvinists aren’t putting the plant before the seed. They happen together. You are making distinctions that Calvinism doesn't really make. And that's what makes your analysis invalid. You are not really arguing against what we beleive.

 

[skypair]

Okay, now that’s a different issue. If you don’t admit babies from “all have sinned,” then you and are aren’t that far apart. I believe Christ’s death covered them.

:thumbsup:

Then on what basis do people go to hell? This is part of the problem with your view. I have never seen a good answer for this question from your side.

Do you believe there is an "unpardonable sin?" There is! It is the sin of rejecting the Spirit Who is the ONLY one who can testify of God but He does so to EVERYONE, Larry. EVERYONE is "without excuse."

“Limited atonement” typically means that Christ’s atonement was sufficient for all sins, but efficient only for believers (the Calvinist’s elect who believe). To say that Christ died equally for all sins either 1) changes the character of the atonement from a price paid, to a payment made available

Paid and made available.

or 2) changes the salvation from “those who believe” to “those whose sins were paid for” (which I believe are the same group)

Salvation is available for ALL since ALL sins were paid for. Those who BELIEVE are the only ones who avail themselves of it though.

or has God sending people to hell for sins that are paid for. I don’t really see any other option there.

God sends people to hell whose sins are paid for, Larry. It is their UNBELIEF that Christ can't pay for. At the GWT, God will judge GOOD works of the lost so as to make their suffering less in the eternity. Didncha evey wonder how God was going to make hell worse for some?

Yes, and what does that mean? In the text, the contrast with “children of Satan” is “of God” (cf. v. 47). So it drawing two categories: Of God and of Satan. It seems to me those are the only two categories there are. One is either “of God” or “of Satan.” I believe one is born into “of Satan” and is “born again” into “of God.”

Here's the thing -- you can't be anyone's child until you are commmitted to them like believers are committed to God! Your delineation is, thereby, flawed.

skypair

 

[skypair]

If you saw my ordo salutis (which I would be glad to post) you would see that I have not omitted the seed. That, as well, is one of my reasons for having regeneration logically subsequent to faith; though chronologically simulataneous.

Go ahead with your "ordo salutis, pls.

Regeneration and salvation? Yes and no. Positional salvation takes place at the time of regeneration/faith/repentance. There is a final salvation as well that has not yet taken place.

You're explicating the difference between justification + sanctification on the one hand and glorification on the other, correct? I am talking about the first

The “soil” is supernaturally acted on to receive the word in true belief. I don’t think many disagree with that. Arminianism certainly agrees with it.

So Calvin says. And I admit that "good" is an adjective of the last soil. But Calvin assumes that the second 2 seeds aren't saved, too. Yet the parable says that those seeds sprouted as well! So what is the seed and what is the plant?

Calvinists aren’t putting the plant before the seed. They happen together.

Not so. There is a seed and it germinates into a plant. The seed is the Holy Spirit which is "planted" first. Then the soils yield a plants. Life taken from the soil and the seed combine to create the plant.

You are making distinctions that Calvinism doesn't really make. And that's what makes your analysis invalid. You are not really arguing against what we beleive.

Maybe Calvin should have made them. I'm not saying Calvin is complete -- I'm saying SCRIPTURE is complete. I don't see that we believe the same exact thing. Do you?

I mean, that parable of the sower describe to us as well the first 4 dispensations. I'm sure you haven't considered that yet, have you? And yet, that being considered, maybe there is a whole 'nother reason for the parable of the sower.

skypair

 

[skypair]

How about unconscious selfishness? Ever tried to take candy away from a baby? They will become very angry..... and that is not learned. They are selfish when they are born. Its human fallen nature.

Whoa, reformo! Back off. That's the "survival instinct" -- "want" innocently misconstrued to be "survival necessity." We all know how it looks but wome of us are not clear on the baby's motives, are we. Is survival a sin??

skypair

 

[skypair]

Um, didn't you add a word there? The Bible doesn't say "All that have sinned." It says, "All have sinned." On what basis do you omit babies from "all"? Doesn't that leave you with less than "all"?

If you are going to keep giving the verse, then give it all. Rom 3:23 -- "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;" Infants have not sinned BUT they come short of God's glory, for sure.

Best to center your argument on other verses where you don't have to leave part of the verse out.

skypair