Sherrie, I am so sorry for your loss. Know this (I know you do) that your daughter is safely in the arms of Jesus. God bless you and comfort you and strengthen you. I love you,
Bill ----- Original Message ----- From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2004 5:39 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Calvinism > Hi David, > Below is the entire sentence Bill sent. > Your reply to this appalls me. > You say you think you can think of worse losses. I can't. I've lost a child. > You say you are getting a little nervous when you hear such superlatives being > thrown around. > You say such usually indicates excessive emotion and hyperbole is expected > shortly..:-) > There weren't enough superlatives to describe what I felt when I lost my > daughter and I don't believe the emotions I felt during that time were an > exaggeration. > I cannot imagine a greater loss. > Bill's words do speak healing to my soul. Very, very much so. > It might be wise to think about comments before you state them. These appear > heartless to me. Almost dismissive. You may have never experienced the loss > of a child, but many of us have. Have you lost a child? > Your tone/negative inflection in response to Bill's post saddens/floors me > greatly. > Your smiley faces appear a contradiction to your responses. They do not help > alleviate the negative tone. > You say near the end of your post that you promise to discuss with Bill > nicely. > Given the negative inflection of your responses I know that I'd be hesitant to > continue. > Sherrie > > Either they are noncommittal and thus have no words of comfort for those who > have suffered the worst imaginable loss, or they hold to some sort of second, > unspoken gospel which does not include their prerequisite, or they themselves > hold out no hope for children who die without faith. > > Bill wrote: > > I believe this passage does mean that all receive > > the gift of life and that this gift is automatically > > afforded to us all whether or not we put our trust > > and faith in Christ. > > Wow! Bill, you sure do know how to shock me. I'm listening, but I'm on > the edge of my seat! This is fun... > > Bill wrote: > > The Scriptures speak of two deaths. The first death > > is defeated in Christ's resurrection. > > Wait a minute... everyone partakes of the first death. Everyone. > Christ did not eliminate this from the destiny of men, did he? The > first death is defeated in Christ's resurrection, I agree, but that > defeat is by undoing the first death through resurrection, not by > preventing the death. We all partake of the first death, but because of > Christ, some of us will escape the second death. Yes? No? > > Bill wrote: > > We all share in the victory of Christ's victory over > > sin, death, and the devil. > > By the phrase "we all," do you mean all men everywhere, including the > Ted Bundy's and Charles Manson's and Jeffery Dahmer's of the world? > > When I read you say that we share in Christ's victory over sin, that > means to me that we will walk as he walked in regards to sin and no > longer continue to sin. When I read you to say that we share in > Christ's victory over death, I read that to mean that we will defeat > death in the same way, through the resurrection. When I read you to say > that we all share in Christ's victory over the devil, that means that we > will resist him as Christ did, and escape his power and wiling ways. > > Bill wrote: > > We all live because Christ is the justification > > of life. The first death is therefore not the problem. > > We all share in Christ's resurrection. We are all > > called to live this life in faithful obedience to him > > who gave it to us. > > Again, by "we all," do you mean all of mankind, or do you mean those who > have been called of God, all the elect? > > Bill wrote: > > How then does this view differ from "universalism"? > > Keep in mind the second death. Before considering it, > > however, let us talk about those among us who die in > > infancy or childhood or early adulthood (?) before > > having placed their faith in Jesus Christ. I have > > to tell you, David, this speaks to the one thing > > which disturbs me more than anything else: Christians > > who make faith a necessary prerequisite to salvation > > are really quite inconsiderate. > > Wow! I'm listening, but still on the edge of my seat! > > Bill wrote: > > Either they are noncommittal and thus have no words > > of comfort for those who have suffered the worst > > imaginable loss, > > I think I can think of worse losses, so I'm getting a little nervous > when I hear such superlatives being thrown around. Such usually > indicates excessive emotion and hyperbole is expected shortly... :-) > > Bill wrote: > > or they hold to some sort of second, unspoken gospel > > which does not include their prerequisite, or they > > themselves hold out no hope for children who die > > without faith. Whatever the case, it is terribly > > sick and sad. There is good news for those who have > > lost a child, and that good news is imbedded in the > > Gospel and that Gospel is right here in these passages. > > So let me get this right. If a doctrine brings bad news, terrible news, > then something is wrong with that doctrine? The law brought > condemnation, does that mean we should question the holiness and > usefulness of the law? I think you are arguing a non-sequitur. > > Bill wrote: > > The question is, do these young ones go to hell > > when they die, and this because they failed to > > believe in Jesus Christ? I say absolutely not. > > They are secure in Christ and we can be sure of > > that. Their security is absolute. They are > > eternally secure and this is because it is not > > faith which saves them -- or anyone else. Therefore, > > a lack of faith cannot send them to hell. Jesus > > Christ saves period! -- not faith, not repentance, > > not baptism, not sanctification, not works: > > Jesus Christ alone. And he saves these little ones. > > His faith, his repentance, his baptism, his > > sanctification, his works, his vicarious nature: > > He saves us all. The passages under discussion -- > > Rom 5.12ff and IICor 5.14-21 -- make that abundantly > > clear. These young ones are secure in Christ and we > > can know that, because they have done nothing to > > reject him. And there's the key. The first death, > > their death, is swallowed up in victory. Resurrection > > to eternal life is theirs in Christ. > > Ok, Bill, now the cat is out of the bag, as they say. :-) I am almost > speechless, shaking my head in disbelief. I am on the one hand so glad > that you have spoken your mind and laid it out there, but on the other > hand, I'm not buying what you are selling. :-) I have so many > questions. I have so many comments. I do not know where to begin. > > First, I am confused by your kind words toward Calvin, because based > upon your theology, Calvin surely would have burned you at the stake > along with Michael Servetus. You argue the very points he condemns > vociferously in his Institutes of the Christian Religion. You have > gotten rid of the problem of original sin basically by saying that all > children have been sanctified and saved by Christ's work on the cross, > even before they are born. While Calvin argues that faith is put in the > heart of the newborn miraculously and that baptism will save them from > their fallen state, you argue that the children are already redeemed as > they come into the world, and that they are secure in their salvation as > long as they never reject Christ! Please tell me whether or not I am > hearing you right, because I can hardly believe that I am hearing this > from you. We must progress slowly through this, because surely I am > misunderstanding you the way that I was said to have misunderstood > Lance. > > Bill wrote: > > It is the "second death" that damns people to hell. > > Those who suffer the second death are those who lose > > their salvation, the very salvation provided them > > in and through Christ's life, death, and resurrection. > > So in your view, everyone is saved by Christ's work, but some people > reject their salvation. Am I really hearing you right? > > You make eternal judgment not based upon works, not based upon how men > have lived, but upon whether or not they reject Christ, which has > already been fully formed in them from birth. Am I hearing you right? > > Bill wrote: > > These are those who volitionally reject Jesus Christ. > > These are those who trample under foot the Son of God > > and regard as unclean the blood of the covenant by > > which he was sanctified. They insult the Spirit of grace. > > They blaspheme the Holy Spirit. They commit the sin > > which leads to death, the unpardonable sin. Because > > in their rejection of Christ they deny the Lord who > > redeemed them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves. > > These are those who do not overcome. It is not then > > just the absence of faith which sends people to hell, > > it is the outright rejection of Jesus Christ that damns > > them. > > Well, let's see. I am trying to inventory your disagreements with > Calvinism. > > 1. You disagree with Limited Atonement. > > 2. You disagree with infant baptism. Are you a Quaker in your view on > Baptism? (By the way, Jim Elsman is.) > > 3. You disagree with the role of faith. > > 4. You disagree with Total Depravity in regards to any practical > application of it, because it has all been taken care of by Christ. > > 5. You disagree with Calvin on Original Sin in that Calvin taught that > all are born guilty, erroneously assuming that there can be no > condemnation without guilt. > > So, why is it that you appreciate Calvin? > > Basically, it sounds like you believe in universalism with a twist. > Everyone is automatically saved in Christ, but some might volitionally > reject him and jump ship, and thereby be confined to hell. If we add > Jonathan's concept of hell being in Christ, then all are still in > Christ, with some volitionally choosing hell in Christ and others > accepting the gift and not choosing to move their residence to hell. > This is getting a bit confusing. :-) > > For some reason, the idea of ETERNAL JUDGMENT is getting completely lost > in this discussion. I'm going to wait to hear your response to my > comments. I have been told that I have misunderstood you guys before, > so surely I must be misunderstanding again. I can't tell you how many > problems I have with this theological bombshell you have just dropped > upon us. :-) > > I promise to discuss with you nicely, so please do not think you have to > stop talking about it. If what you believe is truth, then it would be > able to hold up to the scrutiny of Scripture, right? I really think it > would be good if we could get to the bottom of this. > > Peace be with you. > David Miller, Beverly Hills, Florida. > > ---------- > "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know > how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org > > If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a > friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------- > This message was sent using Endymion MailMan. > http://www.endymion.com/products/mailman/ > > > ---------- > "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org > > If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. > > ---------- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
