Age of Accountability

[Hammster]

Which ones?

And I'm actually interested in which doctrines would be different with these new discoveries.

 

[Fencerguy]

It would seem that the law, whether written or unwritten, is still the law... If men between Adam and Moses died (in the sense that death was punishment for sin, as I assume you are saying Skala), then it would indicate that God's command to not sin was still in effect, though not yet codified...

 

[Hupomone10]

Where did you get the idea that I said it would be ok to sit back and do nothing at all?

I looked back at the posts, and I chose bad wording. I used "you" when I didn't mean you personally, but "us", "when we..." My bad.

I was talking about the idea that we are helpless to make someone willing to embrace Christ, and only God can intervene at that point. All Christians pray for God to save their loved ones, so deep down all Christians believe in Irresistible Grace.

1) and again looking back at the posts, I was talking about the implications that the 5-Point position - arbritrary election by God completely explaining the process with no other factors - has on the topic at hand, children who die, and the implications that has on a child from childhood on, that if the process can completely be described as arbritrary election on the part of God then none of the things mentioned in our rearing of the child make any difference. It is in the hands of God and God alone with no interaction by man.

2) The fact that all Christians pray for God to save their loved ones doesn't lead logically to the conclusion that all believe in irresitible grace. I know you wish to see it this way as a proof of your doctrine of irresistible grace, and therefore have jumped to that conclusion, but it doesn't flow from the first statement about all praying for them. That argument is a logical fallacy. It simply means that all Christians realize it takes God's intervention to open the eyes of the blind, but they may believe and practice that and believe a person can still resist God's grace: "You men who are stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears are always resisting the Holy Spirit" (Acts 7:51)
"See to it that no one comes short of the grace of God" (Heb. 12:15)
And in the passage in Acts, Saul later known as Paul was among the group of whom it is said that they resisted the grace of God.

How many times have you heard this in a prayer after a church sermon?: "Lord, please open the eyes and hearts of any unbelievers present"/

That prayer is 100% pure "Calvinism".

Agreed. And let us settle this matter once and for all, at least as far as Skala is concerned, that Hupomone is Calvinist, though moderate. Yes, that prayer is 100% calvinism, but not 100% extreme 5-point calvinism. It believes in the necessity of God intervening in the will of man which I also believe. I too have read J. I. Packer's book "Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God," and realize that the prayer that prays for God to intervene in the life of the unsaved believes also that God will indeed do so, and influence that supposedly "free-will" of man. Packer points this out.

This book helped me realize which side of that fence I was on, that I was calvinist, for if it is solely up to the free-will of man, why pray for God to intervene in that free will? Later, when I realized that Christians such as R.C. Sproul (whom I highly respect) believed that regeneration precedes faith and his filtered interpretation of John 3:3 to support it, they pushed me back from a journey to extreme calvinism and I moderated. "The devil lives in the extremes." - Bob Burney

I realized that regarding what you mentioned, there are two extremes:

1) the one that believes in free-will of man to the point of making it the all-inclusive thing;
2) and the one that believes in God's sovereign arbitrary choosing of individuals apart from any other factors involving people and making it the all-inclusive thing.
Both groups' prayers are actually inconsistent with reality and with their own doctrine.
1) The one group believes it's up to man alone to choose and yet pray for God to influence the will; doctrinally believing it's up to the free-will of the person and prayer couldn't matter, but in practice praying God will intervene in that free-will.
2) The other group believes it is up to God's sovereignty alone to choose the person and yet pray for God to choose that person; doctrinally believing it's up to God's sovereign choice with no input from man, but in practice either praying that God will hear their prayer and work accordingly, or praying while believing their prayers don't really have any effect, not realizing that "the effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much" (James 5:16)

The bottom line is only God can do conversion. He makes the unwilling, willing, by his grace. Every Christian knows it. The Christians that deny the doctrine of "Irresistible Grace" are being inconsistent.

As I've pointed out, your conclusion that this has anything to do with "irresistible grace" rather than God's intervention in the lives of men is a logical fallacy. It is reached because of, for lack of a better term, the doctrinal comfort box from which you filter all scripture and all input from others. Don't get me wrong; all of us have it. For example, in the evolution/creation debate, everyone has access to the same evidence; but many times that evidence is filtered through the WORLD VIEW of the persons looking at it. In the issue of which we are discussing, everyone has access to the same scriptures, but many times that scriptural evidence is filtered through the doctrinal system the person has espoused at the time.

We should all realize this, and aim at an openness and objectivity to the Lord that will allow Him to show us truth, not just support for our previously-accepted doctrine. When we look at it this way, we will approach scripture inductively and perform exegesis (pulling truth out of scripture) rather than eisegesis (reading it into scripture).

 

[Skala]

Hupo, with all due respect you don't understand the doctrine of irresistible grace

You quoted these verses, as if they have anything to do with the doctrine, or as if they refute the doctrine

" "You men who are stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears are always resisting the Holy Spirit" (Acts 7:51)
"See to it that no one comes short of the grace of God" (Heb. 12:15)"

But irresistible grace does not mean that men cannot or never do resist the grace of God. Since it doesn't mean that, it does no good to quote verses that say such a thing

What it means is that when God calls a man with salvific intentions, He is successful 100% of the time. Up until God does such a thing though, men will (consistently) resist God's grace their entire lives.

You and I both resisted God's grace up until the point when God regenerated our hearts and minds, removed the blindfold, gave us vision, turned our unwillingness around into willingness (if left to ourselves we would have or could have never done such a thing)

I realize this is straying from the topic at hand, but this is such an important doctrine I felt that it needed some direct attention.

To reiterate my argument, when a Christian realizes that no amount of persuading or arguing or talking with a lost loved one is going to make them see Christ's beauty, his last resort is to ask God to change the man's heart.

The only reason we'd pray such a thing is if we actually expected God to do that.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

You might want to look around - Calvinism is most certainly not an endangered speicies... You might want to look at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary for starters. One of the premier Baptist seminaries in the country happens to be thoroughly Calvinist in their sotoreiology...

I do not want to derail this thread, so I shall make this post very brief and not respond to any attempts to refute it.

Everyone who is familiar with the current trends in New Testament exegesis and New Testament theology is very much aware that Calvinism has lost the foothold that it once had. Indeed, even a short visit to a large seminary or university library will reveal that 150 years ago the majority of exegetical studies of the New Testament strongly favored a Calvinistic interpretation but that today only a very small percentage of them do. Such a visit will also reveal that 150 years ago Baptist theology was very strongly predominated by Calvinism but that today only a very small fraction of Baptist theologians are five point Calvinists.

Moreover, everyone who is familiar with the current faculty at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary knows for a fact that the seminary is NOT thoroughly Calvinist in its theology. A good example of a current member of their faculty who is not thoroughly Calvinist in his theology is Thomas R Schreiner. Proof of this can readily be found in his recent (1998) 940 page (XXI + 919) commentary on Romans in the Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament Series. Indeed, in his discussion of the evidence for and against the Calvinist interpretation of Romans 7:14-25, he argues AGAINST the Calvinist interpretation and cites current New Testament research in support of his argument against it. For example, he cites studies in verbal aspect by Stanley E. Porter,

Verbal Aspect in the Greek of the New Testament, with Reference to Tense and Mood. Studies in Biblical Greek 1. New York: Peter Lang. 1989.

Idioms of the Greek New Testament. Second Edition. Biblical Languages: Greek 2. Sheffield: JSOT Press. 1994.

Numerous other examples could be cited.

 

[Hupomone10]

Hupo, with all due respect you don't understand the doctrine of irresistible grace

You quoted these verses, as if they have anything to do with the doctrine, or as if they refute the doctrine



But irresistible grace does not mean that men cannot or never do resist the grace of God. Since it doesn't mean that, it does no good to quote verses that say such a thing

What it means is that when God calls a man with salvific intentions, He is successful 100% of the time. Up until God does such a thing though, men will (consistently) resist God's grace their entire lives.

You and I both resisted God's grace up until the point when God regenerated our hearts and minds, removed the blindfold, gave us vision, turned our unwillingness around into willingness (if left to ourselves we would have or could have never done such a thing)

I realize this is straying from the topic at hand, but this is such an important doctrine I felt that it needed some direct attention.

To reiterate my argument, when a Christian realizes that no amount of persuading or arguing or talking with a lost loved one is going to make them see Christ's beauty, his last resort is to ask God to change the man's heart.

The only reason we'd pray such a thing is if we actually expected God to do that.

I understand where you are coming from, and believe mostly the same way, and i do appreciate your concern, and understand when there is a point we feel we must push a little.

So, for that, brother I totally understand and receive what you're sayingt. Our understanding may be a little apart on some of this, but I do feel we should pray at all times, not just at the end of all talking, but all along as I'm sure you do, with the full expectation that God's Spirit works and opens people's eyes to see the truth and makes people willing to believe, and in a way we can't understand, it is partly because "the effectual prayer (in faith) 0f a righteous man avails much, and aside from that, because only God can do it. But the point being, He CAN indeed and often does, do it.

I think we can agree on this, that the best thing a parent can do is to raise their children in the Word and teach them to live the Christian life by faith and not works or self-effort, and trust the results with God.

And with children who die, I am powerless over what happens, but with that I know that all He does will be done in perfect righteousness, holiness, and love, and I can trust in that until that day when all questions will be answered and all tears wiped away.

Thank you for your time in responding. I gotta go for now.

Blessings,
H.

 

[Hupomone10]

I do not want to derail this thread, so I shall make this post very brief and not respond to any attempts to refute it.

Everyone who is familiar with the current trends in New Testament exegesis and New Testament theology is very much aware that Calvinism has lost the foothold that it once had. Indeed, even a short visit to a large seminary or university library will reveal that 150 years ago the majority of exegetical studies of the New Testament strongly favored a Calvinistic interpretation but that today only a very small percentage of them do. Such a visit will also reveal that 150 years ago Baptist theology was very strongly predominated by Calvinism but that today only a very small fraction of Baptist theologians are five point Calvinists.

Moreover, everyone who is familiar with the current faculty at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary knows for a fact that the seminary is NOT thoroughly Calvinist in its theology. A good example of a current member of their faculty who is not thoroughly Calvinist in his theology is Thomas R Schreiner. Proof of this can readily be found in his recent (1998) 940 page (XXI + 919) commentary on Romans in the Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament Series. Indeed, in his discussion of the evidence for and against the Calvinist interpretation of Romans 7:14-25, he argues AGAINST the Calvinist interpretation and cites current New Testament research in support of his argument against it. For example, he cites studies in verbal aspect by Stanley E. Porter,

Verbal Aspect in the Greek of the New Testament, with Reference to Tense and Mood. Studies in Biblical Greek 1. New York: Peter Lang. 1989.

Idioms of the Greek New Testament. Second Edition. Biblical Languages: Greek 2. Sheffield: JSOT Press. 1994.

Numerous other examples could be cited.

I think they're probably talking about Albert Mohler and his seminary.

I hope this doesn't develop into the next deadly battle in the convention, but I have to say I had this bad feeling that started a few months ago that this is where they are headed. We won the battle of conservative vs. liberal, but i fear this is the next one on the horizon.

Some facts that were presented a couple of years ago by the convention indicate that only 10% of pastors are Calvinist in the SBC, but that around 30% of the ministerial graduates were. IOW, the young people are particularly impressionable to Calvinism, and again I think they're referring to 5-point, not moderate which many Baptists are. I don't remember where I found this graph, but I can find it if any need the link:

Another perspective is by Hank Hanegraff who recently had this to say, but it's the evangelical community in general, not SBC in particular:

"Many young evangelicals today are embracing Reformed theology, to the extent that Time magazine has ranked it number three on its list of ten ideas that are changing the world. Igniting the new passion for Calvinism are notable Christian leaders such as John Piper, Mark Driscoll, and Albert Mohler. Signs of this Reformed revival include the first printings of the Calvinist-flavored ESV Study Bible—completely sold out— and the increased popularity of Calvinist blogs such as “Between Two Worlds."
-CHRISTIAN RESEARCH JOURNAL, volume 32, issue 3 (2009).

 

[Osage Bluestem]

"Many young evangelicals today are embracing Reformed theology, to the extent that Time magazine has ranked it number three on its list of ten ideas that are changing the world. Igniting the new passion for Calvinism are notable Christian leaders such as John Piper, Mark Driscoll, and Albert Mohler. Signs of this Reformed revival include the first printings of the Calvinist-flavored ESV Study Bible—completely sold out— and the increased popularity of Calvinist blogs such as “Between Two Worlds."
-CHRISTIAN RESEARCH JOURNAL, volume 32, issue 3 (2009).

Here in 2011 calvinism is exploding in the SBC. It's everywhere. That's wonderful. Many are like me. I plan to encourage and defend calvinism in the SBC until the entire denomination is solidly calvinist like it is supposed to be.

That is the best way to glorify God, worshiping him in spirit and truth.

 

[AndOne]

I do not want to derail this thread, so I shall make this post very brief and not respond to any attempts to refute it.

Everyone who is familiar with the current trends in New Testament exegesis and New Testament theology is very much aware that Calvinism has lost the foothold that it once had. Indeed, even a short visit to a large seminary or university library will reveal that 150 years ago the majority of exegetical studies of the New Testament strongly favored a Calvinistic interpretation but that today only a very small percentage of them do. Such a visit will also reveal that 150 years ago Baptist theology was very strongly predominated by Calvinism but that today only a very small fraction of Baptist theologians are five point Calvinists.

Moreover, everyone who is familiar with the current faculty at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary knows for a fact that the seminary is NOT thoroughly Calvinist in its theology. A good example of a current member of their faculty who is not thoroughly Calvinist in his theology is Thomas R Schreiner. Proof of this can readily be found in his recent (1998) 940 page (XXI + 919) commentary on Romans in the Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament Series. Indeed, in his discussion of the evidence for and against the Calvinist interpretation of Romans 7:14-25, he argues AGAINST the Calvinist interpretation and cites current New Testament research in support of his argument against it. For example, he cites studies in verbal aspect by Stanley E. Porter,

Verbal Aspect in the Greek of the New Testament, with Reference to Tense and Mood. Studies in Biblical Greek 1. New York: Peter Lang. 1989.

Idioms of the Greek New Testament. Second Edition. Biblical Languages: Greek 2. Sheffield: JSOT Press. 1994.

Numerous other examples could be cited.

I've not read the book that you reference - however he currently holds to a Calvinist position. 1989 - 1994 was a long time ago. He has written a lot of stuff in support of Calvinism. A quick google search will reveal this.

Link Details MP3 - Sovereign Election

Amazon.com: Still Sovereign: Contemporary Perspectives on Election, Foreknowledge, and Grace (9780801022326): Thomas R. Schreiner, Bruce A. Ware: Books

 

[AndOne]

Here in 2011 calvinism is exploding in the SBC. It's everywhere. That's wonderful. Many are like me. I plan to encourage and defend calvinism in the SBC until the entire denomination is solidly calvinist like it is supposed to be.

AMEN BROTHER!!!!

 

[Hupomone10]

Here in 2011 calvinism is exploding in the SBC. It's everywhere. That's wonderful. Many are like me. I plan to encourage and defend calvinism in the SBC until the entire denomination is solidly calvinist like it is supposed to be.

That is the best way to glorify God, worshiping him in spirit and truth.

And there you have it.

This will possibly be the next major battle the SBC has. Those who believe they have the true gospel, an exclusive branch of the faith, one that is intolerant of any other position, one that believes when you invite someone to "come to Christ" and receive Christ that you are somehow doing them a disservice, a position that mistakenly views faith in Christ to be works and teaches at least by inference that one need just sit back and wait for God to plop down faith upon them, and the only assurance they can have of their salvation is to convince themselves they are one of the elect.

This is as much easy believism as the belief that a mere prayer prayed will save one.

Before the battle was between those who believed the Word of God and those who saw it as a good book, but having errors and all we need to do to live the Christian life is to "be good", "follow the example of Christ" totally ignoring the fact of the sinful nature within and the need to rely totally on the work of the Cross and indwelling Presence of the Holy Spirit not only for initial salvation, but to live the Christian life.

I hope they will survive it.

 

[Hammster]

And there you have it.

This will possibly be the next major battle the SBC has. Those who believe they have the true gospel, an exclusive branch of the faith, one that is intolerant of any other position, one that believes when you invite someone to "come to Christ" and receive Christ that you are somehow doing them a disservice, a position that mistakenly views faith in Christ to be works and teaches at least by inference that one need just sit back and wait for God to plop down faith upon them, and the only assurance they can have of their salvation is to convince themselves they are one of the elect.

This is as much easy believism as the belief that a mere prayer prayed will save one.

Before the battle was between those who believed the Word of God and those who saw it as a good book, but having errors and all we need to do to live the Christian life is to "be good", "follow the example of Christ" totally ignoring the fact of the sinful nature within and the need to rely totally on the work of the Cross and indwelling Presence of the Holy Spirit not only for initial salvation, but to live the Christian life.

I hope they will survive it.

You should probably take the time to learn about Calvinism if you're going to criticize it. Mocking a caricature is meaningless in furthering a discussion.

 

[Osage Bluestem]

And there you have it.

This will possibly be the next major battle the SBC has. Those who believe they have the true gospel, an exclusive branch of the faith, one that is intolerant of any other position, one that believes when you invite someone to "come to Christ" and receive Christ that you are somehow doing them a disservice, a position that mistakenly views faith in Christ to be works and teaches at least by inference that one need just sit back and wait for God to plop down faith upon them, and the only assurance they can have of their salvation is to convince themselves they are one of the elect.

This is as much easy believism as the belief that a mere prayer prayed will save one.

Before the battle was between those who believed the Word of God and those who saw it as a good book, but having errors and all we need to do to live the Christian life is to "be good", "follow the example of Christ" totally ignoring the fact of the sinful nature within and the need to rely totally on the work of the Cross and indwelling Presence of the Holy Spirit not only for initial salvation, but to live the Christian life.

I hope they will survive it.

 

[56Bluesman]

Does anyone here really believe that infants who die go to hell?

Absolutely not. I can find no scriptural basis for such a notion no matter if one is a Calvinist or Arminiest. Such thinking implies that God might be a bit of a sadist, and that is blasphemy through and through. Worse yet, not even Christian parents could be assured in the tragedy of them losing an infant that said infant was among the elect if one is a Calvinist, and the pure Arminiest is trapped by the fact the infant was incapable of moral free will. I guess all babes who die might be damned if I follow through the twisted thinking of the hyper ends of both camps. Our God is just and holy, but He is not a sadist.

 

[Skala]

And there you have it.

This will possibly be the next major battle the SBC has. Those who believe they have the true gospel, an exclusive branch of the faith, one that is intolerant of any other position, one that believes when you invite someone to "come to Christ" and receive Christ that you are somehow doing them a disservice, a position that mistakenly views faith in Christ to be works and teaches at least by inference that one need just sit back and wait for God to plop down faith upon them, and the only assurance they can have of their salvation is to convince themselves they are one of the elect.

This is as much easy believism as the belief that a mere prayer prayed will save one.

Before the battle was between those who believed the Word of God and those who saw it as a good book, but having errors and all we need to do to live the Christian life is to "be good", "follow the example of Christ" totally ignoring the fact of the sinful nature within and the need to rely totally on the work of the Cross and indwelling Presence of the Holy Spirit not only for initial salvation, but to live the Christian life.

I hope they will survive it.

It saddens me that that's what you think I believe. It seems like someone has learned their Calvinism from non or even anti-Calvinists, not Calvinists themselves. What is with the trend I see where people won't go directly to the horses' mouth to find out information?

 

[Hammster]

It sounds like he's learned Calvinism from Giesler. Or someone like him. Especially when I hear terms like Moderate Calvinism and Extreme 5-Point Calvinism.

 

[Fencerguy]

Those who believe they have the true gospel, an exclusive branch of the faith, one that is intolerant of any other position, one that believes when you invite someone to "come to Christ" and receive Christ that you are somehow doing them a disservice, a position that mistakenly views faith in Christ to be works and teaches at least by inference that one need just sit back and wait for God to plop down faith upon them, and the only assurance they can have of their salvation is to convince themselves they are one of the elect.

My this gives me deja vu to the Reformation!

Before the battle was between those who believed the Word of God and those who saw it as a good book, but having errors and all we need to do to live the Christian life is to "be good", "follow the example of Christ" totally ignoring the fact of the sinful nature within and the need to rely totally on the work of the Cross and indwelling Presence of the Holy Spirit not only for initial salvation, but to live the Christian life.

I hope they will survive it.

It will certainly be interesting to see who's interpretation of Scripture is infallible!

 

[Hupomone10]

You should probably take the time to learn about Calvinism if you're going to criticize it. Mocking a caricature is meaningless in furthering a discussion.

if you will notice Skala's post, since I pray that God will intervene in people's lives, we have already established that I am Calvinist. On a serious note, as far as learning about Calvinism I didn't fall off a turnip truck yesterday; I've studied it a little. I spent a 4 or 5 yr period studying it off and on, and have had a pretty good refresher through resources and presentation of it while here at CF. On the Baptist sub-forum, at least 60% of the threads you read are heavily Calvinist. (and that's probably a low number).

Here is vintage Calvinism as presented on this thread...

irresistible grace does not mean that men cannot or never do resist the grace of God.

There you have it. It's irresistible grace until you point to verses that don't support that; then it becomes two different sets of grace, one that God offers just playing around with people, toying grace so to speak, grace they can resist. But to save the doctrinal comfort box, just in time there comes another kind of grace - irresistible grace. Both God's grace, but one for each set of scriptures. That's very convenient.

Not that Arminians don't come up with equally logically-sounding rescuing devices; they do. The methods that both use should simply be a big red flag to people willing to objectively follow Christ that whenever you lock yourself into a particular doctrinal system if you're not careful the system begins to interpret the Scriptures for you instead of the Holy Spirit to you. It all fits neatly together, but it becomes faith in a system, which competes with faith in the Lord and His Word.

Blessings in spite of differences,
H.

 

[Hupomone10]

It saddens me that that's what you think I believe. It seems like someone has learned their Calvinism from non or even anti-Calvinists, not Calvinists themselves. What is with the trend I see where people won't go directly to the horses' mouth to find out information?

"Willing to Believe" was one of the books I read. RC Sproul.

 

[Hammster]

"Willing to Believe" was one of the books I read. RC Sproul.

From the post we were critical of, though, you only through up emotional arguments against Calvinism. That's why you got the responses that you did. If you know what Calvinism teaches, and yet give false information, what does that say?