Predestination vs Free Will

[Apologetic_Warrior]

What about babies,toddlers, and the mentally handicapped? What's the Calvinist perspective on their fate?

This is where monergistic regeneration shines and where decision based (synergistic) regeneration fails.

 

[zoidar]

This is where monergistic regeneration shines and where decision based (synergistic) regeneration fails.

Do you mean that all babies that die are of the elect?

 

[Chris V++]

I guess I should have phrased the question differently. According to Calvinism, does God predestine some babies, toddlers, and the mentally handicapped to hell, provided they die before reaching a resonable age of reason?

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

Do you mean that all babies that die are of the elect?

Whether all or a portion of babies, mentally handicapped, etc. are elected, more specifically monergistically regenerated on a pre-appointed time by the free will choices of God, I am confident the number of elect/saved are higher through monergistic regeneration than would be through decisional (synergistic) regeneration.

It is rather convenient for the synergist to claim babies, mentally handicapped, etc. are all exceptions to the "general rule" of synergism. It is also a problem for the theologies which maintain and emphasize the necessity of works (of men) for righteousness in maintaining salvation unto death.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

I guess I should have phrased the question differently. According to Calvinism, does God predestine some babies, toddlers, and the mentally handicapped to hell?

I do not know that there is an official answer according to Calvinism. Personally I think the most honest answer is simply "I don't know with certainty". Personally the position I lean towards is compatible with the concept of covenant theology involving families of believers, such that the children of believers, the mentally handicapped of believers are among the elect of God.

 

[Chris V++]

I do not know that there is an official answer according to Calvinism. Personally I think the most honest answer is simply "I don't know with certainty". Personally the position I lean towards is compatible with the concept of covenant theology involving families of believers, such that the children of believers, the mentally handicapped of believers are among the elect of God.

Thanks for answering. Does Calvinism allow for second chances for acceptance of Christ in the afterlife? Some believe Jesus descended and preached to the souls in Hades before he rose again and that lost souls who died after the new covenant may still have a chance of repentance. Is there any Calvinist provision for that? Would a Muslim baby for example have a chance at paradise in the afterlife?

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

Thanks for answering. Does Calvinism allow for second chances for acceptance of Christ in the afterlife? Some believe Jesus descended and preached to the souls in Hades before he rose again and that lost souls who died after the new covenant may still have a chance of repentance. Is there any Calvinist provision for that? Would a Muslim baby for example have a chance at paradise in the afterlife?

If the orthodox understanding of the attributes of God hold true which I believe they do, the notion of a "second chance" would seem to presuppose that God somehow made a mistake, an error and could not achieve His divine purpose or plan while they were on earth as we know it. While it is a kind thought, maybe even heart warming and keeps the bad thoughts about Abba Father away, the inclusivism of today (to the best of my understanding/knowledge) is neither biblical nor has a strong (if any) place in the history of Christian theology. The Scriptures do advocate an exclusivism, Christ Himself is a chief advocate.

 

[zoidar]

I am confident the number of elect/saved are higher through monergistic regeneration than would be through decisional (synergistic) regeneration.

How do you come to that conclusion? You mean if there would be synergetic salvation for babies? I don't think many hold that position.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

How do you come to that conclusion? You mean if there would be synergetic salvation for babies? I don't think many hold that position.

I think you ignored the comment that followed, cherry picking I see. What I tried to open eyes to is the inconsistancy of synergism applied to the doctrines of salvation, especially the ordo salutis.

 

[zoidar]

I think you ignored the comment that followed, cherry picking I see. What I tried to open eyes to is the inconsistancy of synergism applied to the doctrines of salvation, especially the ordo salutis.

I don't want to go into the insanity of the belief some babies are elect and some not...

Those that hold to synergism and believe that Jesus died for all men, believe for that reason all babies will be saved. Some believe babies can't sin and are therefore saved. Others believe in accountabilty, that everyone will be judged according to what they have done with what been given them. In that case babies will be saved since they can't be held accountable to sin.

 

[Mountainmanbob]

How many people has this man introduced to the Lord over his many many years of preaching?

Kind of amazing if we think about it although he is dead now and has been for many years on the radio he is still introducing some to the Lord.

An older lady at our church attended his church in LA when he was alive.

I guess I've been listening to him for approximately 35 years on the radio.

M-Bob

I just listened to this whole sermon.
Blessed are the preachers.
That know the Word of God.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

I don't want to go into the insanity of the belief some babies are elect and some not...

Those that hold to synergism and believe that Jesus died for all men, believe for that reason all babies will be saved. Some believe babies can't sin and are therefore saved. Others believe in accountabilty, that everyone will be judged according to what they have done with what been given them. In that case babies will be saved since they can't be held accountable to sin.

The only synergism where all babies will be saved would be of the universalist variety, because other synergists deny particularism in eternal election and application to particular individuals in the atonement, in the context of a blanket offering, it would not be consistent to say that Christ died for all infants since as a group infants consists of individual infants. What does a group of people consist of? Of course individuals make up a group. Said and done, God has mercy on whom He wills to have mercy, we have no right to judge. If justification were by accountability, either nobody would be saved, and or some will have room to boast within what was given to them.

 

[Chris V++]

If the orthodox understanding of the attributes of God hold true which I believe they do, the notion of a "second chance" would seem to presuppose that God somehow made a mistake, an error and could not achieve His divine purpose or plan while they were on earth as we know it.

So does Calvinism believe that since some people die lost, God is purposefully trying to exclude people from salvation since He doesn't make mistakes and a 'second chance' would be an admission of failure on God's part?

So why does God show Himself to have a changeable will? What's the point of prayer and making our requests known to God if the essential details of our destiny are already predetermined? Why was God allow Abraham to bargain with him over Sodom or let Satan test Job?

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

So does Calvinism believe that since some people die lost, God is purposefully trying to exclude people from salvation since He doesn't make mistakes and a 'second chance' would be an admission of failure on God's part?

No, it's a demonstration of the glory of God in salvation and the sovereignty of God in salvation, and failure in the creature, not the Creator. God need not purposefully try to exclude even one fallen creature, fallen creatures act freely according to fallen nature. God only passes over them by His prerogative acting according to His sovereign free will choices in electing His whomever He wills to mercy by pure grace.

So why does God show Himself to have a changeable will? What's the point of prayer and making our requests known to God if the essential details of our destiny are already predetermined? Why was God allow Abraham to bargain with him over Sodom or let Satan test Job?

There is a world of difference between the knowledge of the Creator and knowledge of His creatures. What's the point of prayer you ask? Because we're not all knowing, because it is faith in action, not natural, and because He desires, commands us to pray. Are these not good enough reasons?

 

[roman2819]

Good Day, Roman2819

..... I am looking with little luck to find any greek NT information concordance, or geek word primary usage understanding to support this understanding... I do understand the notion of the reality of the action of Gods election would cause use to be humble before him for his Grace to us expressed in his election of us. Certainly we see that in the nation of Israel being the chosen people of God in the face of other nations whom God did not choose.

How much scripture does it take to make something true?? I expect that you hold to the trinity as expressed at Nicaea. Do you hold that doctrine to same litmus test, if you did you would have to reject that out right. What about the virgin birth....

In Him,

Bill

Concordances will not explain that the word "Elect" (in Ephesians or Peter) is a humble term used in biblical times. I suppose you have to keep trying. I guess it is difficult for people living in modern western civilization to comprehend how words used in biblical times cannot be understood from English language and logic. Consider this:

Genesis 4:1 Now Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bore Cain (RSV version)
Genesis 4:28: And Adam knew his wife again, and she bore a son and called his name Seth (RSV)

In ancient religious manuscript, the word "Knew" means to have sexual relation, which is different from the way we use the same word today. This is an example of how words have different connotation.

Regarding your question, How much scripture does it take to make something true? In the Bible, the Holy Spirit is mentioned in many situations - in OT (Spirit came upon Samson and Saul, upon prophets Elijah and Elisha, and others), in the NT (at Pentecost). Enough evidence to believe in the existence of Trinity.

Interesting you never mentioned Mary's virgin birth, which is mentioned in Isaiah and Gospels. It is not quoted out of context if we believe that. However, to go on to say that Mary is the mother of God and we need to ask for forgiveness though her is not substantial in the Bible. I am not against the Catholics, but they based their believe on the verse where Jesus on the cross said to the disciples, "behold thy mother", and from there, Catholics went on to give Mary a title "Mother of God" etc etc. Likewise, too many Christians conjecture "individual predestination" based on a few random verses out of context.

 

[zoidar]

The only synergism where all babies will be saved would be of the universalist variety, because other synergists deny particularism in eternal election and application to particular individuals in the atonement, in the context of a blanket offering, it would not be consistent to say that Christ died for all infants since as a group infants consists of individual infants. What does a group of people consist of? Of course individuals make up a group. Said and done, God has mercy on whom He wills to have mercy, we have no right to judge. If justification were by accountability, either nobody would be saved, and or some will have room to boast within what was given to them.

I'm not sure I understand you fully. God gives people different gifts, does that mean we can boast about it?

You know about the talent story (matthew 25:14-30). We have been given different amount of talents according to ability. The more we are given the more God expect from us. In the story they all except one earn just as many as been given.

I don't know how you understand all would be saved or none would be saved? You have to receive Christ through faith, and when someone gives his/her life to Jesus and God saves him it's grace. How can I boast when it's grace. You know you would never serve Christ if not of grace.

"in the context of a blanket offering, it would not be consistent to say that Christ died for all infants since as a group infants consists of individual infants."

Would you explain how you mean a bit more?

 

[Chris V++]

God only passes over them by His prerogative acting according to His sovereign free will choices in electing His whomever He wills to mercy by pure grace.

So do all the saved elect end up in Calvinist denominations, or will you find saved elect in every Christian denomination? Are there elect Catholics, Lutherans, Baptists, presuming they died with those denominational perspectives? And are there professing Calvinists who believe they might be elect but have fallen short?

 

[BBAS 64]

Concordances will not explain that the word "Elect" (in Ephesians or Peter) is a humble term used in biblical times. I suppose you have to keep trying. I guess it is difficult for people living in modern western civilization to comprehend how words used in biblical times cannot be understood from English language and logic. Consider this:

Genesis 4:1 Now Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bore Cain (RSV version)
Genesis 4:28: And Adam knew his wife again, and she bore a son and called his name Seth (RSV)

In ancient religious manuscript, the word "Knew" means to have sexual relation, which is different from the way we use the same word today. This is an example of how words have different connotation.

Regarding your question, How much scripture does it take to make something true? In the Bible, the Holy Spirit is mentioned in many situations - in OT (Spirit came upon Samson and Saul, upon prophets Elijah and Elisha, and others), in the NT (at Pentecost). Enough evidence to believe in the existence of Trinity.

Interesting you never mentioned Mary's virgin birth, which is mentioned in Isaiah and Gospels. It is not quoted out of context if we believe that. However, to go on to say that Mary is the mother of God and we need to ask for forgiveness though her is not substantial in the Bible. I am not against the Catholics, but they based their believe on the verse where Jesus on the cross said to the disciples, "behold thy mother", and from there, Catholics went on to give Mary a title "Mother of God" etc etc. Likewise, too many Christians conjecture "individual predestination" based on a few random verses out of context.

Good Day, Romans

I am quite sure we have always known that the Hebrew word here "Knew" in Gen, defined in it's context intimate relations.. because the result was conception. All Hebrew resources I have lists that a a possible meaning... based on context.

Which is related to the Greek in Matt... Jesus say I never knew you, Jesus never entered in to an imitate relations with them, it had nothing to do with what they did.. but was Jesus did not do.

No Greek resource has humility as a possible definition of the Greek work translated elect.

I do not believe that Mary was virgin birthed, much I like do not believe the moon is made of cheese.

To quote a very prominent Roman scholar on those types of issues...

Raymond E. Brown: Some Roman Catholics may have expected me to include a discussion of the historicity of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of Mary. But these Marian doctrines, which are not mentioned in Scripture, clearly lie outside my topic which was the quest for historical knowledge of Mary in the NT. Moreover, I would stress the ambiguity of the term “historicity” when applied to these two doctrines. A Roman Catholic must accept the two dogmas as true upon the authority of the teaching Church, but he does not have to hold that the dogmas are derived from a chain of historical information. There is no evidence that Mary (or anyone else in NT times) knew that she was conceived free of original sin, especially since the concept of original sin did not fully exist in the first century. The dogma is not based upon information passed down by Mary or by the apostles; it is based on the Church’s insight that the sinlessness of Jesus should have affected his origins, and hence his mother, as well. Nor does a Catholic have to think that the people gathered for her funeral saw Mary assumed into heaven—there is no reliable historical tradition to that effect, and the dogma does not even specify that Mary died. Once again the doctrine stems from the Church’s insight about the application of the fruits of redemption to the leading disciple: Mary has gone before us, anticipating our common fate. Raymond E. Brown, Biblical Reflections on Crises facing the Church (New York: Paulist Press, 1975), p. 105, fn. 103.

Seeing I am not of the Roman church and find their name it claim it authority useless. It is not an issue for me.

In Him,

Bill

 

[misput]

Using the Jewish nation to support individual predestination is a fail when we consider how many of them failed to remain faithful or even to "enter into His rest, Heb. 3 & 4". As for the insinuation that individuals from other nations were not blessed with salvation, even a beginning student of the scripture will notice that is not true. Even in Christ direct linage there were some.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

So do all the saved elect end up in Calvinist denominations, or will you find saved elect in every Christian denomination?

To the first part, no, to the second part, I believe so.

Are there elect Catholics, Lutherans, Baptists, presuming they died with those denominational perspectives?

I believe so, and always have.

And are there professing Calvinists who believe they might be elect but have fallen short?

I'm not sure what you mean by "fallen short", I think most if not everyone goes through some periods of doubt throughout their life, especially assuming they live to be older. Calvinists tend to look through a lens of sovereign grace, and so we see ourselves fallen short quite often I think, because the emphasis is on dependency on God, the focus is on God and His work done on our behalf. Only in Christ and His work and the works of the Spirit do we not fall short, that is my thinking which may not represent all Calvinist thinking, there is quite a range of diversity even within Calvinism.