Donations for the month of October


We have received a total of "$0" in donations towards our goal of $175.


Don't want to use PayPal? Go HERE


Forum Search
Member Spotlight
Readin
Readin
Colorado, USA
Posts: 23
Joined: August 2008
Forum Statistics
Forums30
Topics7,293
Posts53,234
Members964
Most Online523
Jan 14th, 2020
Top Posters
Pilgrim 14,038
Tom 4,042
chestnutmare 3,086
J_Edwards 2,615
Wes 1,856
John_C 1,818
RJ_ 1,583
MarieP 1,579
gotribe 1,060
Top Posters(30 Days)
Pilgrim 19
Tom 7
Robin 4
Readin 2
Ruben 1
Meta4 1
Recent Posts
Your opinion please
by Robin - Mon Oct 18, 2021 8:08 PM
True of False
by NetChaplain - Mon Oct 18, 2021 6:33 PM
Natural Theology
by Pilgrim - Sun Oct 17, 2021 6:10 AM
Mandatory Vaccines
by Robin - Sun Oct 17, 2021 5:21 AM
Progressive Christianity
by Readin - Sun Oct 17, 2021 1:39 AM
Obstinate Learner
by NetChaplain - Fri Oct 15, 2021 2:21 PM
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Hop To
Page 4 of 5 1 2 3 4 5
#15621 Tue Jul 06, 2004 12:25 AM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,040
Likes: 11
Head Honcho
Offline
Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,040
Likes: 11
koreahog2005,

Long post but unfortunately it is contains some serious errors. The one in particular which I am wanting to point out to you is: "Blood Illustration #2 (Five-point Calvinistic). I don't know where you are getting such erroneous information from, but I would suggest you find another source. That section is woefully inaccurate and does not represent what classic Calvinism teaches concerning the sufficiency/efficiency of Christ's atonement.

And "Blood Illustration #3 (Modified Calvinistic) is a misnomer... it has little in common with Calvinism at all. It's semi-Pelagianism, if anything. That view denies the very definition of the deity of God; Omnipotence, Omniscience, and Omnipresence.

However, to discuss this with you would be [Linked Image] Thus if you would like to continue with this new topic, then please begin a new thread. [Linked Image]

In His Grace,


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]
#15622 Tue Jul 06, 2004 12:37 AM
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,579
Veteran
Offline
Veteran
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,579
Quote
Actually, I didn’t make an exception for infants in terms of grace. They are saved by grace just like other elect people.

Um, yes you did...

Quote
Infants dying in infancy and severely mentally handicapped people never reach a particular chonological age that would be designated as the age of accountability or age of responsibility.

And here too...

Quote
Obviously, infants dying in infancy cannot act in a morally significant way that would lead to their condemnation.


True godliness is a sincere feeling which loves God as Father as much as it fears and reverences Him as Lord, embraces His righteousness, and dreads offending Him worse than death~ Calvin
#15623 Tue Jul 06, 2004 12:38 AM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,040
Likes: 11
Head Honcho
Offline
Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,040
Likes: 11
koreahog2005,

FYI, the "funny stuff" should be posted in "The Lighter Side" forum, not here.

You admit that ALL, infants included are liable to judgment unless they are saved by grace, aka: elected to salvation. We therefore agree on that much.

I then asked you to show me your biblical evidence where all infants dying in infancy are elect. And all you offer in reply is:


Why is the onus on me and not you?



Could you please include chapter and verse where that passage can be found? Surely you don't expect anyone here to accept that as biblical proof, do you? I mean, one could posit that all black females between the years of two and four who live on Long Island, N.Y. are elect and thus are saved, just as easily. And then one could ask for biblical proof that they are not. Now.... can you supply biblical evidence to show that "all infants dying in infancy" are saved or can you not? Since by admission, ALL are under condemnation, then the "exception" of GRACE is the only way in which anyone, including this class of humans can be saved. So, where is your biblical proof that God has decreed that this class of the human race is elect? Again..... "Where's the beef?"

In His Grace,


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]
#15624 Tue Jul 06, 2004 12:42 AM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 67
Enthusiast
Offline
Enthusiast
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 67
I really wonder why you even bother referring to yourself as a Calvinist as your view certainly is not classic Calvinism. Modified Arminianism might be a better definition.
By the way, this is considered a Calvinist (Reformed) board, so you need not patronize us with your definitions. I think we are all quite clear on Calvinism and soteriology


[Linked Image]
MarieP #15625 Tue Jul 06, 2004 12:43 AM
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
SemperReformanda (Marie), I like your name. Does it mean “always reformed”?

You said, “God doesn't save people with ‘potential blood.’ Jesus did not ‘potentially’ shed His blood. God doesn't have to provide for things that ‘potentially can happen,’ as God has no Plan B.”

I agree with you that God doesn’t save people with potential blood and that Jesus did not potentially shed His blood. I also agree with you that God doesn’t have to provide for things that potentially can happen. He knows exactly what will happen in the actual world. God does, however, have knowledge of how things could and would happen under non-actual circumstances. An instance of this is found in 1 Samuel 23:10-13:

“Then David said, ‘O LORD God of Israel, Thy servant has heard for certain that Saul is seeking to come to Keilah to destroy the city on my account. Will the men of Keilah surrender me into his hand? Will Saul come down just as Thy servant has heard? O LORD God of Israel, I pray, tell Thy servant.’ And the LORD said, ‘He will come down.’ Then David said, ‘Will the men of Keilah surrender me and my men into the hand of Saul?’ And the LORD said, ‘They will surrender you.’ Then David and his men, about six hundred, arose and departed from Keilah, and they went wherever they could go. When it was told Saul that David had escaped from Keilah, he gave up the pursuit.”

God knew exactly what would happen in the actual world. He knew that David would leave Keilah before Saul arrived. God also knew exactly what would happen under non-actual circumstances where David did not leave Keilah before Saul arrived.

You said, “The fact of particular redemption does not mean that the gospel should not be preached to all mankind.” When we preach the gospel, we offer it to everyone in the audience. We don’t know who is elect and who is non-elect. God does not prevent a non-elect person from surrendering to Jesus in repentance and faith. Jesus blood is potentially available to cover that non-elect person’s sins. God knows, however, that the non-elect person would never surrender to Jesus under any circumstances, actual or non-actual. Thus, God only provided enough blood to cover the sins of the elect.

RefDoc #15626 Tue Jul 06, 2004 12:46 AM
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
RefDoc, I apologize for offending you. I do refer to myself as a modified Calvinist. I did not intentionally try to sound patronizing. Again, I apologize.

MarieP #15627 Tue Jul 06, 2004 12:49 AM
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
I said "in terms of grace." I don't think I made an exception for them in terms of grace.

#15628 Tue Jul 06, 2004 12:59 AM
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,579
Veteran
Offline
Veteran
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,579
Quote
God does, however, have knowledge of how things could and would happen under non-actual circumstances.

Yes, I agree, but what does that have to do with the extent of the Atonement?

Quote
God does not prevent a non-elect person from surrendering to Jesus in repentance and faith. Jesus blood is potentially available to cover that non-elect person’s sins. God knows, however, that the non-elect person would never surrender to Jesus under any circumstances, actual or non-actual. Thus, God only provided enough blood to cover the sins of the elect.

But where in Scripture does it say that Christ's blood is "potentially available"? That sounds like Arminian thinking to me.

Also, people do not and cannot seek after Christ unless they were chosen by God before the foundation of the world. God sovereignly regenerates the hearts of the elect, drawing them to Himself and granting them the gifts of repentance and faith. And when I say elect, I do not mean they were elected due to whether or not they would be willing to accept Christ. They were elected solely based upon the good pleasure and will of God.


True godliness is a sincere feeling which loves God as Father as much as it fears and reverences Him as Lord, embraces His righteousness, and dreads offending Him worse than death~ Calvin
#15629 Tue Jul 06, 2004 1:04 AM
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,579
Veteran
Offline
Veteran
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,579
I don't think it was a matter of "offending" RefDoc. I think it was a matter of us noting how you disagree on some of the core doctrines of Calvinism.

Why do you call yourself a "modified Calvinist"? What parts of Calvinism have you not modified?


True godliness is a sincere feeling which loves God as Father as much as it fears and reverences Him as Lord, embraces His righteousness, and dreads offending Him worse than death~ Calvin
#15630 Tue Jul 06, 2004 1:11 AM
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,579
Veteran
Offline
Veteran
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,579
It sounded to me like you did. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you believe that there is an "age of accountability" when we are held responsible for sin, right? I would disagree with an "age of accountability" because I believe that we all are born under the curse of sin and receive the punishment we deserve unless God sovereignly saves us by His grace. I do not believe all infants dying in infancy, or all mentally disabled people for that matter, are elect. I do not believe God has any obligation to save all infants dying in infancy, or all mentally handicapped individuals, which proponents of your view seem to believe.


True godliness is a sincere feeling which loves God as Father as much as it fears and reverences Him as Lord, embraces His righteousness, and dreads offending Him worse than death~ Calvin
Pilgrim #15631 Tue Jul 06, 2004 1:12 AM
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
Pilgrim, you asked for Scriptural evidence that all infants dying in infancy are elect. I don’t think there is one passage that clearly states such. I have already mentioned some relevant passages, but here’s another:

Millard Erickson, 2002 president of the Evangelical Theological Society, gave an example of an infant who died but would be seen again in heaven: “David had confidence that he would again see his child who had died (2 Sam. 12:23).”

(Millard Erickson, Christian Theology, page 654)

Robert Bergen, Associate Professor of Old Testament at Hannibal-LaGrange College in Hannibal, Missouri, agreed with Erickson’s interpretation: “Though David was now bereft of his son, the separation would be only temporary. There is to be heard a note of consolation in David’s words ‘I will go to him.’”

(Robert D. Bergen, “1, 2 Samuel,” The New American Commentary, ed. E. Ray Clendenen, vol 7, page 376)

The famous radio preacher J. Vernon McGee also commented on this passage:

“David knew that the little baby was saved. He said, ‘I will go to him someday.’
David knew that when death came to him, he would be reunited with his son.
A child dying in infancy goes to be with the Lord. Matthew 18:10 says, ‘Take
heed that ye depise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you, That in heaven
their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven.’ The word
angels in this verse should be translated ‘spirits.’ When a little baby dies today,
that baby goes immediately to be with the Lord. That is the teaching of the Word
of God.”

(J. Vernon McGee, “1 & 2 Samuel,” Thru the Bible Commentary Series, vol. 12, page 243)

You said, “And "Blood Illustration #3 (Modified Calvinistic) is a misnomer... it has little in common with Calvinism at all. It's semi-Pelagianism, if anything. That view denies the very definition of the deity of God; Omnipotence, Omniscience, and Omnipresence.”

I don’t see how it denies God’s omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence. God knows everything about everything, including non-actual, imagined circumstances. God has always known that non-elect people would refuse to surrender to Him in repentance and faith under any circumstances in any imagined world. The Westminster confession says that His knowledge is infinite. It also says the following: “Although God knows whatsoever may or can come to pass upon all supposed conditions; yet has He not decreed anything because He foresaw it as future, or as that which would come to pass upon such conditions.” I agree with this statement. Notice that it mentions all “supposed” conditions.

MarieP #15632 Tue Jul 06, 2004 1:17 AM
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
I agree with total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement (as I define it), and perseverance of the saints. So, it would probably be accurate to refer to me as a four-point Calvinist or a modified Calvinist.

MarieP #15633 Tue Jul 06, 2004 1:20 AM
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
To all: Can we pick this up again tomorrow? Yall have kept me busy, but it's been a good learning experience.

#15634 Tue Jul 06, 2004 1:21 AM
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,579
Veteran
Offline
Veteran
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,579
So you don't believe in efficacious grace, then. Why don't you believe this, and, could you give us an idea of what "definition" of efficacious grace you are rejecting?


True godliness is a sincere feeling which loves God as Father as much as it fears and reverences Him as Lord, embraces His righteousness, and dreads offending Him worse than death~ Calvin
#15635 Tue Jul 06, 2004 1:22 AM
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,579
Veteran
Offline
Veteran
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,579
I should go to bed too. Good night.


True godliness is a sincere feeling which loves God as Father as much as it fears and reverences Him as Lord, embraces His righteousness, and dreads offending Him worse than death~ Calvin
Page 4 of 5 1 2 3 4 5

Link Copied to Clipboard
Who's Online Now
0 members (), 87 guests, and 15 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
atdcross, NetChaplain, winslowlady, Zach, Daverogk
964 Registered Users
ShoutChat
Comment Guidelines: Do post respectful and insightful comments. Don't flame, hate, spam.
October
S M T W T F S
1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31
Today's Birthdays
timothy
Popular Topics(Views)
1,292,467 Gospel truth