If God elects people, how can He rightly punish the non-elect?

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
K

kiki6598

Guest
#1
Based on this verse, I don't understand how God can punish those who are not elect.

Ephesians 1:4-5 (KJV) "According as he hath chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will"

So if He has chosen some, then that means that nobody else has the ability to get saved now, right? But how can they be blamed if they don't have the ability to do good (since they are born sinners), or accept Jesus' sacrifice to cover them?

Some of you might say that they still deserve to go to hell because they have chosen to sin against God, but because of the conditions we've been put in, it's impossible not to. No one chose to be born. None of us chose to be put into a life where it's impossible to stop doing the very thing that condemns them. But even if they're given the gospel, it doesn't matter because they weren't made to be saved and go to Heaven anyway.

Thanks to everyone who responds.
 
P

psychomom

Guest
#2
hi, kiki
welcome to CC :)

the thing to keep in mind is God does not have to abide by our standards of 'fair'.
a thing is not just because we perceive it to be; a thing is just because God does it.
justice is part of His Nature.

the really miraculous bit is that anyone is saved at all, for surely none deserve it.
yet He has determined to have a people for His own... it's about His Glory.
this is interwoven throughout the whole Bible, and it is difficult to accept, i know.

we need to 'allow' God to be God. :)
 
Nov 26, 2011
3,818
62
0
#3
Based on this verse, I don't understand how God can punish those who are not elect.

Ephesians 1:4-5 (KJV) "According as he hath chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will"

So if He has chosen some, then that means that nobody else has the ability to get saved now, right? But how can they be blamed if they don't have the ability to do good (since they are born sinners), or accept Jesus' sacrifice to cover them?

Some of you might say that they still deserve to go to hell because they have chosen to sin against God, but because of the conditions we've been put in, it's impossible not to. No one chose to be born. None of us chose to be put into a life where it's impossible to stop doing the very thing that condemns them. But even if they're given the gospel, it doesn't matter because they weren't made to be saved and go to Heaven anyway.

Thanks to everyone who responds.


Original Sin is a false doctrine which has its origin in Gnostic dualism. It was Augustine of Hippo through which this false doctrine came to be accepted as orthodox by the institutional church.

Here is a fully referenced and annotated documentary which explains many aspects of this subject...

[video=youtube;KVQ1t5i058Q]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KVQ1t5i058Q[/video]

Here is a link to the Ante-Nicene Fathers...

Ante-Nicene Fathers - VOL I - IX. Download all as PDF

Volume 1 consists of the writings from the first century.

By going through this material you will clearly see how Christianity slowly transformed with the influence of Greek philosophy and then, with the Latin influence, how it developed into an institutional structure whereby the philosophical musings of Augustine were able to gain a foothold.

Other references are...

Early Christian Writings: New Testament, Apocrypha, Gnostics, Church Fathers (contains different translations of early church material)

Christian Classics Ethereal Library (an invaluable resource when studying church history)
Christian Classics Ethereal Library



Summation regarding Original Sin - Original Sin redefines the nature of man by negating man's ability to freely choose between good and evil. Thus man is defined within the context of being "born a sinner" and thus sin is redefined to being a calamity as opposed to a crime. Thus true responsibility is logically negated when man is defined any real ability to make a choice between obedience to God (doing the right thing) and disobeying God (doing evil).

The redefinition of the nature of man in turn necessitates a redefining of salvation, faith, grace as well as sin. The Gospel is completely redefined to be, in essence, a provision which serves to cloak ongoing wickedness (due to the fact that Original Sin necessitates "sin you will and sin you must" ie. the wickedness NEVER stops due to the root of sin being the physical flesh, which is an ancient Gnostic teaching).

Thus with "sin you will and sin you must" people are induced to "confess" (confess they are a sinner with no ability), "trust" (trust that Jesus effected a legal exchange whereby he served as a substitute for the punishment due as well as effecting a righteousness/obedience credit to the believer, and "receive" whereby one receives this provisional package as a free gift. In other words it is a DO NOTHING Gospel which is utterly opposed to ANY DOING being required because doing would be "adding to the already finished provision."

That antidote to this very dangerous deception is simply the very words of Jesus Christ who taught HEAR AND DO. Jesus said we must repent, pick up our cross, hear his sayings and do them, count the cost, put our hand to the plough, don't look back, seek, strive, endure, and love.

Jesus was a preacher of righteousness and he has called all people to walk in righteousness according to the Spirit of God. The reason he died was not to effect a provision which cloaks ongoing wickedness but to institute a New Covenant by which we may come clean with God in regards to our past sin, be cleansed, and be granted a fresh start with a clear conscience.

Read the Bible. Believe the words attributed to Jesus and be very wary of the learned theologians.
 
Nov 26, 2011
3,818
62
0
#4
Augustine:------------------------ Bible:
Born a Lump of Sin------------------Born Innocent
No Free Will-------------------------Free & Independent Will
God Never Changes, Immutable.-- ---God interacts with man, alters His course
Grace only to Elect, God Decides-----Grace to Whosoever Will Come, Died for All
Just War, Persecution of heretics-----Love your enemies, Pay no one evil for evil
 
Nov 26, 2011
3,818
62
0
#5
Augustine used the Latin Vulgate which says this...

Romans 5:12
Wherefore as by one man sin entered into this world and by sin death: and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned.

propterea sicut per unum hominem in hunc mundum peccatum intravit et per peccatum mors et ita in omnes homines mors pertransiit in quo omnes peccaverunt

Augustine took the "in whom" and viewed it in the context of...

Hebrews 7:9-10
And (as it may be said) even Levi who received tithes paid tithes in Abraham: For he was yet in the loins of his father when Melchisedech met him.

Augustine concluded that the entire human race was present in the loins of Adam and thus actually sinned when Adam sinned, therefore all human beings are BORN GUILTY.

Translations from the Greek text of Romans 5:12 read...

KJV Rom 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

NIV Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned—

NASB Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned—

[SUP]12 [/SUP]Therefore, as sin came into the world through one man, and death as the result of sin, so death spread to all men, [[SUP][a][/SUP]no one being able to stop it or to escape its power] because all men sinned.


"In Quo" in the Latin is an error and this error is the foundation of the proof text Augustine used to substantiate the Original Sin doctrine.
 
Nov 26, 2011
3,818
62
0
#6
Here is what Augustine taught about unelect babies going to hell...

let us suppose certain twins, born of a certain harlot, and exposed that they might be taken up by others. One of them has expired without baptism; the other is baptized. What can we say was in this case the “fate” or the “fortune,” which are here absolutely nothing? What “acceptance of persons,” when with God there is none, even if there could be any such thing in these cases, seeing that they certainly had nothing for which the one could be preferred to the other, and no merits of their own,—whether good, for which the one might deserve to be baptized; or evil, for which the other might deserve to die without baptism? Were there any merits in their parents, when the father was a fornicator, the mother a harlot? But of whatever kind those merits were, there were certainly not any that were different in those who died in such different conditions, but all were common to both. If, then, neither fate, since no stars made them to differ; nor fortune, since no fortuitous accidents produce these things; nor the diversity of persons nor of merits have done this; what remains, so far as it refers to the baptized child, save the grace of God, which is given freely to vessels made unto honour; but, as it refers to the unbaptized child, the wrath of God, which is repaid to the vessels made for dishonour in respect of the deservings of the lump itself? But in that one which is baptized we constrain you to confess the grace of God, and convince you that no merit of its own preceded; but as to that one which died without baptism, why that sacrament should have been wanting to it, which even you confess to be needful for all ages, and what in that manner may have been punished in him, it is for you to see who will not have it that there is any original sin.
NPNF1-05. St. Augustine: Anti-Pelagian Writings - Christian Classics Ethereal Library

Chapter 15.—The Apostle Meets the Question by Leaving It Unsolved.
Since in the case of those two twins we have without a doubt one and the same case, the difficulty of the question why the one died in one way, and the other in another, is solved by the apostle as it were by not solving it; for, when he had proposed something of the same kind about two twins, seeing that it was said (not of works, since they had not as yet done anything either of good or of evil, but of Him that calleth), “The older shall serve the younger,” 2644 and, “Jacob have I loved, and Esau have I hated;”2645 and he had prolonged the horror of this deep thing even to the point of saying, “Therefore hath He mercy on whom He will, and whom He will He hardeneth:”2646 he perceived at once what the trouble was, and opposed to himself the words of a gainsayer which he was to check by apostolical authority. For he says, “You say, then, unto me, “Why doth He yet find fault? For who has resisted His will?” And to him who says this he answered, “O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Doth the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power of the clay of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour and another unto dishonour?2647 Then, following on, he opened up this great and hidden secret as far as he judged it fit that it should be disclosed to men, saying, “But if God, willing to show His wrath and to demonstrate His power, endured in much patience the vessels of wrath fitted for destruction, even that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy which He has prepared for glory.”2648 This is not only the assistance, but, moreover, the proof of God’s grace—the assistance, namely, in the vessels of mercy, but the proof in the vessels of wrath; for in these He shows His anger and makes known His power, because His goodness is so mighty that He even uses the evil well; and in those He makes known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, because what the justice of a punisher requires from the vessels of wrath, the grace of the Deliverer remits to the vessels of mercy. Nor would the kindness which is bestowed on some freely appear, unless to other equally guilty and from the same mass God showed what was really due to both, and condemned them with a righteous judgment. “For who maketh thee to differ?”2649 says the same apostle to a man as it were boasting concerning himself and his own benefits. “For who maketh thee to differ” from the vessels of wrath; of course, from the mass of perdition which has sent all by one into damnation? “Who maketh thee to differ?” And as if he had answered, “My faith maketh me to differ,—my purpose, my merit,”—he says, “For what hast thou which thou hast not received? But if thou hast received it, why dost thou boast as if thou receivedst it not?”—that is, as if that by which thou art made to differ were of thine own. Therefore He maketh thee to differ who bestows that whence thou art made to differ, by removing the penalty that is due, by conferring the grace which is not due. He maketh to differ, who, when the darkness was upon the face of the abyss, said, “Let there be light; and there was light, and divided”—that is, made to differ—“between the light and the darkness.”2650 For when there was only darkness, He did not find what He should make to differ; but by making the light, He made to differ; so that it may be said to the justified wicked, “For ye were sometime darkness, but now are ye light in the Lord.”2651 And thus he who glories must glory not in himself, but in the Lord. He makes to differ who—of those who are not yet born, and who have not yet done any good or evil, that His purpose, according to the election, might stand not of works, but of Himself that calleth—said, The older shall serve the younger, and commending that very purpose afterwards by the mouth of the prophet, said, “Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.”2652 Because he said “the election,” and in this God does not find made by another what He may choose, but Himself makes what He may find; just as it is written of the remnant of Israel: “There is made a remnant by the election of grace; but if by grace, then it is no more of works, otherwise grace is no more grace.”2653 On which account you are certainly foolish who, when the Truth declares, “Not of works, but of Him that calleth, it was said,” say that Jacob was loved on account of future works which God foreknew that he would do, and thus contradict the apostle when he says, “Not of works;” as if he could not have said, “Not of present, but of future works.” But he says, “Not of works,” that He might commend grace; “but if of grace, now is it no more of works, otherwise grace is no more grace.” For grace, not due, but free, precedes, that by it good works may be done; but if good works should precede, grace should be repaid, as it were, to works, and thus grace should be no more grace.
NPNF1-05. St. Augustine: Anti-Pelagian Writings - Christian Classics Ethereal Library

I hope folks can see how an adherence to Original Sin not only turns everything on its head but also maligns the character of God as being partial and indifferent. It is just too bad for babies who are un-elect vessels of wrath.
 
Nov 26, 2011
3,818
62
0
#7
John Calvin wrote...

Scripture proclaims that all were, in the person of one, made liable to eternal death. As this cannot be ascribed to nature, it is plain that it is owing to the wonderful counsel of God. It is very absurd 2232in these worthy defenders of the justice of God to strain at a gnat and swallow a camel. I again ask how it is that the fall of Adam involves so many nations with their infant children in eternal death without remedy unless that it so seemed meet to God? Here the most loquacious tongues must be dumb. The decree, I admit, is, dreadful; and yet it is impossible to deny that God foreknew what the end of man was to be before he made him, and foreknew, because he had so ordained by his decree. Should any one here inveigh against the prescience of God, he does it rashly and unadvisedly. For why, pray, should it be made a charge against the heavenly Judge, that he was not ignorant of what was to happen? Thus, if there is any just or plausible complaint, it must be directed against predestination. Nor ought it to seem absurd when I say, that God not only foresaw the fall of the first man, and in him the ruin of his posterity; but also at his own pleasure arranged it. For as it belongs to his wisdom to foreknow all future events, so it belongs to his power to rule and govern them by his hand. This question, like others, is skillfully explained by Augustine: “Let us confess with the greatest benefit, what we believe with the greatest truth, that the God and Lord of all things who made all things very good, both foreknow that evil was to arise out of good, and knew that it belonged to his most omnipotent goodness to bring good out of evil, rather than not permit evil to be, and so ordained the life of angels and men as to show in it, first, what free-will could do; and, secondly, what the benefit of his grace and his righteous judgment could do,” (August. Enchir. ad Laurent).
Institutes of the Christian Religion - Christian Classics Ethereal Library

John Calvin held that the decree of unelect infants being damned was dreadful, yet he believed it.

Infant.jpg
 
Nov 26, 2011
3,818
62
0
#8
Now look at this...


...
the thing to keep in mind is God does not have to abide by our standards of 'fair'.
a thing is not just because we perceive it to be; a thing is just because God does it.
justice is part of His Nature.

the really miraculous bit is that anyone is saved at all, for surely none deserve it.
yet He has determined to have a people for His own... it's about His Glory.
this is interwoven throughout the whole Bible, and it is difficult to accept, i know.

we need to 'allow' God to be God. :)
It is difficult for people like psychomom to accept that unelect infants are damned to eternal destruction even though she thinks such a thing glorifies God.

How is that for a twist on things?

Perhaps psychomom will respond and say that she believes that all babies who die actually go to heaven. Yet on what basis can someone who believes in the precepts of the TULIP (Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace, Perseverance of the Saints) claim such a thing? They simply cannot and remain consistent with their position, for why does a baby get a pass and an adult whom has no ability does not? The only reason some of them will attempt to proclaim that babies get a pass is because it makes them "feel" better. Theologians like Calvin remained consistent and left "feeling" out of it.


You see Original Sin declares babies are GUILTY and DESERVE DEATH. Original Sin is an evil doctrine which maligns God.

The Bible teaches that we are accountable for our own sin resultant of our own choices. We are born innocent and condemnation is wrought through the willful rebellion to the light that we have (ie. conscience). Due to CHOICE being a factor we are RESPONSIBLE. Deny real choice and one denies real responsibility.

Here is what Justin Martyr wrote...

But lest some suppose, from what has been said by us, that we say that whatever happens, happens by a fatal necessity, because it is foretold as known beforehand, this too we explain. We have learned from the prophets, and we hold it to be true, that punishments, and chastisements, and good rewards, are rendered according to the merit of each man's actions. Since if it be not so, but all things happen by fate, neither is anything at all in our own power. For if it be fated that this man, e.g., be good, and this other evil, neither is the former meritorious nor the latter to be blamed. And again, unless the human race have the power of avoiding evil and choosing good by free choice, they are not accountable for their actions, of whatever kind they be. But that it is by free choice they both walk uprightly and stumble, we thus demonstrate. We see the same man making a transition to opposite things. Now, if it had been fated that he were to be either good or bad, he could never have been capable of both the opposites, nor of so many transitions. But not even would some be good and others bad, since we thus make fate the cause of evil, and exhibit her as acting in opposition to herself; or that which has been already stated would seem to be true, that neither virtue nor vice is anything, but that things are only reckoned good or evil by opinion; which, as the true word shows, is the greatest impiety and wickedness. But this we assert is inevitable fate, that they who choose the good have worthy rewards, and they who choose the opposite have their merited awards. For not like other things, as trees and quadrupeds, which cannot act by choice, did God make man: for neither would he be worthy of reward or praise did he not of himself choose the good, but were created for this end; nor, if he were evil, would he be worthy of punishment, not being evil of himself, but being able to be nothing else than what he was made.
First Apology, Ch 43.
CHURCH FATHERS: The First Apology (St. Justin Martyr)

Ezekiel wrote...

Eze 18:20 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

Augustine taught that we are all "born dead" and that we all bear the iniquity of Adam. Augustine was wrong.
 
Nov 26, 2011
3,818
62
0
#9
Ephesians 1:4-5 (KJV) "According as he hath chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will"
What does predestine actually mean? Have you ever thought about it?

Could it be that God predetermined from the beginning that those who would be saved would be saved via the means of the Spirit of life in Jesus Christ?

Is it possible that God determined that a PEOPLE would be saved via a particular MEANS which would involve the Spirit of life in Jesus Christ whereby a people were in covenant with God and thus wrought the blessing through kinsmanship?

Is that possible?

I think it is worth prayerfully reflecting upon lest we be caught up in the philosophical musings of men.

The Bible is not going to teach responsibility on the one hand and then deny it on the other.

Jesus is not going to teach HEAR AND DO on the one hand and then Paul will contradict that by teaching "you cannot do unless God makes you do and if you have not been picked to be made to do then too bad, not to mention that no-one really DOES anyway cos the flesh means sin you will and sin you must."

The popular theology of today is foolish and is a farce. It is ridiculous and stupid too.
 
Feb 21, 2012
3,794
199
63
#10
On a roll this morning - aren't you Skinski!

Simply put: That which is born of the flesh is flesh. That which is born of the Spirit is spirit. There are your two natures of man. One (flesh) is in the likeness of Adam and has a fallen nature. (Gen. 5:3) One (Spirit) is in the likeness of God and is partaker of the divine nature. (2 Peter 1:4) The flesh profiteth nothing (John 6:63); it cannot please God (Rom. 8:8) and in it is no good thing. (Rom. 7:18) The flesh is the "old man nature"; the spirit is the "new man nature".

As for children: 1 Cor. 7:13,14 And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy. Children/infants are covered by believing parent/parents.

Could it be that God predetermined from the beginning that those who would be saved would be saved via the means of the Spirit of life in Jesus Christ?

Is it possible that God determined that a PEOPLE would be saved via a particular MEANS which would involve the Spirit of life in Jesus Christ whereby a people were in covenant with God and thus wrought the blessing through kinsmanship?
I do agree with the above . . .
 
Last edited:
O

oldthennew

Guest
#11
a personal testimony -

in my past life I had absolutely no interest in God, Christ, or the Church nor did I have any interest in
turning away from my sinful life-style, as a matter of fact, I thoroughly enjoyed the pleasures of sin -
but it happened to me according to the scripture,
ROMANS 10:20.
But Isaiah is very bold and says: I was found by those who did not seek me; I was made manifest
to those who did not ask for me.

as it is written: God leads or drags us to REPENTANCE....
again: No man comes to Me except the Father draw him, and so I was drawn.
I can take no credit for the wonderful gifts and calling of God that I have received -
He stupefied and astonished me...but now I am called to walk as He walked, to lead a life of righteousness
and be a faithful servant even unto death.
 

Hepzibah

Senior Member
Apr 18, 2015
337
24
18
#12
skinski

Can you tell me which version of the scriptures was in use before the Latin Vulgate please? I am interested in what the Celtic Christians which includes Pelagius I assume used. Thanks.
 
S

sparkman

Guest
#13
I would caution you concerning Pelagianism. It's long since been condemned by the Church.

Those who hold it inevitably end up reducing man to their own image.

They typically deny the following doctrines: original sin, imputed righteousness, justification by faith alone, and penal substitutionary atonement. They are open theists and sinless perfectionists.

They reduce God to their own level.

In their hatred for the concept of imputation, they deny themselves the benefit of receiving Christ's imputed righteousness and that, in my opinion, is damning. Their theology basically teaches that to be accounted righteous, you must become righteous. Since none of us is perfect, they damn themselves by trying to achieve righteousness on their own.

Regarding man's responsibility versus God's sovereignty, that is a difficult one to work out. I think at some level we need to acknowledge that we see pieces of the puzzle, and not the whole completed puzzle, at this point. But, two things are for sure;anyone who is saved, it is due to God's grace and his work, and anyone that isn't saved, it's not God's fault...they themselves are to blame. That's where I leave it.

I'd strongly suggest that you leave skinski7's bad theology alone though. It denies much of Scripture including the book of Romans. They reduce God to the level of a mere man ultimately. They are required to by necessity in their claims to be sinless.

Based on this verse, I don't understand how God can punish those who are not elect.

Ephesians 1:4-5 (KJV) "According as he hath chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will"

So if He has chosen some, then that means that nobody else has the ability to get saved now, right? But how can they be blamed if they don't have the ability to do good (since they are born sinners), or accept Jesus' sacrifice to cover them?

Some of you might say that they still deserve to go to hell because they have chosen to sin against God, but because of the conditions we've been put in, it's impossible not to. No one chose to be born. None of us chose to be put into a life where it's impossible to stop doing the very thing that condemns them. But even if they're given the gospel, it doesn't matter because they weren't made to be saved and go to Heaven anyway.

Thanks to everyone who responds.
 

valiant

Senior Member
Mar 22, 2015
8,025
124
63
#14
Scripture is quite clear on the fact that man is born with a sinful nature. Indeed the fact that all men without exception die, is proof of it. That such an idea was introduced by the Gnostics is incorrect. Paul makes clear that death is due to sin, and that all have sinned (including the baby who dies). The fact that all men sin is further proof of the fact.

'I was brought forth in iniquity and in sin did my mother conceive me'. (Psalm 51.5)

'The wicked go astray from the womb. they sin as soon as they are born, speaking lies.' (Psalm 58.3)

'None is righteous, no not one' -- no one does good, not even one (Rom 3.10-12)

'Sin came into the world though one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all have sinned' (however young they are when they die). (Rom 5.12)

'We were BY NATURE children of wrath' (Eph 2.3).

It is because of what we are that no man will seek God ('there is none that seeks after God' - Rom 3.11). That is why God has to 'seek us'. If He had not chosen out an elect, none would have been saved.

God is not unjust, but rather is merciful. If He acted strictly in accordance with justice ALL would be instantly destroyed. 'It is of the Lord's mercy that we are not consumed.'

Thus God has a right to show mercy to whom He will. For none deserve it. We should not say, 'God is wrong for condemning all'. We should say 'how good is God that He even saves any'.
 
S

sparkman

Guest
#15
As you well know, you are misrepresenting the majority of Reformed people. I don't think I've ever heard a Reformed person claim that babies are going to hell.

Spurgeon did not hold such an opinion. You may be able to find examples of individuals who held that opinion, but their view does not reflect all of Reformed thought.

Bringing up one straw man, such as the salvation status of infants, does not invalidate the concept of election. Election is mentioned at least 60 times in the New Testament, in some form. Elected, chosen, predestined....so one cannot deny the concept is valid.

Like I said in a previous post, though, totally reconciling God's sovereignty with man's free will is a mystery at some level. A mystery is not a contradiction. There are simply missing pieces to the puzzle. As believers, we need to be intellectually humble and acknowledge that there are some things we don't fully understand. Reforging Scripture to form our own theological system is not an option, though.

As I said in the previous post, your attempt to do so is damnable. If you deny original sin, imputed righteousness, justification by faith alone, and penal substitutionary atonement, you basically strip the guts out of the gospel message and create a works righteousness system. You might as well call yourself an unbeliever.

Now look at this...



It is difficult for people like psychomom to accept that unelect infants are damned to eternal destruction even though she thinks such a thing glorifies God.

How is that for a twist on things?

Perhaps psychomom will respond and say that she believes that all babies who die actually go to heaven. Yet on what basis can someone who believes in the precepts of the TULIP (Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace, Perseverance of the Saints) claim such a thing? They simply cannot and remain consistent with their position, for why does a baby get a pass and an adult whom has no ability does not? The only reason some of them will attempt to proclaim that babies get a pass is because it makes them "feel" better. Theologians like Calvin remained consistent and left "feeling" out of it.


You see Original Sin declares babies are GUILTY and DESERVE DEATH. Original Sin is an evil doctrine which maligns God.

The Bible teaches that we are accountable for our own sin resultant of our own choices. We are born innocent and condemnation is wrought through the willful rebellion to the light that we have (ie. conscience). Due to CHOICE being a factor we are RESPONSIBLE. Deny real choice and one denies real responsibility.

Here is what Justin Martyr wrote...


First Apology, Ch 43.
CHURCH FATHERS: The First Apology (St. Justin Martyr)

Ezekiel wrote...

Eze 18:20 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

Augustine taught that we are all "born dead" and that we all bear the iniquity of Adam. Augustine was wrong.
 

valiant

Senior Member
Mar 22, 2015
8,025
124
63
#16
skinski

Can you tell me which version of the scriptures was in use before the Latin Vulgate please? I am interested in what the Celtic Christians which includes Pelagius I assume used. Thanks.
Before the Vulgate there were the Old Latin versions. But Pelagius was proficient in both Latin and Greek and therefore probably read the Greek text. However, he was not himself a Pelagian. He believed in prevenient grace which enabled a man to repent and live righteously. He simply spoke out against the extreme rigidity of Augustine's ideas. His 'heresies' were imputed to him by his opponents. He was not condemned by the church until late in life, and then on doubtful grounds.
 
Last edited:
S

sparkman

Guest
#17
This is a very good synopsis.

Pelagians might as well deny the writings of Paul. They know that won't fly, so instead they focus on Augustine, claiming he was a Gnostic.

Scripture is quite clear on the fact that man is born with a sinful nature. Indeed the fact that all men without exception die, is proof of it. That such an idea was introduced by the Gnostics is incorrect. Paul makes clear that death is due to sin, and that all have sinned (including the baby who dies). The fact that all men sin is further proof of the fact.

'I was brought forth in iniquity and in sin did my mother conceive me'. (Psalm 51.5)

'The wicked go astray from the womb. they sin as soon as they are born, speaking lies.' (Psalm 58.3)

'None is righteous, no not one' -- no one does good, not even one (Rom 3.10-12)

'Sin came into the world though one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all have sinned' (however young they are when they die). (Rom 5.12)

'We were BY NATURE children of wrath' (Eph 2.3).

It is because of what we are that no man will seek God ('there is none that seeks after God' - Rom 3.11). That is why God has to 'seek us'. If He had not chosen out an elect, none would have been saved.

God is not unjust, but rather is merciful. If He acted strictly in accordance with justice ALL would be instantly destroyed. 'It is of the Lord's mercy that we are not consumed.'

Thus God has a right to show mercy to whom He will. For none deserve it. We should not say, 'God is wrong for condemning all'. We should say 'how good is God that He even saves any'.
 

Blain

The Word Weaver
Aug 28, 2012
19,212
2,547
113
#18
Yes he predestined all to be be saved however he gave us the choice to accept it or not. He knew that adam and eve would fall that man kind would need a savior Jesus knew what he would have to do before time began.

"For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior; 4Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth" (1 Tim. 2:3-4).
"The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance" (2 Pet. 3:9).

God is a good patient understanding and loving father, I can't imagine a good loving father making children who no matter what they did would be destined for hell can you?
 
A

atwhatcost

Guest
#19
Based on this verse, I don't understand how God can punish those who are not elect.

Ephesians 1:4-5 (KJV) "According as he hath chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will"

So if He has chosen some, then that means that nobody else has the ability to get saved now, right? But how can they be blamed if they don't have the ability to do good (since they are born sinners), or accept Jesus' sacrifice to cover them?

Some of you might say that they still deserve to go to hell because they have chosen to sin against God, but because of the conditions we've been put in, it's impossible not to. No one chose to be born. None of us chose to be put into a life where it's impossible to stop doing the very thing that condemns them. But even if they're given the gospel, it doesn't matter because they weren't made to be saved and go to Heaven anyway.

Thanks to everyone who responds.
Let's try this logic with the justice system in the US using your same argument.

I don't understand how the justice system can punish those who are not law abiding.

So if they choose some prisoners to be paroled, then that means that nobody else has the ability to get paroled now, right? But how can they be blamed if they don't have the ability to stay out of prison (since they are born sinners), or accept the parole?

Some of you might say that they still deserve to be in prison because they have chosen to break the law, but because of the conditions we've been put in, it's impossible not to. No one chose to be born. None of us chose to be put into a life where it's impossible to stop doing the very thing that condemns them. But even if they're given a parole hearing, it doesn't matter because they weren't made to be paroled and get out of prison anyway.
That really stopped making sense all together, didn't it? What percentage of prisoners believe they had no choice, but had to commit their crimes -- and please remember, most didn't get busted for breaking just one law. Even if they did "just one crime," if you ever listen to a verdict being read, you'll notice they broke many laws. (It's rare when the verdict is only one "guilty," since the list of charges are judged one at a time.)

That's the American justice system. It doesn't call a person to some prison time for killing a cow. It doesn't require prison time for adulterous thoughts. It doesn't require prison time if you don't keep the Sabbath holy or have gods before the God. God's law does. And it's not merely prison time. It's permanent separation from God, death and hell.

So, really? When was the last time you "accidentally" put your desires above God's will? When was the last time you "accidentally" put your desires above loving others? What are the percentages on you "accidentally" sinning versus intentionally sinning? Are you innocent? Was your hand forced to do what you would never conceive to do on your own? Were you really innocent with the only reason to do what you did was because you were "born a sinner," or did you freely sin for your own selfish moments? You break God's law once and you deserve his punishment. Tell me you never freely did it anyway, and you may have a point. Tell me you're the only one who freely did that and you might have a point. Tell me those people in prison had no choice, and maybe you have something there.

Here's what God says on the subject:
John 3:16-21:
16 “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.19 And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil.20 For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed.21 But whoever does what is true comes to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that his works have been carried out in God.”

John 6:35-40
35 Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst.36 But I said to you that you have seen me and yet do not believe.37 All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out.38 For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me.39 And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day.40 For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.”

Romans... ah, nuts. The whole thing is a built-in case of how God works, so I can't give you the precise verse or chapter, but you really need to take it in as a whole.

Make no mistake. No one accidentally broke God's law. No one is sinless. Even if both my parents were murderers, it doesn't free me to murder. We deserve God's punishment. So it's mercy he chose some out of what we rightly deserve.
 

Hepzibah

Senior Member
Apr 18, 2015
337
24
18
#20
I would caution you concerning Pelagianism. It's long since been condemned by the Church.

Those who hold it inevitably end up reducing man to their own image.

They typically deny the following doctrines: original sin, imputed righteousness, justification by faith alone, and penal substitutionary atonement. They are open theists and sinless perfectionists.

They reduce God to their own level.

In their hatred for the concept of imputation, they deny themselves the benefit of receiving Christ's imputed righteousness and that, in my opinion, is damning. Their theology basically teaches that to be accounted righteous, you must become righteous. Since none of us is perfect, they damn themselves by trying to achieve righteousness on their own.

Regarding man's responsibility versus God's sovereignty, that is a difficult one to work out. I think at some level we need to acknowledge that we see pieces of the puzzle, and not the whole completed puzzle, at this point. But, two things are for sure;anyone who is saved, it is due to God's grace and his work, and anyone that isn't saved, it's not God's fault...they themselves are to blame. That's where I leave it.

I'd strongly suggest that you leave skinski7's bad theology alone though. It denies much of Scripture including the book of Romans. They reduce God to the level of a mere man ultimately. They are required to by necessity in their claims to be sinless.
Too late. I have been a Calvinist myself and studied its theology extensively and found it unscriptural. According to the dispute of Pelagius, that godly misrepresented man who was exhonerated, and the real heretic Augustine, he believed in prevenient grace and did not lift up man.