Question to Calvinists

_PAULESPINO
Posts: 13
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2006 11:53 pm

Post by _PAULESPINO » Fri Apr 18, 2008 4:03 pm

How can an innocent baby have a reprobate mind?
Calvinist defend this question by claiming that this is a faulty premise.

The reason they can not answer this question with a yes or no is because wisdom tells them that yes is not the right answer. If they say no then it will contradict with their view .
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:

__id_2602
Posts: 0
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm

Post by __id_2602 » Fri Apr 18, 2008 4:06 pm

Check-mate.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:

__id_1541
Posts: 0
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm

Yes or no?

Post by __id_1541 » Fri Apr 18, 2008 7:14 pm

PAULESPINO wrote:
How can an innocent baby have a reprobate mind?
Calvinist defend this question by claiming that this is a faulty premise.

The reason they can not answer this question with a yes or no is because wisdom tells them that yes is not the right answer. If they say no then it will contradict with their view .
How on earth are we supposed to answer a "How?" question with a "yes" or a "no"?

Be sure to answer with either a "yes" or a "no."

That is a joke.

Obviously "How" questions cannot be answered with "yes" or "no".

Calvinists do not believe that innocent babies have reprobate minds.

Calvinists also do not believe that there are such things as "innocent" babies, unless those babies have been justified.

Calvinists affirm what Paul taught in Romans 5, that Adam's guilt was imputed to his family, just as Christ's righteousness is imputed to his family.

Does that make sense? Do you understand why the question doesn't make much sense from a Calvinist perspective?

-TurretinFan
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:

_PAULESPINO
Posts: 13
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2006 11:53 pm

Post by _PAULESPINO » Fri Apr 18, 2008 7:40 pm

Hi Turret,
How on earth are we supposed to answer a "How?" question with a "yes" or a "no"?
My apology. I must admit my mistake.

I would like to rephrase the question. So please answer this question.

Do babies have a reprobate mind?

Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:

_PAULESPINO
Posts: 13
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2006 11:53 pm

Post by _PAULESPINO » Fri Apr 18, 2008 7:52 pm

By the way I would've to give you my Interpretation Of Romans 5
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:

_PAULESPINO
Posts: 13
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2006 11:53 pm

Post by _PAULESPINO » Fri Apr 18, 2008 7:54 pm

Give me some time and I will post here my interpretation of Romans 5.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:

_Suzana
Posts: 0
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm

Post by _Suzana » Fri Apr 18, 2008 8:17 pm

TurretinFan wrote:
Calvinists do not believe that innocent babies have reprobate minds.

Calvinists also do not believe that there are such things as "innocent" babies, unless those babies have been justified.
(my underline)

From these statements I gather Calvinists believe no baby is innocent, unless it has been justified (? before birth according to predestination??).
That (as I understand) would make all other babies not innocent, thus being reprobate.

So when I read this:

Psa 106:37 Yea, they sacrificed their sons and their daughters to demons,
Psa 106:38 and shed innocent blood, even the blood of their sons and of their daughters, whom they sacrificed to the idols of Canaan; and the land was defiled with blood.


naw-kee', naw-kee'
From H5352; innocent: - blameless, clean, clear, exempted, free, guiltless, innocent, quit. (Strong's Hebrew and Greek Dictionaries)

I have to think that it was very improvident of the Israelites to only pick on the justified babies. If only they had chosen the reprobate children instead, they should have been home free.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:

User avatar
_Homer
Posts: 639
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2005 11:43 pm
Location: Brownsville

Post by _Homer » Fri Apr 18, 2008 10:45 pm

Re Romans 5 Turretinfan wrote:
Calvinists affirm what Paul taught in Romans 5, that Adam's guilt was imputed to his family, just as Christ's righteousness is imputed to his family.
I suppose this statement seems correct when Romans 5 is read through the Calvinist lens. That is, if the following is referring to spiritual death:

Romans 5:12-15 (New King James Version)

12. Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned— 13. (For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come. 15. But the free gift is not like the offense. For if by the one man’s offense many died, much more the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abounded to many.

Then this would also refer to spiritual death:

Romans 5:18-19 (New King James Version)

18. Therefore, as through one man’s offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man’s righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life. 19. For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man’s obedience many will be made righteous.


And if it does, you have a good proof-text for universalism.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
A Berean

_PAULESPINO
Posts: 13
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2006 11:53 pm

Post by _PAULESPINO » Sat Apr 19, 2008 1:49 am

Turret wrote:
Calvinists affirm what Paul taught in Romans 5, that Adam's guilt was imputed to his family, just as Christ's righteousness is imputed to his family.
 Roman 5:12
Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned— 13 (For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law.


First let's analyze the text of verse 12.

The word sinned in verse 12 is an action word and the tense is past tense.
According to Meriam webster dictionary the meaning of sinned is the ff:
1 : to commit a sin
2 : to commit an offense or fault

Therefore, just through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin: This phrase tells us that sin entered the world through Adam that's all, it does not say that we have been infected with sin.

and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned:
This phrase is the most misunderstood phrase in the bible. It says that death spread to all men and then followed by "because all sinned".

Read this carefully, the reason sin spread to all men is because all sinned.

Now we have to determine to whom the word ALL was referring to. This is easy, the world ALL is referring to those who have sinned but who are these people who have sinned. This people are the people who are capable of doing this action ( sinned). I described the meaning of sinned at the beginning of this post go back and take a look again.

Now the big question: Are babies capable of performing this action ( sinned )?. Well, the answer is no. Babies are not capable of performing the action "sinned" therefore Paul was not referring to babies when he used the word ALL because Paul knew that babies are not capable of sinning.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:

User avatar
_darin-houston
Posts: 133
Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2005 11:07 am
Location: Houston, TX

Post by _darin-houston » Sat Apr 19, 2008 7:43 am

For if by the one man’s offense many died, much more the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abounded to many.
I have never understood this passage. If Adam's sin affected "all" universally, then in what sense did Christ's gift of grace abound "much more so"?

It can't be talking quantitatively, or else we would have universalism.

It can't be talking qualitatively, or else we would have entire sanctification (and total depravity with regard to the death of "many" certainly can't be true).

Any ideas?
Last edited by _mikenatt on Sat Apr 19, 2008 8:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason:

Post Reply

Return to “Calvinism, Arminianism & Open Theism”