Posted on 10/15/2004 1:04:27 AM PDT by OrthodoxPresbyterian
GRPL ping.
Bookmarked.
Great article, OP. Touches a lot of bases. More in the AM.
Glad you're weathering the hurricanes and the engagement well. 8~)
Thanks. :-)
For those who are keeping tabs, I anticipate returning to Oklahoma (God Willing) this coming Thursday. Kimmy and I will try to formalize a wedding date (probably for sometime in the spring) shortly thereafter.
Best, OP
Wow -- no Scripture, no analysis, no supporting evidences... for that matter, a Post even lacking an actual presentation of, y'know, an actual Argument. Just a raw assertion -- with a back-handed swipe at "denominationalism" (whatever that is), bereft of any consideration of the Biblical merits of the Essay under discussion.
We are truly blessed by your participation. A thousand thanks, and blessings.
best, OP
I agree.
Calvin changed the world.
His thoughts definitely ought to be viewed with more than a cursory glance!!!!!!!!
As far as infants are concerned, no man inherits any sin.(Ezekiel 18:19-20) The soul that sinneth shall die. Sin is trangression of the law. (I John 3:4)What is the law for the newborn that he has transgressed? Isaiah 7:16 teaches that there is a time before a child knows to to choose between good and evil.
Calvin, Campbell, Arminus, Spurgeon, Thomas Aquinas, all of them, who should care what any man says? We will be judged by the words of Christ, not by the doctrine of any man. (John 12:48)
You had me reading eagerly to this point - then you swipe needlessly to bolster the calvinist position
you if anyone can present a rational argument based on the merits of calvinism alone.
do you honestly feel our heresy is damning? and only double pre-dest 5pt OP's are non heretical and valid?
The thief on the Cross had no time to investigate theology - by grace alone is th e mantra, isn't it ?
that aside.......
I take issue with your application of......In Mark 10:14, Jesus Christ said, "Let the little children come to Me, and do not forbid them; for of such is the kingdom of heaven." He then admonished adults in the next verse, "Assuredly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God as a little child will by no means enter it." .......clearly, "receiving" the kingdom of God as a child speaks to our complete surrender of will to that of God, Christ and the Holy Spirit - much in the same manner a young child relies completely upon the parents for their feeding and care - in this case, spiritual and eternal
In no way does it intimate that persons dying in infancy are saved and received into glory.
continuing - Old dead Calvinist, Matthew Henry (albeit a lukewarm 4pt T.U.L. P.) splashes water on your premise
Verses 13-16 Some parents or nurses brought little children to Christ, that he should touch them, in token of his blessing them. It does not appear that they needed bodily cures, nor were they capable of being taught: but those who had the care of them believed that Christ's blessing would do their souls good; therefore they brought them to him. Jesus ordered that they should be brought to him, and that nothing should be said or done to hinder it. Children should be directed to the Saviour as soon as they are able to understand his words. Also, we must receive the kingdom of God as little children; we must stand affected to Christ and his grace, as little children to their parents, nurses, and teachers.
"Christ's blessing would do their souls good" intimates there soul is in a condition that needs propitiation - and we know that to be true why ? .......the_doc told us about the damning nature of original sin.......bringing us to the the fork in the road.
Does God pardon that original sin in unbaptized infants? -or does He fully pardon the sins of those children despite the fact they have not been brough to Christ as Mark 10:14 so clearly presents as His desire?
I ask that honestly and seriously - not trying to be a smart alec
Hope you are feeling better.......I had opportunity to spend a few days in Jacksonville and St. Augustine last week - lovely area - and the locals were very polite and kind
God’s not going to cast them out of His presence because God is good???? Carry this out to its natural conclusion.
It was interesting but not surprising the author uses many of the same verses the Arminians use to support their views. These are all weak verses and text. Because there are no real substantive verses that children go to Heaven the author ends up quoting a number of theologians who happen to think this same thing as well.
It is regrettable in my mind that Calvins who pride (not a good word) themselves on strict scriptural interpretation would become mushy over this issue. I hate to sound like an ogre but there are no clear passages for children going to Heaven. In fact I would argue there is at least one scripture which would suggest, as shocking as this may sound, that not all children do in fact go to Heaven. When King Jeroboam’s son became sick and the mother went to the prophet Ahijah to see if the child would recover, Ahijah told her:
“All Israel shall mourn for him and bury him, for he alone of Jeroboam’s family will come to the grave, because in him something good was found toward the Lord God of Israel in the house of Jeroboam.” 1 King 14:13
I’m not exactly sure what “…something good was found toward the Lord God…” means (and I don’t believe it has to do with works or merit) but the text tells us that God singled out this child to take him home rather than live under the evil rule of Jeroboam. Surely Jeroboam had other children. The "he alone" strongly implies that God didn't do it for any of Jeroboam other children and doesn’t do this for all children as incomprehensible or unfair as that may seem to us.
Since the scriptures are silent on this issue all we can do is rest on the assurance that God is wise, merciful and just to make the right decisions and the right choices in the death of children. People are always telling God who needs to go to Heaven and that’s not our business.
Pslam 58:3 teaches that infants come from the womb speaking lies.
Therefore, if you believe the Bible, you are required to believe that Infants are born Sinners. If you do not believe that Infants are born Sinners, it is because you wish to disbelieve the teachings of the Bible.
'Nuff Said.
Er... I'm a Presbyterian Layman. I am not the Reverend Baptist Daniel Parks.
Rev. Parks wrote the article; I just posted it.
Does God pardon that original sin in unbaptized infants? -or does He fully pardon the sins of those children despite the fact they have not been brough to Christ as Mark 10:14 so clearly presents as His desire? I ask that honestly and seriously - not trying to be a smart alec
God brings His Own to Himself. If -- as John Calvin believed -- He has elected to salvation all those whom He has ordained to die in Infancy, then it logically follows that He effects His election by regenerating them in the womb (as he did John the Baptist and King David, so we know that there are Biblical examples thereof) prior to their death.
As Regeneration is purely divine-monergistic in every case, child or adult, this Regeneration is surely as efficacious as that created in an Adult (who is, admittedly, able to express his newly-wrought Belief in outward verbal confession, as an infant child is not; but such verbal profession of faith is the result of God's monergistic Regeneration, not the cause).
my oops - it seemed out of character for you of late
I think I can fully agree with that statement. I believe that it is God's sovereign will that infants are saved even without any exercise of faith and that adults are saved through the exercise of faith. In all cases God's election is predicated on God's terms.
That is teaching that the wicked have an early start on sin. That teaches that parents need to train their children early to avoid sin. Remember, the Bible teaches that young children are unable to choose between right and wrong.(Isaiah 7:16) Psalms 58 uses figurative language (which is proper for poetry) to make a point. Truth can be expressed in figurative or literal language. If one maintains that Pslams 58:3 is literal language, I ask if he has ever seen a talking newborn baby, much less a talking newborn speaking lies? A good hermeneutical rule is to consider scripture literal, unless literal interpretation would violate common sense. The idea of a talking, lying newborn violates common sense.
Also one thing that Psalms 58:3 clearly teaches is that children are NOT born inheriting sin. Look at the phrase "they go astray". How can one go astray unless they started in safety? How can sins separate one from God, (Isaiah 59:1-2) unless one started life joined to God and without sin?
Nope. Psalm 58:3 teaches that Infants proceed from the womb, speaking Lies.
The Bible teaches that Infants are certainly capable of communication, as is demonstrated by the Biblical example of John the Baptist, who was regenerated in his mother's womb and thus leapt for joy in the presence of Mary pregnant with His savior (Luke 1:15,44). And, the Psalms teach us that from the very womb, the communication of Human Infants is wicked and deceitful.
Ergo, we see the Bible teaches:
Therefore, all Humans born of Adam, are Born into the world as Sinners against God.
Thus the Bible clearly teaches.
Yes, and in all cases, Regeneration precedes Faith; for Faith is God-pleasing, and the Bible adamantly teaches that while a Human is yet Unregenerate, he NEVER, EVER chooses to perform anything that is God-pleasing in any circumstance whatsoever.
The point is whether it is a metaphorical or literal proposition that infants "speak lies."
Since infants don't speak, then they don't speak lies.
Speaking = verbalizing.
It's a metaphor, OP. Probably we'll disagree and this isn't worth carrying forward for me...the capabilities of infants are just too obvious, so the intent of the verse is too obvious.
No, "speaking" does not always equal "verbalizing". The great majority of all human communication is non-verbal.
Beyond which, if it's a "metaphor", then what is the meaning of the metaphor but simply this:
What other "metaphorical" meaning can you deliberately and artificially shoe-horn into the verse, without destroying the teaching thereof about infants?
Remember, the Verse is about the morality of Infants. Does it "metaphorically" describe the morality of Infants as SINFUL, or INNOCENT? Well, which is it, Xzins?
It's a simple question, and I want a straight answer.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.