Posted on 09/15/2010 11:28:22 AM PDT by Christian_Capitalist
heh. I was trying to be a little more subtle in post #8.
Ooookay.... So, um...
The bottom line is that some infants are saved and some are not
What's your Scripture for this contention? Thanks.
I should say--I disagree with that statement.
How about infants and those too mentally incompetent to know right from wrong going to Purgatory when they die?
.... the nature of faith, in that case, would be much different from what is usually presented in these sorts of forums and, indeed, by St. Paul.
..and yet you characterize one as "righteous" and the other as "wicked."
What astounds me is the willingness of some to place their entire belief system and self identity on something John Calvin said.
Look at the Scriptures--not at Calvin. Call yourself a Christian--not a calvinist. If it's not in scripture, don't make such a big deal of it.
No, what's laughable is trying to shoe-horn the notion of Legal Accountability in the Courts, into the doctrine of Original Sin.
Sorry, but whether the Courts set the Age of Majority for Legal Purposes at 12, 16, 18, or 21 really has nothing to do with whether or not All Men have inherited Original Sin (we all have).
I’m actually one of those “free-willers,” however I don’t agree with the doctrine of Infant Damnation... for the reasons listed in my previous post.
Well, it's not surprising that you would reject this particular aspect of Wesley's free-will teachings. Free-Willer Theology certainly gets more repugnant to the Christian, the better one understands its inherently-Satanic nature.
Besides, if free-will does NOT exist then of what value is love?.... Put in simplest terms, the very act of [voluntary] ‘worship’ which you yourself employ in giving thanks to God is an affirmation of free-will because it would be a useless & valueless act if you did not have [at least some manner of] control over it [by exercising] your own will.
Your referencing the Regenerate nature of the Christian, whose Free Will now enjoys the indwelling of the Holy Spirit rectifying his sinful desires.
Not so the Free Will of the Unregenerate.
See, Calvinists do not deny the existence of Free Will. Rather, Calvinists state that since the Fall, Unregenerate Men (which is all of us, prior to God's regeneration of our dead spirits) freely choose to Reject God, because that is what Unregenerate, Spiritually-dead Men want to do.
What would be heretical would be the suggestion that any Unregenerate Man would ever freely choose to Follow God while yet in their Spiritually-Dead condition; because the Bible clearly states that while a man is yet Spiritually-Dead his desires are Totally Depraved:
And so, while yet in his Spiritually-Dead state, the Unregenerate Man will always freely choose to Reject God. This is the express teaching of the Bible:
To suggest, therefore, that Men will freely choose to Follow God while yet in their Unregenerate State, is to preach the lie of Satan: that Fallen Men are not really Spiritually Dead, and will still sometimes freely choose to perform God-Pleasing actions. "Ye shall not surely die".
Thus, we as Calvinists understand that Men only freely choose to Follow God, after they have been Quickened unto Spiritual Life by the Efficacious Grace of God.
Calvinists do not deny Free Will.
Rather, we simply affirm that Fallen Man REALLY IS Spiritually Dead. And that while a Fallen Man remains Unregenerate, he will always freely choose to Reject God, because that is what he Naturally wants to do.
Thus, only those whom God chooses to Regenerate unto Spiritual Life, do thence freely choose to Follow Him.
One more point of pure logic: If all infants are saved, then the most sure guarantee of sending souls to heaven is to murder your children as soon as they are born, an absurdity. And how can the act of thus saving souls be counted a sin? If all infants are saved, when do they become “unsaved” and have to be saved again before they die? Another absurdity. So Calvin bites the dust.
The Arminian position is adequately dispatched by all those saved before Christ lived who heard directly from God.
The only folks who object to John Calvin's doctrine of Predestination, are those who object to the Bible's doctrine of Predestination. Because John Calvin simply taught the Bible's doctrine of Predestination.
Saying "Look at the Scriptures--not at Calvin. Call yourself a Christian--not a calvinist" is like saying, "Look at the Scriptures--not at Athanasius. Call yourself a Christian--not an Athanasian".
Um, sorry, but Athanasius DID correctly exposit the Biblical Doctrine of the Trinity. And so I am pleased to call myself an Athanasian, Trinitarian Christian.
And in like manner, John Calvin DID correctly exposit the Biblical Doctrine of Predestination. And so I am pleased to call myself an Calvinist, Predestinarian Christian
The absolute free-will folks have to ignore other verses.
Deal with it.
On the contrary. Assuming that God has, from before Creation, Elected unto Salvation all those whom He foreknows that He will permit to die in infancy -- then you haven't changed your murdered child's spiritual destination at all, one way or the other. You've just murdered your own child, bringing a grievous Sin upon your own soul. Didn't affect the kid's eternal destination at all -- God already decided that before YOU were ever born, let alone the kid.
But if God decided that that event should take place, there is no sin being committed. The parent just fulfilled God's will.
Well, so long as you agree that all Fallen Men, without God's prior and purely-monergistic Regeneration of their Dead and God-hating Spirits, will Absolutely, always and only, Freely Choose to REJECT God -- then you correctly understand the Bible's doctrine of Absolute Free Will.
Which is the same as the Calvinist Doctrine of Free Will, since John Calvin's doctrine of Predestination and Free Will was simply that of the Bible.
twisting.....
Ridiculous. If God wills to permit someone to Sin, that does not mean that person is not Sinning.
God willed to permit David to sin with Bathsheba. God could have arranged events so that David would have inadvertantly fallen down a flight of stairs and been laid up in bed that day, instead of spying around for pretty ladies. But instead, He willed to permit David to commit that Sin.
David was still Sinning.
No SANE person of any persuasion considers infant damnation even the remotest possibility.
Unfortunatly, neither the Arminians nor the Calvinists have cornered the market on sanity. Each side has its share of nitwits.
Sorry, but that is precisely the Biblical Doctrine of Free Will. Plenty of Scripture cited above. See #27.
Did David have a choice? Could he have NOT sinned at that time? Remember—he was a man after God’s own heart.
Right -- but in the case of the Free-Willers, it is their greatest and chiefest theologians who preach Infant Damnation; whereas amongst the Calvinists, it is our great theologians who preach against this execrable Free-Willer blasphemy.
Yes.
Could he have NOT sinned at that time? Remember—he was a man after God’s own heart.
He had the ability to Not Sin. He chose to Sin.
God foreknew that David would sin, so there was certainly 0% statistical chance that David would not (God cannot be wrong in His foreknowledge, of course); but David did have the choice.
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.