What’s the Age of Accountability?
Posted by truthtalklive on 17 November, 2008
At what age can children understand the gospel enough to be saved? Stu welcomes Jason Beverly of Child Evangelism Fellowship www.cefonline.com and Jason’s five year old son. This program may change the way you look at evangelism. We want to hear your thoughts.
Feel Free to call 336-882-2017
or Write to:
Child Evangelism Fellowship Triad Chapter
C/O Jason Beverly
1701 Westchester Dr. Ste 240, Box 6
High Point, NC 27262
200 Comments on “What’s the Age of Accountability?”
Actually, I think that the definition of “age of accountability” is the age at which some portions of Christian theology have tried to say that individuals are, when they reach that age, finally accountable to God for original sin, or their sins. If that is the definition, then it isn’t biblical because, if there ever was a time when an individual was not accountable to God for original sin, then that person could not die from the curse of sin. Because we know that even shortly after conception, persons can die, thus the curse of Adam’s sin is on them, and they too, even at that young age, are accountable for sin. Perhaps the thread would be better framed, “What’s the Age at Which Children can understand the Gospel?”. But then one must ask, if they are unable to understand the gospel, then can they be saved?
The concept of “age of accountability” comes from the Talmud. It is not a Biblical or Christian concept. There is no Christian “bar mitzvah” because this is not found in the Bible. If you believe in an age of accountability then you’re moving away from Christianity towards Talmudic Judaism.
This is a very heavy subject, not quite befitting of sound bites or pithy statements. It is a topic the spiritual giants have attempted to tackle with lackluster results. Gerstner, summarizing Jonathan Edwards’ theology (in The Rational Biblical Theology of Jonathan Edwards) concluded that Edwards himself seemed uncertain on the issue of where a child’s soul went when he died. With all due respect, what makes us so certain that Edwards was wrong?
We clearly have verses that speak towards our sinful frame existing when we’re born. And Paul’s treatise on sin in Romans 3 corroborates this insight. However, we also have Scripture that speaks towards God’s affinity towards children and He has revealed to us His desire that none shall perish. I see it fit to call it a draw and rest on Ps 3:8, “Salvation belongs to the Lord.”
I’ve lost a 24 week old and have wrestled with this subject for years. But I only found peace in resting in God’s sovereignty. He declares that whatever He pleases, comes to pass. So I’ll do the Job and praise Him regardless of my circumstances (only by His Grace).
As for the topic of baptism, I strongly urge opponents of infant baptism to make a sincere attempt to understand how the divines came to such a rash and unfounded conclusion. I find most naysayers simply are ignorant of the opposing viewpoint. Once a sincere attempt has been made and you still choose to disagree, fine. We will always strive to preserve the unity of the saints, disagreeing without being disagreeable.
And one last thing. There is a big difference between hyper-Calvinism and Calvinism. Hyper-Calvinists presume to know who the elect are, hence deifying themselves. Calvinists don’t presume to know who the elect are and attempt to evangelize everyone they meet (or at least they should!). They believe that God is sovereign over salvation and man believes upon Christ. Again a mystery that we ought not fully attempt to unravel for fear of blaspheming God! Always remember, a God small enough to be fully understood is a God not big enough to answer your prayers.
Great comment tommac, I agree with all you said. I only heard the first 5 minutes of the show; your comment makes me think that later in the show, paedo-baptism and Calvinism (or the caricature of it) were slandered.
Jason: I agree (1st post). And Tommac’s was good too.
Baptism, ofcourse, saves no one. It is faith in the finished work of Calvary, but I believe Christian parents should seek to bring their children up in the nurture of the Lord and trust them into the hands of God. Babies, certainly, should be put into Gods trust, and there we can leave them safely.
I do not believe there is any age at which we can then say, they can know and understand salvation. Children grow physically, intellectually and mentally at different speeds and I believe some children will ‘understand’ and be able to accept the truth of salvation at a younger age than others. We should never underestimate their capacity for understanding the things of God.
Tommac: Absolutly agree with your comments, definitly needed to be said.
Jason/Ed, not sure of your respective positions on what happens to infants, or those we might term as not yet having reached the age of accountability, when they die. What do you believe, and why?
Tommac, a little unclear on your positions as well, on both death of those before an “age of accountability” as well as on the role of baptism in salvation. Do you believe that baptism is a necessary component for salvation?
<– tommac here. Unfortunately my email got posted instead of my “Name”
The best I can do has already been summarized in the Westminster Confession of Faith, 10.3: “Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated, and saved by Christ, through the Spirit, who works when, and where, and how He pleases: so also are all other elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.”
I think that God was deliberate (go figure!) in His ambiguity on this issue. Let’s take the combination of logic and our sinful nature to one possible conclusion. If we were absolutely convinced that infants automatically went to heaven when they died, why would we risk letting them get to this “age of accountability” and subsequently place their souls in jeopardy. We should seal the deal much sooner. Even Paul suggested that if he could give his soul so that others may become children of God (which is impossible), that he would. Wouldn’t we do that as parents? Obviously this is ludicrous thinking from which God in His mercy has saved us.
As far as baptism goes, clearly the thief on the cross was saved without being baptized. Why would we presume that there is any salvific force in the act of baptism? Christians who believe in infant baptism are persuaded by Scripture that we as a church body outwardly commit to raising a child in the fear and admonition of the Lord. They oath to God their responsibility to instruct, discipline, teach and disciple these children as their own. It is simply a transition from circumcision (which never saved anyone but rather was an outward sign) to baptism (which too never saved anyone but is an outward sign as well), For scripture references, please see the Westminster Confession, Chapter 28.
Do note that this does not stand in opposition to “believer’s baptism”. I was not baptized as a child, and came to know the Lord later in life so I participated in “believer’s baptism”. My baptism is an outward sign in the same way as infant baptism.
There is no way that Christians are going to agree on all of these very heavy issues. What is important is how we delight in our Savior and seek to share God’s Goodness to the ends of the earth. Remember the one thing you can’t do in heaven is evangelize!
Thanks for clarifying. I would have to disagree on infant baptism - no distinction is made in the Bible as to different “types” of baptism (e.g. infant, believers, etc…), so why are we trying to make one? If, as we say, it is an outward sign of an inward change, it would stand to reason that it would be impossible for an infant to have realized an inward change, thus the premise for baptism, as laid out in Scripture, hasn’t been met, and thus isn’t required or encouraged at infancy.
And, since we don’t know who the “elect” are, especially as it might pertain to elect infants, how would one ever know whether that infant were in heaven, or, as with the other side of the equation that you really didn’t focus on, hell? What about David in the OT, when he speaks of seeing his son again? Did David know that his son was elect, therefore in Heaven? Was he guessing? And what about the concept of free will, also taught in Scripture (along with the doctrine of election)? The concept of free will would say that you have a choice, and the 2 lines of thinking are only compatible in God’s sovereign plan, which we as humans can’t fully reconcile with our finite minds.
Seems more to it than just relying on the Westminster Confession…
Moderator, how do we get spaces in between paragraphs, such as on the old site? Is that possible? It makes the wording and thoughts clearer, if they can be separated, I think. Also, do we have the ability to use bold language?
brad,
Of course choosing is not in opposition to God’s electing grace, however, “free-will” as a category isn’t a biblical one. you need to clearly define what you mean by that term.
As far as the baptism thing goes, one of the reasons Presbys baptize infants is because we see continuity between the old and new covenants, and actually, one could argue from the “household” baptism passages in the NT, that infant baptism is inferred. Another distinction within the category of baptism: water and fire.Mat. 3:10-12, Luke 3:16.
quoting an historic confession is not the same as equating it to scripture, which is what I believe you were insinuating in your last post “relying” on it; surely you “rely” on your interpretations of scripture, right? Prebys don’t believe that the WFC is on par in authority with scripture, just that it is a summary of what the bible says.
Hey Brad - Working on an answer for you. Stay tuned. - Moderator
Jason, I’m not implying that “choosing” is in opposition to “election” - I know it’s not. And the concept of free will is most certainly Biblical - man has a choice to believe or not believe, to have Jesus as His Savior or not. Does that still mesh with the (also Biblical) concept of election? Yes, I believe it does, though we can all talk until we’re blue in the face to make sense of it, and never get there, b/c it only works according to God’s sovereignty, which is above our finite understanding. I accept that both work perfectly, and move on. But I do accept both.
Are there any examples of infant baptism in the Bible? Is there anywhere stated where baptism is something other than a command to do after salvation, as a public profession of faith? And we’re talking the actual act of water baptism here, as is practiced in churches today. Not making any distinctions between water or fire.
I don’t believe there are any examples. As such, I would further pose that infant baptism doesn’t appear to follow the Biblical model for who, and when, baptism should occur.
Is it something that should divide Christians? No, I don’t believe so. But healthy debate is never bad. And I didn’t mean to imply that the WFC was being used as scripture - I don’t believe that was the case. Just wanting to make sure that the WFC wasn’t the only basis, simply b/c it existed, but that there is at least some thought as to the real Scriptural basis, if any, for the beliefs.
Brad,
I know you don’t think that choosing is in opposition to election.
I didn’t say that “free-will” as a “concept” is not biblical, I said that that isn’t the category that the bible uses. As God’s creatures, we are commanded to repent and believe. We choose based on our desires, and if God has elected someone to be saved, then that person will, without a doubt, eventually choose to believe because he desires to do so. But, if someone means by, “free-will” that which is suggested in the scholastic debate as, “libertarian” free-will, then I submit that, that concept is not biblical.
Can someone tell me what the use is of believing if the chosen are already chosen whether they are just babies or adults. The Bible specifically says that we are saved by believing in the Lord Jesus Christ…..but if babies don’t have that capacity and in Calvinistic belief the chosen automatically go to Heaven and the unchosen go straight to hell……then belief doesn’t seem to be necessary atall on their part.
Ofcourse, I do not believe in Calvinism, so I don’t believe babies are assigned to hell automatically any more than I believe they go to Heaven automatically……I just don’t know the answer to that one, but I do believe God is just, and children are special in His eyes.
As someone said, David knew he would see his son in Heaven…..because he knew Gods heart…..and he had trusted his child into His hands.
Jason, there’s either free will, or there’s not. There aren’t too many ways to define it. We have the free will to choose whether to accept Jesus as our Lord and Savior or not. I take it you’re probably a pretty die-hard 5-pointer…
Brad,
I am a 5-point Calvinist, but your wrong when you say, “There aren’t too many ways to define it.”…you appearently haven’t engaged in this debate very thoroughly–there are many ways that free-will has been defined.
Maz,
Based on the outcome in other threads, I don’t believe that you and i will see eye-to-eye on these issues after this thread either. But I will say this, not all Calvinists believe that “babies go to hell”. Regardless of how God deals with that, Christian theology must agree that if (hypothetically speaking) God were to send a baby (an individual incapable of believing as we perceive it) to Hell, then He would be just in doing so because Adam’s sin is imputed to everyone who has ever been conceived. And if God sends a baby to heaven, then Christ’s righteousness must have been imputed to him.
Jason,
You made some good points there with Maz. There are lots of Calvinists who wouldn’t say that dead babies go to Hell automatically. This really is a matter on which scripture is silent, so any answer we arrive at must be hedged a little I think. Personally, I would say that a gracious God will not consign an infant to Hell. That’s just my opinion, and this is definitely a matter that folks will disagree on because scripture doesn’t give us a clear answer. (for that matter there are things that scripture is clear on that people still argue about.)
I would like to address infant baptism. Baptism, in the broad Christian tradition is not a sign of human profession of faith, but is a sign of the inner washing from sin and a Christian initiation. To make it essentially a mark of profession makes baptism really simply something we do, not a sign of something God does for us. My Christian friends who insist on believers’ baptism must be willing to state that the infant child of Christian parents is in exactly the same position before God as an abolute pagan; a position that I don’t know many who would want to support. The fact that infants have been baptized since the mid-late 2nd century is a powerful witness as well. Enough of this diatribe, back to my Tar Hell basketball.
Best wishes
I cannot see God assigning an infant to Hell either. He loves children, didn’t he say that anyone who accepts Him as a little child would be accepted by Him? He blessed the children….why? Of such is the Kingdom of Heaven.
Whatever you feel about peoples visions of Heaven or Hell, whether by near death, or after death experiences which come back, I have never heard of anyone saying they saw babies or small children in Hell, but many times they say they see many children in Heaven.
I can’t make it a point of doctrine, but just knowing my Loving Savior, I cannot see how He would assign a baby or small child who had no accountability or opportunity to actually reject Christ as Savior, to a lost eternity. So Jason, no we won’t ever agree on this.
It is the power of the Word of God, it will either bring you or it will condem you. But only God knows.
To all: What do you think God does with the mentally handicapped? does he send them to hell if they are unable to think clearly.
Good point Paul. This choosing some people to go to Heaven and some to Hell without any logical reason or any purpose whatsoever is discrimitary…..and God is NO respector of persons, in other words He does not discriminate, He treats EVERYBODY the SAME. By rights we should ALL go to Hell because of our sin, but Christ came to die for the world, that ALL may come to Him in repentancce if they so willed……that is freewill…..God chooses us to be saved IF we believe, and we must not forget that it is because He KNOWS those who are His before even the foundation of the world was laid, He KNEW, and He chooses according to THAT knowledge…..those who WILL believe in Him. Otherwise what is the point of the lastt 2000 years? What is God waiting for? Is it not for those who will come to Him…..is He not longsuffering, not willing that anybody should perish but that ALL should come to repentance? That means ALL people, not ALL believers, beause all believers will come won’t they, and those chosen cannot perish can they?
I don’t like getting into this subject much, it is more frustating than the evolution/creation debate, because whatever you show a Calvinist from the scriptures, he will have some kind of answer for it.
Have you heard that song:
”Jesus loves the little children…..all the children of the world, yellow, red and black and white, all are precious in His sight, Jesus loves the little children of the world.”
Jason: At the heart of this conversation is the nature of God , and knowing that were does that lead you.
Absolutely…..all God does is in Who He is. I’d also like Jason to explain this.
ADB
That is a cute term that I have heard some people refer to us “Presbyterians”!!
You are not alone in your view of infant baptism. A great current day Biblical scholar and philosopher, RC Sproul has some great insight on this. Are you a faithful “frozen chosen” as well?
I agree R.C. Sproul is a good biblical teacher
Jason got it correct. Doesn’t matter if we don’t like it or not. The fact is that we are all accountable from conception on. God said before Esau and Jacob were ever born “Jacob have I loved and Esau have I hated”. Paul painstakingly makes this point and anticipates the arguments against it and debunks the arguments even though many do not want to listen. Christians, that is.
Romans 5:12 “Just as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin and so death spread to all men, because all have sinned.”
The bible does explicitly talk about more or less accountability, and that is God’s to judge, but it never says we are not accountable. Even when we are infants all the way to conception, we are accountable. You will notice that everyone who argues against this point assumes two things. One that a child is innocent (which is completely non-biblical) and two “God just couldn’t do such a thing”.
When God told Saul to kill every man, woman, child, and animal …. does that correspond to innocence of the children or women …. NO. When God brought the flood there were presumably many children and pregnant women alive, yet God chose one man and his family to save through the “Water” and even among those there was reprobate.
God is just. We must remember that … and sin is aweful. And yet God’s love can bring reconciliation, but not for all.
I am a 5-point Calvinist, but your wrong when you say, “There aren’t too many ways to define it.”…you appearently haven’t engaged in this debate very thoroughly–there are many ways that free-will has been defined.
Jason, just b/c someone doesn’t agree with you, doesn’t mean they haven’t engaged thoroughly in debate on the topic at hand. You may want to consider that. I defined it as the fact that we have the free will to choose whether to accept Jesus as our Lord and Savior or not. Now, if people want to come up with 2 or 20 other definitions for it, they’re welcome to, but it’s not all that complicated. You either have it, or you don’t. There’s no middle ground, b/c to say you only partially have it, means you don’t truly have it at all, b/c it would somehow be limited. It’s like being “kinda” pregnant - you either are, or you’re not. What do you believe, Jason - do we have free will? It’s actually a pretty simple question, that people like to make quite difficult, based upon where they usually tend to fall on the Calvinism-Arminianism spectrum.
As I said earlier, the Bible fully supports both free will and election. They somehow work together as part of God’s sovereign plan. Where people get lost is when they try to figure out HOW they work together, using our finite minds. Anyone who says they have it figured out is fooling themselves.
Regardless of how God deals with that, Christian theology must agree that if (hypothetically speaking) God were to send a baby (an individual incapable of believing as we perceive it) to Hell, then He would be just in doing so because Adam’s sin is imputed to everyone who has ever been conceived. And if God sends a baby to heaven, then Christ’s righteousness must have been imputed to him.
God is just, in whatever He chooses to do. We are in no position to question WHAT He does. However, it doesn’t mean that we can’t search the Scriptures, knowing the nature of God, to see what He has either said He would do or to try to determine what might happen in certain situations. I still revert to David talking about seeing his child again - would be impossible if the child went to hell. Given election, it would also be impossible if David and his son weren’t both “elect.” So, unless David KNEW, without question, that his son was “elect” (do you believe we can, without question, know who is and who isn’t?), and wasn’t going to hell, this statement would simply be conjecture. However, since it’s included in Scripture, which we believe to be inerrant, we must regard it as truth. Therefore, we must hold that David WOULD see his son again. So, somehow, David KNEW that he would see his son again. Unless you believe David KNEW his son was “elect”, then that must mean David had other insights as to why he’d be able to see him.
Jared: I agree that God is Sovereign, and he is a just God, but there is a mystery in the way he chooses and you can’t forget he is also a loving and merciful God.
Brad: Right on, The mystery of the Gospel.
It’ always amazes me why these scriptures keep coming up….”Jacob have I loved and Esau I hated”.
Jacob was loved…..Esau was…hated? The right meaning of that word should be ‘preferred’….and don’t forget God KNEW Jacob and Esau before they were born. We act sometimes like God doesn’t know what is going to happen.
He knew Cain and Abel….did God love Abel and not Cain? Yet Cains offering was not received and Abels was…..why? Because Cain offered something from the works of his hands, and Abel offered up a lamb from his flocks….Cain got angry….and God asked him…”Why are you angry? If you do well, shall you not be accepted? But if you don’t do well, sin lies at the door.” Abels offering was Gods way…with blood….Cains was a bloodless offering. They had the freedom to do right and Cain CHOSE not to.
So, does God send babies to Hell?….The answer is…. I don’t know…..but I would pray His mercy would reach to those who have no awareness to be accountable enough to accept or reject Christ even though our Bibles tell us we are all born in sin and need to believe to be saved. If that is wrong I shall find out one day….we all shall.
Remember …. our entire life should be about Glorifying God. Not about anything else although as sinners we fall so short of this. Even those who receive there due will glorify God. Fortunately for those who name the name of Christ as their righteousness, they will not receive what they deserve, but rather, what Christ deserves!
Brad …
I don’t think Jason was arguing from Arminianism. It sounded like it was dead set against the free will of man to choose good.
“If that is the definition, then it isn’t biblical because, if there ever was a time when an individual was not accountable to God for original sin, then that person could not die from the curse of sin. Because we know that even shortly after conception, persons can die, thus the curse of Adam’s sin is on them, and they too, even at that young age, are accountable for sin.”
P.S. I love seeing other reformed “Biblical” covenantal folks on here. For a while I thought I was it.
So given the fact I also consider myself a Calvinist in soteriological terms. Please explain in simple terms where you gentlemen are disagreeing.
Brad and Jason that is.
Maz ….
You got that one really wrong. There is a reason the word hated is used and that word might not be strong enough. That is some bad teaching. Find that preferred word in this context in scripture. It isn’t there.
That is really bad translation and hermeneutics you are using or have been taught.
Maz …
At least you are consistently Armenian to this point. So do you believe man has free will to un-choose God?
And, what was the matter with Cain’s offering and why? I find that anyway you slice it, it was an issue of the heart. Why is the emphasis upon Cain becoming angry. Weather he knew what kind of offering to give or not or if that is even at issue is not discussed, but the issue of Cain’s anger is. Here you are reading much more into the text than is there. Cain’s issue was of his heart toward God, otherwise he would not have gotten angry but rather would have repented. The text’s emphasis is upon the condition of Cain (anger).
Cain and Abel where no more part of a works based righteousness than you or I are. Do you agree to that or are you a true dispensationalist? It was not the work that made God accept or not regard either sacrifice. As it always is and has been it is through our great high priest that such things are acceptable or not.
You make it sound works based. Why?
Why does this text right after the Jacob and Esau quotation by Paul mean nothing to the Armenian. What do you do with this? Paul is anticipating your line of argumentation.
Romans 9
14What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God’s part? By no means! 15For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” 16So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. 17For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” 18So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.
19You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” 20But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” 21 Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? 22What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory— 24even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?
Do you not see here the crux here “in order to make known the riches of HIS glory for vessels of mercy”. This is the key. Man can no more choose Christ than he can go jump off a building and choose to fly on his own. He, the saved person, is totally reliant upon God and HIS GLORY and the richness there of.
How I wish Armenians would read the entire text and not try to dissect it into separate versus. It is intended as one coherent line of argumentation by Paul to show our condition before a holy God and how unbelievably merciful he has been.
Romans 9
6But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, 7and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but “Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.” 8This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring. 9For this is what the promise said: “About this time next year I will return, and Sarah shall have a son.” 10And not only so, but also when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, 11though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls— 12she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” 13As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”
I know this goes against mans sin laden logic and desires, but it is in your face “God chooses who He will for HIS OWN GLORY. No man has any reason to boast that they were smart enough to choose God. This is the most God Glorifying and Man Humbling doctrine of our God. It sets the stage for a proper heart in worship, bearing of fruit, and everything else for the christian. Otherwise I would have a reason to boast above my brothers and sisters who aren’t smart enough to choose God. But the truth is I wouldn’t have either unless I was effectually called by the Holy Spirit of God.
So given all this it is simple. We are accountable from conception. Not as accountable as those who have rejected after hearing or as accountable as a reprobate wolf amongst the shepherds of the flock, but accountable.
I know many prior Armenians, that when they finally start reading scripture, stop dissecting it down to single lines, and finally take God at His word, they are set free in a way that is beyond understanding and the whole of scripture (Old testament included) begins to make so much sense.
This dispensationalism that Satan has spread so effectively through out the church has done so much damage. Fortunately for the reformed Christian, we understand that even this is for God’s Glory.
Why is this true if children aren’t accountable?
When God told Saul to kill every man, woman, child, and animal …. does that correspond to innocence of the children or women …. NO. When God brought the flood there were presumably many children and pregnant women alive, yet God chose one man and his family to save through the “Water” and even among those there was reprobate.
I know I am on a rampage here, but it burdens my heart to see Christians robbing our most HOLY, RIGHTEOUS, LOVING, MERCIFUL, LONG SUFFERING, POWERFUL, GOD of His attributes and glory!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Go God murdered babies in the womb during the flood? God is the greatest criminal in human fiction.
MURDER IS HOLY, RIGHTEOUS, LOVING, MERCIFUL! According to the bible.
That HAD to be Stanley… What do you think?
Jared: I can’t put the number of your post because there isn’t one (unless ofcourse I count down from the beginning….and I do hope Truth Talk does something about their numbering system) but you said: ”Remember …. our entire life should be about Glorifying God. Not about anything else although as sinners we fall so short of this.”
Yes, we should glorify God but we are in this world to preach the gospel
of Jesus Christ, He told His disciples, and it’s true for us too, ”You are my witnesses……”. And Jesus said, ”Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature.”
Note….He included everyone to receive the gospel of salvation so they can be saved if they believe.
Truth Talk: It is also very difficult to back track to where you started reading the posts. Please could we have numbers for each post.
Maz: “Can someone tell me what the use is of believing if the chosen are already chosen whether they are just babies or adults. The Bible specifically says that we are saved by believing in the Lord Jesus Christ…..but if babies don’t have that capacity and in Calvinistic belief the chosen automatically go to Heaven and the unchosen go straight to hell……then belief doesn’t seem to be necessary atall on their part.
Ofcourse, I do not believe in Calvinism, so I don’t believe babies are assigned to hell automatically any more than I believe they go to Heaven automatically”
Response: Maz, if God knows for certain who will go to Hell, then is it possible for those individuals not to? The bible says that we are saved by grace, not BY our belief. Faith is the instrument, grace is the means, and Christ’s righteousness is the grounds. God has ordained that all those who believe will be saved; He has elected to salvation shall believe and be saved. (Eph 2:8-9, Rom 8:28-35, 9:13-23, Rom 10:14-17). What do you mean by ‘automatically”; I never suggested that, I said, all those (babies and mentally incapable) who go to heaven must have their sins damned on the cross in Christ, and have His righteousness imputed to them so they can stand before a holy God. Maz, do you dispute that even those who are yet incapable of the verbal expression of belief have Adam’s sin imputed to them…why else would they die physically? A person’s “near death” experience should not help to shape our theology.
Paul: “To all: What do you think God does with the mentally handicapped? does he send them to hell if they are unable to think clearly.”
Response: Paul, read above
Maz: “This choosing some people to go to Heaven and some to Hell without any logical reason or any purpose whatsoever is discrimitary… God chooses us to be saved IF we believe, and we must not forget that it is because He KNOWS those who are His before even the foundation of the world was laid, He KNEW, and He chooses according to THAT knowledge…..those who WILL believe in Him. Otherwise what is the point of the lastt 2000 years? What is God waiting for? Is it not for those who will come to Him…..is He not longsuffering, not willing that anybody should perish but that ALL should come to repentance? That means ALL people, not ALL believers, beause all believers will come won’t they, and those chosen cannot perish can they? I don’t like getting into this subject much, it is more frustating than the evolution/creation debate, because whatever you show a Calvinist from the scriptures, he will have some kind of answer for it.”
Response: I never said that God’s choice was “without any logical reason”, where did you get that? If anything is illogical, it is the Arminian believe that God “elects those He saw believing in the future, that flies in the face of any reasonable definition of election. 2 Pet. 3:9 is about the apontasis (the 2nd coming) and is not even addressing particular redemption as you insinuate above. The “us” in the passage clearly defined as believers, thus the “all” is referring to ALL believers; you’re taking it completely out of context. Would you suggest that God really, really wants to save everyone, but it just isn’t in His power to do so? If you don’t like getting into this subject…then stay out of it, and make sure you know what an opposing position believes before you misrepresent it…do your homework. I’ll turn your own words on you, o you as well, whatever you show a non-Calvinist from the scriptures, she will have some kind of answer for it.—that’s not an argument Maz, talk about frustrating.
Paul: “At the heart of this conversation is the nature of God , and knowing that were does that lead you.”
Response: Paul and Maz, you’re absolutely right, God’s very nature is at stake here, so Christians must affirm that God has to impute the sin of all those who believe on to Christ, and Christ’s righteousness on to all those who believe, in order to maintain His justice. I for one affirm that god is both merciful and just, and it is not smart to pit His attributes against each other. (2 Cor. 5:21)
Brad: “Jason, just b/c someone doesn’t agree with you, doesn’t mean they haven’t engaged thoroughly in debate on the topic at hand. You may want to consider that. I defined it as the fact that we have the free will to choose whether to accept Jesus as our Lord and Savior or not…What do you believe, Jason - do we have free will? It’s actually a pretty simple question, that people like to make quite difficult, based upon where they usually tend to fall on the Calvinism-Arminianism spectrum…Where people get lost is when they try to figure out HOW they work together, using our finite minds. Anyone who says they have it figured out is fooling themselves.”
Response: Brad, I accused you of not having studied it thoroughly b/c you view the definition of “free-will” too reductionisticly…makes all the sense in the world. Apparently you define FW as, “to choose whether to accept Jesus as our Lord and Savior or not”. If God knows for certain all those who will not chose Him, then can those persons chose God anyway? This is the logical conclusion of Arminian view of providence—“Open Theism”, they say that if God knows for certain, the future choices of men, then they are not actually free to choose differently. So to answer your question, no, I do not believe that God has given men the ability to choose outside their desires, or the ability to “choose a or non-a regardless of God’s knowledge of our future choices—that is “libertarian free-will”, and it leads persons to either, Open Theism or Molinism (Middle Knowledge). It is not a “simple question” as you so naively posit. Ignorance is not piety.
Brad: “I still revert to David talking about seeing his child again - would be impossible if the child went to hell. Given election, it would also be impossible if David and his son weren’t both “elect.” So, unless David KNEW, without question, that his son was “elect” (do you believe we can, without question, know who is and who isn’t?), and wasn’t going to hell, this statement would simply be conjecture. However, since it’s included in Scripture, which we believe to be inerrant, we must regard it as truth. Therefore, we must hold that David WOULD see his son again. So, somehow, David KNEW that he would see his son again. Unless you believe David KNEW his son was “elect”, then that must mean David had other insights as to why he’d be able to see him.”
Response: Just b/c something is stated in the bible doesn’t make it true; that is not the doctrine of inerrancy. Ex. Gen. 3: 4 But the serpent said to the woman, “You will not surely die. 5For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”
What the serpent said was NOT true. The passage concerning David’s son is not didactic. It is not intended, in isolation, to teach us whether or not ALL babies who die go to Heaven, which I want believe, but not b/c I can prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt from a systematic study of all the pertinent passages. The only thing we can say about David’s experience there is that, either it was conjecture or God gave him a special revelation of that knowledge (perhaps through Nathan). No, generally speaking, I don’t believe that we can know who is elect—that’s why we speak the gospel to everyone.
Maz
Try the Comments Feed. There is a link at the top right. When you subscribe you can refresh and see all the recent comments and each time you refresh, it will only pull in new comments on the page. Play with it. Once you get used to it it’s actually a little easier. Except for the numbering. It really would be helpful if numbering could be added back.
Jared: Concerning the line ”Esau have I hated.” Reading my post again, I think my memory failed me…..it is totally wrong ofcourse, I can see that now…..I believe it is a strong word but can’t remember what it was….it wasn’t hatred anyway I know that. So what is the true meaning of the Hebrew word used for Esau (hated) then?
Jared 11.54: (I’v put the time instead) You said ”At least you are consistently Armenian to this point. So do you believe man has free will to un-choose God?”
In answer to that I wonder if you could explain Hebrews 10 v 26-39.
Concerning Jacob and Esau, and God’s love/hatred; I think it should be pointed out that God (just like His creatures) has the capacity to love in different degrees. I love my wife with a certain quantity and quality of love, and I love my Christian bros/sis to another degree, and I love unbelievers to still another degree, likewise with the way God loves the world, and yet punishes all those who do not believe in Hell.
Yes, Jared, the number of reformed folk on TTL seems small.
Jared: No, salvation is by grace through faith…not of works…..and yes, Cain’s heart was the condition and his offering was the effect of his hearts condition. So, my point was, that it wasn’t God choosing Abel over Cain, but the condition of Cains heart and his relationship towards God that God did not accept his offering. Both Abel and Cain had the opportunity, the freewill, to choose to do right, and Cain chose to do what was not right. Do you see?
maz, Heb 10:”39But we are not of those who shrink back and are destroyed, but of those who have faith and preserve their souls.”
This is indicative of ALL believers. The previous verses are describing false professors.
And a few of us ((Reformed folk) just let the “in house” debates pass us by for the most part.
Jared: Yet another favourite of the Calvinist, ”I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy.” That does not mean, I’ll do what I like and send who I like to Hell and who I like to Heaven. Gods attitude is not according to human nature, He is pointing out that He is Sovereign and man shouldn’t question His ways, but that does not mean He chooses to have mercy on some and not others for no good reason other than He is God and He can do it. If you really knew Gods heart and how much He loves the human race that He created then you would understand what He is saying.
Jared: If man has absolutely no choice in the matter of salvation, then there are numerous scriptures throughout the Bible that go against this teaching….”Whosoever WILL may come,” ”But you WILL NOT COME that you may have life”, ”Whosoever calls upon the Name of the Lord shall be saved.” ”Repent ye therefore and be converted that your sins may be blotted out…” and many more I can give you. Look up the word ‘will’ and you may see this.
Jared: Bottom of 12.11.: ”Otherwise I would have a reason to boast above my brothers and sisters who aren’t smart enough to choose God.”
The boasting is about works not about faith. How can we boast about believing in God? We havn’t DONE anything to save ourselves but simply believe Jesus Christ DID IT ALL for us. And you can’t boast above ‘brothers and sister’ who havn’t chosen God, because if they havn’t chosen God they wouldn’t be your brothers and sisters for a start.
there you go again Maz, “…for no good reason other than He is God and He can do it…” He is God and He can do it…that’s not a good reason? Besides, you’re still trying to accuse the Calvinistic position that it shows God to be arbitrary in His choosing, and no Calvinist has ever claimed that.
Mike, I think I’d like to start following that pattern.
Jared 12.22: ”I know many prior Armenians, that when they finally start reading scripture, stop dissecting it down to single lines, and finally take God at His word, they are set free in a way that is beyond understanding and the whole of scripture (Old testament included) begins to make so much sense.”
I have read the scriptures for over 35 years, I’v studied them and reread, and reread, and reread again….I still believe WHAT IT SAYS, I don’t try and twist the scriptures into a doctrine….it has so many scriptures that reveal man has a free will to accept or reject the gospel and so many scriptures that challenge man to accept and not reject, that I can’t see why Calvinists are so blind to them……you have quoted a couple of pet texts that I always hear from Calvinists, what about the rest of the Bible….the scriptures that include the whole world in Gods salvation plan? John 3 v 16 being the gospel in a nutshell??
Maz
I don’t necessarily want to get into the debate, but I did notice an inconsistency in one of your posts. While you correctly state that “Gods attitude is not according to human nature, He is pointing out that He is Sovereign and man shouldn’t question His ways”
You then turned around and took issue if “He chooses to have mercy on some and not others for no good reason other than He is God and He can do it”. If He did then who are we to judge or question based upon the first part of your claim?
Jared 12.27; ”I know I am on a rampage here, but it burdens my heart to see Christians robbing our most HOLY, RIGHTEOUS, LOVING, MERCIFUL, LONG SUFFERING, POWERFUL, GOD of His attributes and glory!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!”
What I believe in no way robs God of His glory. Nor His righteousness, His Holiness, His love and mercy nor His longsuffering for the lost of mankind, and it certainly doesn’t rob Him when it comes to His JUSTICE. To be wholly Just, God would either have to send us all to Hell, or make a way for us all to go to Heaven through the sacrifice of His Son. Think about it, He died for the whole world, so that His mercy could reach the whole world and they could be saved if they believe. To say that He only saved some….THAT reduces His great sacrifice to a mere few that He chose to save. No! Gods mercy engulfed the whole world……..THAT IS THE GLORY OF HIS IMMENSE LOVE FOR US ALL.
Jason 12.55: ”Response: Maz, if God knows for certain who will go to Hell, then is it possible for those individuals not to? The bible says that we are saved by grace, not BY our belief.”
”Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved.”
And seeing as God knows the beginning from the end, then those individuals will go to Hell if that is what He knows. He knows also that they rejected Him, and it is their rejection that sent them there.
Maz,
Did Jared actually say that persons don’t have to believe? If so, I’d take issue with that. You are arguing against a straw-man.
That aside, John 3:16, “whosoever will…” hina pas ho pisteuo (SP) means, “all of the believing one”, or “all of those in the category of believers; there is no one Greek word that is translated into the English, “whosoever”. This verse has absolutely nothing to do with the scope of the atonement. If God the Father put the sins of every person who ever existed on God the Son, and made a satisfaction (propitiation) for the Father’s wrath against those sins, then how can God be just in punishing an unbeliever in Hell for sins that He already punished Christ for? You may say, b/c of their unbelief, but isn’t unbelief a sin, a sin Christ died for on the cross?
Maz: “”Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved.” And seeing as God knows the beginning from the end, then those individuals will go to Hell if that is what He knows. He knows also that they rejected Him, and it is their rejection that sent them there.”
So, are you saying that our belief saves us? Eph 2:8For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast.
That’s the whole point Paul is making here, it isn’t your belief that saves you, it is God’s grace, through faith. Faith and grace are the gifts of God…the very faith with which you believe is graciously afforded to you. If not, then why do you have faith and someone else doesn’t; is it something in you? No, faith (belief) are God’s gracious gift to whom He has elected.
Rom 10:13 For “whoever calls on the name of the LORD shall be saved.”
Rom 10:14 How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher?
Rom 10:15 And how shall they preach unless they are sent? As it is written: “How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the gospel of peace, Who bring glad tidings of good things!”
Rom 10:16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, “LORD, who has believed our report?”
Rom 10:17 So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
Rom 10:18 But I say, have they not heard? Yes indeed: “Their sound has gone out to all the earth, And their words to the ends of the world.”
Rom 10:19 But I say, did Israel not know? First Moses says: “I will provoke you to jealousy by those who are not a nation, I will move you to anger by a foolish nation.”
Rom 10:20 But Isaiah is very bold and says: “I was found by those who did not seek Me; I was made manifest to those who did not ask for Me.”
Jason: ”Did Jared actually say that persons don’t have to believe? If so, I’d take issue with that. You are arguing against a straw-man.” No, but his argument is that man has to do nothing……I just wantd to point out that man has got to do something……BELIEVE.
Jason: ”So, are you saying that our belief saves us? Eph 2:8For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast.”
I agree. But scripture mentions faith, grace and our having to believe…..I can’t see the problem here? It is not works to believe.
I’m sure Jared would like to answer for himself, but when he said that, I’ll bet he didn’t mean that men don’t have to believe, but that belief is not a condition that a person has to meet so God can save him.
I know it isn’t works to believe, but except that God turns our hearts toward Him, we wouldn’t even believe.
Thanks Paul for those scriptures. I did have a long list in my documents folder but I seem to have lost them. Do our Calvinist brothers see the word THEY in these scriptures…..THET CALL….THEY BELIEVE….THEY HEAR…..And look specifically at Romans 10 v 16 (and ofcourse read it in context, it means the same).
We have to HEAR, we have to CALL, we have to COME, we have to REPENT, we have to BELIEVE…..and it is by God grace through His faith that we can then be saved! Hallelujah what a Savior!!!!!
I don’t think Jason was arguing from Arminianism. It sounded like it was dead set against the free will of man to choose good.
Me neither - never said he was.
Maz and Paul,
CALVINISTS DO THINK THAT PERSONS NEED TO HEAR AND BELIEVE!
Please forgive my frustration, but it is awful to see Christians engage in fallacious argumentation.
Concerning infants and the mentally handicapped, I’m not pitting Gods nature against his nature, it’s the loving and merciful nature of God at work in this case, because David was a man after Gods own heart, and he knew this about God so he knew he would see his child again.
Jason: 14.07: But THEY……..THEY….THEY DON’T HEAR AND BELIEVE according to Calvinists its all God doing it!
Jason: And WHO is engaged in this ‘fallacious argumentation’? (Apart from me).
And Jason, you are not the ONLY one that is frustrated.
Paul, When people say that, God wouldn’t condemn an infant to Hell b/c He is loving, that is pitting His love against His justice, b/c God must condemn all those to Hell who haven’t had the righteousness of Christ imputed to them–that is justice. But it is His merciful love that He saves even one. You’re thoughts about David, I’m afraid are only conjecture. I’m just trying to make the point that we can’t truly be dogmatic on this issue b/c God hasn’t spoken all that much about it. There is far more biblical evidence for the Reformed view of election than for the view that says for certain that all infants go to heaven. As I said before, I believe in His infinite plan, that God has elected all infants who die, but I can’t be too dogmatic about that.
The question that some of you need to answer is, is can God accept anyone in His eternal presence who hasn’t had Christ’s righteousness first applied to their hearts?
Jason: Paul has a good point about David here. If babies are incapable of repenting, receiving and believing, how can they be saved? They are in the same position as someone mentally handicapped who has no proper thinking capacity to understand salvation or the gospel. If David knew his son would be in Heaven with him, HOW was that baby saved?
Brad, I accused you of not having studied it thoroughly b/c you view the definition of “free-will” too reductionisticly…It is not a “simple question” as you so naively posit. Ignorance is not piety.
Jason, while we don’t agree on this debate, and probably never will, I had hoped you might be able to conduct yourself with a little more respect. You are making some assumptions about me (naive, ignorance, lack of study, etc…), yet you know absolutely nothing about me. I’ve not even told you if I’m Calvinist, Arminian or otherwise! While I understand your passion for your fully Calvinist arguments, and while I agree with the doctrine of election, as I believe the Bible supports it, I also don’t throw out the concept of man’s free will to choose, as the Bible supports it as well. To say the Bible is fully Calvinist, or fully Arminian, would be wrong at either end of the spectrum. As I’ve mentioned, it supports both - it’s something that NOBODY can fully understand, b/c we’re not God. Somehow they work together, yet I am peaceful with not needing to know how, b/c God has already ordained it so.
I know I am on a rampage here, but it burdens my heart to see Christians robbing our most HOLY, RIGHTEOUS, LOVING, MERCIFUL, LONG SUFFERING, POWERFUL, GOD of His attributes and glory!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Jared, you have to realize that what you’re saying by this is accusing Christians of demeaning God, simply b/c they are not beholden to Calvinism. I would caution you, sir, to be careful of doing so, for it would be my guess that you know, personally, very few if any people on here well enough to make a judgment about how they view God.
Jared/Jason, I love God with all my heart. I have studied the Bible for years. I teach SS, and love it. I love talking to others about Him, Christians or non-Christians. I’m sure Maz, Paul, Mike S. and others on here love God just as much as I do, as well. One thing you two may truly want to be careful of, is projecting an attitude of superiority of your position, especially since it is a position on a topic that has been a longstanding debate, and will probably never be settled. We are not saved by anything other than God’s grace through faith - I am not saying any different, and I don’t believe others on this topic are, either. Much of the C/A debate centers around how you view certain topics, which Scriptures you use, etc…
To think that one view is completely right, and one completely wrong, is not only assuming, but also quite insulting to others, especially when that attitude is projected towards others you don’t know. I’m not saying you’ve necessarily “said” it, but in my opinion, it has certainly been portrayed that way. I stand on Scripture alone, which after a careful reading, I believe reflects components of both of the C/A views, not just one. The doctrine of election CAN’T be ignored - there is too much Scripture which supports it. However, the fact that man has free will also CAN’T be ignored - there is too much Scripture which supports it. As I’ve mentioned, man is always bent on figuring out who’s “right” - often at the expense of who’s “saved.” I would just caution you to be careful of the attitude you project, and the words you use to respond to others, when you debate such a topic.
At that, I’ll remove myself from further conversation. God bless you all.
maz, I have already pointed out where you have made strawmen arguments. Quoting Rom. 10:13-20 doesn’t answer the Calvinistic claim that God gives us even our faith, instead, it just goes to show that you don’t (or maybe even refuse to) understand what we believe.
I am a calvinist, the scripture I posted , brings the argument to a head please read it again.
Does John Calvin get a bad rap or what.
Brad
Well put brother. And very respectfully too I may add.
Brad, The doctrine of sola fide has been debated for years, but that doesn’t mean that it can’t be apprehended. Likewise, just b/c many people haven’t come down on one side or the other on a particular issue, doesn’t mean that the bible hasn’t spoken clearly about it.
Paul, i guess i shouldn’t have addressed you and Maz for the same point.
Jason
“just b/c many people haven’t come down on one side or the other on a particular issue, doesn’t mean that the bible hasn’t spoken clearly about it”
Nor does it mean that it gives license to treat our brothers and sisters in a condescending way.
Brad: Good post brother, and I hope I have not projected anything more than a passion for the truth of the scriptures and my God. I am also going to bow out, this argument will probably continue until the Lord returns and I’m not prepared to do that.
God Bless you all!!
Deu 1:39 ‘Moreover your little ones and your children, who you say will be victims, who today have no knowledge of good and evil, they shall go in there; to them I will give it, and they shall possess it.
Brad and Maz, If you two are going to accuse me of sin (condescension or disrespect) , then please point out specific instances.
That last one should have started, “Brad and Mike,”
Jason: When did I EVER accuse you of sin (etc)????
Jason: OK.
Sorry Maz, mis-wrote…
“Brad, I accused you of not having studied it thoroughly b/c you view the definition of “free-will” too reductionisticly…It is not a “simple question” as you so naively posit. Ignorance is not piety.”
That’s condescending in my book.
As Hannegraf recommends, “we can debate vigorously but let’s not divide over it.”
brad, please forgive me for accusing you of ignorance. I do have to maintain that it is naive to suggest that the question over “free-will” is simple, and that there is only 1 definition of it. How else should I have worded it. Can anyone actually say someone else is wrong without being condescending to a certain degree?
Do not accuse others of ignorance, lest you display your own.
the light,
What point of ignorance is displayed in a person if he says that ignorance is not pious?
Search your heart Jason, my son, and you will find the answer.
now that’s condescending.
What are you, a disney movie?
The truth may seem condescending to those who do not believe.
Actually, anyone (other than God) who refers to himself as “The Light” is grossly arrogant.
I speak for the Truth, the Light, and the Way. God knows to arrogance, because he is perfect.
Wow.
Another crazy person.
…but someone’s grammar/spelling isn’t
Is this what the Word calls ‘back biting’?
Humans are susceptible to mistyping, and I don’t claim to be God.
God knows NO arrogance, for HE is perfect.
I am not.
Mike S.
In response to your post from last night. I’m not Presbyterian, I’m actually Methodist, but I did go to a farirly conservative Presbyterian seminary. Debates over Arminianism vs. Calvinism aside, the reformed and Methodist views of the sacraments are very similar so we use basically the same arguments in support of infant baptism.
Crap. Forgot to change the name. That should be The Light on the last post.
My b.
ohhhh, i was just having some fun.
So was I.
Anthropology class can get rather boring.
Maz
I know … the number thing and finding the post again aren’t very fun. And the date time thing isn’t very good.
Your last statement. “Note….He included everyone to receive the gospel of salvation so they can be saved if they believe.” This is very inconsistent with what Scripture teaches.
I agree that we are given the mandate to preach the gospel, that mandate was directed at the apostles, but I believe that it can also be applied to us, but we are also given the mandate to make disciples so that we can do what? What is the purpose of all this making disciples?
It is so that we can Worship and Glorify God.
jAsOn - Maz
Of course you must Believe on the salvation provided by the Lord Jesus Christ. The question is who initiates the process?
Does man have a free will to choose to believe in the saving power of the Lord Jesus Christ on his own?
I cannot argue with scripture and the overwhelming evidence from scripture, particularly Paul’s Letter to the Romans and Ephesians, which gleans much of its content from the old testament writings, says NO. Man cannot choose God by his own will. Our will was corrupted with Adam’s fall. The Holy Spirit must come into a mans heart and change that heart as Ezekiel 36 makes clear so that we can say “I Believe”. That is why we can look at our brothers and sisters as Paul did and say Why me and not them. Often times they are better than I. I am a wretch.
How does anyone argue consistently with Romans 7, 8, 9, 10, Ephesians 1, or even Jesus examples or parables. How do you argue with the whole of the old testament. Jesus chose His disciples it doesn’t say He asked them … and they chose to follow Him. He certainly didn’t give Paul an option!
I’m telling you … if you start reading scripture with a covenant framework in mind instead of dispenstionalism and with God’s glory at the pinnacle of your understanding scripture will start to make amazing sense, even the passages that don’t make any sense to you right now. You will be set free.
Why does Paul anticipate your argument. You haven’t dealt with that Romans 9. He isn’t talking about sanctification. He said “Jacob have I loved and Esau have I hated.” There wasn’t much about Jacob to love. He was a lying crook and yet God Loved him. We are given more things to hate about Jacob than Esau. They were both worthless just like us. And God Hates Sin. What is in the Sinner accept sin. Nothing. He chose Jacob. That is why Jacob was so thankful later on after he understood this.
The Called/Predestined/Elect have every reason to be infinitely thankful to God.
The Armenian can look at himself and say I chose wisely.
Don’t sweat it … we can get off the soteriological discussion now, but it still plays into how we view the salvation of infants and children. If they can’t choose they must all be lost. Or the dispensationalist must then come up with some superbiblical doctrine as to why these children don’t need to choose or they are innocent, even though scripture clearly shows no one is innocent besides the Lord Jesus Christ.
Maz … Jason answered most of your question about Hebrews. It is very easy when you see that both saved and unsaved people are part of the covenant community (church) as was the case with Israel.
Jason … are you reformed (calvanistic in your soteriology) or not? I really lost you, but that could certainly be on my end. Being effected by sin is a pain in the rear you know.
Hello all - Again, please bare with us as we’re still working out the kinks. We’re working on the numbering system. It may take us a little while to iron out the bugs. Hang tight….thanks!
Moderator
Mike S. …. how is that. I agree Methodists at one time weren’t that distinct from reformed folks, but now methodist and half the presbyterians I know, pastors that is, know so little of covenant theology it’s pitiful. How are you reformed an Methodist? I am always talking to my Methodist friends and they don’t hold hardly any of the positions that were gleaned from the apostolic church by the reformers. Most of the time they don’t even know what your talking about because they don’t know any of the concepts or language.
Probably not all Methodist, but my brother in law was trained in a Methodist Seminary and although he knows some basics of reformed (covenantal ) theology …. he doesn’t agree with hardly any of it and I can’t get out of him any of what he really does believe. Just Love and additional revelation is all he talks about, which is scary.
Sorry … ADB for the last post not Mike S. This new format is driving me crazy … that must be “The Lights” problem also.
Just for clarification who’s what here if you like.
Jared - Reformed - (Orthodox Presbyterian) we got our problems too - Really just terrible bad sinner saved by the Grace of God.
Jared: ”…..but it still plays into how we view the salvation of infants and children. If they can’t choose they must all be lost.”
So All babies and children too young to know and understand salvation are categorically lost?
It still begs the question about Davids son. He believed he would see his son again after death and we know David did not go to Hell.
And he
certainly didn’t believe that his son would automatically go to Hell because he was too young to know or understand.
Jared - Sorry you’re not happy with it. Know that we’re working to implement new ways to make it easier to use. We expected some folks to be unhappy….this happens anytime a company changes their website. This new platform makes it much easier to add new applications, etc. It will take some time for everyone to get used to it. We appreciate everyone on here and we don’t want to lose any contributors, but this change was way long overdue. Stick with us. It’ll get better.
Thanks - Moderator
Thanks Moderator. Just hard to make the transition. Unfortunately sin effects all our faculties!
So Jared, I guess you will probably qualify as a “Frozen Chosen” as well huh? I have a friend who attends an OP in Greensboro. Very serious group.
Sorry to interrupt…..you should see numbers on the comments now.
Moderator
Thank you Moderator!
Maz …
I didn’t say that. I was essentially putting forth a crux in the free will and Armenian position. Actually its not a crux its a full on road block, if you don’t say they are sinless or God has some special non revealed salvation method for these children.
I believe God has chosen some, perhaps many or most, but probably not all. I don’t know, but when I believe it is our God’s place to choose and not ours that makes it rather straight forward. I don’t have to worry if they can choose or not. God is the one doing the choosing, I simply reciprocate according to my ability and being that is steeped in sin also it is really all in God’s hands.
It is our God’s glory to enjoy and our total infinite thankfulness and resultant worship to give.
Not us patting ourselves on the back for being good enough that God chose us or just plain smart enough to choose on our own.
Mike S.
“So Jared, I guess you will probably qualify as a “Frozen Chosen” as well huh? I have a friend who attends an OP in Greensboro. Very serious group.”
Yes, I hope so, with respect to being predestined. I don’t know for sure … but my God does. This is the most humbling thing of all.
OP is usually relatively serious, but they are just like every other denomination. Full of sinners, me being one of them.
How about you Mike S. What are your doctrinal positions. One of these days could be a while… we will all be the same, even the reprobate will know the truth.
Yep, same as the PCA and me!
I essentially agree with the Heidleberg Catechism and Westminster Confession regarding doctrine. Realizing there may be some differences between the two but not enough to fret over.
Have been a PCA member in a PCA that looked like an OPC. PCA has a little more variation. A little worrying to me. The CRC my first church has basically went with the PCUSA and that in my estimation isn’t real good. I doubt those folks will be persecuted at all if things get tough here.
As to the subject matter. I suspect you believe some infants are chosen by God and some may not be, but this is all according to the perfect purpose and will of our God.
Jared: You may not have said it, but you implied it, ”if they can’t choose they must all be lost.” But they can’t choose can they, so, according to what you said……they must all be lost, if God has not some special revelation about them? And then you went on to say, ”I believe God has chosen some, perhaps many or most, but probably not all. I don’t know,” ….So, you really don’t know atall do you?
You know it bothers me that you seem intent on proclaiming what an awful sinner you are all the time. Why?
Christ died to bring us up from the pit of sin and has made us to sit in heavenly places with Him. We are children of God. Now that should not be a prideful thing, because we of ourselves have not put us there, only being in Christ, and Christ being in us……we are new creatures in Christ Jesus…..not ’steeped in sin’…..as you put it. Christ has made us free from the law of sin and death….so don’t own the name of ’sinner’ any longer, because Christ paid the ultimate price to make you what you are if you believe in Him.
And that doesn’t make us sinless….we get tempted, but we must resist at all costs, not carry on because we have been chosen and can’t lose our salvation as some Calvinists believe. That is a dangerous place to be in. Ooooh! I wasn’t going to go there any more.
If all infants are paid for by Christs blood … good, if not … good. Either way God’s will be done!
Maz …
No
I was making my point from the negative for the Armenian.
I don’t believe they have to choose. I believe God chooses. Read the rest of the last few posts.
I grew up in an Episcopal Church and never heard the Gospel. I heard the gospel for the first time in a PCA church 8 years ago at 38 years old. I did not know the first thing about doctrine at that time. I got so fired up for Christ my first 4 years, it was like an explosion of learning. I’m still fired up, but I am a little more laid back now. Some times too much so… Lord Have Mercy!!
Maz…
Because I am an aweful sinner. I sin by omission and commission. I am dying every day. As with Paul in Romans I don’t do what I aught and I do what I should not. The Lord Jesus fleshed out the ten commandments to the point I have nothing other to say than I am a wretch relying completely upon the Lord Jesus. He is my righteousness. I have not a single drop on my own. God is my all in all.
Maz
John told us if we claim to be without sin then the truth is not in us (meaning we are not Christians). Therefore if we still sin, that certainly makes us sinners… still. Yet because of what Christ has done for us, we are “positionally” righteous in His sight. Lord Have Mercy!!
Jared: And what follows that in Romans 8? ”There is, therefore, NOW NO condemnation to those who are IN CHRIST JESUS who walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made me FREE from the law of sin and death.” Read the rest, I don’t think you realise where Christ has placed you and what He has done to make you FREE.
You are characterizing what Calvin said. Read Calvin. You will see a man undone like Isaiah. One who loves his Lord so much that it grieves him to sin.
You are correct … we are new creatures. Now we can resist sin and because we love our Lord, but our love for our Lord is because of what He has done for us in justification and what he continues to do to us in sanctification and what He will do for us in Glorification.
The sermon on the mount shows me not only as sinner, but a horrible on at that. Who does not covet, who does not hate, who does not lie even in their hearts, who keeps the Lord’s day, makes no idols, loves the Lord their God with all their Soul, Mind, and Strength, who has not committed adultery in their minds. Only Christ has lived righteous, the rest of us not even close. I place my trust in Him and His righteousness.
Maz
Absolutely!!
Mike: I never said I was WITHOUT sin, I am most certainly not, but I see myself as God sees me, and He doesn’t need me to keep reminding Him or anyone else about my sin.
Mike S. - Amen brother.
One of my favorite authors is JC Ryle. I love his book Practice Religion (he was an 19th Century Episcopal Bishop).
Maz - Yes I know where the Lord has placed me. But, its already not yet. I am only there through HIM and His righteousness. I have non of my own without Him. In Him I am.
Although I’v said all that, I have to admit how weak I feel as a Christian, how unworthy, and how unfaithful I have been many times, it bothers me a lot at times, but I do not keep mentioning my frailty as a person saved by the blood of the Lamb, and I do seek to live for Christ every day of my life.
Jared: THAT is exactly my point……IN HIM ONLY! Without Him we are nothing.
It’s 22.55 here….goodnight all!
Maz …
But where in scripture does God tell us to see ourselves as God sees us. It tells us to be poor in spirit and meek. To find ourselves with Isaiah, Ezra, Abraham, Isaac , Jacob, Paul, John, Peter …. weeping over our sin. And… at the same time trusting Christ. This is where the freedom is at.
Yes, we are working on the time stamp too. Stay tuned…
Moderator
Mike,
Methodists come in all stripes nowadays- from social justice types to evangelicals like myself. Really the same thing exists in the more liberal PC-USA. Wesley himself was an interesting combination of Puritanism, continental pietism, and Anglicanism. Anyway, I know of little of the “covenant theology” but am surely not an expert on it. It does seem to be more reasonable than dispensationalism. The great similarity between the reformed tradition and the Methodist tradition is in the sacraments. Wesley and Calvin used nearly identical language in describing the Lord’s Supper, what is called “real presence.” You also find similar views of the nature and efficacy of baptism even aside from who the proper recipients of baptism are. With both you find an insistence on means of grace, frequent communion, and keeping word and sacrament linked.
Best Wishes
Maz,
You said, “And that doesn’t make us sinless….we get tempted, but we must resist at all costs, not carry on because we have been chosen and can’t lose our salvation as some Calvinists believe.”
I don’t believe you’ll find that any any Calvinist writings–another clear mis-characterization.
Jared,
I believe that the WCF is an excellent summary of what the bible means; my family and I are members of a PCA church, and I am a Covenant Amillennialist.
jAsOn
That is great to hear . My family has been memorizing these with supporting Scripture for several years now. I do prefer the more personal nature of the Three forms of unity particularly the Heidelberg Catechism, but from a pure systematic approach the Westminster Standards are the best.
I am also glad to see there are other Amil folks out there. A lot of reformed folks tend toward postmil and where I tend get more uncomfortable is when folks get caught up in a Theonomy or reconstruction type postmil. I think they often have excellent motives, but I would argue it gets emphasized to the point it detracts from the Gospel and God’s Glory.
I find it very unfortunate that so many american evangelicals are dispensational (Which no one can quite nail down what it actually believes these days) and premil based on that dispensationalism which really detracts from the work of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Keep bearing witness!!! God will certainly use some of those seeds!!!
Maz …
I suggest before you discuss what the reformers believed you do some careful reading and research. They had there problems as I am sure they would admit, but God really reformed His church through that century and those men.
Jason: #149. Some DO believe this.
Jason and all Calvinists: Again I have decided not to continue with this subject here, it never goes anywhere and just causes frustration on both sides. So I will resist the temptation to enter into it again anywhere on here. We must agree to disagree.
Jason
You’re is WS right? Which PCA church? Redeemer or New Hope? I am at Hope.
Deu 1:39 ‘Moreover your little ones and your children, who you say will be victims, who today have no knowledge of good and evil, they shall go in there; to them I will give it, and they shall possess it.
Jason: Maz said: If babies are incapable of repenting, receiving and believing, how can they be saved? They are in the same position as someone mentally handicapped who has no proper thinking capacity to understand salvation or the gospel. If David knew his son would be in Heaven with him, HOW was that baby saved? Now read the scripture I posted #155
Mike,
Were at Redeemer.
Maz,
I don’t expect you to continue in the discussion but for everyone else…of course all reformed folk believe that the redeemed cannot lose their salvation, but as for “carry8ing on ONLY because we have been chosen”, I don;t think you’ll find that sort of attitude in their writings. Maybe you’ve read/heard someone who is mistakenly Calvinistic. Loads of folks (myself included) who, when first convinced of the doctrines of grace, are a little confused still about the gospel/law distinction (especially if they come out of dispensational/fundamentalism as I did) so we all are learning what the bible means…that’s why I engage in these discussions…always learning and always attempting to defend what I believe.
Jared,
I’d like to invite you to my blog (you can click on my screen name) and check out a recent series on my observations on dispy and cov hermeneutical structures. I try to have a special patience and understanding for dispys of all sorts b/c I was one of the revised or Ryrie variety. So, check it out and let me hear anyone’s criticisms…I’m writing an essay on the topic and I’d like some feedback, so anyone who’d like to, can comment.
Jason: Why don’t you answer the question, it is leading somewhere I promise.
Jason: you told me that it was just conjecture on my part, because the bible dosen’t say much on the subject. Oh , but it does say enough.
jason, If you can’t give a reason thats ok I’m not here to drag you down, its just I’m trying to sharpen you Brother.
Rom 5:13 (For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. )
None of us has arrived , lets keep digging deeper.
Jason: I was tempted to answer your post and even started to when I realised I’m doing it again…….and I mustn’t. That’s it.
Paul,
Which question?
Yes, we are al being sharpened here, and I have asked questions that have gone unanswered as well.
You said, “Rom 5:13 (For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. )”
So are you claiming that before the Mosaic Law was presented, there was no imputation of sin, or that b/c an infant hasn’t heard the Law that he has not had sin imputed?
Jason: Maz said: If babies are incapable of repenting, receiving and believing, how can they be saved? They are in the same position as someone mentally handicapped who has no proper thinking capacity to understand salvation or the gospel. If David knew his son would be in Heaven with him, HOW was that baby saved? #Deu 1:39 ‘Moreover your little ones and your children, who you say will be victims, who today have no knowledge of good and evil, they shall go in there; to them I will give it, and they shall possess it.
post# 162 wrong blog
Paul,
I already answered that…anyone who is saved has the righteousness of Christ imputed to them and their unrighteousness imputed to Christ.
As far as Deu 1:39 goes, I, even as a Covenant Theologian, wouldn’t take the liberty with that text to say that it can be used to teach/support that every infant is elect. Nor does this passage claim that original sin has not passed on to the littles ones. the phrase, “who today have no knowledge of good or evil” is nearly a restating of the phrase, “little ones”; it is not saying that their young are not accountable before a holy God, not in need of Christ’s righteousness.
Again, I already said that I like to believe that all infants and mentally handicapped from birth persons are elect, but I won’t die on that hill and make it a dogma.
Paul … I would contend you cannot take this verse alone 5:13. It is closely connected with both the verses before it and the ones after it. 5:14 points out “Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.”
Note that it doesn’t say they hadn’t sinned. It simply says they hadn’t sinned like Adam. This is very important. I think Paul is making the argument here based on the whole of the text that we are still guilty and die as a result, regardless of how aware we are of the law or not. I believe he is making this argument also to distinguish between Adam’s one sin that lead to condemnation for all and Christ paying the penalty for all the sin of the “Many”. And as the law is given or who is aware of it becomes more culpable for it. Not that they were sinless, they just had less culpability in the matter before the law was given. However, Paul also points out that the law was written on our hearts so, I believe this is why Paul can call it sin although it is not like Adams where Adam specifically had the commandment.
You have to be so careful when you pull verses, which were not originally there out of the text for they often can be pulled out of context and ascribed any meaning you like. This is one of those verses that is clearly linked by the “Nevertheless” and “Therefore” after and before it.
Jason: It is God speaking in the text of entering the promised land. and no I don’t expect you to die on that hill . I was speaking to the nature of God being aloving God and yes I know he is a Just God, but like I said before David knew this.
Jared: The scripture from post#162 was for another post elsewhere, even though it appears that I meant it for here, but that would be wrong.
Paul,
I’m not disputing the love of God…if He saved even one person, His love would prove infinite b/c Christ would have to die to save even that one.
I agree , I’m glad he dragged me.
Jared: I’m sorry for the post on the wrong blog , I’ll try to be more careful. I wouldn’t want the wrong idea to spring from our conversations.
Jason: I want to interject here, only to reiterate my question that Paul reminded you of…..and say that David knew his son was ’saved’….but how is that baby saved if it has not come to an understanding of salvation or believed? If you say he was chosen, then that would mean that the lost that are chosen and die as babies or very young children do not have to believe to be saved. Ofcourse you would never say that an adult could be saved without believing so how is it a baby can? There must be some distinction between how God sees infants and how He sees adults.
In other words He can save a baby without him even knowing about a Savior or believing in Him, but an adult cannot be saved this way. And why when we are adultscan we not be saved without believing if it is possible for babies? I hope I have explained my self as fully as possible on this question.
Maz,
I’m struggling he to see where we disagree exactly.
Are you saying that babies cannot be saved b/c they cannot believe? I wouldn’t think you would say that, but I want to clarify.
The normal instrument (the rule, if you will) God uses to save a person is through the preaching of the gospel, and that persons faith. Babies must be an exception to that rule, if you assume that babies can be saved, which I do, thus the distinction. The similarity btwn their regenerations is the fact of double imputation, as I put forth on two other occasions.
As for David’s son, I think he was right, his was going to inherit the New Heavens and the New Earth with all other believers and those regenerated, but to claim just how David knew that would be conjecture on our part.
Jason: I am asking you what you believe as a Calvinist. I don’t fully understand myself but we are talking about those ‘chosen’ babies as far as Calvinism goes. If chosen babies can be saved, as you have said….(some are chosen to Heaven and some to Hell)…..without believing, then what of the adults who are chosen? Can’t they be saved without believing? (Ofcourse I don’t believe they can). But as far as I believe, I really think God makes a distinction between babies and very young infants, and adults. I do not believe He would send any to Hell. But you believe He would if they were not chosen. Do you see now what I am trying to say?
Maz,
Several things:
1. Calvinists don’t believe that individuals are “chosen” to go to Hell in the same way others are “chosen” to go to Heaven; we believe that election is asymmetrical–God doesn’t have to intervene on a person’s will in order for them NOT to believe, they automatically don’t believe. But He does have to chose to change those He has elected to belief/salvation. It has been said that, “God doesn’t send anyone to Hell, the simply send themselves b/c of their disbelief”. I understand why some would believe this, but it isn’t b/c the admit that God is sovereign, it is actually a blatant rejection of God’s sovereignty.
2. No, no one who has the physical/mental capacity to hear and believe the gospel can be saved without hearing and believing; like I said, that is the “rule”, and infants/mentally incapable are the exception.
3. The way you stated it, it almost sounded as though you were suggesting that God saves everyone…I doubt you believe that.
OK, I see No. 1. But if God does not give them the ability to repent and believe so they can go to Heaven, He has chosen them not to go to Heaven, which is almost the same as letting them go to Hell without a chance to repent. And if all it takes for someone to repent is God giving them the ability to do so, why does He not do that across the board so to speak? OK Sovereign will.
He has in effect chosen not to save everyone (as Calvinists believe), that still doesn’t sound right as far as I know the scriptures.
So Ok No. 2, we agree that babies are the exception rather than the rule. So as I believe that all people can be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth if they so willed…and by Gods grace towards all men….then I believe all babies would go to Heaven even though they have never known or believed the salvation message.
No 3. No God cannot save everyone…because not everyone believes…..but I hold to John 3 v 16 as the very pinnacle of the gospel of Jesus Christ, that God loved the whole world, that He sent His Son to die for the whole world, and that the whole world COULD be saved IF they believe the gospel.
Maz,
1. That truly is the mystery of the atonement. we’re probably not going to agree on this one
2. We agree on part of this, but I’ll just have to say that, “..So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy. ” (Rom. 9:6.
3. I believe that I covered the “whosoever” issue in John 3 earlier in this post, but as far as the “world” is concerned, yes, Christ died for the world in the sense that common grace is given to everyone (we don’t die as soon as we sin, rain falls on the just and unjust), but, as you pointed out, not everyone will believe, and I say that is because not everyone has had God’s wrath against their sins propitiated by the specific grace of the cross. Which leads to one of the questions I asked earlier which no one has attempted to answer, If God the Father put the sins of every person who ever existed on God the Son, and made a satisfaction (propitiation) for the Father’s wrath against those sins, then how can God be just in punishing an unbeliever in Hell for sins that He already punished Christ for? You may say, b/c of their unbelief, but isn’t unbelief a sin, a sin Christ died for on the cross? And another, I know you believe that God knows for certain who will believe and who will not, so, is it possible for those He knows will not believe, to believe? The answer is no, so from God’s perspective, they CANNOT ever believe (why He knows that is another question), but from our perspective, b/c we don’t know who they are, then we speak the gospel to everyone as though they were elect, and may believe.
Jason: 2. ”We agree on part of this, but I’ll just have to say that, “..So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy. ” (Rom. 9:6.”
Salvation odes not depend on man but on the sacrifice of the Lord Jesus Christ, where Gods mercy was truly seen, but we still have to be willing to believe it to be saved. It’s not by our works but by Gods grace.
oops…didn’t check my spelling again!! odes….does.
Of course, but why do you believe and another person, who has had exactly the same opportunities you have, not believe? You were willing, but why, is it something in you that makes you willing and another not? I say God has made you willing, what do you say?
Jason: ”If God the Father put the sins of every person who ever existed on God the Son, and made a satisfaction (propitiation) for the Father’s wrath against those sins, then how can God be just in punishing an unbeliever in Hell for sins that He already punished Christ for?”
To receive what Christ has done on the cross we have to believe to receive…….but if we don’t believe then we cannot receive…….it may be that Christ died in vain for those….that is a tragedy.
If you bought a precious gift and then offered it to someone and they refused it, does that negate the cost of the gift to you? Does that mean you never paid for it? No. If Christ BECAME SIN then He could not become PART sin, it would have to be ALL sin wouldn’t it?
Jer 17:9 “The heart is deceitful above all things, And desperately wicked; Who can know it?
Jer 17:10 I, the LORD, search the heart, I test the mind, Even to give every man according to his ways, According to the fruit of his doings.
Jason: I don’t know why some believe and others don’t. Why do some believe in evolution and some in creation? Why do some believe in aliens and others don’t? Where does this believing come from? Does Satan make people believe in aliens?
My mum never really came to believe as far as I know although she was very close to accepting the truth, also my father died without receiving Christ as Savior, infact many of my family have not become Christians, and some I am still praying for……why? I don’t know. Should I continue to pray for my loved ones to come to know Christ? Supposing some have been chosen and others not? My sister once knew the Lord but somehow has been sidetracked into New Age stuff…..was she chosen to begin with or not? Also my two neices, one of which is also going onto a side road in life…..I have no idea why. Have you?
Christ died to ACTUALLY satisfy the wrath of God against everyone who would believe int he future. Are you suggesting that Christ POTENTIALLY died for no one? B/c, if the atonement was only hypothetical, then it actually saves no one, and the believer, through his own belief becomes the finisher of his faith, but no, the bible says Christ the the author and finisher. To suggest that Christ died in vain is UNSPEAKABLE!
Maz,
You can’t try to answer the question, why do some believe and others don’t, by looking at who has and who hasn’t believed…we must let the bible determine why, and i think it clearly says that it is God working.
Why would you continue to pray to God for the salvation of those unbelievers…He can’t really do anything about it according to what you say you believe, He’s already done all He can do.
Jason: Hypothetical? Thats rediculous ofcourse I don’t, but I think you agreed with me that Christ died for the whole world, so He died for everyone…but not everyone is saved. So that must mean He died for some in vain. Yes or no?
Jason: So you are saying that prayer for the lostto come to know the truth is pointless?
Maz,
I said that the grace that is common to all men (rain on the crops of the unjust, every breath taken by the lost) was bought on the cross, that isn’t in vain. But the atonement of men’s souls in particullar was limited by those who God has elected to save; in other words, the sins of only the elect are laid on Crist to be propitiated, or else everyone would be saved. That’s why the atonement is not hypothetical according to Calvinistic/Reformed soteriology. What makes most “non-Calvinistic” views of the atonement hypothetical is that, hypothetically, no one would accept Christ’s sacrifice on their behalf, thus all of His work was in vain. I believe that Christ’s work actually did what He set out to do; it accomplishes that which He came to do, then it is applied to individuals by the Holy Spirit. John 6 and 8
No, I believe prayer for the lost is useful, b/c it is one of the means God uses to bring in all those He has intended to save. So, when I call out to God to save my friend James, I believe that God actually has the power to change James’ heart so he will believe and be saved.
In addition, I don’t know if James has been elected by God unto salvation, so I pray. But if he isn’t, if his sins were not put on Christ b/c God had elected to, then obviously, no amount of pray will change that.
Mike,
Does Mark Vanderberg go to Hope?
Jason: ”No, I believe prayer for the lost is useful, b/c it is one of the means God uses to bring in all those He has intended to save. So, when I call out to God to save my friend James, I believe that God actually has the power to change James’ heart so he will believe and be saved.”
If God has chosen them then He wouldn’t need our prayers would He? There are so many question marks for me concerning Calvinist beliefs, and every time I hear something they say I hear something else coming from the Word which does not agree with it.
Again, I can only agree to disagree. And hopefully I shall not be tempted to interject again. (It’s difficult at times but I’l try my best!)
Maz,
Frankly, I see scripture confirm both, that we must pray, and that God has the ability to change the human heart.
Maz … Post 178.
Read what you wrote and then read the entire chapter of Romans 9 (below) as a continual thought and line of argumentation. You will not be able to reconcile it with Post 178 and I mean this with respect.
I know it doesn’t sit well with our sinful hearts and I would confirm as Paul does this rubs my flesh the wrong way, but I cannot argue with God’s word. Even when I don’t particularly like it. Although I have found when He teaches me these things, after I get past my flesh, His truths are wonderful. They magnify our brother … The LORD JESUS CHRIST … How wondrous is that, that we should be called brothers and children!
He gives grace to those He chooses and not according to them, but according to His own purpose and will and pleasure.
In other words if He didn’t effect us (call us give us a free gift (look up the definition of gift - there is a reason this word is used) we would all choose separation from God and Hell. No one would choose God. As it is He has chosen to effect many for His good pleasure and as Jason pointed out gives common graces to all. This is why we can be so utterly thankful or we would be in the same boat as those who choose by there own will to separate themselves from their maker and put themselves under His condemnation.
Romans 9
I am speaking the truth in Christ—I am not lying; my conscience bears me witness in the Holy Spirit— that I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, my kinsmen according to the flesh. They are Israelites, and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises. To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen.
But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but “Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.” This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring. For this is what the promise said: “About this time next year I will return, and Sarah shall have a son.” And not only so, but also when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls— she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”
What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God’s part? By no means! For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.
You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory— even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles? As indeed he says in Hosea,
“Those who were not my people I will call ‘my people,’
and her who was not beloved I will call ‘beloved.’”
“And in the very place where it was said to them, ‘You are not my people,’
there they will be called ’sons of the living God.’”
And Isaiah cries out concerning Israel: “Though the number of the sons of Israel be as the sand of the sea, only a remnant of them will be saved, for the Lord will carry out his sentence upon the earth fully and without delay.” And as Isaiah predicted,
“If the Lord of hosts had not left us offspring,
we would have been like Sodom
and become like Gomorrah.”
What shall we say, then? That Gentiles who did not pursue righteousness have attained it, that is, a righteousness that is by faith; but that Israel who pursued a law that would lead to righteousness did not succeed in reaching that law. Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as if it were based on works. They have stumbled over the stumbling stone, as it is written,
“Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense;
and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame.”
Maz …
Christ’s righteousness and death in the place of sinners were sufficient for all, but not efficacious for all. So the answer to your question is, No. Nothing our God does is in Vain for those who take God at His word that He foreknew and predestined and called and justified and sanctifies and glorifies. It is only from the Armenian stand point that the Christ could have died in vain in some sense.
Yes we should pray. One it is commanded of us and secondly we don’t know the beginning from the end. Our Lord sees all things. We don’t.
Very good discussion! I am out. Have a great Lord’s day!
Jason ….
I have been reading your posts … outstanding … I couldn’t have said it as well. Particularly post 177 and the follow ups to responses.
I think it then becomes extraordinarily simple for the reformed person to look at an infant (and I intend that to be from conception) that has died and say that God has elected and appointed as many as He has chosen to eternal life. This may be all or it may be many, or it may be few but it is this simple. If he has chosen them according to His good pleasure, then they are our brothers and sisters in Christ and we will rejoice with them in heaven. If He has not predestined them to be called then they hate our glorious God by nature and they are not our brothers and sisters in Christ. Who do we love more our true family or our earthly family? Our faithful, merciful, wondrous, creator or a lost child. My wife and I lost a child. And if that child was one of the Lord’s chosen …. praise the Lord…. if not … praise the Lord… because my love for my God, given to me by God the Holy Spirit, is much greater than my love of my off spring. I don’t want those who the Lord has not chosen to mar his Glory and I would be in the same boat if He hadn’t worked in my life. Think of Abraham …. He demonstrated this very point by God working in Him. Not only was it foreshadowing of a far greater love, an infinite love, it demonstrated that our love is first and foremost to our God. As Jesus pointed out He came to bring the sword and dividing (Matthew 10:34-39 and 12:46-50), and this could give clearer understanding of that hate of which God directed at Esau. We have been separated and are of a different family even though we don’t know who is among that family.
Actually Jared I agree with you #196.
I am out too, permanently (here anyway).
Happy Day! Happy Day! When Jesus washed my sins away!
I so want others to experience that too! We must keep praying and preaching!