The unborn and infant deaths

Pinoybaptist, I think you are asking about my view of total depravity. I do believe in total depravity. Like five-point Calvinists, I believe that total depravity implies total inability. Total depravity must be counteracted before an elect person can will to surrender his life to Jesus in repentance and faith. Five-point Calvinists believe that total depravity is counteracted by regeneration. Three-point Baptists believe it is counteracted by the special, illuminating conviction of the Holy Spirit. We believe that during special conviction events, the elect person can form a bias toward Christ from a position of equipoise (50-50 neutrality). The elect person is a free agent before he experiences a special conviction event. As a free agent he is able to do what he wants to do, but because of his total depravity he does not want to surrender his life to Christ in repentance and faith, and so he cannot do so. During a special conviction event, he has true free will, as Adam and Satan did before their first sins. Some non-elect people also experience special conviction events, but they will not surrender their lives to Christ in repentance and faith under any circumstances. Other non-elect people never experience special conviction events, so they never experience true free will. With His counterfactual knowledge, however, God has always known what those people would have rejected Christ under such conditions, so it is not unfair that they do not experience true free will. My three-point view differs from that of five-point Arminians. Five-point Arminians believe that total depravity is counteracted in all individuals by universal, prevenient grace.

An example of a group of people forming a bias from equipoise is 1 Kings 18:21:

And Elijah came near to all the people and said, “How long will you hesitate between two opinions? If the LORD is God, follow Him; but if Baal, follow him.” But the people did not answer him a word. (NASV)

The group mentioned in 1 Kings 18:21 was hesitating between two opinions. They had not committed themselves to either God or Baal. A lecturer in Hebrew and Greek studies at the University of Edinburgh, A. Graeme Auld, commented on the passage:

“Elijah turns his people’s neutrality or indifference between Yahweh and Baal to his own advantage. They become umpire or jury.”
(A. Graeme Auld, “I & II Kings,” The Daily Study Bible (Old Testament), ed. John C. L. Gibson, page 120)

The group was in a neutral transitional phase (equipoise). Elijah, King Ahab, and the prophets of Baal were already committed one way or the other and thus were not in equipoise. Elijah told the group to make a decision to follow either God or Baal. God’s power was demonstrated to the uncommitted group, and they formed a bias toward God. In verse 39 they fell on their faces and said, “The LORD, He is God.” Auld discussed the significance of this profession of faith:

“When Yahweh’s power is demonstrated, the people acclaim him not simply
as being worthy of being called ‘a god’. The Hebrew of verse 39 rendered
rather more literally than in RSV has them say: ‘Yahweh, he is the god’.
They recognize him now as ‘the [sole] god’—or simply, as RSV has it, as
‘God’ with a capital ‘G’.”
(Ibid., page 120)

Immediately after they made their public profession of faith, they were asked to seize the prophets of Baal (verse 40). This first act of obedience was performed in front of King Ahab and proved that their faith was genuine. They had truly become followers (disciples) of God.

I think that there is a deeper question involved here for five-point Calvinists. That is, has true free will ever really been possible? Some five-point Calvinists say that not even Adam true free will. Other rather famous five-point Calvinists say that Adam indeed had true free will:

Arthur Pink (1886-1952), who wrote articles in the monthly magazine Studies in the Scriptures, said that Adam was in equipoise (0-0 neutrality) before his first sin:

“In unfallen Adam the will was free, free in both directions, free toward
good and free toward evil. Adam was created in a state of innocency, but
not in a state of holiness, as is so often assumed and asserted. Adam’s will
was therefore in a condition of moral equipoise: that is to say, in Adam
there was no constraining bias in him toward either good or evil, and as
such, Adam differed radically from all his descendants, as well as from ‘the
Man Christ Jesus.’”
(Pink, The Sovereignty of God, 1930, pages 134-135)

Augustine (354-430) has been called the real father of five-point Calvinism. His writings greatly influenced John Calvin. Augustine agreed that Adam was in a neutral transitional phase before his first sin:

“Hence we learn that there is an intermediate state which may be said to be
neither folly nor wisdom. In the same way when the first man passed from
the citadel of wisdom to folly, the transition in itself was neither foolish nor
wise. In the matter of sleeping and waking, to be asleep is not the same
thing as to fall asleep, nor is to be awake the same thing as to awake. There
is a transitional state between sleeping and waking as between folly and
wisdom. But there is this difference. In the former case there is no
intervention of will; in the latter the transition never takes place except by
the action of the will. That is why the consequence is just retribution.”
(Augustine, “On Free Will,” Augustine: Earlier Writings, trans.: John H. S.
Burleigh, page 215)

Some five-point Calvinists say Adam’s will was not in equipoise prior to his first sin; rather, they say Adam’s will was inclined toward good moral behavior. They use Ecclesiastes 7:29 as a proof text: “Behold, I have found only this, that God made men upright, but they have sought out many devices.” The Hebrew word translated as “men” in this verse is “adam”, a word which can be a proper noun referring to the first man, a general term for a human being, or a term for a male as in Ecclesiastes 7:28b: “I have found one man among a thousand.” This Hebrew word does not have a plural form, and thus we find the word “adam” referring to men in Genesis 6:1: “Now it came about, when men began to multiply on the face of the land, and daughters were born to them.”

Also of interest in Ecclesiastes 7:29 is the Hebrew adjective “yashar” which is translated as “upright.” The word can mean “morally good.” Adam was morally good before the fall because he had not yet sinned, but he was not inclined toward good behavior before the fall. If Adam had been inclined toward good behavior before committing his first sin, then it is difficult to believe that he could have formed a bias toward sin. If he was in equipoise before committing his first sin, it is much easier to believe that he could have formed a bias toward sin. Adam was good in the same sense that the trees and animals created by God were described as “very good” in Genesis 1:31, but neither Adam nor the trees and animals were inclined toward good moral behavior.

John Calvin stated that Adam had true free will even though he was upright:

“In this upright state, man possessed freedom of will, by which, if he chose,
he was able to obtain eternal life. It were here unseasonable to introduce
the question concerning the secret predestination of God, because we are
not considering what might or might not happen, but what the nature of
man truly was. Adam, therefore, might have stood if he chose, since it was
only by his own will that he fell; but it was because his will was pliable in
either directions and he had not received constancy to persevere, that he so
easily fell. Still he had a free choice of good and evil, and not only so, but
in the mind and will there was the highest rectitude, and all the organic
parts were duly framed to obedience, until man corrupted its good
properties, and destroyed himself.”
(Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, trans. Henry Beveridge,
I, xv, 8)

The five-point Calvinist R. C. Sproul said that Adam had free will and that the reason why Adam chose to sin is unknown:

“The Bible tells us that evil actions flow from evil desires. But the
presence of an evil desire is already sin. We sin because we are sinners.
We were born with a sin nature. We are fallen creatures. But Adam and
Eve were not created fallen. They had no sin nature. They were good
creatures with a free will. Yet they chose to sin. Why? I don’t know. Nor
have I found anyone yet who does know.”
(Sproul, Chosen By God, page 31)

Thus, we see that free will in Adam’s case fit into God’s sovereign plan for the universe. As we have just seen, some five-point Calvinists admit that 1) Adam had true free will when he committed the first sin, and 2) they do not understand why he decided to sin as he had no predisposition to sin. But if God did not force Adam to sin, and Satan did not force Adam to sin, and if Adam’s decision was not random, then the reason for his sin must have been self-generated from a position of moral neutrality (equipoise). God did not directly cause Adam’s sin, and thus God was not the author of sin. Adam’s sin did, however, conform to God’s sovereign plan.
We can say that in one sense God is the direct or indirect cause of all things. Nothing happens that does not fit into God’s sovereign plan. In that sense, we can say that God indirectly caused Adam’s sin by arranging the circumstances under which Adam sinned. In another sense, however, we must say that God did not entrap Adam. God “does not tempt anyone” (James 1:13), and He was in no way responsible for Adam’s sin. There is some degree of mystery about why Adam formed a bias toward sin, but we can obviously say that Adam’s first sin was in some sense self-caused, as was Satan’s first sin.

Pinoybaptist, you asked, “Now, how can election be unconditional if God foresaw faith? And that is the problem with your argument.”

As we just saw in the case of Adam, God’s sovereign plan can be in exact accord with man’s foreseen actions. God did not force Adam to sin, but Adam’s sin fit perfectly into His sovereign plan. God knew that Adam would sin, but God did not force Adam to sin. Similarly, God knows that His elect people will surrender to Jesus in repentance and faith, but He does not force them to do so.

 

Koreahog2005:


YOU SAID:My interpretation is that belief occurs before regeneration

BROTHER JOE: How can this be in light of the fact that the Bible tells us faith is a FRUIT OF the HOLY SPIRIT, one must FIRST Have the tree (the Holy Spirit) to produce the fruit. The fruit comes after the tree, not vica versa.

Brother Joe

 

Brother Bob Ryan:


BROTHER BOB RYAN SAID: My point is that there is not even a concept of right vs wrong for a child - they have no ability to formulate abstract thought -******** AND they have no ability to worship God...
**********
(I am not sure this point is even debatable - what is your opinion?)


ME BROTHER JOE: It is debatable and you are wrong. Jesus said babies do have the ability to worship God, thus your wrong. " And Jesus saith unto them, Yea; have ye never read, Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings thou hast perfected praise?" (Matthew 21:16)


Brother Joe

 

Brother Bob:

BROTHER BOB SAID: This is a quote from John 1 - The LIGHT shines in darkness AND enlightens every man - BUT the world LOVED darkness rather than light -

The choice was there EVEN in the act of God in sending light to "enlighten EVERY human".

BROTHER JOE: I dont know what kind of twisted paraphrased version your utilizing for the quote above, can you inform me?

Here is the quote from the KJV, "4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not."(John 1:4-5)

Notice man by his own power does nothing in that verse verb wise other than not comprehend God. They couldnt even understand IF or WHAT the choice is! Why is this? Because, "But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned" (1 Cor 2:14)

Brother Joe

 

Brother Bob:

BROTHER BOB SAID:However - we are BORN again of the WILL of God because "God is NOT WILLING that ANY should perish, but rather that ALL should come to repentance" 2Peter 3.


BROTHER JOE: I agree, however the all does not mean every human being. If it did, then that would mean God's will is dependent upon man's will. If that is the case then man NOT GOD would be sovereign. Brother Bob, do you believe God's will is dependent upon man's will?

Brother Joe

 

Brother Bob ,

BROTHER BOB SAID: It is God that shows mercy "enduring with much patience upon vessels of wrath prepared for destruction" Romans 9. Paul's point in Romans 9 is that the MERCY of God is NOT limited to the saved!

Who then is right BrotherJoe? Joe or God?


BROTHER JOE: One would never come to your conclusion if they read Romans 9 in context. A verse without a context is simply a pretext, so let me put Romans 9 in context for you.

"11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth
12 It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.
13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.
14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.
15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.
16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.
17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.
18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.
19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?
20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?
21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?
22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:
23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory" (Romans 9:11-23)

Verse 22 doesnt state God is going ot save those "fitted to destruction", rather it states he is enduring with them in longsuffering. Their constant sinning is a rebellion against God's very nature, but he endures it until judgement day when they will be destroyed. The elect who are "prepared unto glory" in verse 23 are contrasted with the nonelect in verse 22 who are "fitted to destruction" God is the potter (verse 21). Matter of fact, verses 19-20 show us that God is answering the very objection that humans bring against his sovereignty in this matter. "19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?
20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?
21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?"


Brother Joe

 

Brother Bob:

BROTHER BOB SAID: Rev 3:20 “Behold I Stand at the door and knock” (God’s Part)
“IF anyone Hear My Voice AND OPEN the door (Man’s part
“I will come in to him and dine with him and He with Me”
(Fellowship- at-one-ment)


Yet some will continue to insist that Rev 3 is describing the SAVED born-again experience of "CHRIST ON THE OUTSIDE knocking".

I find that astounding.


Brother JOE: I dont. Who will hear the knocking? I submit ONLY those whom God HAS ALREADY GIVEN EARS TO HEAR! Jesus said, "My SHEEP HEAR MY VOICE and they follow me." Notice they were already sheep.

CAn those who dont have ears to hear, hear the knocking? No,similarly can one who is physically dead hear door knocking? Of course not. So likewise it is of those who are without the Holy ghost and as scripture states, "DEAD in their sins" Brother Bob, I could be outdated, but last I heard, only alive people hear door knocks!

Brother JOe

 

Brother Joe, you said, “How can this be in light of the fact that the Bible tells us faith is a FRUIT OF the HOLY SPIRIT, one must FIRST Have the tree (the Holy Spirit) to produce the fruit. The fruit comes after the tree, not vica versa.”

“Faithfulness” is listed as a fruit of the Spirit in Galatians 5:22. Timothy George, a five-point Calvinist and founding dean of the Beeson Divinity School at Samford University in Birmingham, Alabama, commented on the word for “faithfulness” (“pistis”) in this verse:

“The word pistis bears several distinct meanings in the New Testament, three of which are represented in Galatians. First, there is faith in the sense of the basic content of the Christian message, the faith once delivered to the saints. Paul used pistis in this sense in Gal 1:23, where he spoke of the report that circulated about him following his dramatic conversion: ‘The man who formerly persecuted us is now preaching the faith he once tried to destroy.’ More commonly, pistis refers to one’s acceptance of this gospel message and the committal of oneself to Christ as Savior and Lord. Throughout Galatians Paul had spoken repeatedly of being justified by faith in this sense of the word. As an aspect of the fruit of the Spirit, pistis has yet a further meaning: faithfulness, fidelity, that is, the quality of being true, trustworthy, and reliable in all one’s dealings with others. In its adjectival form Paul used this word in his instructions to Timothy concerning the appointment of church leaders: ‘And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also’ (2 Tim 2:2, KJV).”
(Timothy George, “Galatians,” The New American Commentary, 1994, page 403)

I do believe, however, that a non-Christian cannot surrender his life to Jesus in repentance and faith unless the Holy Spirit puts him under special, illuminating conviction. Thus, God takes the initiative in conversion. The special action of the Holy Spirit precedes faith and repentance.

I’m leaving town in a couple of hours, so this will be my last post on this thread for a couple of days.

 

I think I have finally figured out the justification by faith alone logic of the Arminian and Calvinist positions on unborn and infant deaths. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Arminian:
God will not let anyone die and go to hell unless they have been given the opportunity to make a decision to have faith in Christ. Anyone who dies before that opportunity is going to heaven because God foresees the faith they would have had if given the opportunity.

Calvinist:
God predestines some to faith in Christ and some to unbelief. The Elect who die before they come to faith go to heaven because God foresees the faith they would have been given later.

 

I think that's what Korea Hog said about Calvinists' belief on infants and babies who die before reaching the 'age of accountability'. But, I'm not sure that's what all Calvinists hold to, though.

 

John Gilmore,

You said quote: 'Arminian:
God will not let anyone die and go to hell unless they have been given the opportunity to make a decision to have faith in Christ.

Ray-quote: 'How could an unborn baby, infant or child {say up to age 5-for example, make a vital commitment to Jesus. There are some little ones at age five who might understand about our Lord.'

You said, quote: 'Anyone who dies before that opportunity is going to heaven because God foresees the faith they would have had if given the opportunity.'

Ray-quote: 'God does not forsee their faith or lack thereof, but He obviously foreknew of their loss of life and cares for their spiritual needs because of their innocence. They never actively ignored or refused Christ entrance into their lives, due to their age. The Lord welcomes all of the little children and He never refused any alleged non-elect souls. Also, II Samuel 12:23 indicates that the Lord saw David's illegitimate son through the atonement of Christ, or he would never have entered Heaven at his infant death.

The last portion of your quote suggests that God forsaw those who would have had faith, meaning there were some who He did not forsee and being in the faith and, therefore, they were lost to the regions of the damned. This is what I see in your last sentence of your post. Am I wrong in what you infer?

 

It is remarkable how people contend for a Calvinistic view of salvation but refuse to be consistent. Unconditional election is the belief that God chose whom He would save before He ever created the world without respect to anything other than His own will. Those who hold to unconditional election and also claim that all those dying in infancy are saved must admit the following in order to be consistent:

1. If they had lived to an older age they would have been converted because they were of the elect. You cannot believe that God saved them because they were infants because election is unconditional.

2. You must claim that there are some infants whom God hates. Do they not become elect until they grow older? That sounds a little like the "age of accountability."

It is not my place to tell other people what to believe, but please, Calvinists AND Primitive Baptists, please be consistent.

All of you are about to cause me to reject the whole thing.

 

Primitive Baptist said:

But they did not live to an older age, and therein lies the rub. So how can one say they would have been converted. We need to stay within context. Context: They were infants. They died or did not live to an older age.

Context:

1. God's salvation is based entirely on his mercy.

2. The unelect will be judged according to their works

3. God is able to forgive His elect because He judged their sins in Christ already.

4. Election was before the foundation of the world. The Lamb's Book of Life was written before the foundation of the world. All His elect's names were written on it before the foundation of the world. Christ came and shed His blood for those who are God's elect. God knows the end from the beginning, therefore, He knows which elect will live to adulthood, and which one won't.


Where in the world is it said that election now became conditional upon the recipient's infancy ? It still rests upon God's mercy.

I reject the statement that 'IF' they had lived to an older age, they would have become converted because the fact is that they did NOT.

They died in infancy or in the womb. And I reject the notion of age of accountability for elect infants because elect infants, like elect adults, stand justified before God as though they have never sinned, because of Christ.

 

What I was trying to do was articulate Arminian and Calvinist positions that at least try to preserve justification by faith alone. You are clearly unconcerned about the lack of faith alone inherent in your particular Arminian view.

As far as the Calvinist position, I think their view would be that it is possible that some or many unborn and children would be damned or no unborn or children would be damned.

 

One thing Koreahog said has touched on the truth of how bablies and the unborn are judged.
The problem in all of this, is that there are two biblical definitions of "sin"; one building upon the other, that are being confused. The basic legal definition is "transgression of the Law" (1 John 3:4). This is what the Calvinists focus on. So looking at it that way, one after pointing to the scriptures showing babies are born in sin, says "that baby covets something that is not his. He has tantrums. He cries deceptively, often. So he has 'broken the Law', and is condemned as a sinner!" To them, since they were born with the nature, they do things that are considered "sin" for adults, and they have the condition; they do the acts; therefore they are judged/charged as sinners (and therefore elected and reprobated like sinners), and if you don't say God holds them "responsible" like adults, you have denied sin. But the other definition, which goes beneath the first, is "to him who knows to do good but does it not; to him it is sin" (James 4:17). Related to that is "whatever is not of faith is sin" (Rom.14:23-- e.g. if you are not sure it is right). Then there is Paul's discussions in Romans about how "by the Law is the knowledge of sin" (4:20), "where there is no law, there is no transgression" (5:15). People are looking at legal guilt only, but the Gospel teaches that God is not operating on Law (in which no one could ever be saved). He judges by conscientious guilt. Legally they are sinners, so that the universality of sin is not denied. Conscientiously, they are not charged with sin yet, and where there is no charged sin, there is no reason for God to condemn them. Babies cannot understand "sin", "repentance", or "faith" (even the adult person who has never heard the Gospel has a conscience and knows right and wrong), and of course, for the unborn this is altogether moot. If elect & nonelect extends to the infants and unborn, then you have the issue of salvation without faith. But that is actually a debate among the different types Calvinists themselves; both accusing each other of being unscriptural, as we see here. So yes, they are sinners, whose sins need to be paid for and covered, legally, but in an infant or unborn state, they do not have the knowledge that brings judgment. They do not "know to do right". They cannot have "faith".
Remember, He and only He knows when a person knows enough to be held accountable for sin. Calvinists will here claim then that it would be safer for everyone if they died as an infant. Why fight abortion then? Why not kill babies? Of course, God does not give anybody that authority (effectively making the decision for the person), so that is completely ridiculous!

Esau was not "hated" unto reprobation (necessary condemnation in Hell), and the "vessels" represented by both him and Jacob, are not individuals, but rather Israel and the Church; one hardened to fulfil God's plan, for the other group, those truly saved (notof "blood" (inheritance); or "him who runs" or "the will of the flesh" (strives to be good through the Law); or of "him who wills" or "the will of man" (human schemes and ideas of how to be saved; demanding from God), but of God who shows mercy. (v.10/John 1:13); and an individual can cross from the former to the latter.

 

there is no such thing as "elect" children.

children are not to be considered part of the elect without experiencial evidence. just as the example of the OT priests who served the temple.

they had to reach a certain age as part of their qualification as well as to be sanctified to serve the temple of God.

(or had you forgotten that the elect has a purpose in their afterlife?)

a purpose that the Elect are being trained for in this life while in their physical flesh body.

therefore to imagine God chooses his elect without proof of reason is illogical.

 

I prefer that most twisted of all versions - the NASB. (Hope you don't mind).

Global context: "The LIGHT OF MEN" unqualified.
"Light shines in DARKNESS" - the entire world is said to be in darkness not just the jews.
"so that ALL might believe through Him" Unqualified - the message of John in the Gospels has gone to all the WORLD.

In vs 12 we see that the action of those who received Christ is what determines the result and in the Greek the reception is in the "active voice". It does not state that some other action was taken forcing them to be children of God and then merely note that they also "received Christ". (Analytical Greek NT - "indicative mood" and "active voice" used for receive in John 1:12)

Notice "children of A God" just does not work here.
Notice "Nor of the will of man, but of A God" is not workable. No justification for such abuse of the text.

Born of blood - refering to natural birth.

God's part: Sending His Son as light into the world - the same world that was made through him - (global unqualified non-restrictive context.)
not only into the world but also to his own (those he chose for himself) -

Man's part - history (those chosen as "his own" failed - they did not receive HIM).
- standing offer - BUT To as many as RECEIVED Him (by contrast to HIS CHOSEN "OWN" - who did NOT receive Him)

God's part - to them he gave the right to become children of God.

God's part - to cause those that receive him to be born again.

Calvinism "hope" of course is to ignore the sequence - to lift God's part out - and delete man's part so that NO sequence appears - JUST God causing man to be born again - arbitrarily selecting prior to any reference of man receiving anything. Calvinism's attempt to ignore the complete text fails.

The Arminian principle of
-God first acting to supernaturally bring salvation to all,
- then calling for man to respond and receive,
- then subsequently
providing that those who act and receive - shall then have the right to become children of god following their act of receiving.

And though He comes as light into the World (the same WORLD that He made) and "Enightens every man" - yet it is not to force the will - but to compelling to action, to "Draw" mankind to choose light.

Yet

IN the CONTEXT of God acting on man's behalf - the sinner can and often does STILL choose darkness.

</font>[/QUOTE]In Christ,

Bob

 

BROTHER BOB RYAN SAID: My point is that there is not even a concept of right vs wrong for a child - they have no ability to formulate abstract thought -******** AND they have no ability to worship God...
**********
(I am not sure this point is even debatable - what is your opinion?)

Fine -- then SHOW infants exhibiting abstract concepts.

Until then we understand scripture to speak of their having sinful nature's from birth - but we are not talking about genius infants having the ability to master abstract thought at or before birth.

Please be serious.

Again - you are simply demonstrating that you are not paying attention to the text.

The point remains - infants have no ability to exhibit abstract thought. The unborn do not "Worship" nor do the newborns.

Please be serious.

This was a reference to the people on palm sunday crying out in praise of Christ. Not a literal reference to the unborn or to newborns praising or worshipping. Read the context. Exercise exegesis - a little context please.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Quite the contrary, it DOES mean every person. "God is Not willing that ANY should perish but that ALL should come to repentance" is true - literally true, really true.

And it is also true that those who are born from above ARE only born from above because GOD is willing it in that He is not willing that ANY should perish but that ALL should come to repentance.

The error of Calvinism is that it seeks to push God into the ditch of "you must force all mankind to be saved - IF you want all mankind to be saved - because people only choose what you MAKE them choose".

The other error it goes into is supposing that If God sovereingly chooses to enable free will - IF God says "whosoever will" if God claims "to so love the World" then He is trapped by fallen humanity.

A circular argument in Calvinism that has never been proven - but rather it is shown to be unsupportable.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Reminds me of the Calvinist future scenario.

Pinoy IS being consistent here - and this is why Arminians call this "arbitrary selection".

There is "NOTHING" ABOUT the individual that causes them to be "selected". Not their AGE, not their family, not their skill or future etc.

Bob