# Dispensationalism/Scofieldism.



## brothermiller (Sep 15, 2008)

Greetings in our Lord Jesus Christ brethren.I have been a dispensationalist for quite a long while.I have never regarded it as unbiblical until recently in the last 6 months or so.I have heard sermon after sermon spewed from Southern Baptist and Independent Baptist pulpits over the years as a thus saith the Scripture.I decided since I believed what I believed because thats what the preacher teaches and it is more popular so it must be.Many have told me I was not to question eschatolgy {i.e.dispensationalism}because it has been past down from the New Testament Apostles on through the centuries.

I figured well before I make a decision to reform I will have to decide that after an exhaustive investagation.Many in the Independent Baptist circles defend dispensationalism even to the point of marking you as a heretic.I must under great conviction tell my baptist brethren Southern Convention and Independent Fundamentalist that I fear dispensationalism is a serious error launched upon the reformation Puritans as a evil Counter-Attack on sound doctrine.

For those brethren who think dispensationalsm is not to be questioned I beseech you brethren by the mercies of God to be as the Berean`s to search the Scriptures whether these things be so.{Acts 17:11}

My research has shown that Scofield`s life disqualified him from being a leader of any kind in the Church.What my research based upon documents proved him to be.Also he did not even have a Biblical education and how men today accept his notes as a thus saith the Scripture amazes me.DR Scofield was a title he gave himself and he ignored {2nd Peter 1:20} and {Rev 22:18-19}.

Also {Proverbs 18:13} He that answereth a matter before he heareth it,it is folly and shame unto him.

I will have to put it into sections.

It is incredible that only one book has been written about one of the most influential men in Evangelical history. That book is "The Life Story of C. I. Scofield" by Charles Trumbull, Oxford University Press, New York, 1920. In 1960, William BeVier, a Master's student at Southern Methodist University, completed a thesis, "A Biographical Sketch of C. I. Scofield." This has not been published, but it is found in some Evangelical school libraries and contains important information. In 1942-43, the late Arno Gaebelein wrote a series of articles for Moody Monthly, "The Story of the Scofield Reference Bible."

Until 1984, these were the only sources offered by Evangelicals for material on the life and credentials of their most prominent Bible teacher whose notes have influenced the church and changed its direction. Thorough research was begun in 1984 by Joseph M. Canfield to compile his book, The Incredible Scofield. His information was gleaned from many sources. Genealogical data was supplied by Ruth Scofield Kennedy from a branch of the Scofield clan.

Other records come from:

University of Michigan Historical Society. 
Episcopal Historical Society.

Encyclopedia of the History of St. Louis

Missouri Historical Society, St. Louis.

Kansas Historical Society.

U.S. Department of Justice, National Archives.

U.S. Census for Michigan 1869, Lenawee County.

U.S. Census for Tennessee, Wilson County.

Confederate Research Center.



City Directories, court records, newspaper articles of the period, both American and British, ship sailings, etc. Information was obtained from the papers of Emeline Papin's Estate, Cyrus' sister, on file in St. Louis County Courthouse, Clayton, Missouri. Some facts were gleaned from Laura Scofield Lames, another sister, St. Louis Directory, 1877, public libraries, and many other sources too numerous to mention.

Canfield did a masterful job of searching out the material for his book, which may be obtained from J. M. Canfield, 129 Kyfields, Weaverville, N.C. 28887.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Sep 15, 2008)

brothermiller,

Please see the blogs feature: The PuritanBoard - Blogs

We really don't like to use the forum sections to post "articles" and the blog is adapted more appropriately toward that end.


----------



## Jimmy the Greek (Sep 15, 2008)

I'm not sure I understand the "Blog feature", but nevertheless, cutting and pasting huge amounts of text is not normally accepted "forum" etiquette. It is best to include links to the material offsite (if possible) -- accompanied by summary comments. Otherwise, I suppose the Blog feature is available for that purpose, I'm just not familiar with it.


----------



## toddpedlar (Sep 15, 2008)

Brother Miller -

You do understand, right, that this is a REFORMED board? There are no dispensationalists here to argue against. Also, as Rich noted, please do not post
long extracts of articles in a normal forum post. Either post links to articles that you
are interested in promoting, or use the blog feature. This isn't a place for filling a forum with long articles from someone else's pen. 

Todd


----------



## brothermiller (Sep 15, 2008)

Brethren this article is not promoting dispensationalism but seeing it as false doctrine.Also Todd you say no dispensationalist here.What do you think most baptist are and I see many here?

Just curious.


I tried deleting them all but the 1st wont let me.


----------



## Jimmy the Greek (Sep 15, 2008)

I know there are at least some former dispensationalists -- and perhaps a few moderate dispensationalists active on the board by special dispensation.  But a supposed requirement for membership includes adherence to one of the Reformed Confessions which _de facto_ excludes dispensationalism. 

At any rate, we may discuss dispensationlism issues (there is a specific forum for this under Covenant Theology) but we can't promote it . . . not that Brothermiller was.


----------



## brothermiller (Sep 15, 2008)

Well I assure you I am no longer a dispensationalist and I decided that on my own free-will.

God bless.


----------



## VictorBravo (Sep 15, 2008)

brothermiller said:


> Well I assure you I am no longer a dispensationalist and *I decided that on my own free-will*.



Oh boy. 

BrotherMiller, may I make a suggestion? Finding out what is wrong with Schofield or dispensationalism was a beginning, but now would be a good time to focus on what are the basics of the Reformed faith. You obviously are not afraid of reading. A good place to focus your energies right now would be to read Calvin's Institutes. It is very clear writing.

You may wonder why I emphasized the "free-will" part of your quote. It's because often the first thing former dispensationalists run smack into as they unpack the Doctrines of Grace is the Sovereignty of God. As we learn more about this, we discover that "free-will" is a very suspect phrase.

Blessings.


----------



## Jimmy the Greek (Sep 15, 2008)

Brother Miller. Please take the posts above as coaching and informing, not bashing. No offense is intended. Newcomers to the Forum are really welcome. . . really. It takes some time to get the feel of the place.


----------



## brothermiller (Sep 15, 2008)

victorbravo said:


> brothermiller said:
> 
> 
> > Well I assure you I am no longer a dispensationalist and *I decided that on my own free-will*.
> ...







Have you Consider these? Hebrews 2:3: “How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him.”


Hebrews 3:12-14: “Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God. But exhort one another daily, while it is called To day; lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin. For we are made partakers of Christ, if we hold the beginning of our confidence stedfast unto the end.”


Hebrews 4:9-11: “There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God. For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from his. Let us labour therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief.”


Hebrews 6:4-6: “For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, and have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, if they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.”


Hebrews 10:26-29: “For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries. He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses: Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?”



God bless


----------



## Kim G (Sep 15, 2008)

brothermiller said:


> victorbravo said:
> 
> 
> > You may wonder why I emphasized the "free-will" part of your quote. It's because often the first thing former dispensationalists run smack into as they unpack the Doctrines of Grace is the Sovereignty of God. As we learn more about this, we discover that "free-will" is a very suspect phrase.
> ...



Are you trying to disprove the sovereignty of God? With Bible verses? Those verses mean many things, but they don't say that God is weak and allows people the ability to thwart His plans (so-called "free will").

I found that reading Martin Luther's book _Bondage of the Will_ was a big help in getting my mind around idea of God's sovereignty. Perhaps you would enjoy that book, too.

Now, I grew up in a fundamental baptist church myself, so I know where you're coming from. There are a lot of things that have to be "de-programmed" as you read the Bible for yourself. But if you actively promote the fact that you don't believe in God's sovereignty, then why are you a member of this board? It contradicts both the London Baptist Confession and the Westminster Confession of Faith.


----------



## VictorBravo (Sep 15, 2008)

brothermiller said:


> victorbravo said:
> 
> 
> > brothermiller said:
> ...



Yes, my friend, I have. This isn't the thread for an in-depth discussion on these verses. But if you really want to dig into them, you might try John Owen's exposition on Hebrews. A relatively short summary of his massive work can be found here:

Hebrews - Google Book Search

Also, you might consider Matthew Henry's commentary on the passages you quoted. He is easily accessible on-line. 

I'm sure others can come up with even more helpful resources.

"Tolle Lege" (pick up and read) some good old stuff to get a background on what it means to adhere to the confessions and what is the Reformed faith.


----------



## Kim G (Sep 15, 2008)

brothermiller said:


> Brethren this article is not promoting dispensationalism but seeing it as false doctrine.Also Todd you say no dispensationalist here.What do you think most baptist are and I see many here?



Reformed baptists (I'm one of them by default) are a funny bunch.  They are not dispensationalist, because they see the church of Christ throughout both the Old and New Testaments (to put it briefly). Yet they do not carry the image of circumcision from the OT to infant baptism in the NT, like the Presbyterians, Lutherans, etc.


----------



## brothermiller (Sep 15, 2008)

Brother Bottomly have you read Dave Hunts book what love is this?I bought Tolle Lege 1599 restoration Geneva Study Bible with the Puritan notes.I find so many mistakes in the so-called reproduction in the text.I feel robbed by buying a Bible with so many typographical mistakes they clearly did not warn the customers about.

God bless.


----------



## toddpedlar (Sep 15, 2008)

brothermiller said:


> Brethren this article is not promoting dispensationalism but seeing it as false doctrine.Also Todd you say no dispensationalist here.What do you think most baptist are and I see many here?
> 
> Just curious.
> 
> ...



Brother Miller -

This is intended in the most friendly fashion: please read the rules of the board, and there you will find that everyone here, including yourself, has signed up with the express confession of one of the confessional standards allowed by the board. Dispensationalists cannot subscribe to any of the standards we support - hence their doctrine is anathema here. None of the baptists on board are dispensationalists - all subscribe to the 1689 London Baptist confession (at least) which will not allow for a dispensationalist interpretation. 

Todd


----------



## brothermiller (Sep 15, 2008)

Kim G Says:

Are you trying to disprove the sovereignty of God? With Bible verses? Those verses mean many things, but they don't say that God is weak and allows people the ability to thwart His plans (so-called "free will").


Brother Miller ask.

Kim G since the verses I mentioned in Hebrews can mean many things what does this verse mean?

{2nd Peter 1:20}AV

Knowing this first,that no prophecy of the Scripture is of any private interpretation.


God bless.


----------



## Kim G (Sep 15, 2008)

brothermiller said:


> Kim G since the verses I mentioned in Hebrews can mean many things what does this verse mean?
> 
> {2nd Peter 1:20}AV
> 
> ...



I'm sorry, I wasn't clear. When I said "these verses can mean many things," I meant that each verse you quoted may not be saying the exact same thing as the other verses, not that each verse has many interpretations. Mea culpa (or however that's spelled!)


----------



## brothermiller (Sep 15, 2008)

Todd you clearly have not understood me.I am NOT a Dispensationalist.I have been to many boards and have never experienced not even from atheist some of the the harshness as expressed here.

God bless.


----------



## Pilgrim (Sep 15, 2008)

brothermiller said:


> Todd you clearly have not understood me.I am NOT a Dispensationalist.I have been to many boards and have never experienced not even from atheist some of the the harshness as expressed here.
> 
> God bless.



Todd did not say you are a dispensationalist. What he was trying to communicate to you is that there aren't any dispensationalists on the Puritan Board because a dispensationalist cannot subscribe to the London Baptist Confession of 1689 due to its teaching on covenant theology. In other words, if you're looking for a place on the internet to argue with dispensationalists, this isn't it because being a dispensationalist is against the board rules. While many if not most Baptists are dispensational (especially in Fundamental and in many Southern Baptist churches, as you have noted) there are many Baptists who are not dispensationalists, but instead are amil or historic premil (post-trib). 

If you have a burden to dissuade Baptists from dispensational views, you may want to try other forums like the Baptist Board or Sharper Iron where that view is more prevalent. 

Blessings,


----------



## Seb (Sep 15, 2008)

brothermiller said:


> Todd you clearly have not understood me.I am NOT a Dispensationalist.I have been to many boards and have never experienced not even from atheist some of the the harshness as expressed here.
> 
> God bless.



Brothermiller,

I think Todd's saying that if you've come here to argue against Dispensationalism / Scofieldism that it's a mute argument on the Puritanboard, because there is no one here to argue against. In other words, "you are preaching to the choir."

You are right, there are MANY Baptists on the board, but they (like yourself) are NOT Dispensational.

I've read all of your posts and the replies to them and I'm wondering where the harshness is that you're claiming?

I see the Mods/Admin gently giving you advice and guidance.


----------



## Jimmy the Greek (Sep 15, 2008)

Pilgrim said:


> brothermiller said:
> 
> 
> > Todd you clearly have not understood me.I am NOT a Dispensationalist.I have been to many boards and have never experienced not even from atheist some of the the harshness as expressed here.
> ...



In other words, you are preaching to the choir  and no extensive argumentation against dispensationalism is needed. We all agree with you in principle. Peace.

Dangit. Steve types faster than me.


----------



## brothermiller (Sep 15, 2008)

London Baptist Confession of 1689 teacheth free will no?

Chapter 9: Of Free Will

1._____ God hath endued the will of man with that natural liberty and power of acting upon choice, that it is neither forced, nor by any necessity of nature determined to do good or evil. 
( Matthew 17:12; James 1:14; Deuteronomy 30:19 ) 
2._____ Man, in his state of innocency, had freedom and power to will and to do that which was good and well-pleasing to God, but yet was unstable, so that he might fall from it. 
( Ecclesiastes 7:29; Genesis 3:6 ) 

3._____ Man, by his fall into a state of sin, hath wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation; so as a natural man, being altogether averse from that good, and dead in sin, is not able by his own strength to convert himself, or to prepare himself thereunto. 
( Romans 5:6; Romans 8:7; Ephesians 2:1, 5; Titus 3:3-5; John 6:44 ) 

4._____ When God converts a sinner, and translates him into the state of grace, he freeth him from his natural bondage under sin, and by his grace alone enables him freely to will and to do that which is spiritually good; yet so as that by reason of his remaining corruptions, he doth not perfectly, nor only will, that which is good, but doth also will that which is evil. 
( Colossians 1:13; John 8:36; Philippians 2:13; Romans 7:15, 18, 19, 21, 23 ) 

5._____ This will of man is made perfectly and immutably free to good alone in the state of glory only. 
( Ephesians 4:13 )


----------



## FrielWatcher (Sep 15, 2008)

Perhaps, just an idea, it would be better to email board members in private who know about what you are looking for. From your profile description:



> I come to fellowship and to learn of our Historic roots of Post Dispensationalism.



Blessing to you!


----------



## Jimmy the Greek (Sep 15, 2008)

Regarding your reference to Dave Hunts' "What Love is This?", are you suggesting that this is good?

James White, a Calvinist, and others have charged Hunt with misrepresenting Calvinistic teachings, and as having insufficient knowledge of Reformed theology, or original Biblical languages, to accurately evaluate Calvinism. 

Also published in 2004 was _Debating Calvinism: Five Points, Two Views_, co-written in a point-counterpoint debate format between Hunt and James White. Hunt was demolished. You won't find sympathizers for him here on the PB.


----------



## Pilgrim (Sep 15, 2008)

No, not in the Arminian sense of free will that is usually thought of, where man is absolutely free to do as he chooses in every circumstance. This article compares the differences before and after the fall. See point 3 especially on how this article does NOT teach free will as many Baptists and others understand it. 



brothermiller said:


> London Baptist Confession of 1689 teacheth free will no?
> 
> Chapter 9: Of Free Will
> 
> ...


----------



## Kim G (Sep 15, 2008)

brothermiller said:


> 1._____ God hath endued the will of man with that natural liberty and power of acting upon choice, that it is neither forced, nor by any necessity of nature determined to do good or evil.
> ( Matthew 17:12; James 1:14; Deuteronomy 30:19 )
> 2._____ Man, in his state of innocency, had freedom and power to will and to do that which was good and well-pleasing to God, but yet was unstable, so that he might fall from it.
> ( Ecclesiastes 7:29; Genesis 3:6 )
> ...



To boil down what it says:
1. Man's will was not determined toward good or evil when he was created.
2. Before the fall, men were free to do good.
3. After the fall, man has lost his ability to do anything spiritually good. He has no free will to obey God.
4. Upon regeneration, man is once again able to do that which is good, but he still upon occasion wills evil because of his corruptions.
5. *We will only have a good and perfectly free will in the state of glory.*

I really think you would profit from reading Luther's _Bondage of the Will._ I found that it really helped me think through this issue.

Having said that, I apologize for getting the thread off-topic. Moving on . . .


----------



## VictorBravo (Sep 15, 2008)

brothermiller said:


> Brother Bottomly have you read Dave Hunts book what love is this?I bought Tolle Lege 1599 restoration Geneva Study Bible with the Puritan notes.I find so many mistakes in the so-called reproduction in the text.I feel robbed by buying a Bible with so many typographical mistakes they clearly did not warn the customers about.
> 
> God bless.



It seems we have a misunderstanding. When I said "Tolle Lege", I meant that you should go read some of things I suggested, like Calvin's Institutes and Matthew Henry's Commentaries.

I was not telling you to buy books from the publisher Tolle Lege (although that's not a bad idea), and I'm sorry about your experience with the Geneva Bible, but even with the typos there is a lot of good you can glean from the notes.

And, again, yes, I've read Dave Hunt's book. It is garbage plain and simple.

Please, read some good solid material. The PB is a good place to get information, but all of us have to do a lot of work on our own to even understand some of the issues that come up here.


----------



## Blueridge Believer (Sep 15, 2008)




----------



## toddpedlar (Sep 15, 2008)

brothermiller said:


> Todd you clearly have not understood me.I am NOT a Dispensationalist.I have been to many boards and have never experienced not even from atheist some of the the harshness as expressed here.
> 
> God bless.



As others have noted, I never have been confused about your position vis a vis dispensationalism.

It is clear that you are not a dispensationalist.

I am saying that you do not need to overload forums here with large articles arguing against dispensationalism simply because it is impossible for a dispensationalist to be a member here - so there are NO dispensationalists here. So I'm suggesting you save your breath for other discussions.


----------



## Herald (Sep 15, 2008)

Steven,

This comment of yours:



> I have been to many boards and have never experienced not even from atheist some of the the harshness as expressed here.



...is going down the wrong road fast. I strongly suggest you read what others are writing and respond charitably. Moderators watch these threads and take decisive action when there is evidence of an uncharitable nature or a violation of the 9th commandment. You're new here so take a piece of advice: watch, read and listen. Post circumspectly. Go back and read the rules and understand what this board is about.


----------



## brothermiller (Sep 15, 2008)

Thank you all.

Has anyone heard David Clouds sermon Calvinism who`s the real enemy?It was banned from Sermon Audio.Also it seems Dave Hunt is teaching the Jesuit Inspired Heresies in his attempt to hijack the true Christian faith.I read the article on still water revival books.In no way am I saying Dave Hunts books are good reading maybe good to start a fire with.

My apologies not use to fellowship with those that that say a man has no free will.


----------



## Herald (Sep 15, 2008)

> My apologies not use to fellowship with those that that say a man has no free will.



Steven, are you a Calvinist? Do you believe in the doctrine of sovereign grace?


----------



## Kim G (Sep 15, 2008)

brothermiller said:


> My apologies not use to fellowship with those that that say a man has no free will.



Believe me when I say, we understand. When I first heard about "Calvinism," I thought it was wrong. But there are tons of resources both here and at monergism.com where you can read up on what it really means for God to be sovereign over man's will. It's a blessing and a humbling experience to understand that, before we were saved, we were as dead in sins as Lazarus was physically dead in the tomb. But when Christ said, "Come forth," we came out of spiritual death and into His eternal life. No struggle of the will--just God-given obedience through God-given faith to glorify the God of all the universe.


----------



## brothermiller (Sep 15, 2008)

North Jersey Baptist said:


> > My apologies not use to fellowship with those that that say a man has no free will.
> 
> 
> 
> Steven, are you a Calvinist? Do you believe in the doctrine of sovereign grace?




Brother all I can answer is that I am not a robot.

{Rev 22:17}

And the Spirit and the bride say Come.And let him that heareth say Come.And let him that is athirst come.And whosoever will,let him take the water of life freely.

Comment on Rev 22:17 It means the Holy Spirit is calling to a lost and dying world and if one can hear then one can come.The sacrifice of Christ on the cross opens the door to every single individual in this world;Jesus died for all and therefore all can be saved if they will only Come.

Ban me if you must.

God bless.


----------



## ManleyBeasley (Sep 15, 2008)

brothermiller said:


> North Jersey Baptist said:
> 
> 
> > > My apologies not use to fellowship with those that that say a man has no free will.
> ...



Thats a very common misconception about Calvinism but not really true. The picture in many people's minds is that God forces man's will to choose apart from the desire to so. (Analogy) Like you are going down a street and want to turn left but find yourself turning right instead against your desire. This is not what we believe. The thing that is enslaved is *DESIRE*. A lost man does not desire God and His glory, he wants his own glory. He only desires wickedness and even his good deeds are not done by faith and not for God's glory. God then quickened us! He made us alive by giving a holy desire for Him that is stronger the our desires for selfish wickedness. Augustine described God's grace like this; "Grace is God giving sovereign joy in God that triumphs over the joys of sin". When a man repents and believes he is doing what he wants to do. The wanting (regeneration) comes from God and the the result is belief and a new hatred for sin. Trust me, I have no bad feelings toward those who aren't Calvinists but I believe the scripture is so amazingly clear on the Doctrines of Grace. These biblical doctrines have cut deep into my pride and taken away so much of what I wrongly clung to. Look at Ephesians 2:1-7

"1 And you were dead in the trespasses and sins 2 in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience— 3among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind. 4But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, 5even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ— by grace you have been saved— 6and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, 7so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus."

God bless you Steven. I will be in prayer for you. You seem to be at a big crossroads.


----------



## Jimmy the Greek (Sep 15, 2008)

brothermiller said:


> North Jersey Baptist said:
> 
> 
> > > My apologies not use to fellowship with those that that say a man has no free will.
> ...



Brother Miller, 
Your quotes from Revelation are indeed true and Calvinists do not make men robots as Arminians claim. But I will point you to what I found to be the crucial difference between Arminians and Calvinists, which is also the difference between a synergistic and a monergistic view of salvation:

In Arminianism, man believes on Christ of his own natural free will and God rewards him with the new birth and eternal life. (synergism - God does his part and man does his)

In Calvinism (and Reformed theology), God sovereignly regenerates his elect and they immediately believe on Christ out of their renewed will. (monergism - salvation is the work of God alone)

As mentioned earlier, I'm sure you would benefit from reading Martin Luther's Bondage of the Will. It is great fun reading because of Luther's biting sharp wit as he often praises Erasmus and surgically disembowels his free will arguments in the same breath.


----------



## Seb (Sep 15, 2008)

brothermiller said:


> North Jersey Baptist said:
> 
> 
> > > My apologies not use to fellowship with those that that say a man has no free will.
> ...



Brother, I'm afraid you are misunderstanding the Doctrines of Grace.

The DoG teaches that those "that heareth" and "him that is athirst" come. 

But it is God who sovereignly chooses and gives the believer the ears that hear, and the thirst than pants for the Lord. Until God awakens us we cannot choose Him because we are still spiritually dead.

By Grace we are saved...NOT by works. By Grace our Lord Chooses and restores us. When He restores us He gives us the faith.

[Bible]Eph 2:1-9[/bible]

[Bible]Rom 11:1-10[/bible]

[Bible]John 6:44[/bible]


----------



## fredtgreco (Sep 15, 2008)

brothermiller said:


> North Jersey Baptist said:
> 
> 
> > > My apologies not use to fellowship with those that that say a man has no free will.
> ...



No one is a robot. In fact, as you profess faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, you do indeed have free will. It is a great work of the Spirit to "renew the will" of a sinner who is regenerated. It is only by a work of God that our will is free and we are enabled to believe upon him.

Those who are lost and not regenerated are not robots either. But that does not mean that they have "free" will. Rather, their wills are captive to sin. They are as our Lord said "slaves to sin."


----------



## brothermiller (Sep 15, 2008)

Could someone tell me this?

Are there babies born lost and some saved?

Do some babies that die say at 3 months old ,cast into hell because a loving God predestined it?


----------



## FrielWatcher (Sep 15, 2008)

brothermiller said:


> Could someone tell me this?
> 
> Are there babies born lost and some saved?
> 
> Do some babies that die say at 3 months old ,cast into hell because a loving God predestined it?



Yes. God is sovereign to elect as with Jacob and Esau. Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated. And this comes from before they had done anything on the earth, but from the womb. 

How does this baby argument really matter?


----------



## Seb (Sep 15, 2008)

Brother, 

No offense intended, but there are already entire threads on the PB that examine these questions. Here's just a few:

http://www.puritanboard.com/f15/infants-dying-infancy-35053/index2.html

http://www.puritanboard.com/f57/can-infants-regenerated-16942/

http://www.puritanboard.com/f57/baptists-infants-hell-20158/

http://www.puritanboard.com/f57/non-elect-infants-cog-Christ-mediator-2218/

http://www.puritanboard.com/f15/what-happens-infants-when-they-die-24340/

Once again-- No offense, but I'm compelled to ask -- Did you read / study any of the PB before you applied for membership?

Your 1689 LBCF confession states this:

3._____ Elect infants dying in infancy are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit; who worketh when, and where, and how he pleases; so also are all elect persons, who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.
( John 3:3, 5, 6; John 3:8 )


----------



## ManleyBeasley (Sep 15, 2008)

brothermiller said:


> Could someone tell me this?
> 
> Are there babies born lost and some saved?
> 
> Do some babies that die say at 3 months old ,cast into hell because a loving God predestined it?



1. Do you believe babies are born innocent? Depravity is not something developed but something inherited.

2. Also, don't you believe God can keep someone alive until the appointed day of grace? 

3. If everyone deserves hell, why do you think God is unloving to allow some to recieve justice whatever their age?


----------



## Jimmy the Greek (Sep 15, 2008)

All are born lost. To deny this is to deny the doctrine of "original sin". Even Arminian John Wesley and the Romanists believe in that. To deny the guilt of original sin is Pelagianism and outside orthodox Christianity as far as I'm concerned.

Those who die in infancy is another question which has been discussed fairly thoroughly on other threads, but should not confuse the issue.


----------



## turmeric (Sep 15, 2008)

This is from the London Baptist Confession of Faith 1689 re; Effectual Calling;

*CHAPTER 10; OF EFFECTUAL CALLING* 
Paragraph 1. *Those whom God hath predestinated unto life*, He is pleased in His appointed, and accepted time, effectually to call,*1* by His Word and Spirit, out of that state of sin and death in which they are by nature, to grace and salvation by Jesus Christ;*2* enlightening their minds spiritually and savingly to understand the things of God;*3* *taking away their heart of stone, and giving to them a heart of flesh;4 renewing their wills, and by His almighty power determining them to that which is good, and effectually drawing them to Jesus Christ;5 yet so as they come most freely, being made willing by His grace.6 
1* Rom. 8:30, 11:7; Eph. 1:10,11; 2 Thess. 2:13,14 
*2* Eph. 2:1-6 
*3* Acts 26:18; Eph. 1:17,18 
*4* Ezek. 36:26 
*5* Deut. 30:6; Ezek. 36:27; Eph. 1:19 
*6* Ps. 110:3; Cant. 1:4 

No robots!

Brother Miller, you might find it interesting to read John Owen's _The Death of Death in the Death of Christ_, in which he explains the doctrine of Definite Atonement. It's a long read,very convoluted 17th Century English, but worth it in the end. His basic premise is that Christ died for a definite number, effectually saving *all* for whom He died, leaving nothing to chance. Those who are in Christ therefore can be assured that they are saved to the uttermost by His death.


----------



## Herald (Sep 15, 2008)

Steven,

Please check your PM inbox in about five minutes.


----------



## tdowns (Sep 15, 2008)

*Praying for you....*

Brother Miller, as you struggle through the issues...do not retreat from your inquiry! Seek His face and His truth, and I will pray.

Read at least one of the suggested readings, and keep asking.


----------

