panta dokimazete
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Please read below...
...anybody interested in helping with a debate defending the Doctrines of Grace on an Atheist board?
I can even formalize it in their Debates Area, if can count on some help...time is a major concern for me, but I have had inquiries as a result of debating this issue there.
The crux of the issue is Double Predestination.
[Edited on 2-11-2005 by jdlongmire]
[Edited on 2-11-2005 by jdlongmire]
Originally Posted by jdlongmire
Who is to say all infants are not elect?
why, errr, Calvinism does. Remember that predestination necessarily results in double predestination, which necessariliy results in the fact that at the least SOME babies are not elect and will go to Hell.
Any claim that babies, as a whole, are elect has three problems as I see it.
1. This claim would destroy, in fact decimate is not too strong of a word, any argument against double predestination. If you recall, jdlongmire, it was you who introduced the concept of conditional election, in that "IF a person accepts Christ as Savior, THEN they are elect." As a Baby can never reach the conditional precedent established in this statement, it could never be elect. Hence it could never go to Heaven. Hence all babies go to hell.
This is exactly why a Calvinist must abandon any claim to conditional election.
In fact, even by stating this, you have eliminated any claim to this conditional election, and my entire previous post was wasted.
You have revived the petal of "U" in TULIP, only to the expense of two other petals.
2. The "T" in total depravity takes a hit. In fact, it is torn right out of the TULIP and trampled! According to Romans 8:30, if you are predistined you are ALSO justified AND glorified. Therefore, these babies, being elect and all, are born glorified AND justified. They have no need of salvation (or Grace for that matter) as they already have it.
They are not born Totally depraved. In fact, this claim eliminates Original Sin as well!
3. But the petal that REALLY takes a beating, to the point we cannot even figure out what genus the mess left in our hands is, is that darn "P." Perseverance of the Saints. Eternal Security. You can't lose your salvation. If a person under TULIP is elect, then they are persevered. Eternally secure. Any claim that the baby would subsequently lose this perseverance is lost.
So, we would have a baby that is elect. Eternally Secure. Then reaches an unknown age or mental capability in which he/she becomes UNelect. (So long that eternal security bit!) Then, IF they accept Christ as Savior, they become re-elect, and re-eternally secure again!
Come on, here. This "Calvinism" is as loosey-goosey as it gets!
See, jdlongmire, this is my basic problem with Christianity as a whole. Taken in very, very small portions, it actually makes sense. But in the larger scheme, one is left creating complete inconsistent, incohesive doctrine to maintain the Christianity.
Look, we started with predestination. I claimed that necessarily entailed double predestination, using my ice cream analogy.
The only possible response is to re-introduce free will and create a paradox (as seebs pointed out.) Unfortunately, this leaves babies going to Hell.
So, in response, you created the claim of Conditional Election. Good-bye Petal "U." Again, this means that since babies cannot reach the condition, they are doomed for Hell.
But we can't have babies going to Hell, can we? No sirree Bob.
So, at this point we staple back ON the "U" petal, hopping to the foot of Unconditional Election. But in stapling back on the "U" we tear out the "T" and the "P."
Now, to get the "T" and the "P" back, we will lose the "U" again.
This flower is taking a thrashing!
...anybody interested in helping with a debate defending the Doctrines of Grace on an Atheist board?
I can even formalize it in their Debates Area, if can count on some help...time is a major concern for me, but I have had inquiries as a result of debating this issue there.
The crux of the issue is Double Predestination.
[Edited on 2-11-2005 by jdlongmire]
[Edited on 2-11-2005 by jdlongmire]