Question to Calvinists
-
_PAULESPINO
- Posts: 13
- Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2006 11:53 pm
Thanks for the info. troy
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Sorry it took me so long to get back to you. The week is busy for me, around the little league season!
I'm aware that you explained - but I dispute that you explained correctly, or exegetically. I also explained why your theory is untenable. Further, you did not answer any of my arguments to the contrary by simply reaffirming what you've already said. That's not particularly helpful, as you've already stated it once.
2. I never said anything about you not accepting any part of scripture as able to establish doctrine. I said, as you were focusing only on Psalms/Job - "poetic" books - that we cannot ignore Psalms for any such doctrines, and I listed many, many reasons why that is so. Once again, you failed to respond to any of the statements I made.
As to the supposed "contradiction" between the texts...
In Psalm 58:3, David is, indeed, engaged in imprecatory prayer, put to song. Tell me: does the format affect the veracity of the view of man that it tells us of?
As I said in my previous post - and which you refused to answer - is Shakespeare thus incapable of telling us anything about human nature, because his observations are in meter?
In verse 1, David indicts those, who think themselves righteous. As Spurgeon says, "What everybody says must be true, "is a lying proverb based upon the presumption which comes of large combinations. Are we really trying to make the argument that "everyone knows children are innocent" - actually means that they are? Morality via plurality? That's an enormous statement to make. David forces these men to consider the basis by which they judge themselves so. "Do you judge uprightly"?
In verse 2, he puts a stop to the claims that men are judged only according to their deeds. Iniquity comes from the heart, not the mouth, or just the deeds. (Matthew 15:18) This is why I wondered why you didn't address my usage of Jeremiah 17:9, earlier. If a man's heart is so wicked, how can we claim that a child's is innocent? As you do have children, I see, you should know for a fact that they need not be taught to sin. This, they do without any conscious thought or plan. They know how to sin, instinctively. We train up a child IN the way they should go - not into the way they should NOT go. Foolishness is bound up in the heart of a child - not innocence. As a parent, are you really trying to say that children - even infants, are not sinful? I know, without a shadow of a doubt, that my toddler would kill their sibling for a popsicle, if they had the capability. They don't, fortunately. It's a fact of life, however, that children do not have intrinsic morals. They have to be taught. Just watch children in the sandbox. They treat each other terribly!
So, now we come to verse 3, the contested one. Do we see any "hyperbole" in this passage yet? It's is an indictment of the unjust "judges", and a statement which directly speaks to the nature of men. In verse 2 - men's hearts are wicked - and their deeds are violent. In the earlier objection to my usage of this passage, it was asserted that the passage states that the "wicked speak lies as soon as they are born". however, the passage doesn't say that. The NAS renders it "those who speak lies go astray from birth", and the KJV renders it "they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies." Either might be tortuously made to say what you asserted above, but a look at the text says nothing of the sort without such a tortured construction of it.
When we look at "from the womb", in 58:3, and the companion text, we need to look at the fact that the two portions of that text are parallelisms - the emphasis commonly used in Hebrew text.
A quick study of the passage:
58:1 gives the setting: the wicked calling themselves righteous, and David calling them on it
In 58:2, we see the true intent of their heart exposed, and the outpouring of that intent, in their actions - which put the lie to their words
In 58:3, the wicked, we are told are the way they are because they began that way - and that not only have they been lifelong liars, but that this tendency is an innate one.
From 58:4, the middle section is the imprecatory desire of David, that those who are wicked may have their "fangs pulled", so that they can do no more harm.
The final section is David's faith that his prayer will be answered according to the righteous decree of God. Not to mention that the last verse is a direct contrast to verse 1 - that these men are not, and cannot be righteous - God is the righteous Judge, and His righteousness vindicates it.
Once again, I'd like a response to the fact that Paul, and virtually all of the NT writers use the Psalms as the basis for many doctrinal statements - not to mention the fact that in Timothy, we are told that ALL Scripture is inspired, and suitable for doctrine, correction, etc. Further, in Colossians 3:16, we are told to "teach and admonish" one another with what? Psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs. If that is the result of the "Word of Christ dwelling richly in us" - how much more so for those Psalms which ARE the Word of God? The Psalms are a virtual storehouse of the doctrines of God - especially His attributes. Paul uses the Psalms to establish the doctrine of man's inability to seek after God. Should we not use it as such? He quotes the Psalms extensively in chapter 3 of Romans - and we LOVE to use the passages we *like* out of the Psalms - but what about the ones we don't like? If they are contextually valid - and Psalm 58L:3 certainly is - and it certainly is NOT contradictory to Psalm 51:5 - you are quite able to infer between passages, where one has a slightly greater *extent* than the other, that they are both speaking of the same basic timeframe - and when there are multiple verses speaking of the same subject, we can look at both definitionally, but not as contradictory. They are saying the same thing, using slightly different time periods - but the same basic concept applies. From conception, from within the womb, or from birth - they all refer to "before they could *do* anything to become so".
Incidentally, in the same manner that a man is a Nazarite "from the womb". If you recall, in Judges 13:5 - Samson's mother was told not to drink any strong drink, or eat anything unclean. Why? Because Samson was a Nazarite from the womb (beten). Isaiah says that we are rebels "from the womb" (beten). Psalms 58 uses "beten" as "as soon as we are born", in the KJV, and "rechem" as "from the womb", in this instance. However, after consulting a friend of mine, I learned that the parallelism used in this verse is not only meant to emphasize, but show the progression from A to B. A "progressive parallelism". B intensifies A, yet is also meant to emphasize A by it's similarity. Rechem means "womb", which is why it's used in a similar way to beten, as it's found elsewhere. So, not only does it really, actually state that man is wicked, naturally, from the womb onwards - but this state is continued and worsened throughout his lifetime. In other words, as he put it: "It's poetic, and it says man is sinful from the womb. Poetry sometimes actually means what it says."
So, to sum up: The context requires it to be stating something factual about the nature of man. The format of the text is irrelevant to it's doctrinal reliability - it is Scripture, and thus reliable for the establishment or reinforcement of doctrine. Other places in Scripture also use the same terms, in the same ways. If the statement "God set apart men from the womb for His purpose" is valid, in the case of Jeremiah, or Samson - how is it invalid to state that men are intrinsically sinful from the womb, when Isaiah says it similarly, in Isaiah 44?
Finally - I'll repeat something. I never, ever said that the point was to take the verses "literally". Everything has it's context - and the context shifts slightly between verses. Notice the use of :like" in verse 4. There's your context shift. David switches from identifying the subjects of his address, and their nature, to describing what that nature is like. It is like the venom of a snake - but with it's deafness, as well. It won't listen to reason, and it won't be dissuaded, no matter the means used. From that description, David moves to a direct address to God - a request. Shatter them. Remove their power - their fangs - so that they cannot damage anything else. Let them flow away like water down the drain - let them be like arrows without heads! Like a dying snail - or a stillborn child, who never has the chance to do what these men can, or want to do. He segues from request into affirmation - and from affirmation to faith that what he requests will be done - and closes with the contrast of God's Justice to man's. It's all in the context, and the context is perfectly plain.
Men are intrinsically evil. If you think babies are innocent - you're going to have a rough time of parenting. They don't need to learn how to do the wrong thing. They just learn how to do the wrong thing more efficiently as they grow. They know perfectly well how to do wrong - from as early as it is recognizable - and when it is wrong. Lack of guile should not be mistaken for innocence. Nor should inability to act be mistaken for inability to sin.
I'd still like to see your response to Jeremiah and 1 Samuel. Not to mention my questions from last post.
Once again - our measuring stick is to be what the world says? Morality by plurality? A proponent of reformed theology places his children in the hands of God, while training them up in the way they should go. I don't trust to my own skill in presenting the gospel to my children. I don't trust to their innate ability to choose rightly, to help them understand and accept salvation. To trust my children to the hands of man, rather than the hands of God - seems to be an enormously futile proposition. Is there not "none who seek God"? Shall I trust my children to anyone but God? We are the means God employs to present His gospel - but to rely on the speaking skills of the leadership of my church, myself, my relatives, or what have you, to "save" my children, seems utter folly. I have to wait, with bated breath, to see whether they "choose Christ"? What utter despair is there for a parent in that? When the gate is narrow? They shall "choose Christ"? When the way is narrow? They will "choose Christ"? When the gate is broad, and the way is broad, that leads to destruction, they shall, indeed, "choose Christ"? Why, in fact, do we all pray for our children's salvation, instead of using that time more valuably, to convince them that they MUST "choose Christ", for he certainly will never draw them to Himself! That is folly, brother!
Why pray for the salvation of your children, if their free will is so much stronger than God's grace and mercy, brother? What is the sense, what is the comfort, in such a terribly sinful world, which seeks to steal our children from us? What is the comfort in "train up a child in the way he should go - and when he is old, he will not depart from it" - is not a promise to a believing family, but merely a proverb of limited utility? God's children have promises from God, rooted in His relationship to His own son, and to His adopted sons and daughters. What folly is it, to take those promises, and sacrifice them on the altar of man's sancrosanct will, friends? What utter folly?
It is dangerous to assume your children are innocent, brother. It's dangerous to trust to your own understanding - or theirs - to save them. It's dangerous to trust to a concept I still haven't seen positively in this thread, of why you have assurance that a child under a certain undefined age who dies, will be saved. My assurance rests in the same grace of God which drew an unworthy people to Himself, and gave them everything, when they deserved nothing. What does yours rest upon, since man must accept the offer?
Once again - is the determination of whether someone is accountable for sin resting upon their complete knowledge of that difference? God is the essential bedrock of that standard - and the subjective determination of humans, in relation to that objective standard, is completely meaningless to their righteousness before God. Men are righteous if they are perfectly righteous. All men sin, and they sin much, much earlier than you seem to think. Further, we are sinful in Adam, sinful in nature, and sinful in every way it's possible to be. Romans 3 hammers this home, and I think it would be profitable for you to re-read it - with an emphasis on how much Paul says about the complete lack of ability for man to please God - and how much of that chapter rests on the Psalms. Taking it to it's logical conclusion affects one thing, over all else: The assertion of man, that He can, in fact, be righteous before God. To affirm the universality of man's depravity - that all men sin - is to affirm that even one sin makes you unalterably, and unutterably, unrighteous before God. Shall our children escape that? Only by God's mercy. The only way any of us escape God's wrath, my friend. The only way.
Why is it acceptable to accept for our children - election without free choice - what we reject for ourselves? Your basis for this belief, I have not heard. My basis is in the same God who is merciful to save, and who, in His covenant love, promises to work all things together for good - for those called according to His purpose. Do you really think God won't have mercy on children, when he has mercy on their undeserving parents? I'm still bemused that it's ok when it's children elected to salvation, but not their parents. Where is the consistency, friend?
This became a long post, but I'd still like to hear some more substantive rebuttal to the arguments I've made. I've seen a little, but the vast majority of what I've said was ignored in the last post. I'm praying that we might continue to have a discussion - but that we would have a positive exchange, and less straw men, set up as our personal pincushions.
Paul,PAULESPINO wrote:Hi J,
1) First of all you keep on bringing up Psalm 51:5. I just finished explaining from my previous post as to why Psalms 51:5 can not be used as a proof text for man's total depravity. You can not interpret 51:5 literally because it will collide with the meaning of Psalm 58:3 Therefore using these passages as a proof text will be wrong.
I'm aware that you explained - but I dispute that you explained correctly, or exegetically. I also explained why your theory is untenable. Further, you did not answer any of my arguments to the contrary by simply reaffirming what you've already said. That's not particularly helpful, as you've already stated it once.
!. I never said "literally" - you're reading that into the discussion all by yourself. I ignored it, because it's irrelevant. I'll point it out, this time. I'm not saying we need to take real hyperbole literally. However, context tells us quite a bit about any verse, and any part of Scripture. Once again, I did a quick exegesis of the text - and you did not respond to a bit of it. Not a single sentence. This is telling, when you either do not, or cannot respond to an exegesis of Scripture, but instead present the original opinion you presented, as if I had not said anything at all to challenge it.2) I don't have problems with creating a doctrine from the Bible if it is a correct doctrine. Again as I mentioned we can not used 51:5 and 58:3 as a proof text because there will be a problem if you will interpret it literally.
2. I never said anything about you not accepting any part of scripture as able to establish doctrine. I said, as you were focusing only on Psalms/Job - "poetic" books - that we cannot ignore Psalms for any such doctrines, and I listed many, many reasons why that is so. Once again, you failed to respond to any of the statements I made.
As to the supposed "contradiction" between the texts...
In Psalm 58:3, David is, indeed, engaged in imprecatory prayer, put to song. Tell me: does the format affect the veracity of the view of man that it tells us of?
As I said in my previous post - and which you refused to answer - is Shakespeare thus incapable of telling us anything about human nature, because his observations are in meter?
In verse 1, David indicts those, who think themselves righteous. As Spurgeon says, "What everybody says must be true, "is a lying proverb based upon the presumption which comes of large combinations. Are we really trying to make the argument that "everyone knows children are innocent" - actually means that they are? Morality via plurality? That's an enormous statement to make. David forces these men to consider the basis by which they judge themselves so. "Do you judge uprightly"?
In verse 2, he puts a stop to the claims that men are judged only according to their deeds. Iniquity comes from the heart, not the mouth, or just the deeds. (Matthew 15:18) This is why I wondered why you didn't address my usage of Jeremiah 17:9, earlier. If a man's heart is so wicked, how can we claim that a child's is innocent? As you do have children, I see, you should know for a fact that they need not be taught to sin. This, they do without any conscious thought or plan. They know how to sin, instinctively. We train up a child IN the way they should go - not into the way they should NOT go. Foolishness is bound up in the heart of a child - not innocence. As a parent, are you really trying to say that children - even infants, are not sinful? I know, without a shadow of a doubt, that my toddler would kill their sibling for a popsicle, if they had the capability. They don't, fortunately. It's a fact of life, however, that children do not have intrinsic morals. They have to be taught. Just watch children in the sandbox. They treat each other terribly!
So, now we come to verse 3, the contested one. Do we see any "hyperbole" in this passage yet? It's is an indictment of the unjust "judges", and a statement which directly speaks to the nature of men. In verse 2 - men's hearts are wicked - and their deeds are violent. In the earlier objection to my usage of this passage, it was asserted that the passage states that the "wicked speak lies as soon as they are born". however, the passage doesn't say that. The NAS renders it "those who speak lies go astray from birth", and the KJV renders it "they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies." Either might be tortuously made to say what you asserted above, but a look at the text says nothing of the sort without such a tortured construction of it.
When we look at "from the womb", in 58:3, and the companion text, we need to look at the fact that the two portions of that text are parallelisms - the emphasis commonly used in Hebrew text.
A quick study of the passage:
58:1 gives the setting: the wicked calling themselves righteous, and David calling them on it
In 58:2, we see the true intent of their heart exposed, and the outpouring of that intent, in their actions - which put the lie to their words
In 58:3, the wicked, we are told are the way they are because they began that way - and that not only have they been lifelong liars, but that this tendency is an innate one.
From 58:4, the middle section is the imprecatory desire of David, that those who are wicked may have their "fangs pulled", so that they can do no more harm.
The final section is David's faith that his prayer will be answered according to the righteous decree of God. Not to mention that the last verse is a direct contrast to verse 1 - that these men are not, and cannot be righteous - God is the righteous Judge, and His righteousness vindicates it.
Once again, I'd like a response to the fact that Paul, and virtually all of the NT writers use the Psalms as the basis for many doctrinal statements - not to mention the fact that in Timothy, we are told that ALL Scripture is inspired, and suitable for doctrine, correction, etc. Further, in Colossians 3:16, we are told to "teach and admonish" one another with what? Psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs. If that is the result of the "Word of Christ dwelling richly in us" - how much more so for those Psalms which ARE the Word of God? The Psalms are a virtual storehouse of the doctrines of God - especially His attributes. Paul uses the Psalms to establish the doctrine of man's inability to seek after God. Should we not use it as such? He quotes the Psalms extensively in chapter 3 of Romans - and we LOVE to use the passages we *like* out of the Psalms - but what about the ones we don't like? If they are contextually valid - and Psalm 58L:3 certainly is - and it certainly is NOT contradictory to Psalm 51:5 - you are quite able to infer between passages, where one has a slightly greater *extent* than the other, that they are both speaking of the same basic timeframe - and when there are multiple verses speaking of the same subject, we can look at both definitionally, but not as contradictory. They are saying the same thing, using slightly different time periods - but the same basic concept applies. From conception, from within the womb, or from birth - they all refer to "before they could *do* anything to become so".
Incidentally, in the same manner that a man is a Nazarite "from the womb". If you recall, in Judges 13:5 - Samson's mother was told not to drink any strong drink, or eat anything unclean. Why? Because Samson was a Nazarite from the womb (beten). Isaiah says that we are rebels "from the womb" (beten). Psalms 58 uses "beten" as "as soon as we are born", in the KJV, and "rechem" as "from the womb", in this instance. However, after consulting a friend of mine, I learned that the parallelism used in this verse is not only meant to emphasize, but show the progression from A to B. A "progressive parallelism". B intensifies A, yet is also meant to emphasize A by it's similarity. Rechem means "womb", which is why it's used in a similar way to beten, as it's found elsewhere. So, not only does it really, actually state that man is wicked, naturally, from the womb onwards - but this state is continued and worsened throughout his lifetime. In other words, as he put it: "It's poetic, and it says man is sinful from the womb. Poetry sometimes actually means what it says."
So, to sum up: The context requires it to be stating something factual about the nature of man. The format of the text is irrelevant to it's doctrinal reliability - it is Scripture, and thus reliable for the establishment or reinforcement of doctrine. Other places in Scripture also use the same terms, in the same ways. If the statement "God set apart men from the womb for His purpose" is valid, in the case of Jeremiah, or Samson - how is it invalid to state that men are intrinsically sinful from the womb, when Isaiah says it similarly, in Isaiah 44?
Finally - I'll repeat something. I never, ever said that the point was to take the verses "literally". Everything has it's context - and the context shifts slightly between verses. Notice the use of :like" in verse 4. There's your context shift. David switches from identifying the subjects of his address, and their nature, to describing what that nature is like. It is like the venom of a snake - but with it's deafness, as well. It won't listen to reason, and it won't be dissuaded, no matter the means used. From that description, David moves to a direct address to God - a request. Shatter them. Remove their power - their fangs - so that they cannot damage anything else. Let them flow away like water down the drain - let them be like arrows without heads! Like a dying snail - or a stillborn child, who never has the chance to do what these men can, or want to do. He segues from request into affirmation - and from affirmation to faith that what he requests will be done - and closes with the contrast of God's Justice to man's. It's all in the context, and the context is perfectly plain.
Men are intrinsically evil. If you think babies are innocent - you're going to have a rough time of parenting. They don't need to learn how to do the wrong thing. They just learn how to do the wrong thing more efficiently as they grow. They know perfectly well how to do wrong - from as early as it is recognizable - and when it is wrong. Lack of guile should not be mistaken for innocence. Nor should inability to act be mistaken for inability to sin.
I'd still like to see your response to Jeremiah and 1 Samuel. Not to mention my questions from last post.
J, the question why so simple and yet you made it difficult.
Sure, God is our reference for all moral decisions we make.
The reason people know the difference between right and wrong is because God taught us.
Again the question was about babies whether they know the difference between right and wrong and not grown men.
I can assure you that you can ask every single person out on the street and they will be able to understand the question and right away give you an answer.
Once again - our measuring stick is to be what the world says? Morality by plurality? A proponent of reformed theology places his children in the hands of God, while training them up in the way they should go. I don't trust to my own skill in presenting the gospel to my children. I don't trust to their innate ability to choose rightly, to help them understand and accept salvation. To trust my children to the hands of man, rather than the hands of God - seems to be an enormously futile proposition. Is there not "none who seek God"? Shall I trust my children to anyone but God? We are the means God employs to present His gospel - but to rely on the speaking skills of the leadership of my church, myself, my relatives, or what have you, to "save" my children, seems utter folly. I have to wait, with bated breath, to see whether they "choose Christ"? What utter despair is there for a parent in that? When the gate is narrow? They shall "choose Christ"? When the way is narrow? They will "choose Christ"? When the gate is broad, and the way is broad, that leads to destruction, they shall, indeed, "choose Christ"? Why, in fact, do we all pray for our children's salvation, instead of using that time more valuably, to convince them that they MUST "choose Christ", for he certainly will never draw them to Himself! That is folly, brother!
Why pray for the salvation of your children, if their free will is so much stronger than God's grace and mercy, brother? What is the sense, what is the comfort, in such a terribly sinful world, which seeks to steal our children from us? What is the comfort in "train up a child in the way he should go - and when he is old, he will not depart from it" - is not a promise to a believing family, but merely a proverb of limited utility? God's children have promises from God, rooted in His relationship to His own son, and to His adopted sons and daughters. What folly is it, to take those promises, and sacrifice them on the altar of man's sancrosanct will, friends? What utter folly?
It is dangerous to assume your children are innocent, brother. It's dangerous to trust to your own understanding - or theirs - to save them. It's dangerous to trust to a concept I still haven't seen positively in this thread, of why you have assurance that a child under a certain undefined age who dies, will be saved. My assurance rests in the same grace of God which drew an unworthy people to Himself, and gave them everything, when they deserved nothing. What does yours rest upon, since man must accept the offer?
Once again - is the determination of whether someone is accountable for sin resting upon their complete knowledge of that difference? God is the essential bedrock of that standard - and the subjective determination of humans, in relation to that objective standard, is completely meaningless to their righteousness before God. Men are righteous if they are perfectly righteous. All men sin, and they sin much, much earlier than you seem to think. Further, we are sinful in Adam, sinful in nature, and sinful in every way it's possible to be. Romans 3 hammers this home, and I think it would be profitable for you to re-read it - with an emphasis on how much Paul says about the complete lack of ability for man to please God - and how much of that chapter rests on the Psalms. Taking it to it's logical conclusion affects one thing, over all else: The assertion of man, that He can, in fact, be righteous before God. To affirm the universality of man's depravity - that all men sin - is to affirm that even one sin makes you unalterably, and unutterably, unrighteous before God. Shall our children escape that? Only by God's mercy. The only way any of us escape God's wrath, my friend. The only way.
Why is it acceptable to accept for our children - election without free choice - what we reject for ourselves? Your basis for this belief, I have not heard. My basis is in the same God who is merciful to save, and who, in His covenant love, promises to work all things together for good - for those called according to His purpose. Do you really think God won't have mercy on children, when he has mercy on their undeserving parents? I'm still bemused that it's ok when it's children elected to salvation, but not their parents. Where is the consistency, friend?
This became a long post, but I'd still like to hear some more substantive rebuttal to the arguments I've made. I've seen a little, but the vast majority of what I've said was ignored in the last post. I'm praying that we might continue to have a discussion - but that we would have a positive exchange, and less straw men, set up as our personal pincushions.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Providential: I'm not going to respond to that last post of yours in kind. I'm sorry you think that way about calvinism - but setting up something you think is calvinism, and firing flaming arrows into it does not a discussion make. If you'd like to have a discussion, please respond to my comments about your statements, if you would?
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
I must reject your claim of a false premise.PAULESPINO wrote:
Quote:
How can an innocent baby have a reprobate mind?
1. Faulty premise: Innocent babies have this reprobate mind.
2: Problem: Begging the question.
Lets consider a baby that is 24 hours old. You say the infant is not innocent? What sin can you imagine the child has committed, or could commit? You say the infant is guilty of Adam's sin? Show us a scripture, even one, that tells us this.
You would do well to go and learn the meaning of Ezekial 18. In particular:
Ezekiel 18:20 (New King James Version)
20. The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.
And you would do really, really well to heed:
Ezekiel 18:2-3 (New King James Version)
2. “What do you mean when you use this proverb concerning the land of Israel, saying:
‘ The fathers have eaten sour grapes,
And the children’s teeth are set on edge’?
3. “As I live,” says the Lord GOD, “you shall no longer use this proverb in Israel.
That command from God ought to cause you to consider very carefully what you are advocating and the picture of God you are painting in your attempt to "give Him glory".
It is a great comfort indeed to rest assured that our loving father will not send a little child who dies to hell. Some comfort to think that perhaps the child who dies might be one of the elect!It's dangerous to trust to a concept I still haven't seen positively in this thread, of why you have assurance that a child under a certain undefined age who dies, will be saved.
So you think God elects children because He has elected their parents? That's a new one. In your Calvinist view of the scripture regarding election, where do you find this?Do you really think God won't have mercy on children, when he has mercy on their undeserving parents?
Its not my view that they are "elected" to anything. They are not lost.I'm still bemused that it's ok when it's children elected to salvation,
Matthew 19:14
Jesus said, "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these."
Jesus certainly chose a poor example if the little children are wretched, depraved sinners. I wonder what He was thinking?
Why indeed do you pray for your children when, according to Calvinism, their fate was unchangeably sealed before the world began and will not be affected if you spend the rest of your life begging in tears. Some comfort!Why, in fact, do we all pray for our children's salvation, instead of using that time more valuably, to convince them that they MUST "choose Christ", for he certainly will never draw them to Himself! That is folly, brother!
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
A Berean
-
_darin-houston
- Posts: 133
- Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2005 11:07 am
- Location: Houston, TX
Surely not only out of obedience....Why indeed do you pray for your children when, according to Calvinism, their fate was unchangeably sealed before the world began and will not be affected if you spend the rest of your life begging in tears. Some comfort!
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
-
_PAULESPINO
- Posts: 13
- Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2006 11:53 pm
J you wrote;
1) Determine the genre of the book from which the passage was taken or determine the genre of the passage. I was able to do this and I said that the genre is poetry.
2) Interpret the passage or text within the context. I was able to do this. I will
quote what I wrote before:
By summing up the 2 exegetical method I used I was able to determine that David was expressing the meaning of 51:5 in figurative language or he can be using hyperbole. Same thing with 58:3.) On the other hand you were the one who did not apply exegesis in your interpretation of the passage you quoted from your first post. All you did was quote passages you only applied exegesis after you read my exegesis in response to your first post.
You misunderstood what I said and I will quote it here again:
this verse is referring to "wicked judges. Although they were merely humans, they were behaving as though they had divine power. wickedness … violence: Instead of establishing righteousness, these wicked judges were producing havoc. They thought they had all power in the earth. But they would soon learn that God “judges in the earth(v. 11)"
So I don't know what you are trying to establish here.
Jeremiah 17:9 is referring to grown up men and not babies. You are picking passages that does not apply to babies.
I'm sorry to hear that your sibling will do such a horrendous act but I'm sure that it's only you and Calvinists think in that way.
In Genesis 2:16-17
And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it shall surely die.
God commanded them and through this command God taught Adam and Eve not to eat the tree of Knowledge and good therefore they were aware not to eat it and also aware of the consequences. If Adam and Eve ate the fruit and God did not give them any warning, will God punish them for doing things even though they don't know whether what they did is right or wrong? The answer is no, God will not punish them if God did not warn them. The reason God punished them was because they knew that they were not to eat it and yet they ate it. Same thing with babies God will not charged the babies for any sin because These babies does not know the difference between right and wrong. Read Ezekiel 18:20 "...The son shall not bear the guilt of their father......" You said that children knew how to sin instinctively. you are wrong because children does not know the difference between right and wrong the only way they can know that they are sinning is after you teach them. This is the same with Genesis 2:16-17 if God did not tell to Adam and Eve not to eat the fruit of the the tree there is no way they can know that eating those fruits is wrong and therefore God will not charge them with any sin therefore In order for God to punish us we must know that what we are doing is wrong and the only way we can know is if God will tell us just like what He did in Gen.2:16 He told to Adam and Eve.
I will respond to the passages you quoted from Psalm 58:3 according to you "the contested one". I will apply an exegetical method called "examination of the text within the passage" In this method I will dissect the the passage word for word and then interpret the passage within the context.
speak ( this is an action word, a verb) , lies ( this is an adjective referring to the word speak) go ( action word), astray ( lost) , from birth ( from the time the baby was born).
Let us put the text back together again: The wicked are estranged from the womb ( which means that these wicked people have been rebelling from the time they were conceived) how is this possible when the babies does not know the meaning of rebellion!!
These who speak lies go astray from birth: Going back to my word for word analysis we can see that "speak" is an action word which the baby is not capable of doing. And lies is an adjective describing the action word speak. Again babies has no capabilities to speak lies and therefore this is not referring to babies.
This is the commentary from Nelson Study Bible read it carefully>>>>>>>
58:1, 2 You silent ones is a derisive term for the wicked judges. Although they were merely humans, they were behaving as though they had divine power. wickedness … violence: Instead of establishing righteousness, these wicked judges were producing havoc. They thought they had all power in the earth. But they would soon learn that God “judges in the earth” (v. 11).
58:3–5 The effects of the wicked in powerful places are as deadly as the effects of poisonous snakes that are out of control. The word charmers refers to those who have the ability to “control” the behavior of snakes; but in this case, not even the equivalent of charmers could control the destruction and evil that resulted from wicked people in high places.
Again even the scholars of Nelson Study Bible does not agree with you.
You can read this in Numbers 6.
First of all there is no parallelism between Judges13:5 and Psalms 58:3.
The child in the womb in Judges 13:5 is sanctified to the Lord and therefore the child was clean while the child in Psalms 58:3 according to your literal interpretation of Psalms 58:3 is a rebel ( unclean) and therefore can not be offered to the Lord. Where is the parallelism here. What you have done is create a contradictory between the two passages however you can establish a parallelism if you will make the baby in the mother's womb of Psalm 58:3 as a clean child but your interpretation does not allow this. There is no similarity between Judges 13:5 and Psalm 58:3.
Perhaps you missed the exegetical method I used in my response to your first post. I will outline the 2 exegetical method I used .. Once again, I did a quick exegesis of the text - and you did not respond to a bit of it. Not a single sentence. This is telling, when you either do not, or cannot respond to an exegesis of Scripture, but instead present the original opinion you presented, as if I had not said anything at all to challenge it.
1) Determine the genre of the book from which the passage was taken or determine the genre of the passage. I was able to do this and I said that the genre is poetry.
2) Interpret the passage or text within the context. I was able to do this. I will
quote what I wrote before:
In reading the passage of Psalms 51:5 I included the verses before and after by doing this I'm interpreting the passage within the context. I did the same thing with 58:3.look at the previous verses and the verses after that you can see that David was showing his remorse to the point that he was saying that he was not worthy of anything and that he has done many evil things that it seems that he was born with it.
By summing up the 2 exegetical method I used I was able to determine that David was expressing the meaning of 51:5 in figurative language or he can be using hyperbole. Same thing with 58:3.) On the other hand you were the one who did not apply exegesis in your interpretation of the passage you quoted from your first post. All you did was quote passages you only applied exegesis after you read my exegesis in response to your first post.
I never focused in Psalms and never mentioned Job I believe you are referring to what Providential said in his post. I'm simply responding to the text you quoted from your first post and you quoted Psalms 51:5 and 58:3. I never said that I'm ignoring Psalms for doctrines.I never said anything about you not accepting any part of scripture as able to establish doctrine. I said, as you were focusing only on Psalms/Job - "poetic" books - that we cannot ignore Psalms for any such doctrines, and I listed many, many reasons why that is so. Once again, you failed to respond to any of the statements I made.
You misunderstood what I said and I will quote it here again:
Again read what I wrote and you can see that I never mentioned or rejected Psalms for doctrines.I don't have problems with creating a doctrine from the Bible if it is a correct doctrine.
If you are asking whether the meaning of the passage can be affected by the type of genre used by the author the answer is yes.In Psalm 58:3, David is, indeed, engaged in imprecatory prayer, put to song. Tell me: does the format affect the veracity of the view of man that it tells us of?
I did not refused to answer this I thought this was a rhetorical question which means you have answered your own question. Anyway what are trying to tell me here?As I said in my previous post - and which you refused to answer - is Shakespeare thus incapable of telling us anything about human nature, because his observations are in meter?
You quoted verse 1 in here and try to connect this verse with babies. Actually according to New King James ( Nelson study bible ) thatIn verse 1, David indicts those, who think themselves righteous. As Spurgeon says, "What everybody says must be true, "is a lying proverb based upon the presumption which comes of large combinations. Are we really trying to make the argument that "everyone knows children are innocent" - actually means that they are? Morality via plurality? That's an enormous statement to make. David forces these men to consider the basis by which they judge themselves so. "Do you judge uprightly"?
this verse is referring to "wicked judges. Although they were merely humans, they were behaving as though they had divine power. wickedness … violence: Instead of establishing righteousness, these wicked judges were producing havoc. They thought they had all power in the earth. But they would soon learn that God “judges in the earth(v. 11)"
So I don't know what you are trying to establish here.
You are quoting Matthew 15:1 again this passage can not be applied to babies. You are out of the topic if you are going to use this passage to refer to babies.In verse 2, he puts a stop to the claims that men are judged only according to their deeds. Iniquity comes from the heart, not the mouth, or just the deeds. (Matthew 15:1 This is why I wondered why you didn't address my usage of Jeremiah 17:9, earlier. If a man's heart is so wicked, how can we claim that a child's is innocent? As you do have children, I see, you should know for a fact that they need not be taught to sin. This, they do without any conscious thought or plan. They know how to sin, instinctively. We train up a child IN the way they should go - not into the way they should NOT go. Foolishness is bound up in the heart of a child - not innocence. As a parent, are you really trying to say that children - even infants, are not sinful? I know, without a shadow of a doubt, that my toddler would kill their sibling for a popsicle, if they had the capability. They don't, fortunately. It's a fact of life, however, that children do not have intrinsic morals. They have to be taught. Just watch children in the sandbox. They treat each other terribly!
Jeremiah 17:9 is referring to grown up men and not babies. You are picking passages that does not apply to babies.
I'm sorry to hear that your sibling will do such a horrendous act but I'm sure that it's only you and Calvinists think in that way.
In Genesis 2:16-17
And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it shall surely die.
God commanded them and through this command God taught Adam and Eve not to eat the tree of Knowledge and good therefore they were aware not to eat it and also aware of the consequences. If Adam and Eve ate the fruit and God did not give them any warning, will God punish them for doing things even though they don't know whether what they did is right or wrong? The answer is no, God will not punish them if God did not warn them. The reason God punished them was because they knew that they were not to eat it and yet they ate it. Same thing with babies God will not charged the babies for any sin because These babies does not know the difference between right and wrong. Read Ezekiel 18:20 "...The son shall not bear the guilt of their father......" You said that children knew how to sin instinctively. you are wrong because children does not know the difference between right and wrong the only way they can know that they are sinning is after you teach them. This is the same with Genesis 2:16-17 if God did not tell to Adam and Eve not to eat the fruit of the the tree there is no way they can know that eating those fruits is wrong and therefore God will not charge them with any sin therefore In order for God to punish us we must know that what we are doing is wrong and the only way we can know is if God will tell us just like what He did in Gen.2:16 He told to Adam and Eve.
I will respond to the passages you quoted from Psalm 58:3 according to you "the contested one". I will apply an exegetical method called "examination of the text within the passage" In this method I will dissect the the passage word for word and then interpret the passage within the context.
The wicked ( referring to humans), estranged (indicates rebellion) , from womb ( womb of the mother) , These ( referring to the wicked) ,NASB
Psalms 58:3 The wicked are estranged from the womb;
These who speak lies go astray from birth.
speak ( this is an action word, a verb) , lies ( this is an adjective referring to the word speak) go ( action word), astray ( lost) , from birth ( from the time the baby was born).
Let us put the text back together again: The wicked are estranged from the womb ( which means that these wicked people have been rebelling from the time they were conceived) how is this possible when the babies does not know the meaning of rebellion!!
These who speak lies go astray from birth: Going back to my word for word analysis we can see that "speak" is an action word which the baby is not capable of doing. And lies is an adjective describing the action word speak. Again babies has no capabilities to speak lies and therefore this is not referring to babies.
This is the commentary from Nelson Study Bible read it carefully>>>>>>>
58:1, 2 You silent ones is a derisive term for the wicked judges. Although they were merely humans, they were behaving as though they had divine power. wickedness … violence: Instead of establishing righteousness, these wicked judges were producing havoc. They thought they had all power in the earth. But they would soon learn that God “judges in the earth” (v. 11).
58:3–5 The effects of the wicked in powerful places are as deadly as the effects of poisonous snakes that are out of control. The word charmers refers to those who have the ability to “control” the behavior of snakes; but in this case, not even the equivalent of charmers could control the destruction and evil that resulted from wicked people in high places.
Again even the scholars of Nelson Study Bible does not agree with you.
A Nazarite is offered to the Lord and therefore must be clean. There are ritual ceremonies that must be followed in order to become a NazariteIncidentally, in the same manner that a man is a Nazarite "from the womb". If you recall, in Judges 13:5 - Samson's mother was told not to drink any strong drink, or eat anything unclean. Why? Because Samson was a Nazarite from the womb (beten). Isaiah says that we are rebels "from the womb" (beten). Psalms 58 uses "beten" as "as soon as we are born", in the KJV, and "rechem" as "from the womb", in this instance. However, after consulting a friend of mine, I learned that the parallelism used in this verse is not only meant to emphasize, but show the progression from A to B. A "progressive parallelism". B intensifies A, yet is also meant to emphasize A by it's similarity. Rechem means "womb", which is why it's used in a similar way to beten, as it's found elsewhere. So, not only does it really, actually state that man is wicked, naturally, from the womb onwards - but this state is continued and worsened throughout his lifetime. In other words, as he put it: "It's poetic, and it says man is sinful from the womb. Poetry sometimes actually means what it says."
You can read this in Numbers 6.
First of all there is no parallelism between Judges13:5 and Psalms 58:3.
The child in the womb in Judges 13:5 is sanctified to the Lord and therefore the child was clean while the child in Psalms 58:3 according to your literal interpretation of Psalms 58:3 is a rebel ( unclean) and therefore can not be offered to the Lord. Where is the parallelism here. What you have done is create a contradictory between the two passages however you can establish a parallelism if you will make the baby in the mother's womb of Psalm 58:3 as a clean child but your interpretation does not allow this. There is no similarity between Judges 13:5 and Psalm 58:3.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Sir,
While this exchange has been illuminating in many ways, detailing the faulty hermeneutic that many in evangelicalism espouse, I asked in my last post if you'd please address the questions I've directed your way. Due to the selective nature of your responses, I'm forced to conclude that your interest is not in exchange, but in restating your viewpoint so as to present the impression that you have answered fully. As such, I'm going to give up here, and cordially wish you well. I wish you the best in your study of God's Word, but I'm afraid that I have to consider this discussion fruitless, since you cannot respond directly to more of what I have to say.
Respectfully,
Joshua.
While this exchange has been illuminating in many ways, detailing the faulty hermeneutic that many in evangelicalism espouse, I asked in my last post if you'd please address the questions I've directed your way. Due to the selective nature of your responses, I'm forced to conclude that your interest is not in exchange, but in restating your viewpoint so as to present the impression that you have answered fully. As such, I'm going to give up here, and cordially wish you well. I wish you the best in your study of God's Word, but I'm afraid that I have to consider this discussion fruitless, since you cannot respond directly to more of what I have to say.
Respectfully,
Joshua.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Joshua,
Perhaps you can attempt to respond to my last post before you ride off on your high horse.
Perhaps this passage will help you understand little children and their guilt
Romans 7:7-11 (New King James Version)
7. What shall we say then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! On the contrary, I would not have known sin except through the law. For I would not have known covetousness unless the law had said, “You shall not covet.” 8. But sin, taking opportunity by the commandment, produced in me all manner of evil desire. For apart from the law sin was dead. 9. I was alive once without the law, but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died. 10. And the commandment, which was to bring life, I found to bring death. 11. For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it killed me.
1. Paul did not know what sin was until the "commandment came"; i.e. when he was old enough to understand.
2. Paul then, and only then, sinned and incurred guilt.
3. Paul then died. He did not die physically at that point, but spiritually. He was not spiritually dead prior to his own sin.
Awaiting your (or any Calvinist) explanation of Ezekial 18, which states a principle very plainly.
Perhaps you can attempt to respond to my last post before you ride off on your high horse.
Perhaps this passage will help you understand little children and their guilt
Romans 7:7-11 (New King James Version)
7. What shall we say then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! On the contrary, I would not have known sin except through the law. For I would not have known covetousness unless the law had said, “You shall not covet.” 8. But sin, taking opportunity by the commandment, produced in me all manner of evil desire. For apart from the law sin was dead. 9. I was alive once without the law, but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died. 10. And the commandment, which was to bring life, I found to bring death. 11. For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it killed me.
1. Paul did not know what sin was until the "commandment came"; i.e. when he was old enough to understand.
2. Paul then, and only then, sinned and incurred guilt.
3. Paul then died. He did not die physically at that point, but spiritually. He was not spiritually dead prior to his own sin.
Awaiting your (or any Calvinist) explanation of Ezekial 18, which states a principle very plainly.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
A Berean
-
_PAULESPINO
- Posts: 13
- Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2006 11:53 pm
Joshua, I have answered all of your questions. Briefly state the question you
claimed I have not answered.
J you wrote:
Perhaps your style of hermeneutic is the correct one and mine is wrong which is by the way the most common exegetical method used today.
I understand this because your view is different from mine.
Anyway God Bless.....................
claimed I have not answered.
J you wrote:
You have the typical Calvinist response.While this exchange has been illuminating in many ways, detailing the faulty hermeneutic that many in evangelicalism espouse
Perhaps your style of hermeneutic is the correct one and mine is wrong which is by the way the most common exegetical method used today.
I understand this because your view is different from mine.
Anyway God Bless.....................
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
-
_PAULESPINO
- Posts: 13
- Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2006 11:53 pm
Joshua, I read your previous post and I'm sure I have answered all of your questions. There were a few rhetorical questions you made but I think you were trying to make a point with those rhetorical questions rather than address them to me.
If you will be willing please briefly state the questions you want me to answer.
By the way Homer has a few question for you also.
If you will be willing please briefly state the questions you want me to answer.
By the way Homer has a few question for you also.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason: