Does Calvinism limit God?

[godrulz]

Originally posted by John Reformed

Which of his hereseys do you agree with (Aside from the supposed innonency of Adams seed)?




Your rejection of "original sin" puts you on the outside both of those camps.




It is typical of free willists to view salvation as the ultimate conclusion of God's work of creation. But it is not; It is the penultimate! The ultimate is the glory which He shall recieve from His creatures and the creation itself.

It is my contention that Open Theism, as well as all seriously flawed theologies, diminish that glory due Him. They do so by forcing the Scripture to say other than it actually does. You would have us to believe that God, Omniscient and Omnipresent, is ignorant of things that are yet to occur; That He is limited by the unknown!

I am happy to say that my God is greater than I can think or imagine. His ways are not my ways and His thoughts are infinitely higher than my own. It is a pity that you are striving to create an image of God that will appeal to human vanity.

I'm sure that your theology would have been well recieved at the Acropolis. He would fit in with the rest of the crowd on Mount Olympus.

I have tempered my thoughts in the hope that you will not be provoked by them. I believe you are well-meaning, but, decieved by the spirit of this age.

John

If Open Theism, properly understood, is not based on Scripture, it should be scorned.

The nature of time, eternity, free will, foreknowledge are not fully developed in Scripture...cf. the exact mechanism of the incarnation, kenosis, atonement, triune God, creation, eschatology, etc. Some areas of theology have been debated for centuries because godly reasoning and biblical philosophy are needed to flesh out precise insights.

If you are dogmatic on the exact way the eternal God interacts with creatures in space-time, you are ignorant of the complexity of the issues. Great, godly minds often view things from different, conflicting perspectives (note the 1000s of denominations). Many key doctrines have several theories with possible merit. These are non-salvific issues at times, but important and divisive.

Augustine, Calvin, etc. were influenced by philosophies that were not always biblical and godly e.g. Greek philosophical influences like Philo or Plato.

We agree on the essentials. ..Deity of Christ, triune God, salvation by faith vs works, etc. Open Theism does not rob God of His glory when fully understood. It upholds all His great attributes and character.

 

[John Reformed]

Originally posted by godrulz

Have you read the volumes of his writings, including 'Systematic Theology"? or are you going by anti-Finney Calvinistic writings?

I thought so...

By sanctification being a condition of justification, the following things are intended:
(1.) That present, full, and entire consecration of heart and life to God and His service, is an unalterable condition of present pardon of past sin, and of present acceptance with God. (2.) That the penitent soul remains justified no longer than this full-hearted consecration continues. If he falls from his first love into the spirit of self-pleasing, he falls again into bondage to sin and to the law, is condemned, and must repent and do his "first work," must turn to Christ, and renew his faith and love, as a condition of his salvation. . . . (Charles Finney)

Finney damns himself by his own words. He flatly rejected justification by faith alone, by adding the self-consecration of the believer. Yes God saves us, but the rest depends on the work of man. A doctrine roundly denied by God's Word.

Sounds alot like romanism...does'nt it?

 

[godrulz]

SWORD:
Who's will? God's or man's? (why Lucifer/Adam sinned)

Rulz: Adam= his own God-given will to chose life or death (trees, remember?)

Lucifer= neither...Lucifer's own will to chose God or pride/self.


It is not God's will for angels or man to rebel. The possibility of love relationships inherently includes the possibility of hate, selfishness, or rebellion (with consequences that God had to mitigate after the fact= redemption provision for man, not Satan).

Creation was 'very good' and then free moral agents messed it up. This was not God's will or doing.





Sword: And you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins, in which you once walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience, among whom also we all once conducted ourselves in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, just as the others.

And no, this wasn't a quote by Augustine, it was from Paul the apostle to the church of Ephesus chapter 2 verses 1-3.

Rulz: We were by nature objects of His wrath...this does not refer to newborn babies, but those who eventually formed a fleshly nature by wrong moral choices. Paul is talking about the unbelievers who rebelled against God and sinned by living for the flesh. This is explicit in the context (read it carefully). You would be reading a pre-conceived theology of Adamic sin and original sin in babies back into this passage with no hermeneutical reason to do so. John talked about believers and unbelievers in Christ and their respective destinies. Jesus said let the children come to him. Scripture does not condemn babies (few believe babies go to hell), but those who willfully reject the Gospel and moral light that they have.




Sword: So why do we all chose sin over God? Can we control it? Does sin seem to have a natural feeling to us, or is it just a mere arbitrary choice to commit on our part? And furthermore, why is it so hard for us to stop sinning?

Rulz: We do have a bent toward sin that is not causative. The reality is that we all fall short of the glory of God, because we all selfishly and stupidly chose to go our own way. This is a universal fact, but is not a foregone conclusion (Lucifer and Adam did not have to blow it, but they did). It is not an arbitrary choice, but a willful choice that we are accountable for. Every wrong choice and giving into the flesh makes it easier to compromise and form bondages in our lives. This is the experience of all sex, drug, alcohol, cigarette addicts, thieves, murderers, lusters, etc. These choices lead to habits, addictions, bondages, patterns that are nearly impossible to break (though many unbelievers do so on their own or with help).

If believers have the Spirit of Christ and the Word of God, we can starve the flesh and live in the Spirit as Scripture exhorts us to do, by obedient choices and surrender to God. Even Christians struggle with old habits (some are set free instantly, while others wrestle with the old life for years).

The bottom line is that whether we sin because we are sinners or are sinners because we sin, we need a Savior and cannot save or sanctify ourselves.

A theology that does not include love, obedience, repentance, choice, the power of God, the Word of God, etc. is incomplete i.e. relationship is not unilateral, we are to be holy as He is holy, He will transform us, but not without our involvement...

e.g. Job made a covenant with His eyes to not look lustfully on a woman. God did not remove all women from his path, nor did he force him to never have a bad thought (cf. godly King David and Bathsheba, Samson, etc.). I WILL praise the Lord. God's will is not the only factor in the universe. We work out our salvation that He graces us with. We have a responsibility, as does God.

 

[godrulz]

Originally posted by John Reformed

By sanctification being a condition of justification, the following things are intended:
(1.) That present, full, and entire consecration of heart and life to God and His service, is an unalterable condition of present pardon of past sin, and of present acceptance with God. (2.) That the penitent soul remains justified no longer than this full-hearted consecration continues. If he falls from his first love into the spirit of self-pleasing, he falls again into bondage to sin and to the law, is condemned, and must repent and do his "first work," must turn to Christ, and renew his faith and love, as a condition of his salvation. . . . (Charles Finney)

Finney damns himself by his own words. He flatly rejected justification by faith alone, by adding the self-consecration of the believer. Yes God saves us, but the rest depends on the work of man. A doctrine roundly denied by God's Word.

Sounds alot like romanism...does'nt it?

One quote a theology does not make.

Finney was squarely in the Protestant tradition of justification by faith in Christ alone. He rejected Romanism as much as some aspects of Calvinism. What he did not believe in is unconditional eternal security (once saved always saved). Like the millions of other Arminians, we believe in conditional eternal security. We must repent, obey, trust, love, and CONTINUE in the faith (contra TULIP). If we sever the relationship through persistent rebellion, hatred/renunciation of God, willful, ongoing significant sin, we show that we are not believers but have returned to the camp of the reprobate and worthy of wrath instead of mercy. e.g. Judas, Charles Templeton, and many others who once knew and loved God, but died at enmity with Him.

If salvation is a relationship, it must be entered into and maintained (realm of morals and love). If it is a physical change (realm of metaphysics), then conceivably one could be saved indefinitely despite living like the devil?!

 

[lee_merrill]

Hi Godrulz,

You guys have been busy! I shall content myself with one point...

When we are babies we act like the King. Everyone and everything caters to us because we dependent and self-centered.

But then, I think this makes them sinful:

RO 2:8 But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger.

Certainly not conciously sinful, but sinful nonetheless:

PS 51:5 Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.

Augustine, Calvin, etc. were influenced by philosophies that were not always biblical and godly e.g. Greek philosophical influences like Philo or Plato.

Augustine and Calvin were not perfect, that is true. Neither are we. Neither am I! Still learning here...

By the way, we will all agree eventually! Something to bear in mind...

PHP 3:15 And if on some point you think differently, that too God will make clear to you.

Blessings,
Lee

 

[godrulz]

Lee, I appreciate your good spirit and heart.

To be cupable, blameworthy, and sinful, we would have to willfully sin. A young baby is not morally aware nor responsible. His need for protection, food, sleep, diaper changes, etc. are not in the realm of morals. These are legitimate needs that a responsible Creator (God) and co-creator (parent) must look after since they cannot on their own.

My suggestion was that as time goes on, King Self continues to live a self-centered life in the flesh and it eventually does become sinful since we knowingly move into sins (not just legit physical needs) and put ourselves ahead of God and others (selfish vs love) in thought, word, and deed. i.e. the case between a new born and Hitler is not parallel. cf. a 20 year old mentally handicapped person from birth who may not have moral faculties like an Oxford scholar should.

Ps. 51:5 has been used as a proof text for original sin. Psalms are not didactic (teaching) passages. I believe this is a Hebrew idiom meaning that the Psalmist was sinful from as long as he can remember, and not literally born with Adamic sin (Augustine's/Catholic's Federal Headship Theory...not necessarily a fact).

The Psalmist did not literally lie, steal, murder, lust, hate, etc. as a 10 pound baby, did he? Sin is a wrong moral choice/lawlessness and requires a minimum of mental and moral maturity, or there is no intent or culpability. Sin is not a substance lodged in our genes (metaphysics). If it was, we would not be held accountable or responsible. It is in the realm of morals and choice, as evidenced by the majority of didactic or historical narrative descriptions of sin in the Bible.


I would check the literal Hebrew also. Translations tend to smuggle in preconceived theologies...e.g. NIV wrongly translates 'flesh' as 'sinful nature (original sin)' in the NT.

Ps. 71:6 uses a similar idiom "From my birth I have relied on you..." The one day old Psalmist did not actively pray at birth on literally rely on God. He recognized God's providence through his parents, but from a young age He personally did rely on God.

v.17 "...since my youth...you have taught me..."

(He could have used the 'from birth' idiom here and we would understand that his mind was not taught in a fruitful way until he had the mental or moral capacity to understand...God does not hold babies responsible since they do not actively reject or hate him...being hungry is not a sin like fornication).

 

[Z Man]

Originally posted by godrulz

Have you read the volumes of his writings, including 'Systematic Theology"?

No. I don't need to in order to make the obvious observation that I've made already.

or are you going by anti-Finney Calvinistic writings?

No. Can't say I've ever read anything like that before.

Most of the time, I just use plain 'ol Scripture to support my claims. It never fails.

 

[John Reformed]

Originally posted by godrulz

One quote a theology does not make.

Finney was squarely in the Protestant tradition of justification by faith in Christ alone. He rejected Romanism as much as some aspects of Calvinism. What he did not believe in is unconditional eternal security (once saved always saved). Like the millions of other Arminians, we believe in conditional eternal security. We must repent, obey, trust, love, and CONTINUE in the faith (contra TULIP). If we sever the relationship through persistent rebellion, hatred/renunciation of God, willful, ongoing significant sin, we show that we are not believers but have returned to the camp of the reprobate and worthy of wrath instead of mercy. e.g. Judas, Charles Templeton, and many others who once knew and loved God, but died at enmity with Him.

If salvation is a relationship, it must be entered into and maintained (realm of morals and love). If it is a physical change (realm of metaphysics), then conceivably one could be saved indefinitely despite living like the devil?!

You have confirmed my contention that your doctrine "conditional eternal security" is nothing but recycled romanism; Faith + Works. Poor, weak god. He does his best...but, sadly, it is often not enough. He trys to save, but is helpless in the face of human resistance.

Well my friend, that is not the God I worship! My God is almighty and accomplishes all His good pleasure. His works are perfect!

Your god's will is constantly being frustrated. All he can do is hope that his creatures will be loyal.

Pitiful and nauseating! Man on the Throne!

 

[Z Man]

Originally posted by godrulz

Like the millions of other Arminians, we believe in conditional eternal security. We must repent, obey, trust, love, and CONTINUE in the faith (contra TULIP). If we sever the relationship through persistent rebellion, hatred/renunciation of God, willful, ongoing significant sin, we show that we are not believers but have returned to the camp of the reprobate and worthy of wrath instead of mercy. e.g. Judas, Charles Templeton, and many others who once knew and loved God, but died at enmity with Him.

1 John 2:19
Little children, it is the last hour; and as you have heard that the Antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come, by which we know that it is the last hour. They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest, that none of them were of us.

But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and you know all things. I have not written to you because you do not know the truth, but because you know it, and that no lie is of the truth. Who is a liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist who denies the Father and the Son. Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father either; he who acknowledges the Son has the Father also. Therefore let that abide in you which you heard from the beginning. If what you heard from the beginning abides in you, you also will abide in the Son and in the Father. And this is the promise that He has promised us--ETERNAL LIFE.


Those who forsake God and the church whom they had proclaimed to believe in never truely believed in any of it to begin with. That's why they left. BTW, Judas was never saved. He was doomed from the get-go:


John 17:12
While I was with them in the world, I kept them in Your name. Those whom You gave Me I have kept; and none of them is lost except the son of perdition, that the Scripture might be fulfilled.

If salvation is a relationship, it must be entered into and maintained (realm of morals and love). If it is a physical change (realm of metaphysics), then conceivably one could be saved indefinitely despite living like the devil?!

If God saves us, He's not going to just abrubtly stop sanctifying us, working us unto salvation.

Philippians 1:6
...being confident of this very thing, that He who has begun a good work in you will complete it until the day of Jesus Christ;

 

[godrulz]

For the record, we serve and love the same triune God revealed in Jesus.

The end result is the same in both our views. Millions will perish grieving the Father heart of God. So why is my God impotent and yours so powerful if His desire that none perish, do perish? (II Peter)
Your view wrongly slanders God and makes it His good will and pleasure to see some of His creation share the same destiny as the devil and demons and evil men. My view correctly recognizes that it is a possible consequence of creating a universe with genuine love and freedom, rather than a unilateral dictator who arbitrarily picks some and rejects others without truth and holiness.

Conditional eternal security has nothing to do with faith + works. It rightly recognizes that some with faith, can later reject their first love and join the camp of unbelievers again (i.e. reject Jesus Christ and the Gospel). This is only to do with faith and unbelief, not works. All Protestants (Calvinists, Arminians, Open Theists) support the Reformation truth that we are saved by grace/faith, and not by works. Your thoughts are not normative since most Calvinistic scholars do not equate the non-TULIP Arminians as denying faith/grace and becoming Romanists. Rejection of OSAS (once saved always saved) does not logically lead to salvation by faith + works (which Romans and Galatians obviously condemns).

My answer to why all are not saved is that Lucifer, Adam, and all men had the opportunity to know, love, and enjoy God forever. Anyone who does not, has rejected the Creator to live for Self with the expected consequences(laid out by God).

Your solution is to explain it as being God's mysterious will to only chose the 'elect', only die for the 'elect', irresistibly save and keep the 'elect'. This is far more problematic in light of the revelation of God's character, ways, and nature of creation in the Bible.

Yes, God's will in individual's lives can be frustrated. This was the chosen risk of making us humans in the image of God. The alternative would be to make a bunch of controlled robots without love or freedom. This would be a weaker, lesser god who could not handle the complexity and contingencies of a universe populated with billions of free will moral agents.

My view of God ascribes greatness and glory to Him. It does not make Him responsible for the horrific evil on the planet. Despite the lunacy of what man has done, God is still able (due to His omnicompetence) to bring history and redemption to a glorious consummation.

I cannot respect a view that attributes evil and the perishing of precious souls to the wisdom, will, heart, and mind of Almighty God. To denigrate the opposite view that is defensible from Scripture as a false, puny god is disingenuous and an example of blindly being locked into a preconceived theology with no understanding of its problems.

God is on the Throne of the universe. This does not mean He meticulously controls everything as His will making Him responsible for things that Satan and man are culpable for. God was not on the throne of Hitler's life when he slaughtered millions of Jews and other people (the devil and 'man' were on his throne).

Give your head a shake, man.

 

[godrulz]

ZMAN:

Actually, Judas was saved. Jesus would not pray for wisdom from the Father and chose a demon possessed person (in the end) to be in His trusted inner circle.

Certainly there can be a case of mistaken identity for some people. They fell away because they never were genuine, regenerate believers. Anecdotally and Scripturally, this does not explain all people. Some with genuine faith have apostasized as Scripture warns about (Hebrews).

I understand your proof texts, but these are also persuasively used and taught by Arminians who also wrestle with other verses you did not mention that teach the possibility of a dog returning to its vomit.

I John 2 deals with those who deceive and were deceived. They did not know Christ or turned their back on Him. It deals with the heretics and hypocrites in the church.

Jn. 17 Jesus did keep the disciples, including weak Peter, but it was Judas himself that left the fold. This was not predestined from all eternity. Once he rebelled against Christ, He was lost and given over to Satan. This was not God's will and plan.

Phil. 1:6 and Jude 24,25 are true but you cannot ignore other passages that have an element of conditionality i.e. IF you abide...if you obey...if you persevere to the end, you will be saved. God will enable and keep those who are willing to love and submit to Him. If they leave His grace, the promises will not apply. Paul had confidence in the Philippians steadfastness, but other verses in the book supported the idea that they must be faithful and responsive to the work of the Spirit. Other believers, like the Corinthians, were warned about the need to get their acts together for God's promises to be effectual in bringing them to glory. If you resist or disdain the Spirit's work to save and sanctify, you risk loss and death. Salvation and sanctification are not portrayed as unilateral acts of God, but require or cooperation and obedience. All of theology is not compressed into a verse taken out of context becoming a proof text (ignoring the explicit teachings of other equally valid verses).

 

[John Reformed]

Originally posted by godrulz

For the record, we serve and love the same triune God revealed in Jesus.

The end result is the same in both our views. Millions will perish grieving the Father heart of God. So why is my God impotent and yours so powerful if His desire that none perish, do perish? (II Peter)
Your view wrongly slanders God and makes it His good will and pleasure to see some of His creation share the same destiny as the devil and demons and evil men. My view correctly recognizes that it is a possible consequence of creating a universe with genuine love and freedom, rather than a unilateral dictator who arbitrarily picks some and rejects others without truth and holiness.

Conditional eternal security has nothing to do with faith + works. It rightly recognizes that some with faith, can later reject their first love and join the camp of unbelievers again (i.e. reject Jesus Christ and the Gospel). This is only to do with faith and unbelief, not works. All Protestants (Calvinists, Arminians, Open Theists) support the Reformation truth that we are saved by grace/faith, and not by works. Your thoughts are not normative since most Calvinistic scholars do not equate the non-TULIP Arminians as denying faith/grace and becoming Romanists. Rejection of OSAS (once saved always saved) does not logically lead to salvation by faith + works (which Romans and Galatians obviously condemns).

My answer to why all are not saved is that Lucifer, Adam, and all men had the opportunity to know, love, and enjoy God forever. Anyone who does not, has rejected the Creator to live for Self with the expected consequences(laid out by God).

Your solution is to explain it as being God's mysterious will to only chose the 'elect', only die for the 'elect', irresistibly save and keep the 'elect'. This is far more problematic in light of the revelation of God's character, ways, and nature of creation in the Bible.

Yes, God's will in individual's lives can be frustrated. This was the chosen risk of making us humans in the image of God. The alternative would be to make a bunch of controlled robots without love or freedom. This would be a weaker, lesser god who could not handle the complexity and contingencies of a universe populated with billions of free will moral agents.

My view of God ascribes greatness and glory to Him. It does not make Him responsible for the horrific evil on the planet. Despite the lunacy of what man has done, God is still able (due to His omnicompetence) to bring history and redemption to a glorious consummation.

I cannot respect a view that attributes evil and the perishing of precious souls to the wisdom, will, heart, and mind of Almighty God. To denigrate the opposite view that is defensible from Scripture as a false, puny god is disingenuous and an example of blindly being locked into a preconceived theology with no understanding of its problems.

God is on the Throne of the universe. This does not mean He meticulously controls everything as His will making Him responsible for things that Satan and man are culpable for. God was not on the throne of Hitler's life when he slaughtered millions of Jews and other people (the devil and 'man' were on his throne).

Give your head a shake, man.

If you cannot see that your conception of God is inferior God as He is revealed in Scripture...then it is you who are confused my friend.

You claims portray God as weak. For instance: He makes salvation possible, but is ineffectual in the face of human resistance. Even His adopted sons are likely to rebel. He does'nt know what the next moment time will bring. He's mutable and subject to change (a terrifying thought).

To be continued...

 

[lee_merrill]

Hi Godrulz,

Thanks for your reply...

To be culpable, blameworthy, and sinful, we would have to willfully sin.

But how about these verses, though?

LEV 4:22 When a leader sins unintentionally and does what is forbidden in any of the commands of the Lord his God, he is guilty.

PS 19:12 Who can discern his errors? Forgive my hidden faults.

A young baby is not morally aware nor responsible. His need for protection, food, sleep, diaper changes, etc. are not in the realm of morals.

I agree! But selfishness is in that realm, though it is certainly not conscious selfishness. But still a sin, I think.

My suggestion was that as time goes on, King Self continues to live a self-centered life in the flesh and it eventually does become sinful...

But I think Paul says that being self-centered is a sin, that it doesn't become sinful (Rom. 2:8).

Ps. 51:5 has been used as a proof text for original sin. Psalms are not didactic (teaching) passages. I believe this is a Hebrew idiom meaning that the Psalmist was sinful from as long as he can remember, and not literally born with Adamic sin.

The Psalmist did not literally lie, steal, murder, lust, hate, etc. as a 10 pound baby, did he? ...

Several points to cover here! I'll do the best I can...

First, Psalms are for teaching, I would say, because of Jesus' example of using Psalm 110 to make a theological point in Mt. 22:44-45. And I think the Psalmist would have spoken otherwise, if he meant "as long as I remember." Now David in the womb did not lie, steal, etc. as you say. But Psalm 51 is all about his lying, murder, and adultery:

PS 51:4 Against you, you only, have I sinned.

Surely, in the next verse, when he speaks of being sinful, he is continuing to speak of real sinfulness, even at birth, even at conception, I don't think a shift of subject can be argued for here. And also, I don't think it is possible to shift the time specifically mentioned here. Notice too, David's child died, as a judgment. Yet we are told:

DT 24:16 Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their fathers; each is to die for his own sin.

So this child must be said to have died "for his own sin," primarily, though David's sin was involved here, too. I think Dt. 24:16 applies to the death of every man, young and old, we all die because of our sinfulness, which comes because of original sin:

1CO 15:22 For as in Adam all die...

Ps. 71:6 uses a similar idiom "From my birth I have relied on you..." The one day old Psalmist did not actively pray at birth or literally rely on God. He recognized God's providence through his parents, but from a young age He personally did rely on God.

v.17 "...since my youth...you have taught me..."

(He could have used the 'from birth' idiom here and we would understand that his mind was not taught in a fruitful way until he had the mental or moral capacity to understand...God does not hold babies responsible since they do not actively reject or hate him...being hungry is not a sin like fornication).

Certainly being hungry is not a sin. But being apart from God means sinfulness:

PS 58:3 The wicked are estranged from the womb; these who speak lies go astray from birth.

And how about John the Baptist?

LK 1:41 When Elizabeth heard Mary's greeting, the baby leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit.

Here I think John was responding not only to the presence of Mary, but also to the presence of Jesus. He was filled with the Holy Spirit! I believe that infants in the womb can meet and respond to God, though they don't pray with words, they may still indeed rely directly on him:

PS 22:10 From birth I was cast upon you; from my mother's womb you have been my God.

So I think it can be established from Scripture that people can be wicked in the womb, and righteous in the womb, and now we have to sort out the order. First David mentions "sinful at conception," but no verse says "righteous at conception," except for Jesus. Then there are verses such as this one, which seem to also give us the order of these events:

COL 2:13 When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive...

Blessings,
Lee

 

[godrulz]

Col. 2:13 When did God make you alive? When you repented and believd and were baptized, not when you were a baby with no moral choices.

'Sinful nature' is literally 'flesh', not original sin.

He was talking about being born again as a believer. We used to walk after the flesh (as teens, adults certainly), but now we are made alive as we receive Christ.

The Catholic idea of being born again and having original sin dealt with at infant baptism is extra/contra biblical. The Bible teaches believer's baptism and salvation, not infant baptism/salvation.

 

[lee_merrill]

Hi Godrulz,

Col. 2:13 When did God make you alive? When you repented and believd and were baptized, not when you were a baby with no moral choices.

I agree! That's my testimony. I think infants might be able to turn to God too, and have a different testimony.

'Sinful nature' is literally 'flesh', not original sin.

'Tis true that original sin is not mentioned here, or anywhere in the Bible, actually. I think the doctrine does explain how come we all have a sinful nature.

PS 53:1 They are corrupt, and their ways are vile; there is no one who does good.

Infants, I think, are included here, too.

He was talking about being born again as a believer. We used to walk after the flesh (as teens, adults certainly), but now we are made alive as we receive Christ.

Yes to the first part, I would add to the second part, people of any ages.

The Catholic idea of being born again and having original sin dealt with at infant baptism is extra/contra biblical. The Bible teaches believer's baptism and salvation, not infant baptism/salvation.

Quite true! I agree. How about infants being saved, though? Does Col. 3:13 apply to them? Or are they saved already, lose their salvation through sinning later on after they grow up, and get it back again if they repent? If so, how about the verses, that describe people being sinful and wicked from the womb?

I think infants can really meet with God too and respond to him, even in the womb. Thus I'm not meaning infant baptism here...

Blessings,
Lee

 

[godrulz]

A fetus apparently can respond physically to music, his mother, the environment, and God's presence. This is more in the realm of physical (or the spirit in the case of God's presence) considerations. Moral issues (choice, mental capacity, relationships, love, sin, righteousness) involve the mind and will. I am a paramedic and delivered a baby. Trust me, they do not have the capacity to receive or reject Christ with their first breath. They are saved based on provisions in the atonement and their non-rejection of Jesus Christ. They simply are not aware enough nor have the moral capacity yet to sin or obey truth. At some point (differs for everyone), they are morally accountable. This is self-evident. We preach the Gospel to people with mental and moral capacity. There is not an injunction to preach the Gospel to newborns who do not even have a language to comprehend the words of life or death.

So, I would not apply verses directed at a mature audience and extrapolate back to apply it to infants (less than one year old, for e.g.). There is no Scriptural or logical necessity to do this.

The wicked are corrupt. I know this is a stretch for some, but imagine that babies truly are 'innocent' until they start living selfishly (which requires a minimum level of moral and mental capacity). This explains why they do go to heaven (including aborted fetuses) and why we preach the Gospel to those who have ears to hear (which a newborn does not).

 

[lee_merrill]

A fetus apparently can respond physically to music, his mother, the environment, and God's presence. This is more in the realm of physical (or the spirit in the case of God's presence) considerations.

Yes, I agree.

Moral issues (choice, mental capacity, relationships, love, sin, righteousness) involve the mind and will. I am a paramedic and delivered a baby. Trust me, they do not have the capacity to receive or reject Christ with their first breath. They are saved based on provisions in the atonement and their non-rejection of Jesus Christ.

But if babies can make spiritual responses to God, why can't they make a response of trust (Ps. 71:6) or of rejection (Ps. 58:3)? Not all infants respond definitely one way or the other, but I think these verses say that they may.

They simply are not aware enough nor have the moral capacity yet to sin or obey truth. At some point (differs for everyone), they are morally accountable. This is self-evident. We preach the Gospel to people with mental and moral capacity. There is not an injunction to preach the Gospel to newborns who do not even have a language to comprehend the words of life or death.

Nor is it possible to preach to those afflicted with autism, who never are responsive or learn to relate or speak. But I think infants and those who cannot speak or relate are not sinless.

Yes, there is deliberate sinning, and that brings guilt. I think that is what Paul is talking about when he says "sin sprang to life, and I died" (Rom. 7:9). But he wasn't innocent before then. Again, here are some verses about this:

DT 24:16 Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their fathers; each is to die for his own sin.

ISA 48:8 Well do I know how treacherous you are; you were called a rebel from birth.

RO 3:10-13 As it is written: "There is no one righteous, not even one."

The wicked are corrupt. I know this is a stretch for some, but imagine that babies truly are 'innocent' until they start living selfishly (which requires a minimum level of moral and mental capacity). This explains why they do go to heaven (including aborted fetuses) and why we preach the Gospel to those who have ears to hear (which a newborn does not).

But babies aren't unselfish. They are rather intensely selfish, actually. Not consciously or deliberately selfish, but still, the whole world exists to serve them! And selfishness is, as you note, a sin. And even unintentional sin brings guilt:

LEV 4:27 If a member of the community sins unintentionally and does what is forbidden in any of the Lord's commands, he is guilty.

Blessings,
Lee

 

[godrulz]

Does not compute...

Sin is a wrong moral choice. Holiness involves right moral choices. Babies do not make moral choices. Viewing sin as a physical substance at birth is not defensible. Sin is lawlessness, not a birth defect passed on from Adam in the blood.They operate at a level to have their physical needs met. This is not moral selfishness, but legitimate dependency on a care giver for legit. physical needs. This is not a moral issue that is blameworthy. Selfish acts involve the 10 commandments, not loving God or others with our whole hearts, etc. This should not be confused with a baby crying for milk or comfort (not morally selfish, but acts of survival).

Romans 3 confirms that at some point we all become selfish and sinful (universal condemnation). It is not necessary to interpret Romans as saying babies are in view here. The Gospel is not preached for babies (the subject of Paul's discourse is the Gospel in relation to those who are able to receive or reject it...Jews, Gentiles, not fetuses).

 

[Z Man]

Originally posted by godrulz

Your view wrongly slanders God and makes it His good will and pleasure to see some of His creation share the same destiny as the devil and demons and evil men.

Who says God cannot create anything He desires to destroy it, so that His glory is displayed?

WE ARE NOTHING IN THE SIGHT OF GOD! MERE DUST!

We are created beings. That's it! God does as He pleases and will do whatever it takes to exhalt Himself. It's not wrong for Him to damn men. He can do whatever He wants to do to anything and anyone. The universe does not revolve around the creation of mankind. We are not some sort of "marvel" or "miracle" in the eyes of God. The creation of mankind and to make sure we are happy and comfortable is not the ultimate goal of God. Our salvation is not the ultimate goal of God.

The only reason anything and everything exists is for the pleasure and glorification of God Himself.

Yes, God's will in individual's lives can be frustrated.

WHAT NONSENSE! This is evidence that you deny the truth of Scripture!

Job 42:1-2
Then Job answered the Lord: "I know that thou can do all things, and that YOUR WILL CANNOT BE FRUSTRATED".

Is 14:24,27
The Lord of Hosts has sworn: "As I have planned, so shall it be, and as I have purposed, so shall it stand....For the Lord of Hosts has purposed, and who will make it void? His hand is stretched out, and who will turn it back?"

Is 46:9-11
"Remember the former things of old; for I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me, declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done, saying, 'My council shall stand, and I will accomplish all my purpose, calling a bird of prey from the east, the man of my council from a far country. I have spoken, and I will bring it to pass; I have purposed, and I will do it.' "

Is 55:11
"So shall my Word be that goes forth from my mouth; it shall not return to me void, but is shall accomplish that which I purpose, and prosper in the things for which I sent it."

Daniel 4:35
All the inhabitants of the earth are accounted as nothing; and He does according to His will in the host of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth; and none can stay His hand or say to Him, "What are you doing?"

God is still able (due to His omnicompetence) to bring history and redemption to a glorious consummation.

How can He do this without overriding men's "free will"?

I cannot respect a view that attributes evil and the perishing of precious souls to the wisdom, will, heart, and mind of Almighty God.

Then you have just made it clear to all that you hold the creation of mankind and their "free will" at a higher value than the glorification of God. You believe that we are some sort of "special miracle" in the eyes of God, and that His universe revolves around us. His only purpose, according to you, is to please us. You could never imagine a God who thought of Himself more highly than us.

:nono:

 

[godrulz]

It is obviously the pleasure and will of God to redeem ALL men. His sacrifice was not only intended for the 'elect'.

Theology must be theocentric, but that does not mean that we are not the apple of His eye. We are in the image of God with a glorious future.

It does not prove God's glory to damn the majority of people. What a stupid belief. Hell was prepared for the devil and demons. It was never God's intent that men go there. The fact that men do go there is not God's fault...He has done everything possible to avert this. It is MAN'S Fault! This does not make God impotent nor man supreme. You must eliminate the heart of the Bible to cling to a theology that only recognizes God's will in the universe. He joyfully created other moral agents with genuine freedom. It takes freedom to drive a car. To ascribe this to God's meticulous control is unnecessary and absurd and indefensible from verses.

He did not have to create us (but He did). He did not have to save anyone (but He did...and wants ALL men to know Him...does the Great Commission not mean anything to you?).

There is a context to the verses saying that God's will is not frustrated. In many cases it is not, because God intends to accomplish His will and purposes in those SPECIFIC matters. These verses in no way can be extrapolated to teach that God wills everything including the destinies of man and when I have sex with my wife. Love relationships/salvation cannot be coerced to be genuine. God is able to create creatures with freedom. To say that He cannot or did not is contrary to Scripture and limits God. By creating creatures with freedom, He limited Himself in some ways voluntarily. Again, being God, He can and did do this. He is limited in that the result has been that not everyone is saved. This is a cogent explanation for this fact. Your view explains the lostness of man as being a failure of God to exercise His power and will to save all men. This is neither necessary nor in line with explicit verses in Scripture. Your proof texts are out of context and are referring to specific things apart from the individual salvation of men. Other verses establish understanding of God's will and ways in this specific matter (Jn. 3).

e.g. The prophetic declarations in Is. 46 are things that God will unilaterally bring to pass (judgments, Messiah, etc.). The context has nothing to do with individual eternal destinies. Other passages would preclude the possibility of God coercing individual salvation. This goes against His character, attributes, and the moral Law inherent in the universe. TULIP is indefensible on a verse by verse basis.

God can and will judge nations and return to set up a kingdom. This is not thwartable by man. It is fully in God's control. He does not have to override free will to return at the Second Coming. Many freely chose to follow Him. Those who do not will be separated from Him. His Kingdom will be established, with or without some who perish. Free will by finite beings does not stop the omnipotent God from throwing Satan and sinners in the lake of fire. His triumph is guaranteed, even though some will not partake of their intended place in the kingdom. Your assumption that God predestines some to heaven and hell is incorrect. We both agree many go to hell. There is no reason to think this is God's good pleasure except in that it is righteous judgment on those who rebel and reject His offer of mercy. It grieves God that some of his creation are lost. He does not delight in this. He does delight in truth and justice and is glorified in another sense when God-haters are judged in the end. No one had to be among the lost. To blame this on the will of God demonstrates a belief in a Calvinistic God that is out of step with the God of mercy in Scripture. The cross was not impotent to save all men who will come to Him. Why is it so hard to accept that God created us with the inherent ability to love or hate Him? He does not make people hate Him. This is absurd and unjust in any biblical sense.

Where on earth in the above thoughts do you think I think the universe revolves around us? Our goal should be to accurately represent God's character, attributes, and ways. The Bible is His story and our story. Man is on every page. This does not make man the center of the universe or having more power and control than God because he has a will to love, obey, hate, sin, help, hurt, work, play, etc. Image of God does not mean we are robots, or God is an impersonal robot too. Will, intellect, emotions are aspects of any personal being by definition. To eliminate our will is to dehumanize us and slanders the Creator who gave us this awesome double-edged sword gift.