Luther Bondage of the will

Mark Quayle · May 27, 2023

zoidar said:
I guess then you mean an infant is in a "born again" state? Because we need to be born again to be saved. Then infant baptism would be in order, don't you think?

No. I'm not categorizing infants as all one thing or the other, except as scripture says, fallen creatures, to whom God has imputed Adams guilt. You've probably heard what I think of as a defining case for the barest, or most basic, meaning of the Gospel. Infants are somewhat like that.

There is plenty more that can be brought to bear, but they are humans, and not altogether innocent by default.

zoidar · May 27, 2023

Mark Quayle said:
No. I'm not categorizing infants as all one thing or the other, except as scripture says, fallen creatures, to whom God has imputed Adams guilt. You've probably heard what I think of as a defining case for the barest, or most basic, meaning of the Gospel. Infants are somewhat like that.

I don't think I fully understand what you mean.

Mark Quayle said:
There is plenty more that can be brought to bear, but they are humans, and not altogether innocent by default.

Mark Quayle · May 27, 2023

zoidar said:
I don't think I fully understand what you mean.

There is the case of the clinical idiot who is so 'unintelligent' that he doesn't have any physical perceptions nor concepts. Yet God can deal with his spirit and the Gospel is seen by him, in that he knows a huge distance between himself and God, and can know, should God have chosen to show him mercy, that God made a way at God's own cost, to bring him close, and he is given to gratefully adore God. It need not be understood in cogent terminology or concepts, but simply an awareness of God, and a will that desires Christ.

We don't know much.

zoidar · May 27, 2023

Mark Quayle said:
There is the case of the clinical idiot who is so 'unintelligent' that he doesn't have any physical perceptions nor concepts. Yet God can deal with his spirit and the Gospel is seen by him, in that he knows a huge distance between himself and God, and can know, should God have chosen to show him mercy, that God made a way at God's own cost, to bring him close, and he is given to gratefully adore God. It need not be understood in cogent terminology or concepts, but simply an awareness of God, and a will that desires Christ.

We don't know much.

I'll give you that, there is much we don't know. The topic, not only of infants, but also of older children is a hard one. How will God deal with a three, four, five-year-old? Do we know?

zoidar · May 27, 2023

Mark Quayle said:
From our perspective, yes, there are differences, but from God's perspective, I can't help but think, the 'worse' is not so much the particular sin, but the heart behind it, and the compounding of one upon another. The heart is deceitful and desperately wicked.

Of an ungenerated person, yes!

Mark Quayle said:
I think that if God was to display all our sin before us at once, we would come apart at the seams.

That is possibly so...

Mark Quayle said:
For an example, there are public sins that a Christian must not have anything to do with, yet our private sins we take to be of minimal importance, not realizing, not only how they oppose God, but how that opposition to God affects the particular member of the body of Christ that I am —which affects all the others.

This makes me think of one believer, who has had the life-long habit of uncontrolled anger. From time to time he is convicted of it, and repents publicly, with tears, and I don't doubt he begs God for relief from it, but he has not changed, and most of the day he must continue to function in spite of his habit. I know another who does not even seem to be aware of having the same problem. But neither seems to realize that their sin is primarily against God, instead of how we see it against one another.

Who knows how God sees these two? (But I am confident that God intended this very thing, for his own purposes —if for no other purpose, so that we would have this conversation about it. The story is not completed in this life.)

zoidar · May 27, 2023

Mark Quayle said:
None of us is worthy of belonging to him. But, no, I'm not saying there is therefore no reason to pursue that worthiness.

You have Jesus' own words:

And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me.
— Matthew 10:38

Mark Quayle said:
What seems accurate to me is a somewhat different definition, or use, of, "committed", than what I once thought; the commitment is, first of all, the work of God in me, so that what I find in myself is not what God sees. What I see now is not what I am in his eyes —what he has made is the "final product". So the wonderful things that are said of us believers, concerning which we see ourselves as falling so short, (or even excuse ourselves for falling short), are indeed true, though we do not yet see it as such.

I think God sees us as we are with our flaws, yet loves us anyway because we are His children, thanks to Christ. I don't think God demands more of us than our love for Him, shown in our deeds. If we love God we also love our neighbor.

And he answered, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbor as yourself.”
— Luke 10:2

Mark Quayle said:
It is God that is committed to seeing this through. And we are in it. God does ask for perfection, and he will have it. And until then, we suffer, longing to be clothed with his righteousness.

God asks for perfection of us in this life here on Earth? Where do we find that in the Bible?

Clare73 · May 27, 2023

zoidar said:
I'm not sure about condemned at birth, but at least from first sin. If babies are condemned at birth, how can a baby that dies be saved, from your understanding.

In terms of the NT where we are born condemned (Ro 5:18), by nature (with which we are born) objects of wrath (Eph 2:3), I guess it would be one of two things:
1) they weren't the elect from all eternity, or
2) God is sovereign and can apply Christ's atonement to whomever and however he pleases, and no one can say, "What are you doing?"

Ain't Zwinglian · May 27, 2023

Mark Quayle said:
Yet God can deal with his spirit and the Gospel is seen by him, in that he knows a huge distance between himself and God, and can know, should God have chosen to show him mercy, that God made a way at God's own cost, to bring him close, and he is given to gratefully adore God. It need not be understood in cogent terminology or concepts, but simply an awareness of God, and a will that desires Christ.

Yes. We believe God in Creation gave all human beings the capacity for faith. We are spiritual creatures.

The Spirit is that faculty of the soul through which the person relates to God (Ps 51:10; Rom 8:16) at the new birth, God implants new capacities in the spirit Romans 8:10: “If Christ is in you, although your bodies are dead because of sin, your spirits are alive because of righteousness." The function of our spirit, the deepest part of our being, is related to the spiritual realm: it enables us to contact and receive God Himself. John 4:24 shows us our spirit is able to contact God: The spirit is the part of us that most directly worships and prays to God.

Upon regeneration, we were born of the Spirit in our human spirit, not in our soul. We received the Lord, and He came to live in our spirit. So the function of our spirit is to contact God and receive God, and the function of our soul is to express God. Infants are SPIRITUAL CREATURES.

We have three examples of infant capacity for faith. John the Baptist, Jeremiah and King David.

John the Baptist and Jeremiah and clear examples that upon regeneration within the womb as they were both fulled the Holy Spirit. This is clear example of infant conversion. A pure gift. Pure grace.

Jordan Cooper writes about King David in Psalm 22:9:

In this Psalm, David discusses his faith, and in doing so references the fact that he had faith at a time when he was still nursing. How is this possible? The answer is just as clear, “you made me trust you.” In Reformation theology faith is a gift of God. It is not a human achievement, not something that one chooses out of a free will. If this were so, then infant faith would be impossible. But according to a monergistic scheme, faith is a divine gift, a divine work through the operation of the Holy Spirit. This being the case, why is it not possible that God could do such a work for an infant? To argue otherwise seems to imply that there is something necessary in a person for faith to be a possibility. This is in opposition to Reformation theology.

An infant probably "apprehends" the as you said, "simply an awareness of God, and a will that desires Christ" in the same way the child "apprehends" the voice of the mother within the womb. Deep mysteries here.

Clare73 · May 27, 2023

Ain't Zwinglian said:
Animals are living creatures and do not have faith.
Are you saying infants are like animals?

Wh-a-a-t?

DIshwashers are machines that operate on electricity.
Are you saying my electric automobile is like a dish washer?

Behind these assumptions, is the question of what it means to be truely a human.

Behind these assumptions is the question of what it means to be truly an automobile.

To be truly an automobile (as distinct from a bicycle) is to be self movable.

To be truly human (as distinct from part caterpillar) is to be born of Adam.

Clare73 · May 27, 2023

Ain't Zwinglian said:
The Doctrine of Creation is the starting point where Baptist theology goes off the cliff.

Where do we find this Baptist theology?

To affirm infants can't have faith is to affirm infants are created as incomplete creatures of God

Can infants reproduce? Are they complete?

and don't become complete creatures of God until the Age of Accountability. At that point they can have faith. They are inferior beings and God created them inferior to adults.

So?

Man's condemnation is not based on his accountability. It is based on the guilt of Adam imputed to him and the inheritance of a nature in opposition to submission to God as his Master in all things at all times.

Quite disturbing.

So are disease, poverty and disability.

What is even worse is their treatment of severely mentally handicapped. The will forever be incomplete creatures of God.

And you know this, how?

Baptists and American Evangelicals possesses a deep history of prejudice against the intellectually disabled not only withholding baptism but also Holy Communion, CHURCH MEMBERSHIP. A withholding of all the means of grace.

You're in over your head in this one.
As if man can control anyone else's destiny.

This is highly offensive.

Not to mention highly ignorant.

Salvation for some baptists is age based. Only at the Age of Accountability is a child a full member of the human race.

Who has the ability to either make or keep from being in the human race?
Given to much hyperbole?

So what lies behind this assumption is God the Father has a self imposed restriction on Himself, He cannot communicate to the unborn, infants and children, and clinically insane even though they are spiritual beings.

What lies behind this "assumption" is your self-created nonsense (to be polite about it).

As David Scaer wrote,
THERE IS NO MOMENT IN LIFE, WHEN A PERSON IS MORE HUMAN THAN ANOTHER
AND NO TIME WHEN A PERSON IS LESS A SINNER THAN ANOTHER,
AND NO TIME WHEN HE MORE CAPABLE OF FAITH THAN ANOTHER

STRAWMAN.

Ain't Zwinglian · May 27, 2023

Behind all these statements is your comment on post 185 "infants do not have faith." This is an assumption not found in Scripture. Of course they can have faith....they are SPIRITUAL CREATURES and David, John the Baptist and Jeremiah are examples of regeneration. All of humanity has a spirit which can be regenerated. However, not all are regeneration per John 4.

Clare73 said:
Can infants reproduce? Are they complete?

All life has the capacity to reproduce....remember in Genesis "each according to there own kind.' Infants have the capacity to reproduce, so yes they are complete.

Clare73 said:
So are disease, poverty and disability.

These are the effects of the fall, not the spiritual capacities of infants given to all in creation.

Clare73 said:
Wh-a-a-t?

DIshwashers are machines that operate on electricity.
Are you saying my electric automobile is a dish washer?

Behind these assumptions is the question of what it means to be truly an automobile.

To be truly an automobile (as distinct from a bicycle) is to be self movable.

To be truly human (as distinct from part caterpillar) is to be born of Adam.

Let's keep the examples to living creatures. You said a infant as a living creature can not have faith. This is what you said. I gave an example of another living creature that de facto can't have faith. Then I made the contrast. It does seem correct that if an infant can not and does not have faith, he truly can be compared to an animal. The comparison ends at the Age of Accountability.

Clare73 said:
you're in over your head in this one.
As if man can control anyone else's destiny.

If there is anything know about
Baptist practices of church membership & baptism, they baptize only on a "credible" profession of faith. SMI individuals cannot make this profession, so no baptism and they are not members of the church....hence no Lord's Supper. Severely mentally ill do go to church within a baptist setting but no church membership.

Both John Macarthur and John Piper (Believer Baptism and Mental Disabilities) are on the record for not baptizing mentally ill and as many many many many commentors here at CF.

Clare73 · May 28, 2023

Ain't Zwinglian said:
Behind all these statements is your comment on post 185 "infants do not have faith." This is an assumption not found in Scripture.

As is your assumption.

Of course they can have faith....they are SPIRITUAL CREATURES and David, John the Baptist and Jeremiah are examples of regeneration. All of humanity has a spirit which can be regenerated. However, not all are regeneration per John 4.

All humanity has a brain for speaking. Do they speak in infancy? No more than they have faith in infancy.

All life has the capacity to reproduce....remember in Genesis "each according to there own kind.' Infants have the capacity to reproduce, so yes they are complete.

In infancy, there is no capacity to reproduce.
At 5 years old, there is no capacity to reproduce.

These are the effects of the fall, not the spiritual capacities of infants given to all in creation.

Strawman.

Let's keep the examples to living creatures.

Nope. A principle of logic applies everywhere.

You said a infant as a living creature can not have faith. This is what you said. I gave an example of another living creature that de facto can't have faith. Then I made the contrast. It does seem correct that if an infant can not and does not have faith, he truly can be compared to an animal. The comparison ends at the Age of Accountability.

In the category of science, all humans, not just infants, are animals.

If there is anything know about
Baptist practices of church membership & baptism, they baptize only on a "credible" profession of faith. SMI individuals cannot make this profession, so no baptism and they are not members of the church....hence no Lord's Supper. Severely mentally ill do go to church within a baptist setting but no church membership.
Both John Macarthur and John Piper (Believer Baptism and Mental Disabilities) are on the record for not baptizing mentally ill and as many many many many commentors here at CF.

Apples and oranges.
Has nothing to do with their spiritual destiny.

zoidar · May 28, 2023

Clare73 said:
In terms of the NT where we are born condemned (Ro 5:18), by nature (with which we are born) objects of wrath (Eph 2:3), I guess it would be one of two things:

Rom 5:18 says judgement came to all men because of Adam's trespass. If we are honest to what it says, it's not really clear from this verse when this judgement is laid on man, if it is at conception or later.

Clare73 said:
1) they weren't the elect from all eternity, or

Only a nut would hold this view imo.

Clare73 said:
2) God is sovereign and can apply Christ's atonement to whomever and however he pleases, and no one can say, "What are you doing?"

Possibly, though the Bible says it's through the Holy Spirit.

Clare73 · May 28, 2023

zoidar said:
Rom 5:18 says judgement came to all men because of Adam's trespass. If we are honest to what it says, it's not really clear from this verse when this judgement is laid on man, if it is at conception or later.

It comes with our nature, at birth.
We are by nature objects of wrath (Eph 2:3)

Only a nut would hold this view imo.

Possibly, though the Bible says it's through the Holy Spirit.
Who is sovereign and as unaccountable as the wind (Jn 3:7-8).

fhansen · May 28, 2023

Clare73 said:
Falls somewhat short of Biblical demonstration, Scripture being the judge of all spiritual truth.

You're still presuming that Scripture was intended to exhaustively and clearly supply all truths of the Christian faith. And it wasn't. And that's why baptismal regeneration can be- and is- plausibly argued for or against. A matter of soteriology

Mark Quayle · May 28, 2023

zoidar said:
I'll give you that, there is much we don't know. The topic, not only of infants, but also of older children is a hard one. How will God deal with a three, four, five-year-old? Do we know?

We do know that God will be both, absolutely, precisely just, and that he is "a gracious and compassionate God, slow to anger and abounding in love, a God who relents from sending calamity." Whether or not we see them in Heaven, they will not be punished beyond what they deserve.

Mark Quayle · May 28, 2023

zoidar said:
God asks for perfection of us in this life here on Earth? Where do we find that in the Bible?

"Be ye perfect, even as your Father in Heaven is perfect." Matthew 5:48

Mark Quayle · May 28, 2023

Ain't Zwinglian said:
The Doctrine of Creation is the starting point where Baptist theology goes off the cliff. To affirm infants can't have faith is to affirm infants are created as incomplete creatures of God and don't become complete creatures of God until the Age of Accountability. At that point they can have faith. They are inferior beings and God created them inferior to adults.

Quite disturbing.

What is even worse is their treatment of severely mentally handicapped. The will forever be incomplete creatures of God.

Baptists and American Evangelicals possesses a deep history of prejudice against the intellectually disabled not only withholding baptism but also Holy Communion, CHURCH MEMBERSHIP. A withholding of all the means of grace.

This is highly offensive.

Salvation for some baptists is age based. Only at the Age of Accountability is a child a full member of the human race.

So what lies behind this assumption is God the Father has a self imposed restriction on Himself, He cannot communicate to the unborn, infants and children, and clinically insane even though they are spiritual beings.
As David Scaer wrote,

THERE IS NO MOMENT IN LIFE, WHEN A PERSON IS MORE HUMAN THAN ANOTHER
AND NO TIME WHEN A PERSON IS LESS A SINNER THAN ANOTHER,
AND NO TIME WHEN HE MORE CAPABLE OF FAITH THAN ANOTHER

Clare73 said:
Where do we find this Baptist theology?

Can infants reproduce? Are they complete?

So?

Man's condemnation is not based on his accountability. It is based on the guilt of Adam imputed to him and the inheritance of a nature in opposition to submission to God as his Master in all things at all times.

So are disease, poverty and disability.

And you know this, how?

You're in over your head in this one.
As if man can control anyone else's destiny.

Not to mention highly ignorant.

Who has the ability to either make or keep from being in the human race?
Given to much hyperbole?

What lies behind this "assumption" is your self-created nonsense (to be polite about it).

STRAWMAN.

Ain't Zwinglian said:
Behind all these statements is your comment on post 185 "infants do not have faith." This is an assumption not found in Scripture. Of course they can have faith....they are SPIRITUAL CREATURES and David, John the Baptist and Jeremiah are examples of regeneration. All of humanity has a spirit which can be regenerated. However, not all are regeneration per John 4.

All life has the capacity to reproduce....remember in Genesis "each according to there own kind.' Infants have the capacity to reproduce, so yes they are complete.

These are the effects of the fall, not the spiritual capacities of infants given to all in creation.

Let's keep the examples to living creatures. You said a infant as a living creature can not have faith. This is what you said. I gave an example of another living creature that de facto can't have faith. Then I made the contrast. It does seem correct that if an infant can not and does not have faith, he truly can be compared to an animal. The comparison ends at the Age of Accountability.

If there is anything know about
Baptist practices of church membership & baptism, they baptize only on a "credible" profession of faith. SMI individuals cannot make this profession, so no baptism and they are not members of the church....hence no Lord's Supper. Severely mentally ill do go to church within a baptist setting but no church membership.

Both John Macarthur and John Piper (Believer Baptism and Mental Disabilities) are on the record for not baptizing mentally ill and as many many many many commentors here at CF.

FWIW the assumption that Baptism is an integral part of Salvation cannot logically be used to prove that Baptism is an integral part of Salvation. Thus, the question of Baptism of mentally disabled and infants is irrelevant to this discussion of the question of their salvation.

But the reason for my intrusion here is to point out that NONE of us are complete beings. It is more than hyperbole or a poetic notion or a figure of speech to see that our end is the intention for our creation, and that what we consider growth and change is only how we get there. We already, upon him speaking it into existence, The Dwelling Place of God, though we may not see it that way as yet. THAT is what we are, yet, not yet, as these less than complete beings we presently see.

The age of accountability, if there even is such a thing in God's eyes, is only, as far as I can tell, about condemnation or accountability for sin, FROM OUR POV. It has nothing to do with being the completed creature God made, and does not bear on God's purpose for creating us.

Ain't Zwinglian · May 28, 2023

Mark Quayle said:
NONE of us are complete beings

You got that right. We don't have Adam's righteousness. Those of us who have been gifted with faith, have the righteousness of Christ. Our absolute completeness is the resurrection.

However, in creation God gives us the Imago Deo, a soul, a spirit, a body by which regeneration can occur.
Nothing more is needed. So in a sense, we are complete beings for regeneration purposes

Ain't Zwinglian · May 29, 2023

Mark Quayle said:
NONE of us are complete beings

Could you elaborate on this besides what I wrote. I am curious what you mean my this. Please cite chapter and verse.

Luther Bondage of the will

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist

loves Jesus the Christ! ✝️

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist

loves Jesus the Christ! ✝️

loves Jesus the Christ! ✝️

loves Jesus the Christ! ✝️

Blood-bought

Well-Known Member

Blood-bought

Blood-bought

Well-Known Member

Blood-bought

loves Jesus the Christ! ✝️

Blood-bought

Oldbie

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads