a challenge to you Calvinists!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jacob,

Looking at the character of God and his mercy, and other verses that speak of Gods grace. I think that scripture leans toward the side of grace in the question of an infant.

But I can not say with confidence and in good concience that God certainly elects all infants. And I could not in good concience tell a grieving parent that their child is in Heaven. I am not to make judgment on such a thing.

Don't you see that these two together are inconsistant. What else do you have to look at except God's character which He has revealed in His word? How do you know God's character is holy and just? By His word, yet you know His character. How do you know God is gracious and merciful - Christ alone! Yet, again via the Word revealed.

For Christ is, "...the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God." & "For God, who said, "Light shall shine out of darkness," is the One who has shone in our hearts to give the Light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ." (2Cor Vs. 4 & 6)

You see Christ reveals the mercy and truth of God. This is what you have to set both your confidence and conscience upon and those whom you would advise. Otherwise one abscures Christ when He is needed the most!

Furthermore, you are going down the hyper-calvinistic path whether your aware of it or not. How? Because you are peering too much into Divine election rather than faith. Though it is a fact of Scripture, this door is closed to you and all men. We are not to seek out election but trust in Christ by faith. The whole of Scripture is toward faith in Christ alone, not faith in election per se. It is faith you must view and at that faith in Christ alone. Thus, your answer to such a couple must be via faith and since that faith necessarily must be fixed upon Christ Who is the merciful revelation of God your answer must follow that. Anything else is absolutely worthless. Not election first. Election allows for non-conditional salvation but it is faith that hopes (expects) in the mercy of God in the believer. The direction is that those of faith in Christ alone are the elect, the direction is not that those who know their election infallibly are of the faith. For then what need there be of faith in Christ alone?

At the end of the day neither you nor me know our election infallibly whereby we may rest in it - rather we believe and trust upon Christ alone Whom we may rest upon infallibly.

Thus, why would you point a couple in a direction away from Christ and faith, and away from that which you yourself must rely?

If you answer to such a couple, "I don't know" pretending to be pious toward election, then all you have done is engendered doubt and unbelief and actually cast dispersion upon the character of Christ. Which is the exact opposite of a gospel ministers call. If one does this one has foresaken their call.

Also, be careful that you are not worshipping the text of the Bible rather than the One Whom the text speaks of.

Blessings,

Larry
 
Larry,

My resonse to a couple in this situation would be as folows. " Our God is a god of mercy who has given us faith to believe in his son. It is in this mercy and grace that our faith rests, and in faith alone in Christ we must cling."
I will not tell that parent right out that their child is in heaven. I do not know that. I may have faith in Christ that he has mercy and a soverign will, and nothing more. I simply do not understand how you could tell a grieving parent that there child is in heaven. If we are no sure infalibly of our own election, that how can we be sure of someone elses? I would in this situation point someone to the love and mercy of Christ, and nothing more.
 
Jacob,

If we are no sure infalibly of our own election, that how can we be sure of someone elses?

I'd study some more. Because your still confusing the direction.

I simply do not understand how you could tell a grieving parent that there child is in heaven.

This is how:

"And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation <<<of His nature>>>," (Hebrews 1:3). Now you know why Spurgeon spoke of His nature BECAUSE the scriptures do and Christ is that revelation.

You are simply refusing to rely upon the revelation of His nature, the very thing you must if you are looking to Christ - not election

I would say easily, something like, "My conscience is compelled by Scriptures revelation of Christ as mercy and grace for which His precious blood purchased - that your child is in the Kingdom of heaven. Now as for yourselves, this is a great mourning and pain in this life, but be comforted, rest and trust in Christ inspite of and indeed because of this trial."



ldh

[Edited on 2-17-2005 by Larry Hughes]
 
Heb 1.3 does not shed light on anything but the nature of Christ, which is(partially) mercy and judgment on sinful human beings. Christ has mercy on whom he chooses.
 
Christ has mercy on whom he chooses.

You are correct.

15 Now they were bringing even infants to him that he might touch them. And when the disciples saw it, they rebuked them. 16 But Jesus called them to him, saying, “Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of God.
 
Very well said Gabriel!

Jacob,

Your contradicting yourself all over the place.

Your previously said,
" Our God is a God of mercy who has given us faith to believe in his son. It is in this mercy and grace that our faith rests, and in faith alone in Christ we must cling."

Then you just said,
“Heb 1.3 does not shed light on anything but the nature of Christ, which is (partially) mercy and judgment on sinful human beings. Christ has mercy on whom he chooses.”

Do your recall Matthew 9:13, “But go and learn what this means: 'I DESIRE COMPASSION, AND NOT SACRIFICE,' for I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners.”?

The only person pretending to limit Christ’s mercy for fear of appealing to it is yourself by setting up election against faith.

Furthermore, your language is far too loose. You need to be careful what people hear you say. We all err a lot here but you need to tighten up a bit:

but the nature of Christ, which is (partially) mercy and judgment on sinful human beings

Christ’s sacrifice at the cross was the Father’s judgment on sinful human beings IN Christ HIMSELF AS THEIR SIN BEARER, IN THEIR STEAD, SO THAT WE WILL NOT HAVE TO RECEIVE THE JUSTICE WE DESERVE. Furthermore, we receive HIS RIGHTEOUSNESS. If one preaches Christ just as you have said - then you are preaching Christ just like Rome did pre-reformation and you‘d be better off to study Roman Catholicism for though it is apostate it is at least formulated more orderly. Like I said before your confusing Law and Gospel, you need to get that distinction in your mind so that you can more clearly communicate both.

Maybe this will help. I’ll give you an example that is far too common in our day in some form or another at the end of a service. I‘ll put the hearers thinking to each afterward. I’m being brief for purpose of argument:

1. Preacher states first: All are sinners and fall short of the glory of God and are justly condemned under God‘s wrath.

2. Preacher then states second: But Christ has died on the cross to pay for all our sins, this is free grace and mercy given to us and pays our debt in full.

3. Preacher then states: Have you come (meaning walk forward physically and not looking with the eyes of faith to the gift) to Christ and given all your heart to Him?

Then usually an irrelevant and disconnected song is played.

What did the hearer actually hear? The Law and the Gospel clearly or confused so as to nullify both? Put yourself in the pew after you formulate your message and see what you would hear yourself saying.

Hearer to Item #1 hears clear Law and condemnation and is shaken.

Hearer to Item #2 hears clear Gospel and free mercy and sees a glimmer of hope and is shortly gladdened, at least for a few seconds until item #3 appears.

Hearer to Item #3 hears massive confusion and sees that this “gospel” costs something. Namely walking forward and giving all of his/her heart to in essence purchase the so called free grace. He/she panics, “I’m lost and hopeless, I’m a sinner, I want this free grace, I need this free grace. But I must walk and give not some but all my heart to get it. How do I know I’ve given all my heart, how do I know I‘ve given it, how do I know I‘ve given it rightly, how do I know I‘ve walked rightly with a right mindset, etc…”

Thus, this preacher, very common today, has forsaken his calling and has NOT preached the Gospel at all though he babbles the words very sloppily.

Regarding Hebrews 1:

I’ve added some helps that help me as well because sometimes we can get lost in the pronouns, its very easy to do and I do it all the time myself. Plus, I failed to quote the whole verse, that was my error:

Hebrews 1: 1-3, “God, after He (God) spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, in these last days has spoken to us in His (God‘s) Son, whom He (God) appointed heir (Christ) of all things, through whom (Christ) also He (God) made the world. And He (Christ) is the radiance of His (God‘s) glory (fame/majesty) and the exact representation (Christ) of His (God‘s) nature…”

AND recall already posted, For Christ is, "...the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who (Christ) is the image of God." & "For God, who said, "Light shall shine out of darkness," is the One who has shone in our hearts to give the Light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ." (2Cor Vs. 4 & 6)

OR John 1:18, “No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He (Christ) has explained Him (God).”

OR Phillippians 2:6, “who, although He (Christ) existed in the form of God,

OR Colossians 1:15, “He (Christ) is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.”

Jacob, you are incorrect in your last statement for you are disconnecting Christ from the Godhead somehow in your thinking. You are simply not making the connection yet. You will, I know you will.

Blessings,

Larry
 
I'm not sure about all that, Larry. I think Jake is just being cautious before he makes any dogmatic statements about something he isn't 100% sure about in Scripture.
 
Gabriel,

I don't wrong any man for being cautious about making statements that one is not 100% about. Nothing wrong with that at all.

But, what one communicates about such things needs to be handled with great care to the flock. You cannot on one hand say we cannot appeal to the nature of God, then on the other hand appeal to it. That's a contradiction.

Likewise, if you communicate to the mourning parent in essence "trust in Christ" (which is to say trust and have faith) then turn around a say "but your child who died in/at/pre birth may or may not be in heaven" (which is to say doubt and be anxious), one is manifestly contradicting one's self and one's communication. Election is the vehicle by which such can occur, but one cannot appeal to it to know what faith alone has been charged with. That is where faith comes in.

Calvin said that ministers are ministers of assurance more than anything. That is the under current of all of Paul's writings, even at the troubled churches. Feeding the flock. We are not speaking of recalcitrant rebels here.

The point of pointing out that we cannot know our own election first is not that the believer is not elect, but rather that it has been appointed that we rest entirely IN THIS LIFE upon Christ alone. That is the point of the Sola. We do not look at election and then say, "I'm elect therefore I rest." No, we look to Christ's work/life/cross/resurrection and say, "Christ is my righteousness, therefore I rest". Those resting in such a way are the elect. Again, it goes to one's view of Christ.

The other wrong thing to view, which is what is going on here, is to equate the category of those without actual sin commital yet under the federal fallenness of Adam (babies from conception forward who die), with the category of those who live to some age and actually commit real sins as a result of their fallen nature under the federal headship of Adam.

At the end of the day I would always say look to the Scriptures. We apparently have an irreconcilable difference between us here. On this issue we have no common ground. I recognize that and that's ok between us. I don't want to push my belief and affirmation on this issue onto someone. Even if I whole heartedly disagree from Scripture and you would affirm the same from your side and should. One should be convinced by Scripture.

Blessings,

Larry

[Edited on 2-18-2005 by Larry Hughes]
 
You cannot on one hand say we cannot appeal to the nature of God, then on the other hand appeal to it. That's a contradiction.

You misunderstand, Larry. I think what he is saying (and I make this claim because we live in the same house ;) ) is that knowing God's nature is not enough to make dogmatic claims about specific situations, such as infant death/election.
 
Gab,

I understood clearly. I simply without reservation disagree in this case. Again, it goes to the view of faith. Not even John Gill, who had hyper-c. tendancies took this position.

One of the signatures of HC is an unhealthy view & emphasis on that which is shut - election. I view this as such & would not attend under such teachings in the least. It's quite simple. Like I said on this issue we are at
irreconciable odds & cannot agree.

Even if I give 50/50 on this, which scripture does not, I'm compelled by Christ's revealed mercy & grace to answer the position I've set forth based on the Word of God, & nothing less will move me. & you must say the same.

Thanks anyway.

blessings,

lh
 
Gabriel,

John Gill, "There may be the principle of faith implanted, where there is not the opportunity of showing it by a series of good works, or a course of godly living, as in elect infants dying in infancy, and in those who are converted in their last moments" (Commentary on James—Page 789).

John Calvin not only did NOT doubt it but found that such an idea was reprehensible and he indeed at length called it blasphemy.

“I do not doubt that the infants whom the Lord gathers together from this life are regenerated by a secret operation of the Holy Spirit;” (Amsterdam edition of Calvin’s works, 8:522).

“I everywhere teach that no one can be justly condemned and perish except on account of actual sin; and to say that the countless mortals taken from life while yet infants are precipitated from their mothers; arms into eternal death is a blasphemy to be universally detested;” (Institutes, Book 4, p.335).

Blessings Always,

Larry

[Edited on 2-21-2005 by Larry Hughes]
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top