# Please correct/critique me.



## polemic_turtle (Sep 14, 2006)

I responded as below to the following questions:

1) What did the atonement accomplish in [Andrew] Fuller's view?
2) What are Fuller's views on Total Depravity--the ability/inability of man to "come to Christ"? Specifically, what is precisely meant by the distinction between natural and moral ability?
3) What is the nature of the Gospel Call, regeneration, etc?
4) Must every elect, according to his view, "hear the gospel"?
5) Is faith a "duty"? That is, are the non-elect commanded to "come to Christ"?

I know I could have done a better job with research, but for some reason I answered off the top of my head. Please tell me where I could have been better.



> 1. It procured infinite satisfaction to justice for sin, based upon the infinitude of Christ's person. He, however, denies that Christ died for the non-elect, though He died sufficiently for them. In other words, it is denied that Christ died for a finite number of sins, but rather suffered under the wrath of God due to sin as sin, and that infinitely because of the dignity of his person, the capacity of his soul to suffer, and the acceptance in the eyes of the Father. I'm just guessing, though, not having read his actual words upon the subject. I believe this was a very common view amongst the earlier reformed. Check out the Canons of Dort( where the infamous 5 points came from ); they use the "sufficient-efficient" maxim too. To sum it up; nothing very original I can spot here. Most Calvinists argue that Christ's death was sufficient for every man and every devil, if he only wished to use it as such. No more suffering would be necessary if He saved all and no less if He only saved one, because sin is infinite, because it is against an infinitely holy God, which is evident from the fact that Hell is eternal and therefore infinite in that regard. Punishment is suited to the sin, so infinite it must be, in at least one or more senses.
> 
> 2. He believed it was utterly impossible that a sinful man to come to Christ or even to desire to, except that the Holy Spirit worked regeneration on his heart prior to his so coming or desiring. The distinction between moral and natural ability is actually pretty simple. I can see in a physical sense; a blind man can't. I have natural ability, but he doesn't. In Gen 37:4, Joseph's brothers " could not speak peaceably to him", which is on account of their having "hated him", as was said immediately before. They actually could open their mouths and speak words in a peaceable way, in a natural sense, but in a moral sense, they were only inclined to deal roughly with him for the simple reason that they hated him. In like manner, sinful man does not lack natural ability to have faith in Christ, he, after all, still possesses a mind to aprehend the Gospel, a will free to incline that mind to do what he wants it to do, and a soul to gain or lose. Only he has a fatal flaw: he is at enmity with God and His law and therefore cannot be subject thereto. His will is decided by that motive which has the greatest influence with him, which is determined by his nature, which is sinful and at enmity with God. Therefore, there is not the slightest possibility that he will choose that which is morally upright because he hates it and loves sin. He is of the devil and desires to fulfil the lusts of his demonic father( Joh 8:44 ). Again, I'm sort of guessing here; read Edwards on the Will if you want to know the whole of it.
> 
> ...



Specifically speaking, is what I listed in question 1 the basic "satisfaction" view of the atonement? On that note, is that what Fuller held to, exactly or somewhat? Also, I've been wondering, isn't that what Calvin believed or am I missing something?

I will reveal some things: I haven't read Edwards on the Will all the way through, nor Fuller's "Gospel Worthy", nor Boyce's chapter on the Atonement, so I may be saying some things which are off. Show me so I'll know, if you don't mind. For now I'll concentrate on finishing them. 

thanks!


----------



## reformedman (Nov 1, 2006)

I don't like the statement "*All* babies go to heaven.", as a blanket statement. The only difference between a baby and an adult is intelligence of the things of this world, data or logic if you will. A lack of worldy logic doesn't garauntee salvation since it is not logic that condemns, it is sin.

To say that a young age garauntees salvation would also imply that there is a loss of that garauntee at a certain age. Theoretically, if there is some age that the child loses his garauntee, there then is some age where the child enters condemnation. By Adam we have all sinned and are condemned by it in that we by one man, have gone away from God and are dead in sin. If we are all dead in sin because of Adam, and if this form of death is what seperates us from God, then when did the infant regain a living spirit? A spirit that is regenerated and brought to life is the one that desires after the will of God. And further, his spirit then dies again in childhood, and then yet again, is reborn again in adulthood by the regenerating power of God the Holy Spirit. This redundancy doesn't sound scripturally feesable.

Or is thought that Adam's sin is applied to everyone after the age of infancy? I disagree with this and I believe that we are _born_ with Adam's sin.

I affirm that I believe that the blanket statement is wrong mainly because it cannot be shown scripturally. Conversely, I don't deny that it is possible that some infants are elected and saved, the quantitative *all* is the only problem I see. I may sound like I am contradicting myself in the following(and i probably am since I am doing this from the top of my head) but, backing up a bit, God's election comes from His own sovereign will, and how he chooses -- we don't know. When he chooses -- we don't know. So if he chooses a child in election, that child is garaunteed to salvation. To blanketly say that all are saved, would be my problem as I don't see it biblically.

This brings up a question in my mind, how does David say with conviction, he will see his dead infant son in heaven. How does he know the infant will be saved. Should it be considered a faulty statement from his personal conception as in the example of Philips three faulty statments to Nathaniel in delivering the gospel to him? or does David believe this because of some other doctrinal proof. In all, I agree with you that this is a dark subject and neither p.o.v. can be proven.


<---BTW 1689 BCF


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Nov 1, 2006)

(This is an older thread, I might point out: 9-14-06)

Although many good men have disputed this, I do not think that ALL babies that die as infants are going to heaven. That requires too much speculation (in my opinion) without warrant. It stretches God's promise beyond those to whom God's promise is directed. It may be sentimental, it may "accord" with God's compassion, but we have no knowledge of the truth of that specualtion. AND, it makes abortion less heinous, b/c supposedly all those babies are going to heaven regardless of their suffering, Original Sin, the parent's hatred of God, inability to grow up and to hear the gospel when capable of understanding it, to name a few objections.

As for your final question:
God promised his people "I will be God to you, and to your seed after you." David simply takes God at his Word. "God promised to be my son's God. I have nothing else to trust in. I will die, and then I will see my child again."

BTW, I understand that as baptist, you may not accept that David's covenant hope was well founded, but David's own experience (confirmed by Spirit inspiration) told him that infants could have saving faith in Christ, Ps. 22:9. So, believers have a biblically founded hope for their children--especially those dying in infancy--that they are elect. They have no evidence to the contrary, and the Word of promise from God in favor of that hope.


Also related, please list Philip's "three faulty statements" to Nathaniel (Jn. 1:45 ? ) for me. Thanks


----------



## reformedman (Nov 2, 2006)

Contra_Mundum said:


> (This is an older thread, I might point out: 9-14-06)



I am sorry for bringing back an old post I did not notice the date but it was on the top of the threads list so I assumed that it was recent. I haven't been on these forums for a long while now. I'll be more careful next time.



Contra_Mundum said:


> Also related, please list Philip's "three faulty statements" to Nathaniel (Jn. 1:45 ? ) for me. Thanks



I say faulty as opposed to wrong in that they are not absolutely 100% correct. When a person identifies another, he uses his geneological, parental, or birth location information for that purpose. 
Jesus was not born in Nazareth even though he came recently from there. He was raised there not born there. Philip pointed to Jesus as being the Messiah, yet the Messiah was to come from Bethlehem per Micah. I think this is why Nathanial questioned Jesus' position as Messiah. If I am from NewYork and I go on vacation to Pennsylvania, but I stop to visit my sister in Jersey, I can say, "I came from Jersey", but in fact, my identity is actually NewYork. 

Although the position of caring guardian or father was given to Joseph, Joseph was in fact not the father to the man Christ Jesus. Joseph was placed in that position so the statement is faulty but not totally wrong. Jesus was to be virgin born per Micah. I don't deny that Joseph was given that role as authority and rank over Jesus for his care, but when we get down to it, Philip gave information to Nathanial that was misconstrued to mean that the normal means by which a man becomes a father to a child was the same relationship that Joseph had to Jesus.

I don't recall what the third faulty statement was, it's been a long time since I studied it, so I will have to take the third one back and apologize. Also, sorry if i wasn't clear in the prior post, I was speaking from the top of my head.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Nov 2, 2006)

Frank,
Bringing up an old post is fine. Happens all the time. You might have a relevant thing to say. Just realize that the question being asked may no longer be pressing the original writer.

Re. the faulty statements, 1) "Jesus of Nazareth" was a common designation. I was not born in Ohio, but today I'm "of Ohio". Nate may have mistaken Phil's meaning (I'm not convinced that his answer indicates any confusion), but Nate's words don't have to indicate he thought Jesus was born in Nazareth. Jesus spent the huge majority of his growing up, for 30 years, in Nazareth. Surely that qualifies him for the designation, not in error. There are prophetical considerations for the name as well, but his rearing seems sufficient.

2) "son of Joseph" may more possibly be an error, if Nate didn't mean "according to common reckoning", but again, since these guys were all from the same area, they may have been distantly acquainted with Nazarenes as neighbors. And "Joshua ben Joseph" may have been the regular designation of Jesus, to distinguish him from most of the other "Joshua's" in the area. What else could he be called?

3)? OK, maybe there isn't another.

Phil may have been mistaken all around. But I don't know that we have to assume that, or that we benefit more interpretively assuming that he did manke reasonable human errors of assumption, rather than giving him the benefit of the doubt.

My  Peace, brother.


----------



## reformedman (Nov 2, 2006)

Fine answer brother, hopefully our communications will benefit turtle a little bit. I think his answers were fine in all, the baby situation brought up a red flag and I thought I'd give my 2 cents. Notwithstanding, his answer doesn't differ, he says that infants that are elect will be saved as I do, I agree that any that are elect are saved whether infant or old.

When he briefly mentioned it, he brought to my mind the thought that is going around that many claim as a general statement that *all* infants are saved. This thought is what I am opposed to.


----------



## polemic_turtle (Nov 2, 2006)

You'll notice I left that loophole there, because I'm not sure that we can know for sure. The man who introduced me to the depths of Reformed theology was Dr. Curt Daniel and he believes that all dying infants are elect. Reading through Hodge's Systematic, you can see that he does too( first volume, near the beginning, he says that Christ's death was sufficient for the original sin of all infants and thus all infants are forgiven and glorified ). I need to study many other doctrines before I turn to speculation.

Oh yes, the reason that I brought up infants is because Primitive Baptists have a very stringent doctrine of immediate regeneration, which leads most of them to say that God saved his elect without the use of means. They point to the dark, dark subject of infant salvation to prove that He saves them without means and can save the heathen that way too. I don't like it. Any thoughts?


----------



## reformedman (Nov 3, 2006)

I agree with you that if there is not enough biblical evidence then we can only speculate, and even that, I'd rather not do but I will respond what you said with respect to Hodge...



> ...Reading through Hodge's Systematic, you can see that he does too( first volume, near the beginning, he says that Christ's death was sufficient for the original sin of all infants and thus all infants are forgiven and glorified ).


I see two errors in this:
1. [In qualifying the power of the death of Christ;] If Christ's death is sufficient for the sins of all infants, it would imply that Christ's death is sufficient for some but not for all. I believe that Christ's death is sufficient for all but his death was not expiated for all. The purpose of his death was for his elect. So while he is capable (infinitely) of saving all, the purpose of his death is not inifinite.

2. [In quantifying the power of the death of Christ;] If Hodge believes that Christ's death is applied to all infants merely because Christ is capable, then it is equivalent to say that Christ's death is equally sufficient for the original sin of all adults and thus all adults are forgiven and glorified.


----------



## Ravens (Nov 6, 2006)

With all due respect to the great theologians who have affirmed that all infants go to heaven, I think that this belief largely derives from the same erroneous, anthropocentric ideas of "justice" that lead the Arminian to deny unconditional election.

For me, infants are the ultimate tokens of both grace and wrath, and of both the kindness and the severity of God.

On the one hand, they illustrate the graciousness of God's salvation irrespective of works and personal merit, and on the other hand, the illustrate the absolute reality of imputed guilt, and the penalty thereof.

As in, the consequences of Adam's sin are so great, and the imputed guilt so very real, that a baby, before it has had time to grow up and manifest its depravity in certain sins, is so corrupted and condemned based on Adam's sin alone that, apart from Christ, it is worthy of nothing but fire.

Problems like infant salvation and the "unevangelized pagan" all but disappear when seen in reference to a sturdy doctrine of original sin.


----------

