The Highway Forums General Discussion Open Forum Choosen and Children

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 Thus if you would like to continue with this new topic, then please begin a new thread.

In His Grace,

Um, yes you did...


And here too...

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,

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

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, 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.

I said "in terms of grace." I don't think I made an exception for them in terms of grace.

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


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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

To all: Can we pick this up again tomorrow? Yall have kept me busy, but it's been a good learning experience.

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?

I should go to bed too. Good night.