Calvinism's False Premise

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Ask Jesus : One Thread

Readers,

Unfortunately this forum closed due to maintence problems with the server.

If you are interested in continuing a discussion, you can go to this board:

http://p221.ezboard.com/bthechristianforum

The Christian Forum

Or try our URL Forwarder www.bluespun.com

www.Bluespun.com

This was our back up board, but now we all relocated here.

Hope to see you there! All links lead to the same place!

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@gmail.com), November 28, 2005.

Calvinism's False Premise

By Jerry C. Brewer

The fundamental error of Calvinism is inherent depravity. Proceeding from that premise is Calvin's second error of irresistible grace. If all men are "conceived in sin ... indisposed to all saving good, propense to evil ... and the slaves of sin," then it naturally follows that "without the regenerating grace of the Holy Spirit they neither are able nor willing to return to God."

As irresistible grace proceeds from inherent depravity, so the doctrine of perseverance proceeds from irresistible grace. Having been elected and saved by the mere grace of God, through the Holy Spirit, the elect are then secure in their salvation because "God ... does not wholly take away his Holy Spirit from his own, even in lamentable falls." Those three doctrines must stand or fall together and whether preached by the Baptists, the Methodists, Presbyterians, Pentecostals, or our own brethren, they are false to the core.

Calvin's doctrine of inherent depravity and election strips man of his freewill and makes him a mere machine in the hands of a ruthless God. If we inherit sin from Adam, then God is the source of it, for Adam was the son of God (Luke 3:38). One Calvinistic prooftext is David's statement in Psalms 51:5: "Behold, I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me."

There is a difference in being born in sin and in being born with sin. Iniquity existed in the world when David was shapen and the sin existed when he was conceived, but this does not mean he was a sinner at birth. Astonished that unlearned Galileans could speak their native languages, the crowd on Pentecost asked, "How hear we every man in our own tongue wherein we were born?" (Acts 2:78). While they were born in those tongues, the multitude wasn't born speaking those tongues. They learned them after they were born. They simply meant they were born into environments in which those tongues existed and were spoken. The same principle applies to David's words. He wasn't born with sin. He was conceived and born in and into a world polluted by sin.

Contrasting our Heavenly Father with our fleshly fathers, the Hebrew writer says God is the "father of spirits" (Heb. 12:9). If one is born inherently depraved that means God is the Father of a depraved spirit. Writing of our earthly demise, Solomon says the body returns to the earth from whence it came, while the "spirit shall return unto God who gave it" (Eccl. 12:7). If we are born sinners, then God gives and is the father of a depraved spirit. Seeking an example of simplistic purity and innocence for his followers to emulate, Jesus chose a little child. "Except ye be converted and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 18:3). If depravity is inherent at birth, then we must become depraved to enter the kingdom. Sin isn't inherited. It is acquired. That truth is taught throughout the Bible. Man isn't born astray. He goes astray of his own will. "The wicked are estranged from the womb; they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies" (Psalms 58:3). Our estrangement from God is after we are born and the means is by speaking lies. "They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable" (Rom. 3:12). We aren't born unprofitable. We become unprofitable and Ezekiel says sin is not passed from generation to generation.

The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him (Eze. 18:20).

We acquire sin when we come to the age of accountability.

Illustrating the absurdity of Calvinistic arguments for inherent depravity, Foy E. Wallace Jr., says the doctrine carries its own seeds of destruction.

The dictum of this doctrine, which results in its selfdestruction, is that acquired characteristics cannot be transmitted to the offspring, and that is the reason, they say, that the righteousness of the parents cannot be transmitted to their children.... This principle must work both ways, and utterly destroys the theory of inherited depravity. Here is why. Whatever depravity or sinfulness Adam and Eve had was an acquired characteristic. If that is not true, then their sinfulness would have been inherited, which would mean that Adam and Eve inherited sin from God! Therefore, there was no depravity, and no sinfulness in Adam and Eve until they acquired that characteristic by disobedience. But since acquired characteristics of parents cannot be transmitted to their children, Adam and Eve did not, could not, transmit their depravity to their posterity (Bulwarks of The Faith, p. 377).

With no basis in God's revealed truth, the doctrine of inherent depravity is the premise from which irresistible grace and perseverance are derived. As a false premise, the conclusions drawn therefrom are also false. Augustine borrowed it from heathen philosophy. It passed from century to century until John Calvin plagiarized it for the Protestant world. As the fundamental error of both Catholics and Protestants, it is a perversion of Bible truth and the corrupt foundation upon which Calvinism teeters. Those who believe it are wrong and those who preach and practice it are wrong. From its false premise to its consequential error, Calvinism constitutes something other than the gospel and incurs the wrath of God. (Gal. 1:6-9)

Copied from: http://www.bible-infonet.org/ff/articles/denominations/111_11_21.htm

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), August 30, 2004

Answers

bump... Calvinism's False Premise By Jerry C. Brewer

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), August 30, 2004.

boo.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), August 30, 2004.

Kevin, you are only allow to post articles in the main post, not in the "Answers" post, just to let you know for future ref. Only links may go in the "Answers" posts, or excerpts.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), August 30, 2004.

Click here, if you dare, to read about the God nobody knows.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), September 01, 2004.

Does this apply only to Kevin or does this apply to everyone???

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), September 01, 2004.


Everyone. Jehovah is not as fluffy as some make him to be.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), September 01, 2004.

Ok, the link works now.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), September 01, 2004.

>It passed from century to century until John Calvin plagiarized it for the Protestant world.<

That one line shows a serious lack of scholarship. I like skipping to the last paragraph of long articles. After reading that line, I could easily dismiss the whole thing.

Infants get sick, are born with diseases, and have a less than perfect nature. Christ died to redeem from death infants, children, the mentally retarded, invalids, and others who cannot consciously or intelligently express their faith.

Christ died for all. That's written in your Bible and both Calvinists (limited atonement) and those who think children are without sin are wrong on this issue.

If Christ died for the sin of all, this means all have sin. Period. If you deny that, you are advocating a form of limited atonement - whether you are Calvinist or not.

-- Max Darity (arrowtouch@yahoo.com), September 04, 2004.


"That one line shows a serious lack of scholarship. I like skipping to the last paragraph of long articles. After reading that line, I could easily dismiss the whole thing."

Seems like you already have dismissed the whole thing... :-)

"Infants get sick, are born with diseases, and have a less than perfect nature. Christ died to redeem from death infants, children, the mentally retarded, invalids, and others who cannot consciously or intelligently express their faith."

Christ did not come to redeem the infants from physical death. How can an infant have "less than perfect nature"??? Infants, the mentally retarded, invalids etc. who are not capable of having faith are not lost.

"Christ died for all. That's written in your Bible and both Calvinists (limited atonement) and those who think children are without sin are wrong on this issue."

Did Jesus say "suffer the little children to come unto Me for of such is the kingdom of God???

"If Christ died for the sin of all, this means all have sin. Period. If you deny that, you are advocating a form of limited atonement - whether you are Calvinist or not."

No this does not, little children are already saved.

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), September 08, 2004.


Little children and those who are mentally incapable cannot understand sin. Until they can, we must figure on they being saved. But, we must also consider Original Sin.

........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 08, 2004.



I am with you on this one , Rod.

I had this same problem with The Christadelphians, Rod.( They don't believe Jesus is God, but they still believe Mary was a virgin, same as Jehovah's Witnesses). They believe like many Protestants like Calvinists , Baptists,Churches of Christ, Catholics,... that somehow God has created an imperfect human, by that I mean, we are born sinners!!! So the deaf (faith comes from hearing, they can't hear), the mentally retarded (can't comprehend) plus the children (Don't know) will be lost.

No wonder Atheists get on Christians!!!

Since we are created in God's image, that says we have freewill. But freewill in the flesh creates problems. A problem God Yahweh doesn't have to face: sex for procreation. God gave us that instinct to grow and multiply.

I believe more than 70 % of sins are related to the sex act. From the desire to have sex without any consequences( sex before marriage, abortion, homosexuality, lesbianism..)more than one partner (polygamy, adultery,..), sex as pleasure ( money for sex (prostitution) ....), the list goes on. The sole purpose many people will buy a car, house, show their riches,... is for sexual gratification many times.

he other motivators of sin are envy,murder,avarice,...

A child doesn't come into this world stealing, having sex,...he learns.

That is why Jesus came into this world. To show us a way back to Yahweh, a way which involves love. If you love God Yahweh you love his creation. So Jesus came to lead us away from sin. Unlike the previous ways of getting closer to God Yahweh by sacrificing animals, we can get closer to him by asking the son for help in overcoming sin. And if we already sinned, give us the strength to move on.

The Christian Yahwist

The Man of Yahweh

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), September 08, 2004.


>Seems like you already have dismissed the whole thing... :-) <

Maybe there are other good articles on the subject, but this one deserved to be dismissed right off the bat. Sorry!

>Christ did not come to redeem the infants from physical death.<

If Christ did not die for infants, then He did not die for you. We were all infants at one point.

>How can an infant have "less than perfect nature"???<

Infants die of disease etc. Infants are mortal and need a Redeemer - one who will redeem their body from the grave. Death is a curse. Death is a punishment. All who die need redemption from the curse. The only way one can be redeemed from the curse of death is through the blood of Christ.

>Infants, the mentally retarded, invalids etc. who are not capable of having faith are not lost.<

Infants can have faith. Invalids can have faith.

Whoa! Did you just say the mentally retarded cannot have faith?

Somebody's credibility just fell through the floor...

>Did Jesus say "suffer the little children to come unto Me for of such is the kingdom of God???<

Yep. Infants can come to Christ.

>No this does not, little children are already saved. <

Little children are already saved because they have a small measure of faith in God from the womb. Christ's blood sanctifies these.

It's when a person ages that faith in God withers and dies and needs to be regenerated... RE-generated.

Trust in God is more than a set of doctrines one needs to understand. For example, you did not need to be taught to trust your mother. We are born with faith. I know this may be unpopular and rejected by most people who can't see beyond tradition, but I'm quite convinced it's true based on reason, experience, and Scripture.

-- Max Darity (arrowtouch@yahoo.com), September 10, 2004.


"I know this may be unpopular and rejected by most people who can't see beyond tradition, but I'm quite convinced it's true based on reason, experience, and Scripture. "

That is illogical. Little children will put their faith in just about anything they are taught. They even believe in Jolly Old Santy Claws, who falls from the chimney. Who cares that there isn't a chimney; Santy still brings gifts. On the other hand, there really was a St. Nicholas, but his story doesn't exactly sell soda pop.

I suppose that the "Sola Fide" group will surrender to such a doctrine of "a little bit of faith" in infants. But, in reality, infants don't know what to believe until they are taught. People start to question and doubt as they grow older because, suddenly, things become irrational or unbelievable. Then, they must rely on faith to make those impossibilities possible. Jesus was born of a Virgen (Virgin)? Christ walked on water? The Holy Trinity is what?! And the all time biggy: Jesus was God in the flesh!?

...............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 10, 2004.


"Trust in God is more than a set of doctrines one needs to understand. For example, you did not need to be taught to trust your mother. We are born with faith. "

Throw that view at the wild kingdom. Animals have faith in God because they don't need to be taught to trust their mothers? That sounds funny. Infants require food to live. They find that food as it is given to them by their mother. Call it trust or call it instinct or call it response to stimuli. Faith is nurtured gradually throughout the infant's developing life--physically, cognitively, spiritually. We all must be taught in order to make sense of those intuitive beliefs floating around in our minds. How can we explain the early religions (without using the word "pagan")? How were those primitive doctrines and theologies brought into orthodoxy? Who was the ultimate teacher for this world of ours? Fleshy trust is one thing; spiritual trust is quite another.

..............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 10, 2004.


"We are born with faith. "

There is a void inside of every person that eventually becomes filled. Myth, fantasy, or truth may eventually fill that void. How those fillings get there may have many vehicles. Faith is perhaps a good name for such vehicles. We do have a desire to understand those mysteries of life. It is reasonable to imagine a Supreme Creator. Without a Creator, we cannot make any attempt to understand our existence. Yes, some believe that all is an accident and there is no Creator. That empty void may well be satisfied left vacant. For the rest of us, our desire to know is too strong. That thirst for knowing is diluted when we take the extra step in having the desire to actually be with God. That desire makes faith much more significant. Faith becomes reality. That void becomes filled to its capacity.

...............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 10, 2004.



>That is illogical. Little children will put their faith in just about anything they are taught. <

First, I believe I referred to infants speficially. But, to respond to your point, even if "a child will believe anything," that doesn't mean that what they believe in loses value.

If a child believes in Jesus, is his faith invalidated because the little child will believe anything? In fact, Jesus praised such a humble and simple faith.

Your argument does nothing to show my statement is illogical. Sorry.

>But, in reality, infants don't know what to believe until they are taught.<

Nope. An infant believes in his mother before he is even born.

> Jesus was born of a Virgen (Virgin)? Christ walked on water? The Holy Trinity is what?! And the all time biggy: Jesus was God in the flesh!?<

And isn't it funny yhat little children can accept such truths easier than an adult? That's why Jesus praised such faith. In fact, unless you have faith as a little child (even infant) you cannot accept and enter the Kingdom of God. You must be born again and become like a little child = your faith regenerated = pure and simple.

>Animals have faith in God because they don't need to be taught to trust their mothers? That sounds funny.<

We're talking about young human beings, not animals.

>Infants require food to live. They find that food as it is given to them by their mother. Call it trust or call it instinct or call it response to stimuli. Faith is nurtured gradually throughout the infant's developing life--physically, cognitively, spiritually. We all must be taught in order to make sense of those intuitive beliefs floating around in our minds. <

But you admit, there are intuitive beliefs... and that later we come to know the depth of those beliefs as we grow in grace.

>How can we explain the early religions (without using the word "pagan")? <

Explain in what way? Why?

>How were those primitive doctrines and theologies brought into orthodoxy? <

Some "primitive doctrines" were totally rejected. I don't see the point of your argument. I guess I'm slow.

>Fleshy trust is one thing; spiritual trust is quite another.<

Trust is trust.

>There is a void inside of every person that eventually becomes filled. Myth, fantasy, or truth may eventually fill that void.<

Only Truth can fill the void left by an absence of Truth.

>Faith becomes reality. That void becomes filled to its capacity.<

Faith trusts Reality. Reality is Truth. Truth is God. Truth is not a rambling string of words or facts and figures or stories. Truth is a witness to facts.

If a person's faith rests in something that is not true, not only will their conscience be a constant witness to them that what they belive is not true, their faith will fail when the Truth is ultimately revealed.

-- Max Darity (arrowtouch@yahoo.com), September 10, 2004.


speficially

Specifically even. ;)

-- Max Darity (arrowtouch@yahoo.com), September 10, 2004.


Max. When it comes to "intuition" as a bases of formulating one's faith, you would be asking us to throw the dice. The point of the paganism issues was to show an example of that intuition that formulated a false theology. Look at the false beliefs in our world. Or, are they true beliefs?

Intuition is a starting point; we all have some degree of intuition. But, we cannot count on intuition to give us that truth. We do need guidance. The Scriptures are full of prophecies, prophets, and signs that brought our intuitions into focus and direction. I'm a Christian because I , first, had parents who made a commitment to follow Church teachings and , secondly, brought me up practicing those beliefs. They and the Church were my teachers. Had I been born a Hindu or Hare Krishna things may have been different for me. I suppose your next assertion will be that intuition would rescue me from those doctrines/theologies, yes?

...............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 10, 2004.


Uh.....let's try "basis" instead of "bases". I know. What does baseball have to do with this?

...............................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 10, 2004.


" First, I believe I referred to infants speficially. But, to respond to your point, even if "a child will believe anything," that doesn't mean that what they believe in loses value. "

It loses value if it is false or erroneous. For example, the world currently has fanatical Islamic basket cases bent on terrorizing Americans, Christians, and persons they consider to be heretical people. Who nurtured their blasphemous beliefs?

......................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 10, 2004.


Some little kids are taught to hate such heretics to death. Little kids! I watch too much national news, I suppose.

...........................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 10, 2004.


Uh, world news...

............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 10, 2004.


> I suppose your next assertion will be that intuition would rescue me from those doctrines/theologies, yes?<

Intuition would at least make you seek the Truth.

>Intuition is a starting point; we all have some degree of intuition. But, we cannot count on intuition to give us that truth. We do need guidance.<

We need revelation.

>I said: "if "a child will believe anything," that doesn't mean that what they believe in loses value."

Rod Said: "It loses value if it is false or erroneous."<

Of course, but that applies to any person regardless of age. Your point seemed to say that because children will believe anything, then somehow their faith lacks value. But I'm saying, if the Object of Faith is valid and true, then the age of the believer makes absolutely no difference.

>For example, the world currently has fanatical Islamic basket cases bent on terrorizing Americans, Christians, and persons they consider to be heretical people. Who nurtured their blasphemous beliefs?<

If these children would listen to their conscience and intuition and to their heart more than their parents and religious leaders and the like, then they would not be so easily "nurtured" and brainwashed in their blasphemous beliefs.

At one point, when these young Muslim children were first taught that God created the world, their faith was still pure. When they started being taught that God cannot have spiritual children and the like, and that Jesus is just another prophet, then they entered into the lies of the Devil.

>Some little kids are taught to hate such heretics to death. Little kids!<

Yeah, little kids can be conformed to evil ways. Hopefully they'll grow to listen to their heart and conscience more than their parents and religious leaders.

-- Max Darity (arrowtouch@yahoo.com), September 10, 2004.


"Maybe there are other good articles on the subject, but this one deserved to be dismissed right off the bat. Sorry!"

Ha!!! That is merely your opinion Max...

"If Christ did not die for infants, then He did not die for you. We were all infants at one point."

What sin are infants guilty of??? Sin is the transgression of God's law, infants do "not" sin.

"Infants die of disease etc. Infants are mortal and need a Redeemer - one who will redeem their body from the grave. Death is a curse. Death is a punishment. All who die need redemption from the curse. The only way one can be redeemed from the curse of death is through the blood of Christ."

This does "not" mean that infants have a "less than perfect nature" just because they die... We "all" inherit the "consequences" of Adam's sin - death, that is all. If the sin of one man caused "all" to sin, then why doesn't the redemption of sin through Jesus Christ cause "all" to be made without sin again???

"Infants can have faith. Invalids can have faith."

That is your opinion Max...One that I do not hold too..

"Whoa! Did you just say the mentally retarded cannot have faith?"

Most mentally retarded people do not have the capacity to understand much less obey the gospel and God will take this into account on judment day.

"Somebody's credibility just fell through the floor..."

Again, this is merely your opinion, which doesn't hold much weight with me... Of course I am sure that you already know this don't you Max...

"Yep. Infants can come to Christ."

Infants are "already" in the kingdom of God, they have no sin.

"Little children are already saved because they have a small measure of faith in God from the womb. Christ's blood sanctifies these."

Please...give me a break...where is it written that "they have a small measure of faith in God from the womb"??? What causes one to have faith in Christ???

"It's when a person ages that faith in God withers and dies and needs to be regenerated... RE-generated."

Scripture please...

"Trust in God is more than a set of doctrines one needs to understand. For example, you did not need to be taught to trust your mother. We are born with faith. I know this may be unpopular and rejected by most people who can't see beyond tradition, but I'm quite convinced it's true based on reason, experience, and Scripture."

Where is it written that we are born with faith in God???

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), September 11, 2004.


>Ha!!! That is merely your opinion Max... <

Well, I have statistics and an algorithm to prove it deserves to be dismissed. Seriously... of course it's my opinion. I was the one who said it... nd I was the one who dismissed it and chose not to waste my time. Good observation, though. ;)

>What sin are infants guilty of??? Sin is the transgression of God's law, infants do "not" sin.<

We've had this discussion before, Kevin. Your problem is your limited view of the term "sin" - which leaves you without a term for that corrupt nature within our bodies that leads to death.

We all possess a corrupted nature in our flesh, which is unholy in God's eyes. Christ's blood covers that unholiness - even in infants.

>This does "not" mean that infants have a "less than perfect nature" just because they die... <

If an infant had an uncorrupted flesh nature, they would not be subject to disease and death. Infants would have no need for a resurrection body that is free from the power of death.

>We "all" inherit the "consequences" of Adam's sin - death, that is all.<

Sin (corrupted nature in our flesh) passed to all. The Bible says all have sin, not just some. Jesus died for all - not just some.

>If the sin of one man caused "all" to sin, then why doesn't the redemption of sin through Jesus Christ cause "all" to be made without sin again???<

All have inherited the unrighteous nature of Adam. Some have inherited the righteous nature of Christ by faith.

>That is your opinion Max...One that I do not hold too.. <

I hold the opinion... so does the Bible. We've been over this plenty of times. Of course, it's merely the opinion of Jesus and the prophets.

>Most mentally retarded people do not have the capacity to understand much less obey the gospel and God will take this into account on judment day.<

You obviously have little to no experience with the mentally retarded. You should just stop commenting on subjects you don't even understand... for your own sake.

>Again, this is merely your opinion, which doesn't hold much weight with me... Of course I am sure that you already know this don't you Max...<

Anybody who says mentally retarded folks can't have faith has either never known a mentally retarded person or is just talking out of their behind. Of course it's my opinion - and the opinion of Christ and millions of people who know the facts on the matter - including some mentally retarded people.

>Infants are "already" in the kingdom of God, they have no sin.<

Infants have sin - you just don't recognize the broader use of the term sin. Infants have a corrupted nature which leads to death and require a resurrection body that is free from the power of death to enter the everlasting kingdom of Christ. Since infants have a corrupted nature in their body, this corrupted nature is unholy in God's eyes, thus the child needs a covering of the blood of Christ, which they have from conception.

Nobody can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of God. Only those persons who are of faith are in the Kingdom. Jesus used the faith of an infant as an example of the faith we must have to enter the Kingdom.

>Please...give me a break...where is it written that "they have a small measure of faith in God from the womb"???<

Jesus said babes give God praise... perfect praise. Ahem... Jesus said that.

>What causes one to have faith in Christ???<

The Holy Spirit.

>Scripture please... <

Well, Mr. Kevin, you can't accept what Jesus says about babes giving God praise, what good does quoting scripture do for a person who has bound himself to an oral tradition which tends to veil his eyes from the very scripture he claims to take as a rule?

>Where is it written that we are born with faith in God??? <

Jesus said infants have faith. I believe that's in... ummm.... the Bible? Yeah... it's written in the Bible, Kevin. You believe the Bible right?

Or do you only trust in what your limited knowledge tells you... combined with what your oral tradition teaches? I mean, you ARE the one who says mentally retarded people can't have faith, which shows a serious lack of knowledge. If you're lacking knowledge in matters that are quite easy to ascertain with a little bit of human experience, how can you trust what your other "limited knowledge conclusions" tell you?

You should trust Jesus when He says infants can have faith and praise God. You may not understand it, like you don't understand how a mentally retarded person can have faith, but it's true and if you really think deeply about it instead of mindlessly subscribing to oral tradition, you'll also come to the same conclusion.

BTW, every position a person advances on this board is opinion. Some opinions are right, though... especially if the Words of Jesus directly back those opinions.

-- Max Darity (arrowtouch@yahoo.com), September 12, 2004.


Max?

Will you reconsider the tone of your words in the following?

"Anybody who says mentally retarded folks can't have faith has either never known a mentally retarded person or is just talking out of their behind. Of course it's my opinion - and the opinion of Christ and millions of people who know the facts on the matter - including some mentally retarded people."

Moderators???

.............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 12, 2004.


"We've had this discussion before, Kevin. Your problem is your limited view of the term "sin" - which leaves you without a term for that corrupt nature within our bodies that leads to death."

Your problem is your view of sin does not agree with the word of God.

"We all possess a corrupted nature in our flesh, which is unholy in God's eyes. Christ's blood covers that unholiness - even in infants."

Again, your distorted view of what sin is has caused you to come to this false conclusion that "we all possess a corrupted nature in our flesh".

"If an infant had an uncorrupted flesh nature, they would not be subject to disease and death. Infants would have no need for a resurrection body that is free from the power of death."

This is not true. We all die because of the consequences of Adam's sin, that is all and not because we have a "corrupted flesh nature".

"Sin (corrupted nature in our flesh) passed to all. The Bible says all have sin, not just some. Jesus died for all - not just some."

Sin is in the world, all have not sinned because sin is something that one does... If someone must do something contrary to God's law to cause sin, then until they do this, they have no sin.

"All have inherited the unrighteous nature of Adam. Some have inherited the righteous nature of Christ by faith."

Where is it written that we inherit the "unrighteous nature of Adam"???

"I hold the opinion... so does the Bible. We've been over this plenty of times. Of course, it's merely the opinion of Jesus and the prophets."

Yes, we have been over this haven't we Max however, your view does not agree with Jesus or the prophets. Why don't the Jews believe that we inherit the corrupted nature of Adam or original sin???

"You obviously have little to no experience with the mentally retarded. You should just stop commenting on subjects you don't even understand... for your own sake."

How would you know that I don't have any understanding of these subjects???

"Anybody who says mentally retarded folks can't have faith has either never known a mentally retarded person or is just talking out of their behind. Of course it's my opinion - and the opinion of Christ and millions of people who know the facts on the matter - including some mentally retarded people."

Please notice this is your "opinion". Readers, take it for what it's worth...

"Infants have sin - you just don't recognize the broader use of the term sin. Infants have a corrupted nature which leads to death and require a resurrection body that is free from the power of death to enter the everlasting kingdom of Christ. Since infants have a corrupted nature in their body, this corrupted nature is unholy in God's eyes, thus the child needs a covering of the blood of Christ, which they have from conception."

According to the Biblical doctrine of sin. Please explain to everyone here Max what sin are infants guilty of committing???

"Nobody can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of God. Only those persons who are of faith are in the Kingdom. Jesus used the faith of an infant as an example of the faith we must have to enter the Kingdom."

We are not born with a "corrupted nature", this is merely Max's and his Calvinist friend's opinion. Infants have no sin, therefore they are in the kingdom of God. We have been over this before right Max??? Infants do not have the capacity to understand or obey the gospel of Christ.

"Jesus said babes give God praise... perfect praise. Ahem... Jesus said that."

Please read it again...it says that praise was perfected...how was it perfected... can infants offer praise...certainly not...

I wrote, "What causes one to have faith in Christ???"

To which Max replied, "The Holy Spirit."

Wrong, the word of God is what causes one to have faith. (Romans 10:17).

"Well, Mr. Kevin, you can't accept what Jesus says about babes giving God praise, what good does quoting scripture do for a person who has bound himself to an oral tradition which tends to veil his eyes from the very scripture he claims to take as a rule?"

I have asked you before what infant is able to give praise, and you have not given a straight answer. If we were to go to any infant, (I will even let you pick the one you want) you would not be able to get them to offer praise to God or anyone else for that matter. Your refusal to answer the question proves you do not know what you are talking about.

"Jesus said infants have faith. I believe that's in... ummm.... the Bible? Yeah... it's written in the Bible, Kevin. You believe the Bible right?"

Okay, if it is written in the Bible, then what is the Book, Chapter and Verse Max??? I am sure that you won't have a hard time providing them to me...

"Or do you only trust in what your limited knowledge tells you... combined with what your oral tradition teaches? I mean, you ARE the one who says mentally retarded people can't have faith, which shows a serious lack of knowledge."

Obviously Max again you don't know what you are talking about. Did I say "all mentally retarded people" are not able to have faith??? Go back and re-read what I wrote.

"BTW, every position a person advances on this board is opinion. Some opinions are right, though... especially if the Words of Jesus directly back those opinions."

You have yet to "prove" your opinions are "right" through the word of God Max, that is your problem...

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), September 12, 2004.


Rod,

Hopefully the moderators (whoever they are) will start censoring posts or portions of posts like the one Max wrote that you pointed out.

Thanks!!!

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), September 12, 2004.


Yup. It is one thing to have it pass one's mind, but to say it is quite another situation.

...........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 12, 2004.


I've been guilty, too:

Colossians 3

"8ÊÊÊBut now you also, (1) put them all aside: (2) anger, wrath, malice, slander, and (3) abusive speech from your mouth. "-NASB

...............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 12, 2004.


>Max? Will you reconsider the tone of your words in the following?

"Anybody who says mentally retarded folks can't have faith has either never known a mentally retarded person or is just talking out of their behind. Of course it's my opinion - and the opinion of Christ and millions of people who know the facts on the matter - including some mentally retarded people." <

There is nothing wrong in this statement - not even in tone. Perhaps the word "behind" is offensive to highly sensitive people. If there are highly sensitive people here, I apologize for using that word. I do not apologize for the intent of what I wrote, though.

I was responding to the horribly offensive statement regarding mentally retarded persons.

I will defend the mentally retarded and will have no remorse in pointing out major errors and ignorance regarding their personhood.

-- Max Darity (arrowtouch@yahoo.com), September 14, 2004.


>Hopefully the moderators (whoever they are) will start censoring posts or portions of posts like the one Max wrote that you pointed out. <

If there's something specific wrong with my post, I ask you to explain yourself before you judge. You're obligated to do this if you're accusing me. If you don't explain yourself, you're the guilty party.

Tone doesn't cut it. That's highly subjective. Others may read it and not feel the tone is wrong - I surely don't.

-- Max Darity (arrowtouch@yahoo.com), September 14, 2004.


Hi Max.

I work with Special Ed. kids. That experience has allowed me to accept what Kevin posted. Kevin didn't exactly say that all those kids are incapable of having faith.

What did you mean to infer by your use of the word? I doublt very seriously that Kevin can produce words from other than his mouth.

............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 14, 2004.


>I've been guilty, too: Colossians 3

"8ÊÊÊBut now you also, (1) put them all aside: (2) anger, wrath, malice, slander, and (3) abusive speech from your mouth. "-NASB<

If the word "behind" is that offensive here, then I'll strike it from my vocabulary in this highly sensitive arena.

I'm requesting, though, that before you call me guilty, that you explain yourself specifically... otherwise you become guilty of the very scripture you posted.

-- Max Darity (arrowtouch@yahoo.com), September 14, 2004.


What did you mean by Kevin talking from his "behind"? It this case, "behind" was used as a euphemism. Are you saying that Kevin is poluting this forum with wasteful fodder? If that is what you are trying to say, then I believe you owe Kevin an apology, too.

Have I made myself clear?

..........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 14, 2004.


I have already admitted my guilt, Max.

...........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 14, 2004.


Pollution ?

................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 14, 2004.


>Kevin didn't exactly say that all those kids are incapable of having faith.<

Kevin said, "Infants, the mentally retarded, invalids etc. who are not capable of having faith are not lost."

Kevin grouped the mentally retarded with infants. He claims infants absolutely cannot have faith. So, yes, he said "all those kids" are incapable of having faith...

Either that, or he has to admit some infants can have faith.

>What did you mean to infer by your use of the word? I doublt very seriously that Kevin can produce words from other than his mouth.<

"Speaking out of one's behind" could be classed as a euphemism. It simply means "speaking out of total ignorance."

To say that all mentally challenged humans are incapable of having faith is simply a statement from total ignorance, as you well know.

My idea of those who can have faith is broader than most, so I believe all mentally retarded can have faith, even if they do not understand. But, even the more narrow idea of faith MUST admit that some mentally challenged people can have faith.

Kevin classed all mentally retarded people (along with infants) as incapable of having faith. If this is not his position (though it's what he said) and if he'd like to clarify his position, that would be great.

If you want to get stuck and argue over the words I used to convey a point, that's fine, but there are certainly more lofty topics under discussion here.

-- Max Darity (arrowtouch@yahoo.com), September 14, 2004.


>What did you mean by Kevin talking from his "behind"? <

Here's what I meant: In general, those people who claim that all mentally retarded people cannot have faith - such people are simply speaking "out of total ignorance." (out of their behind)

>It this case, "behind" was used as a euphemism.<

Yes. One's "behind" is usually not known as well as one's frontside... Hence, the word "behind" illustrates ignorance.

>Are you saying that Kevin is poluting this forum with wasteful fodder?<

I enjoy discussing issues with Kevin. The only thing that would be pollution in this forum would be advertisements and spam or people posting garbage that has nothing to do with the threads. I'm very liberal in this regard and believe everyone has the right to post their opinion, no matter how ignorant it may seem.

I hope the word "ignorant" is not highly offensive to you. I do not mean it in a personal way. We're all ignorant in one way or another.

>If that is what you are trying to say, then I believe you owe Kevin an apology, too.<

That is not what I was saying. You really ought to have gotten that clarified before you so quickly brought out your "guilty" verdict.

>Have I made myself clear?<

Very. Now, before you go running off, will you apologize for using the word "guilty" in reference to me? You did it before you even thought to get things clarified.

>I have already admitted my guilt, Max.<

Not in this case. You cannot pronounce me as "guilty" without laying out the specific objective reasons why you feel that way. Doing so is called "slander" which violates the very scripture you posted.

-- Max Darity (arrowtouch@yahoo.com), September 14, 2004.


Kevin used this phrase: "...who are not capable..." . He did not use a coma to seperate his thoughts. This means that some are capable while some are not capable of having faith.

Max: "My idea of those who can have faith is broader than most, so I believe all mentally retarded can have faith, even if they do not understand. But, even the more narrow idea of faith MUST admit that some mentally challenged people can have faith."

rod: Well, then exactly how much faith is needed in order to be Saved? Is there some equation that we are not aware of?

Max: "Kevin classed all mentally retarded people (along with infants) as incapable of having faith. If this is not his position (though it's what he said) and if he'd like to clarify his position, that would be great. "

rod: You have made your interpretations clear. I'm sure Kevin will make his views crystal clear.

Max: "If you want to get stuck and argue over the words I used to convey a point, that's fine, but there are certainly more lofty topics under discussion here. "

rod: Then, stop with the messy language arts, Max. If you are gonna say that Kevin is ignorant, say that. But, don't go saying he speaks from other orifices. We can get stuck all day debating about Kevin's ignorance all day if you wish. I'll have to side with Kevin for awhile.

.................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 14, 2004.


I never called you "guilty". I don't think I need to call you "guilty". Your post serve as perfect evidence. Now, be nice and stop posting from your be....uh, left side.

...................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 14, 2004.


>Kevin used this phrase: "...who are not capable..." . He did not use a coma to seperate his thoughts. <

He classed the mentally retarded with infants, whom he claims are absolutely incapable of faith. If he claims infants are incapable and classes the mentally retarded and invalids with infants, then his meaning is clear.

If he wants to clarify his meaning, that'd be great. As it stands, his sentence means that infants, invalids, and mentally retarded are incapable of faith.

If the phrase "...who are not capable..." leaves room for some mentally retarded to have faith, then it also leaves room for infants and invalids to have faith. I don't think Kevin wants to leave room for infants to have faith in that sentence, which means there's no room for the mentally retarded to have faith in that sentence.

Clarification from Kevin would be nice. As I said, as it stands, he denies mentally retarded persons, invalids, and infants have the ability to trust in God.

>rod: Well, then exactly how much faith is needed in order to be Saved? Is there some equation that we are not aware of?<

The smallest amount is sufficient. Infants have the sort of faith which is most praiseworthy. In fact, you must have the faith of an infant in order to enter the kingom of God.

>rod: Then, stop with the messy language arts, Max.<

For your sake, I'll stop. I didn't expect some would be so highly sensitive and misunderstand the basic meaning behind the phrase. BTW, it's not messy. It's a euphemism.

>If you are gonna say that Kevin is ignorant, say that.<

Though Kevin would fit the general statement I made, it was not aimed primarily at him. It was aimed at anybody who claims that the mentally retarded cannot have faith. That's a totally ignorant statement. Even you, Rod, must admit that.

Can mentally retarded people have faith, Rod?

>But, don't go saying he speaks from other orifices.<

Did I say orifices? I must have missed that.

>We can get stuck all day debating about Kevin's ignorance all day if you wish.<

We're not discussing Kevin's ignorance.

>I'll have to side with Kevin for awhile.<

Is it really a matter of taking sides? Hmmm...

Well, when you work things out in your mind, just let me know. I'll forgive you. ;)

-- Max Darity (arrowtouch@yahoo.com), September 14, 2004.


>I never called you "guilty".<

Are you serious? Go read your posts above. You inferred and suggested and even used the word "guilty" and said that I violated a scripture.

Wow.

>I don't think I need to call you "guilty". Your post serve as perfect evidence.<

You just inferred I'm guilty, even though you have nothing to accuse me of.

>Now, be nice and stop posting from your be....uh, left side.<

Be nice and stop accusing people falsely before you get things clarified... and after you decide to get things clarified, be nice and apologize for accusing people falsely.

My words contained nothing harmful - as I've clarified. You, Rod, are intending harm to my integrity, though you have nothing to base your accusations on.

If you continue, I'll abandon this thread and you can have it all to yourself. And, whoever reads it will know who wrecked a lively discussion.

-- Max Darity (arrowtouch@yahoo.com), September 14, 2004.


"In fact, you must have the faith of an infant in order to enter the kingom of God. "-Max.

Are you sure about that?

No, Max. I will refrain from further comments regarding you and me. You are free to post as you wish. I will not bother you anymore.

You will be forgiven when you forgive others.

.................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 14, 2004.


>"In fact, you must have the faith of an infant in order to enter the kingom of God. "-Max.

Are you sure about that?<

"Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little babe shall in no wise enter therein." -Jesus

>No, Max. I will refrain from further comments regarding you and me. You are free to post as you wish. I will not bother you anymore.<

Cool.

>You will be forgiven when you forgive others.<

I forgive you. ;)

-- Max Darity (arrowtouch@yahoo.com), September 14, 2004.


"Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little babe shall in no wise enter therein." -Jesus

I agree completely with that quotation. It's the interpretations of it that get cloudy.

The interpretations may include the following:

1. babe (infants).

2. babe (newbie, new believer).

3. babe (child).

4. babe (clean mind).

5. babe (incapable of having faith).

6. babe (innocent, without sin).

7. babe (extremely accepting like a child).

I think the message deals with the clear thinking of the uncluttered mind. It means the wiping of the slate--repentance, conversion, rebirth. Obviously, it doesn't mean to be an infant.

I'm still puzzled with the belief that no one is without sin, yet some claim that an infant is sinless. I would have to guess that an infant has sin, but it is not a condemnable sin in light of the fact that an infant is ignorant of its condition--Original Sin. Once we become congnizant of the sin, we confess and repent.

..............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 14, 2004.


I made the statement: "Infants, the mentally retarded, invalids etc. who are not capable of having faith are not lost."

Max responded: "Whoa! Did you just say the mentally retarded cannot have faith?"

My reply: "Most mentally retarded people do not have the capacity to understand much less obey the gospel and God will take this into account on judgment day."

Max responded: "You obviously have little to no experience with the mentally retarded. You should just stop commenting on subjects you don't even understand... for your own sake."

My reply: "Again, this is merely your opinion, which doesn't hold much weight with me... Of course I am sure that you already know this don't you Max..."

Max responded: "Anybody who says mentally retarded folks can't have faith has either never known a mentally retarded person or is just talking out of their behind. Of course it's my opinion - and the opinion of Christ and millions of people who know the facts on the matter - including some mentally retarded people."

My reply: "How would you know that I don't have any understanding of these subjects???"

Rod said: "I work with Special Ed. kids. That experience has allowed me to accept what Kevin posted. Kevin didn't exactly say that all those kids are incapable of having faith."

My reply: Exactly Rod, I never made that statement that "all" those kids are incapable of having faith.

Max wrote: "Kevin grouped the mentally retarded with infants. He claims infants absolutely cannot have faith. So, yes, he said "all those kids" are incapable of having faith... Either that, or he has to admit some infants can have faith."

My reply: Okay, so maybe I made a mistake by using infants and the mentally retarded in the same sentence here. If you look up above I tell you explicitly that: "MOST mentally retarded people do not have the capacity to understand much less obey the gospel and God will take this into account on judgment day."

Max wrote: "To say that all mentally challenged humans are incapable of having faith is simply a statement from total ignorance, as you well know."

As you can read above, I never made that statement.

Please Max if you are going to quote me, make it a point to read "all" of what I have written before you jump to conclusions that are not true.

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), September 14, 2004.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ