Predestinate

BB , you acknowledged that you were Arminian in the "Calvinist and Arminian Debate " thread . I just quoted you from 8/6/06 .

 

Already proved part of it. Another poster posted that he also found where John Calvin had said it but couldn't find references. It alright to find falsehoods, as long as you acknowledge yours. You will not acknowledge yours.

 

Before I learn what all Arminian believe.

 

It depends on what you mean by "of the reformed churches". If you mean, "Does your church believe the "Five Great Alones" of the Reformation (that salvaltion is by grace alone, through faith alone, because of Christ alone, to the glory of God alone, on the authority of Scripture alone) then I answer a hearty "No" (I don't deny being "of the reformed churches". But if you mean something different, I have to answer, "I don't know."

 

This might be worth checking out to see if Calvin did believe in infant damnation.
This is posted mostly for the benefit of Rippon and his list of materials. Others are free to comment and tell me if it valid or not.

 

Brother Bob,

Apparantly you believe that quoting the opinion of Antichrist (I understand not everyone agrees with me on that point) is enough to put words and opinions in the mouth of Augustine. What you have referenced is a Roman Catholic (Antichristian) source that gives testimony to Augustine. What I, and others, would like to see is a primary source. At best your refernece is a secondary source. Please provide primary source work from Augustine himself and who will deny it? Frankly, I don't know one way or another what Augustine believed on the matter. If he did, on that point he was wrong, IMO. But upon the doctrine this thread is supposed to be about, predestination, he is correct as it agree with SCRIPTURE. The first part of your quotation brother Bob is the opinion of the Roman Catholic church.

Now, to bring truth to an emotionally heated board, I will bring one of the definitive works within the Reformed church upon this subject. I would hope that since you make yourself an opponent of calvinist teaching you have surely read Loraine Boettner's work "The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination." In Section 11. of chapter XI. (pages 143-148) Unconditional Election, and is subtitled, Infant Salvatio, the subject in which this thread has been diverted is specifically addressed.

The very first sentence written is, "Most Calvinistic theologians have held that those who die in infancy are saved." This princeton graduate, brother Bob, has already contradicted what you would have this forum believe. Boettner goes on to prove this from the Westminster Confession of Faith and writes concerning it,

Why, brother Bob, is it a profane thing in your mind to find either a confession of faith, or the Synod of dort, silent where Scripture is also? Boettner also writes,

This last quote is exactly what I contended for in my previous posts. Brother Bob, let us have the freedom to believe that our great and merciful God is pleased to call in infancy those who perish.

I will now show how you have repeated an old error through your use of Article 17 of the Synod of Dort. Boettner writes concerning the WCF,

You have made the same logical error regarding the Synod of Dort. Boettner goes on to show, concerning the WCF, how later they clarified the point. Dr. Craig continues,

I think love, my brother, should compel us to believe such things of the Synod of dort. Let us not run headlong to evil suspicsion concerning our brethren from the past, but give them the benefit of the doubt and take the sons of the Reformation as good examples of such.

In closing, I leave you with Boettner's educated and fully researched statement concerning John Calvin on this subject:

I think this is sufficient to clarify the points being made in this much diverted thread, and help bring truth to the matter, for I am sure that is what we all seek.

Your servant in Christ,
RB

 

I have just sufficiently answered this charge.

 

I will now spend my time on the topic of Infant Salvation on the thread I created for that purpose. I will check back from time to time on this one.

 

St. Augustine was a Catholic.IMO

John Calvin was raised a Catholic, and held strongly to St. Augustine doctrine. IMO

Who would know more about them than the Catholic.

I don't hold to Catholic, but they do not have everything wrong and their record keeping is far superior to anyone else, especially the Baptist.

Who do you think St. Augustine was, a Baptist?

Who is the ones who kept records, Baptist?

I do not think you answered the question. They question today's Pope on the same subject of infant damnation and he mellowed down their belief of damnation. IMO

Presbyterian minister Loraine Boettner (1901-1990 So, you go the Presbyterian way! Why should we believe him over the History of St Augustine's by Catholic Dictionary?

I have no intentions of rebuking your posts one by one, for they deal in silence of statements and their belief. You have quoted others and take it for the gospel, but if I quote others of which I have to for I did not live back then, you say I am wrong. I am sorry but its the Pot calling the Kettle "black". IMO

 

Do you think those who believe in infants being lost are going to go public with it now. Your thread is a fog bank, it seems to me, for those who believe the other way are going to keep silent now. If I believed the other way, I would be man enough to stand up and defend my position. IMO

 

What you have done Brother Bob is quoted what another said about someone else. If you wish to put stock in a Roman Catholic encyclopedia have at it. I don't.

I think my chat nick, Reformed Baptist, sufficiently describes who and what I am. Yet you say I have gone in the Presbyterian way. Some of the best theologians the Lord has given His elect have been presbyterians. While I differ with them in some areas, they are my brethren and I love them deeply. I cannot say the same of the Roman Catholic Church. It may have at one time been a true Christian church, but I believe it no longer is.

I expect you shouldn't answer my full response to your posts as they have sufficiently refuted them.

I think you have forgotten that the calumnies you raised against Augustine, John Calvin, and Calvinists require that the burden of proof be upon you. I have, and others, have asked for PRIMARY sources which you have failed time and time again to provide. You cannot produce one quote from Augustine or Calvin, to support your claim from your Roman Catholic encyclopedia. Tell me brother, do you also believe the Waldenses were heretics as the Roman Catholic encyclopedias say? Or did you read Peter Felix's work upon them?

I am not an expert on the life of John Calvin. Boettner and those whom he quoted are. It is easy to establish credibility of these men knowing their evangelical love of our Lord Jesus Christ and their educations. I cannot say the same of that pernicous system of Antichrist. So, this is not the pot calling the kettle black brother Bob. I am calling you to intellectual accountablily.

 

What is the point of this post Brother Bob, other than to sling mud. Is that how you have learned Christ my brother?

 

The truth is not mud, I guess it is to some but I was not slinging mud, just stating a fact.

What did you do, but quote someone who quoted others, such as Presbyterian minister Loraine Boettner. Again, you accuse, while doing the same. The Lord spoke of such you know.

 

Tell us plainly, are you saying i am not Christian now? Is that where you want to bring this?

I rejected the Roman Catholic Encyclopedia. I asked for a primary source. So did others. They haven't been provided, and may be impossible. I accepted the work by Shaff having known of him and possessing his work on the history of the church. I think you want me to be dishonest, et. to try to confirm your hated of calvinist theology, IMO.

I already admitted I was wrong and misinformed about the second quote, and Schaff's testimony regard Augustine's opinion is compelling. You have yet to concede (unless I missed it) that his belief has nothing to do with Calvinist theology. Have you conceded that point?

Also, is there some prejudice you harbor against Presbyterians so as to discredit Lorainne Boettner and his work? I am curious. Concerning the Roman Catholic histories which you enjoy, I regard the papacy as that Antichrist spoken of in Scripture. This may be a wild belief to some, but certainly you can understand why I put little stock in their "history."

 

No, I removed that statement, sorry for how I worded it.

You have no right to question me on using what I did, when you go and use presbyterian history. I think they have women preachers, but not sure. I am not arguing with you any more. You make statements that are degrading to others and when I question some of your references, you accuse me of being prejudice. You call it a "bunny trail" we are on. You accuse me of being dishonest. I would have to go back and look but there are many accusations you made. I apologized for any statements I may have made, but not you.
I will be the one accused of having a bad attitude, when your remarks bring out the worst in anyone.

opinions of the framers of the Confession, makes it almost certain that the existence and damnation of non-elect infants is implied. The Presbyterian Revisionists, therefore, wishing to avoid this logical implication, propose to strike out elect, or to substitute all for it (as the Cumberland Presbyterians have done in their Confession). The change will be acted upon by the General Assembly in May, 1892.

This is why you can quote the Presbyterians.