Posted on 02/25/2002 11:01:41 PM PST by fortheDeclaration
I am sorry doc is not on line..he explains this so well. He says that usually they happen at the same time..God's Grace brings you a new heart and you see your sin you repent and are saved..It happens in such a tight time frame that it all SEEMS to be happeneing at the same time.
He compares it to a bullet going through a board..which was first the bullet or the hole?
For me it was a two week experience..Something happened..I knew it .could feel it..but didn't understand it.It was later after lots of prayer and scripture study that I fell on my knees...
Nuff said. You need a new Bible. Because the RCC has such an agenda, I would always recommend a more independent translation, but if you would only feel comfortable with something that said "Catholic" on it. Consider the NAB.
There have been a lot of important developments in the Greek text and while I am not really sure of what they did, my understanding is that they took as much as they could from the earlier and better manuscripts consistent with preserving RCC doctrine. You can see it on the conference of catholic bishops website at:http://www.nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/index.htm. Try it out. You will like it a lot better. And, of course, it is a "Catholic bible". [Obviously, my hope is that you might want to broaden your view once you get a taste of the Gospel in a way you can understand. That's why the modern language is so important.]
Well, for one thing, they speak lies. (Psalm 58:3).
Ahhhh, infants don't "speak"? Hey, you're the one arguing against the clear wording of Scripture, not me. Scripture says that infants come from the womb speaking lies. Ever heard of "body language"? "Poker tells"? There are more ways to "speak" than just "speaking English".
And Scripture specifically declares that infants enter the world actively practicing the communication of deceit -- speaking lies.
You do not believe this, of course, but that is because your theology is Anti-Biblical.
Gosh, you hate Biblical Theology!!
Yeah, I was there for the bullet illustration, remember? ;-)
I see what you're saying now, that "first step" comment just threw me for a bit.
Oh, come on now. Let's play nice.
That aside, help me out here (I have an earlier question to you back up the line if/when you can get to it).
The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.
Correct me if I'm wrong on any of these points:
I believe we've established that Calvinists believe that children who die in infancy are the "elect."
And that would apply to the aborted. Correct?
If these babies are allowed to live do some of them become "non-elect."
Or is that considered a "non-issue" since God knows ahead of time, or since he chooses, which babies will die in infancy.
If you addressed this previously, just point me to the post.
Thanks.
I should be back on later tonite.
Peace.
John 3:7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.
Man needs a new heart..a new life to seek God.
OK, help me out here. How does this work with infant salvation? I have seen these particular scriptures used in defense of the opinion that most deceased babies go to hell. They never had a chance to accept salvation, and, because of their "sins," they go to hell. I'm sure you remember my entry into these dialogues--it was this claim and I took offense to it.
You claim the opposite--that all babies are saved by the grace of God, in spite of their "sins." Yet you also claim that God does not do that with everyone who has managed to survive birth and early childhood (with which I agree). I see an inconsistancy here because Calvinism, as I understand it, requires that God makes the choice on who is saved and who is not, and--for all intents and purposes--the decision is completely arbitrary and not based on any laws, reasons, or conduct other than it pleases Him (which is the definition of arbitrary, BTW).
So--if the elect's purpose in heaven is to worship and enjoy God by loving Him (I agree here), then why did He introduce law (by which we are condemned) to thin out His elect, and then arbitrarily decide that most of the people He created to worship Him should be thrown into hell? It would have been just as glorifying to God had He not introduced the law, the Tree, or allowed Lucifer free reign on earth.
I'll give you my take on this because I know you'll ask--He did all these things so that He could be worshipped and loved by people who worhip and love Him of their own free will. That type of love is far greater and more glorifying than choosing some people He likes, and coercing them, forcing them, guiding them to love Him.
All those who are "born from above", or "born again", will be saved. Even if they are infants who die in infancy, or are incapable of making an outward confession of that new birth, they still receive salvation. Those who are born from above and are capable of making a confession will do so. They will repent of their sins, and will acknowledge the Lordship of Jesus.
This is due to the fact that it is God who is giving the "new birth", replacing the "heart of stone" with a "heart of flesh". The natural outcome of being "born again" is doing "born again" things, such as repentance and confession of Christ. They exhibit the new nature that they have obtained.
All who are "born again" receive the righteousness of Christ imputed to their account, all of them receive forgiveness of their sins, all of them will be sanctified by His Spirit, and all of them will be saved completely and brought into a state of glorification. Those who are capable of exhibiting the outward signs of this regeneration do so. Those who are incapable of exhibiting the outward signs of this regeneration, well, they are incapable of doing so, but this does not cause them to forfeit the new life that they have received as a result of the work of God upon their lives.
Does this help? (Sorry, but I won't be able to stick around to elaborate.)
Calvinists cannot believe in a "salvation experience" since (if you believe the construct) you were 'elected' to salvation or not before the foundation of the world. No "experience" and certainly no "decision" you would make would be 'reliable.' In their view you were born again when God declared it by fiat before the foundation of the world. It was 'irresistible', 'effectual' and all that good triple tulip stuff back then as well. Since you know the secret handshake (this bizarre doctrine), you must be one of the elect. Good for you. Too bad for those other guys with their noses pressed to the window.
The good ol' time (honest) Calvinists said everybody else (including the non-elect babies, the retarded, etc) was individually "predestined" (kind of 'non-elected' in a very final way) for everlasting Hellfire at the same time. [Don't you worry your pretty little head about them though, they're just "chaff" anyway. So Christ didn't die for them.] Now 'modern Calvinists' (there's an oxymoron for you) that wish to hide the sheer brutality of their 'doctrines' say, well no, God didn't do it, they just didn't get 'elected' so they fall of their own weight into you-know-where. [Remember their big pitch for this ghoulish god is that now you know he's 'really sovereign'. Seems kind of strange he couldn't be bothered to give the bad guys -- er, sorry non-elect -- their own brutal send-off at the same time.] But, in any event, no "will" and therefore surely no "salvation experience" for anyone. "This is a much tape-delayed broadcast of a game played millions of years ago."
Anything you 'feel' is just your assurance that you are one of the elect, but the transaction cleared the bank before the world began. And this is solely a 'legal' transaction, so don't put any stock in your feelings. Comforting isn't it? Any resemblance between that and the Gospel of Jesus Christ is purely coincidental.
Trying hard not to. Just trying to get you the best bible you can within the criteria you have established. The NAB is a big, big, big improvement over what you have. At least look at it. You can look at it on line. Free. And the website even says "Catholic bishops" in big letters. It's OK.
I believe that those infants whom God has elected to call out of life in infancy, He has elected to Save.
Know what, you are probably the most contrary individuals I have ever met, in person or online.
You keep using language that is sure to cause offense ("secret handshake", "bizarre doctrine", "ghoulish god", etc.), as well as telling us that we certainly can't be old time Calvinists because we don't conform to your stupid notion of what a Calvinist should be. This is the reason that I choose to ignore you most of the time.
Now, let's set the record straight. This old-time, five-point Calvinist did have a salvation experience, it was July 24, 1972 at approximately 10:00 PM MDT, in my bedroom in El Paso, Texas. I can still remember the day and hour as if it was yesterday. The Holy Spirit of God made Christ real to me, and the horror of my sins was a huge weight that only Christ could remove. Thank God, I haven't gotten over that experience to this day. I saw the Spirit of God do the same work in my Father's life in February of 1973 as I shared the Gospel with him about 20 feet removed from the spot where I had my salvation experience. I have seen the Spirit open the eyes of countless others during the past 30 years. We know full-well the joy of being "born again" and experiencing the beauty of Christ.
Secondly, just because one has a Calvinist doctrine does not mean that they are actually one of the elect. I know of several individuals who are rock-solid in their doctrine, but I don't see any spiritual fruit in their lives. I would have a hard time believing that they are actually regenerate saints. Of course, that isn't up to me to judge, but I certainly don't see the Spirit of Christ at work in their lives. At the same time, I know of a great number of saints who exhibit the fruit of the Spirit in their lives, and they do not hold to the "Calvinist construct". I know some who couldn't articulate a theological stance if their life depended on it, they simply know Jesus. There are others who are quite articulate in defending their theology, even if it differs from mine, including one Jesuit priest that I have known for more than 20 years. While he and I are often at theological odds, I have never had reason to doubt his salvation.
Please quit being an accuser of the brethren. It is certainly clear that you hate our theology, but your continual use of hateful and offensive language, coupled with your unrelenting sarcasm, are just a little bit much for my spirit to bear.
Actually, I suspect I am entirely right about this -- not a matter of "playing nice", just identifying facts.
I suspect xzins is viscerally opposed to the doctrine that infants enter the world speaking lies. Just read his posts on the subject.
But this doctrine is Biblical.
And xzins is viscerally opposed to it.
Uh-oh......
That aside, help me out here (I have an earlier question to you back up the line if/when you can get to it). The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies. Correct me if I'm wrong on any of these points: I believe we've established that Calvinists believe that children who die in infancy are the "elect."
Thanks, your honesty is appreciated (no sarcasm, it really is).
And that would apply to the aborted. Correct?
Correct.
If these babies are allowed to live do some of them become "non-elect."
No, if they were permitted to live, the Holy Spirit would fulfill His function of regenerating the Elect. Perhaps in a different time and place (since we are already postulating different scenarios) than in the womb, but it is the Holy Spirit's job to regenerate all the Elect, and He is going to do so.
However....
Or is that considered a "non-issue" since God knows ahead of time, or since he chooses, which babies will die in infancy.
...This is the simpler and easier way of addressing the matter. Foreknowing that He has seen fit to permit these children to die before infancy, God (so we believe) has also seen fit to Elect these infants to Salvation.
However, had He not seen fit to permit these infants to die before infancy, I suppose its possible He would have regenerated them in child or adult life, rather than in the womb. God measures out to us the days of ours lives; "if" (for the sake of hypothetical) He had seen fit to measure out to an Elect "more" days, He might also then see fit to take "more" time in sending the Spirit to regenerate that Elect.
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.