i have never listened to james white and Glad i haven't. i have done email correspondence with a Calvinist. i dont know how long it went on for every scripture he gave i countered it. it was adult level no barbs traded in remarks. actually he had Parkinson's or so he said. it all ended when he seen he couldnt convert me. i use to belong to carm forum . it got pretty ugly in there . i finally ended up telling a few what i thought i then was banned . i have a facebook friend in the u.k she is calvinist . we actually get along and agree with each other. i have even listened to her preacher.. she lives in Scotland. in discussion i am good to the point it gets they have the superior doctrine
What sin nature ?
Of course the only REAL QUESTION in all of this foolishness is: WHAT CAN BE DONE spiritually to "redeem" the Infant.
Are you a judge?
I tend to go with the "people expect answers to too many things that are entirely up to God" school of thought on this.Do the calvinists here affirm infant reprobation as James White teaches and believes just like augustine taught. ?
The Augnstinian doctrine is that original sin is damning, and that infants deserve eternal death on account of it. Being fallen in Adam, they have a corrupt disposition or inclination, which is both voluntary and responsible. It is the self in its central and inmost self-determination. Though the infant has committed no acts of known and wilful transgression, yet his heart is estranged from God, and his will is at enmity with the holy law of God. When be comes to years of consciousness he feels guilty for this estrangement and this enmity, and this proves that it is guilt. An infant, therefore, needs salvation because be is really culpable and punishable. He reqnires the whole work of the Redeemer, both as expiating guilt and cleansing from pollution.
Infant Salvation As Related to Original Sin, Calvinism, William Greenough Thayer Shedd, Christian Classics books at BibleStudyTools.com
Read Infant Salvation As Related to Original Sin of Calvinism from author William Greenough Thayer Shedd. Find more Christian classics for theology and Bible study at Bible Study Tools....www.biblestudytools.com
Ummmm, sort of?
First I thankyou for your thoughtful reply in all this post. You spent considerable time on it. From your source as for me I don't agree there's a "large arena" for different interpretations on the Ps 51:6 verse, I think it's clear. God reveals wisdom in our inner most parts.....the hidden man of the heart Paul uses as well to describe the human spirit. To try to say this is the physical womb I'd still hold is out there on the fringe.
Can you show me one place in scripture it is used this way outside of your claim of Ps 51:6?
I'd kindly suggest that you don't take it too seriously. ;You'd be building a whole theological structure on one verse of scripture and the verse you use is highly questionable even to be used this way.
I'd say it would be really, REALLY taking liberties and crossing a line into a wild speculation of something....I see a lot of moral problems with it as well and you're inclined to think it would picture God in a better light. I think it would do the opposite which I could explain if you like.
I wouldn't think so myself.
Please... Gen 25:22 But the children inside her struggled with each other...
Were you a twin? Was your mother able to tell you how you and your brother struggled within her? My mother experienced it. All you can do is guess at it.
But couldn't we ask people for scriptures about a great many things and asking them to show the scriptures says it's impossible? eg. I like an odd episode of the 1950's Twilight Zone show. What if I were to ask someone, "Can you show me a scripture to show it's impossible for God to have created another universe where what you see in the show is happening?" For the reason the answer is no I can't, why should that lead us closer to a believability of it as having or is occuring? My point....it shouldn't lead us in any way closer to it at all. There's no reason it should.
As for me no I don't accept that at all and I'm not sure many others do either. Infants die in the womb for a variety of reasons we could say but I wouldn't say for the reason you're putting this out. Yes sin coming into the universe because of Adam and Eves sin brought a compromise of genetics functioning perfectly and of their own physical bodies. For a baby to die would no more be the fault of the infant any more than an animal could experience a DNA genetic failure while being formed.
No I don't buy that at all. Yes their mother felt this truffle on the inside but was merely God touching upon the fetus's inside to do a certain motion in order to give a prophesy. Come to think of it I do believe I talked to you about this once before. I think too taking the Hebrew word to mean willfully crushing each other I think that's taking a word that CAN mean this but not in any full sense. Anyway I think I've said all I could say about this. Sometimes we can't provide a scripture and nor can anyone about somethings but we can I believe safely go by the law of probability. I wouldn't think it's possible what you're suggesting. God Bless!
ABSOLUTELY. We all deserve HELL FOR OUR OWN SIN!!! We don't need no stink'in "Original SIN".
