Awww, Shucks!

[Sir]

Since many of the critics here also post at CARM, thought I would share more of the funny that is at CARM. We all know that critics of the Mormons hold double-standards and are hypocritical in all that they do, so here is a funny example of that.

Critics of Mormons are always telling us when we have broken the rules of a board (like some of you will do here). They also like to then proclaim how that is just showing the rotten fruits of Mormonism. (You all have seen those posts I'm sure).

When I did that to Russ, twice, I got banned!!! LOL

Here (the 'offending' comments of mine are in bold red):


Dear Apollos,

You have received an infraction at Christian Discussion Forums | CARM Christian Forums | Christian Chat.

Reason: Rule 12: Insulted Other Member(s). Attacking users. Rule 25: Freedom of Speech: Freedom of speech here comes with the responsibility to speak decently within the parameters of the rules.By registering you are agreeing not to be vulgar, divisive,insulting,profane, etc. (read all the rules). It helps to try and treat others as you want to be treated. (Luke 6:31)
-------
Rule 12: Insulted Other Member(s). Attacking users.
-------

This infraction is worth 10 point(s) and may result in restricted access until it expires. Serious infractions will never expire.

Original Post:
http://forums.carm.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=4246897


Originally Posted by russ

I need to know the right Jesus.


At least you have now taken the first step to your problem: recognition.

Now we understand why you knowingly break the rules here and refuse to tell people what church you go to.

Rotten fruits of whatever faith you follow.

Come to Jesus. All the best,
Christian Discussion Forums | CARM Christian Forums | Christian Chat

and


Dear Apollos,

You have received an infraction at Christian Discussion Forums | CARM Christian Forums | Christian Chat.

Reason: Rule 12: Insulted Other Member(s). Attacking users. Rule 25: Freedom of Speech: Freedom of speech here comes with the responsibility to speak decently within the parameters of the rules.By registering you are agreeing not to be vulgar, divisive,insulting,profane, etc. (read all the rules). It helps to try and treat others as you want to be treated. (Luke 6:31)
-------
Rule 12: Insulted Other Member(s). Attacking users.
-------

This infraction is worth 10 point(s) and may result in restricted access until it expires. Serious infractions will never expire.

Original Post:
http://forums.carm.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=4246696


Yet again, Russ creates 3 new threads within 7 hours.

You did that just a couple days ago.

Why do you continue to break the rules of CARM?

Not good fruits of a "christian".

All the best,
Christian Discussion Forums | CARM Christian Forums | Christian Chat

Hahahaha......so blatently hypocritical it only makes one laugh. Critics don't like to have their own words and sayings used against them. It cuts them to the core. So they have to run to mommy and tattle and try to get the comments banned and the poster banned as well.

That, more than anything else that happens around these parts, confirms to me that what I have and believe in is much more real and true than anything they have to offer.

[Billyray]

I noticed that you didn't address my question to you in that thread despite ample time to do so prior to you being banned. Perhaps you could answer it for me on this forum.

Why do you believe the Mormon jesus is the true Jesus since the Mormon jesus is different than the Jesus taught in the Bible?

[Sir]

I noticed that you didn't address my question to you in that thread despite ample time to do so prior to you being banned. Perhaps you could answer it for me on this forum.

Why do you believe the Mormon jesus is the true Jesus since the Mormon jesus is different than the Jesus taught in the Bible?

I don't ride your silly merry-go-round, remember?

I realize that you will post to me there and here, trying desperately to get me to play with you, but no thanks. Been there done that.

[Billyray]

I don't ride your silly merry-go-round, remember?

I realize that you will post to me there and here, trying desperately to get me to play with you, but no thanks. Been there done that.
You may not even realize it but the majority of your time on this board and the other board is simply to provide jabs rather than actually discuss Mormonism. I asked you a fair question but you avoided it on CARM and you are avoiding it here. You really don't want open and honest dialogue.

[Sir]

You may not even realize it but the majority of your time on this board and the other board is simply to provide jabs rather than actually discuss Mormonism.

More like point out the bankrupt state that is the anti-mormon cult.


I asked you a fair question but you avoided it on CARM and you are avoiding it here.

All you do is ask questions. But not because you actually want an answer, but to try and score a polemical point.


You really don't want open and honest dialogue.

Not with you. (although it is funny to see you paint your posts as being "open and honest").

I thought that was already made clear months ago.

Your merry-go-round is boring and most LDS don't like riding it anymore.

Sad to see you whining for some attention, though. Well....here you go.

:)

[James Banta]

[Sir;143577]More like point out the bankrupt state that is the anti-mormon cult.

The cult? Really? Where is the extrabiblical revelation? Where is the strong central leadership? You have been upset at Christians telling you that they belong to a Christian church without labeling it as Catholic, Methodist, Baptist, ect. My church is Sandy Ridge Community church.. Does that tell you anything about us? Can you ****on hole that a being something you can tell us you know all about? It is a small local Christian church.


All you do is ask questions. But not because you actually want an answer, but to try and score a polemical point.

There are two reasons we ask questions. 1. Because each mormon seems to hold their own personal doctrines inspite of what is taught to the whole LDS community we wish to know what your personal beliefs actual are.. We can't address your beliefs until we know what they are.. And 2. To be thought provoking. To get us all thinking about what God has told us and compare it to the personal beliefs in reason 1.. You seem to refuse to engage in that and instead spend time crying over the perceives mistreatment you see in our questions.

I have been asked many a question by the LDS here and on CARM.. I answer fully with my Bible based beliefs. I will say it again.. I believe every word of the Bible. The OT and the New.. I believe that we have all failed to keep God's Law. I see our helplessness in reestablishing ourselves in His eyes. And I see God's plan to rescue us from our rebellion against Him. I see the examples of His wrath against sin, and His grace toward all who believe Him.


Not with you. (although it is funny to see you paint your posts as being "open and honest").

I thought that was already made clear months ago.

Your merry-go-round is boring and most LDS don't like riding it anymore.

Sad to see you whining for some attention, though. Well....here you go.

:)

When were Christians commanded only to take the truth to the open and honest? I don't see you or any TBM as being either but that doesn't stop me from giving you the truth of His word. You still are told that we can gave everlasting life by holding faith in Jesus. Or the words of the Holy Spirit through Peter that we can Know now that we are saved and that again through faith in Jesus.. Show me where your questions to me have gone unanswered.. No you haven't always received the answers you would have hoped for but you were always answered.. Maybe a little obedience to God as the command from Him came through Peter.

1 Peter 3:15
But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asks you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear

Please don't tell me you are being obedient and then refuse to obey the word of God so clearly given to you.. Notice that the p***age doesn't say you can give the answer once, twice, or 1,000 times. It must be given to every man that asks you.. So if you would be obedient then do the easy stuff like answering every man that asks, before you tackle the hard things like Matthew 5:48.. IHS jim

[dberrie2000]

Since many of the critics here also post at CARM, thought I would share more of the funny that is at CARM. We all know that critics of the Mormons hold double-standards and are hypocritical in all that they do, so here is a funny example of that.

Critics of Mormons are always telling us when we have broken the rules of a board (like some of you will do here). They also like to then proclaim how that is just showing the rotten fruits of Mormonism. (You all have seen those posts I'm sure).

When I did that to Russ, twice, I got banned!!! LOL

All LDS are usually banned for five days sooner or later--depending on how well you do on the forum. I've been banned twice for quoting James2:24. I usually don't last but a week on the forum before they ban me. I find the Carm board does very poorly when discussing the Bible--the same here.

[Billyray]

All LDS are usually banned for five days sooner or later--depending on how well you do on the forum.
At least you aren't banned permanently like they do to Christians on the MADB board.

[dberrie2000]

At least you aren't banned permanently like they do to Christians on the MADB board.

I don't think I have ever been to the MADB board. Are they still around? What does MADB stand for? I might want to join that discussion board.

[Billyray]

I don't think I have ever been to the MADB board. Are they still around? What does MADB stand for? I might want to join that discussion board.

Mormon Dialogue and Discussion Board

[dberrie2000]

Mormon Dialogue and Discussion Board

Thanks--I went and visited the board--it seems interesting. Good reading.

[Billyray]

Thanks--I went and visited the board--it seems interesting. Good reading.

Since you are LDS you won't get banned, unlike all of the Christians that I know who have.

[dberrie2000]

Since you are LDS you won't get banned, unlike all of the Christians that I know who have.

Maybe I'll have to stick with the CARM forum--where the LDS get banned commonly--and that for posting Biblical scripture.

[dberrie2000]

Since many of the critics here also post at CARM, thought I would share more of the funny that is at CARM. We all know that critics of the Mormons hold double-standards and are hypocritical in all that they do, so here is a funny example of that.

Critics of Mormons are always telling us when we have broken the rules of a board (like some of you will do here). They also like to then proclaim how that is just showing the rotten fruits of Mormonism. (You all have seen those posts I'm sure).

When I did that to Russ, twice, I got banned!!! LOL

Here (the 'offending' comments of mine are in bold red):

and

Hahahaha......so blatently hypocritical it only makes one laugh. Critics don't like to have their own words and sayings used against them. It cuts them to the core. So they have to run to mommy and tattle and try to get the comments banned and the poster banned as well.

That, more than anything else that happens around these parts, confirms to me that what I have and believe in is much more real and true than anything they have to offer.

Sir--I believe what you have stated here has a lot of truth. One note here--most of those who post regularly on the CARM forum do not post here, because they know Jill won't ban them for posting Biblical scriptures that defy their theology.

The LDS are given a much greater la***ude here to post--and the CARM posters, as far as anti-LDS goes--do not like that. They want to control the discussion--and letting the LDS have a fair reply is not in their plans.

[nrajeffreturns]

When I did that to Russ, twice, I got banned!!! LOL
...

I think I can beat your examples. I have gotten multiple infractions at C#$m for merely QUOTING another poster's insult, and then asking him/her "How would YOU like it if someone said that YOUR beliefs are paganistic, evil, anti-Christian, etc.?"

and of course THAT poster seemingly broke no rules, but I got the old infraction notice for "insulting another poster."

Can you top THAT?

[theway]

All LDS are usually banned for five days sooner or later--depending on how well you do on the forum.
I've been banned over 35 times there, with at least 60 warnings.

If I never got banned on these Anti-Mormon sites then I would begin to question whether I was effective.
Getting banned from an Anti-Mormon site means you are doing something right, and I see them as Badges of Honor, or at the very least as a sort first place blue ribbon. Especially those which say I was banned for "interfering with the ministry". Three times I was banned for posting just one scripture (without any comment) which contradicted the position of a Critic but was not personally insulting. Twice I had so embarr***ed a Critic's argument and OP, that they not only banned me, but deleted the thread.
Half the time though I am never really able to understand why I was banned, and when I dared to simply ask why once, they just extended the ban without an explanation.

[James Banta]

I think I can beat your examples. I have gotten multiple infractions at C#$m for merely QUOTING another poster's insult, and then asking him/her "How would YOU like it if someone said that YOUR beliefs are paganistic, evil, anti-Christian, etc.?"

and of course THAT poster seemingly broke no rules, but I got the old infraction notice for "insulting another poster."

Can you top THAT?

Allow others to break the rules and report the infractions don't go about trying to break them yourself.. You know that is wrong, don't you? Stop doing it! Then you have room to complain. As it is you got what you deserve.. IHS jim

[Libby]

I think I can beat your examples. I have gotten multiple infractions at C#$m for merely QUOTING another poster's insult, and then asking him/her "How would YOU like it if someone said that YOUR beliefs are paganistic, evil, anti-Christian, etc.?"

and of course THAT poster seemingly broke no rules, but I got the old infraction notice for "insulting another poster."

Can you top THAT?

I think that one is probably the best I've heard.

[Billyray]

I've been banned over 35 times there, with at least 60 warnings.



And the Mormon run board simply bans Christians permanently.

[Libby]

A lot of LDS posters are banned permanently from CARM, as well. At least, their avatars are banned permanently.

[Billyray]

A lot of LDS posters are banned permanently from CARM, as well. At least, their avatars are banned permanently.

Let's take a sample of both LDS and Christians that post on this board and see who has been permanently banned from MADB verses CARM. Fair enough?

[Libby]

I know of at least three LDS posters, here, who have had avatars banned from CARM...some more than once.

Not saying MADB doesn't ban Christian posters. They do, especially, if they are perceived as anti-Mormon. But, I've posted on MADB for years, both as LDS and Christian...and I have even been very critical, at times, but have never been banned.

I was banned from CARM twice, when I posted there as LDS. That's the only board I have ever been banned from...ever. And, I post or have posted on a lot of boards.

[Billyray]

I was banned from CARM twice, when I posted there as LDS. That's the only board I have ever been banned from...ever. And, I post or have posted on a lot of boards.
Again let's look at the posters that post on this board as an example. Care to guess which is the likely site that permanly bans posters?

[Libby]

Again let's look at the posters that post on this board as an example. Care to guess which is the likely site that permanly bans posters?

Both of them. How many avatars has Jeff, Sir, Richard (wow, Richard!) and many others had over on CARM? Just because they are still posting there, doesn't mean they haven't experienced a permanent ban of one or more of their avatars. I've seen people come back on MADB with new avatars, as well. Sometimes, they get removed again, sometimes not.

[Billyray]

Both of them. How many avatars has Jeff, Sir, Richard (wow, Richard!) and many others had over on CARM?
All three still post on CARM.

[theway]

And the Mormon run board simply bans Christians permanently.
The difference is that Anti-Mormon sites can not permanently ban Mormons or the forum will die... (remember Concerned Christians?).
People come to these forums to hear what the Mormons have to say, and not the Critics; and they know this.
Even the Critics aren't able to bring themselfs to put any LDS on ignore. (even though they say they do)

[Billyray]

People come to these forums to hear what the Mormons have to say, and not the Critics; and they know this.

I agree with you because Christians are reaching out to Mormons and listening to what they have to say. Now compare this with the LDS run board that has no interest in discussing things with Christians--they would much rather talk amongst themselves.

[Libby]

I agree with you because Christians are reaching out to Mormons and listening to what they have to say. Now compare this with the LDS run board that has no interest in discussing things with Christians--they would much rather talk amongst themselves.

Why is that a problem? Different forums have different purposes. I don't think you will ever find an LDS forum devoted to "critiquing" Christianity. So, the MADB has a whole different purpose and tenor.

[Billyray]

Why is that a problem? Different forums have different purposes. I don't think you will ever find an LDS forum devoted to "critiquing" Christianity. So, the MADB has a whole different purpose and tenor.

They own the board so they can do as they please. But if they prefer a Mormon discussion board with Mormons only then why allow Christians onto the board in the first place?

[Libby]

They own the board so they can do as they please. But if they prefer a Mormon discussion board with Mormons only then why allow Christians onto the board in the first place?

They allow Christians and anyone they perceive who is asking honest questions and not just wanting to criticize the church. They don't allow certain discussions, like discussion about Temple content, nor anything that seems disrespectful of Joseph Smith and the other prophets. It is mostly faithful Latter-day Saints who post there, so why would they allow offense towards their own people? CARM does the same thing. I have seen people banned or moved to the atheism forum, if they become overly critical of the Bible or mainstream Christianity. They don't allow that.

[Billyray]

They allow Christians and anyone they perceive who is asking honest questions and not just wanting to criticize the church. They don't allow certain discussions, like discussion about Temple content, nor anything that seems disrespectful of Joseph Smith and the other prophets. It is mostly faithful Latter-day Saints who post there, so why would they allow offense towards their own people? CARM does the same thing. I have seen people banned or moved to the atheism forum, if they become overly critical of the Bible or mainstream Christianity. They don't allow that.

And I was not guilty of any of that, if you recall from prior conversations I asked you to validate what I have said and you were unable to provide any post or reason for my ban, and yet they still permanently banned me.

I have yet to figure out the need on your part to vinously defend Mormonism when you say that you are Christian. If you were truly Christian you wouldn't put up such a fight to support a false religion that worships false gods, that is just one of many reasons that most Christians feel you are not truly a born again Christian. But ultimately only God and you know for certain.

[Libby]

And I was not guilty of any of that, if you recall from prior conversations I asked you to validate what I have said and you were unable to provide any post or reason for my ban, and yet they still permanently banned me.

I have yet to figure out the need on your part to vinously defend Mormonism when you say that you are Christian. If you were truly Christian you wouldn't put up such a fight to support a false religion that worships false gods, that is just one of many reasons that most Christians feel you are not truly a born again Christian. But ultimately only God and you know for certain.


Well, I am most definitely a Christian...a disciple of Jesus Christ. I love the truth, Billy. There is nothing in what I have said, in this small conversation, about boards, that is anything but the truth. I have no idea why you were banned (that doesn't mean there wasn't a reason, it just means I don't know what the reason was).

I don't defend Mormonism. I will tell you very clearly (and have many times) I do not believe Joseph Smith was a prophet, nor do I believe in most of the claims of the LDS Church. That doesn't mean I won't speak up, if I think the doctrine is being distorted. But, I will also tell you that I don't believe the doctrine. There is a difference between defending the doctrine and defending the accuracy of the doctrine. Too many critics don't seem to care. They think, since none of it is true, anyway, they can say whatever they want. Or whatever it takes to try and ply people out of the religion is okay. I don't think so.

[Billyray]

Well, I am most definitely a Christian...a disciple of Jesus Christ. I love the truth, Billy.

As I said before the only person who truly knows are you and God. But I personally don't know any Christian who rejects major sections of the Bible like you do and who vigorously defends a false gospel that teaches false gods. And I will leave it at that.

[Billyray]

That doesn't mean I won't speak up, if I think the doctrine is being distorted.

Do you believe that the mormon gods are false gods?

[Billyray]

Libby I just went back and looked at several of your posts and that are all engaging Christians not Mormons. What other Christian here writes post after post taking one issue after the next with fellow Christians? If you were truly Christian then your beliefs would be more inline with fellow Christians and you wouldn't have reasons to take issue with fellow believers. For example Jim and I disagree on a few issues but the vast majority on doctrine we agree on and certainly neither one of us believes that part of the Bible is fiction like you do. Libby you say one thing but your actions tell a different story.

[Libby]

As I said before the only person who truly knows are you and God. But I personally don't know any Christian who rejects major sections of the Bible like you do and who vigorously defends a false gospel that teaches false gods. And I will leave it at that.

Where do you see me "vigorously defending a false gospel"? You won't find that anywhere, since I left the church. I actually "vigorously spoke against the church" for at least a couple of years.

I just don't feel called to do that, right now, Billy, at least, not like I was doing it before. Maybe in a different way....I'm not sure, yet.

I haven't thrown out major sections of the Bible. I was going through another faith crisis, last year, similar to leaving the LDS Church. Some things that were being taught in my church were unsettling for awhile...in part, because I just didn't understand some things. So, I kind of spun out into left field for awhile. But, God has called me back...back to the Christian Reformed Church and it's been a good experience, so far...and I have picked up where I left off ..and am gaining more understanding about the O.T. That has been a wonderful experience, actually.

[Billyray]

Where do you see me "vigorously defending a false gospel"? You won't find that anywhere, since I left the church.
The majority of your posts are taking issue with Christians and their doctrine. Just look back yourself at your posts and you can verify what I say.

[Billyray]

I actually "vigorously spoke against the church" for at least a couple of years.

I just don't feel called to do that, right now, Billy, at least, not like I was doing it before. Maybe in a different way....I'm not sure, yet.

I will be honest with you Libby--I see you trying to pick at Christians on this board in an attempt to discredit their Christian beliefs but this is highly unusual behavior for a Christian since in your beliefs should line up (i.e. the vast majority of the time) with fellow Christian's beliefs, but they don't. I am not saying that every once in a while you may have a different take on a belief here or there, but you seem to be on a completely different playing field.

[Libby]

The majority of my posts are pure philosophizing. Not really defending anything other than some generalities that I, personally, believed might be true. A couple of things I read, I still do believe. The way I came to God, for example. I also talked about testimony..and a lot of other fairly general items. I was entertaining universal concepts and how most religions had some commonalities. What I don't see (so far) is a "vigorous defense of Mormonism".

Billy, if I truly believed, as a Latter-day Saint, don't you think I would have gone back, by now? I can tell you, I definitely would have. I tried to go back. I couldn't.

[Billyray]

The majority of my posts are pure philosophizing. Not really defending anything other than some generalities that I, personally, believed might be true.
So you go on and on challenging Christian's beliefs (while for the most part not engaging mormons in a like manner) with your non Biblical philosophy, do you really think that is characteristic of a true Christian?

[Libby]

So you go on and on challenging Christian's beliefs (while for the most part not engaging mormons in a like manner) with your non Biblical philosophy, do you really think that is characteristic of a true Christian?

Christian beliefs?....that's a pretty broad umbrella. I did question some traditional Christian beliefs, yes. You don't think a true Christian would ever question?

[Billyray]

Christian beliefs?....that's a pretty broad umbrella.
Not at all Libby. Look at all of the Christians that have posted on this board over the years--we occasionally have a disagreement on a point here or there, in fact I think the biggest disagreement is over the basis for election, but we believe that election is taught in the Bible and that an elect person is elected from the foundation of the world. This is a frequent subject that is brought up over and over again by LDS, which is fine by me because I find it an interesting subject to talk about.

[nrajeffreturns]

Let's take a sample of both LDS and Christians that post on this board and see who has been permanently banned from MADB verses CARM. Fair enough?

It might be a fair study, as long as the sampling sizes are similar and the REASONS for the banishment are listed.

So, here's something I got the other day:

You have been banned for the following reason:
Rule violations/trolling
Date the ban will be lifted: Never

One of the many atrocious things about C@#m's "moderating" is that if you even BRING IT UP, you are punished. I mean, if you are pro-LDS, then even if you bring up the moderating in a POSITIVE way, you can get banned and they will lie and call it a "grievance." If an anti asks you a question and you answer it in a way that makes LDS doctrines look reasonable or biblical, they will ban you for "insulting another poster." I have gotten that one dozens of times. I guess they see it as an insult if their propaganda gets refuted by a pro-LDS person who makes a good argument that refutes the propaganda. Like if a bully picked on you at school and you were able to defend yourself in front of his fellow bullies, that's an insult to him because he got publicly humiliated.

But my recent lifetime ban was for "violations/trolling." Guess what? If you're pro-LDS, the judge/jury/executioner moderator can call ANYTHING you say trolling and ban you for it, because the mod has discretion to label your words as whatever they want. And you can't appeal it, question it, or even say a word about it, or that's another infraction.

Here is a post that I guess they looked at and said "I can't find any fault with it, but this person needs to be eliminated, so let's call it trolling or insulting a poster." It's the last one I got before the "Your ban will never expire" note:

Other poster: Your prophets, who said he was a man like us on an earth like ours. So, part of being LIKE us, is being a sinner. Correct?

Me: No. That is not correct. You fell for the same eisegesis that other antis have swallowed. You read the words "exactly like us, in all respects" into a p***age where it doesn't really exist. That's poor scholarship.

Other poster: Well, if your Elohim NEVER sinned and was NEVER a sinner--then WHY and HOW did he work his way up to godhood????

Me:You aren't familiar with the Bible's account of how Jesus, although He was LIKE us, yet He was sinless and grew in grace and in favor with God until he had become perfect?
Spend more time reading the Bible, and less time reading anti-LDS propaganda. That's my advice to you if you want to have more accurate accusations against the LDS.

[Billyray]

It might be a fair study, as long as the sampling sizes are similar and the REASONS for the banishment are listed.

So, here's something I got the other day:

You have been banned for the following reason:
Rule violations/trolling
Date the ban will be lifted: Never


I was banned from MADB without repeated temporary restrictions. You on the other hand have had multiple temporary restrictions on CARM going back for a while now.

[nrajeffreturns]

I was banned from MADB without repeated temporary restrictions. You on the other hand have had multiple temporary restrictions on CARM going back for a while now.

It is true that they gave me MANY infractions, which resulted in MANY 7-30 day suspensions. I have saved them all in a Word doc because some folks probably wouldn't believe some the nonsensical reasons they had for banning me if I didn't have proof.

What did you say that resulted in your ban?

[Libby]

Not at all Libby. Look at all of the Christians that have posted on this board over the years--we occasionally have a disagreement on a point here or there, in fact I think the biggest disagreement is over the basis for election, but we believe that election is taught in the Bible and that an elect person is elected from the foundation of the world. This is a frequent subject that is brought up over and over again by LDS, which is fine by me because I find it an interesting subject to talk about.

Yes, but mostly only conservative Christians post here.

Even at that, there are some pretty significant disagreements between Calvinists and Arminians. I have seen Calvinists accuse Arminians of not even being Christian.

[nrajeffreturns]

Yes, but mostly only conservative Christians post here.

Even at that, there are some pretty significant disagreements between Calvinists and Arminians. I have seen Calvinists accuse Arminians of not even being Christian.

You are correct. The other day I found two anti-Calvinism sites that pretty much called Matt Slick a tool of satan for promoting Calvinism.

[Billyray]

Yes, but mostly only conservative Christians post here.

You mean Christians that believe what the Bible teaches.


Even at that, there are some pretty significant disagreements between Calvinists and Arminians. I have seen Calvinists accuse Arminians of not even being Christian.
Not really.

[Sir]

What did you say that resulted in your ban?

I honestly believe that question will go unanswered.

I like, though, how we all have archived documentation to prove that what we get banned for on some boards is hysterically funny in light of the fact that most of the time they are for things that anti-LDS commonly do without consequence.

[Libby]

You are correct. The other day I found two anti-Calvinism sites that pretty much called Matt Slick a tool of satan for promoting Calvinism.

Yep, there are some fierce divisions between those two groups.

[Billyray]

Yep, there are some fierce divisions between those two groups.

Let's look and these issues that you feel are "fierce". Let's start with election.

[Libby]

Let's look and these issues that you feel are "fierce". Let's start with election.

All you need to do is go over and read on the CARM site, for awhile. I used to post and read in that section almost everyday.

[Billyray]

All you need to do is go over and read on the CARM site, for awhile. I used to post and read in that section almost everyday.

You brought it up on this board so let's talk about it. Let's start with election.

". . .The majority Arminian view is that election is individual and based on God's foreknowledge of faith. . " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arminianism

[nrajeffreturns]

Billy, if you want I can put up some quotes from those 2 anti-Calvinism sites. They go into some detail on what they see is false and unbiblical about it.

[Billyray]

Billy, if you want I can put up some quotes from those 2 anti-Calvinism sites. They go into some detail on what they see is false and unbiblical about it.

Why don't you join the conversation Jeff. Let's start with election.

[Billyray]

We will use the majority Arminian view.

1. Both believe the there are specific individuals who are elect prior to the foundation of the world.

2. Both believe that those who are elect (before they are even born) will be saved.

3. Where they differ is why God chooses specific individuals as elect prior to their birth.

[Libby]

Here's an easy side by side chart that shows the major differences.

http://www.the-highway.com/compare.html

Arminian - Conditional Election

God's choice of certain individuals unto salvation before the foundation of the world was based upon His foreseeing that they would respond to His call. He selected only those whom He knew would of themselves freely believe the gospel. Election therefore was determined by or conditioned upon what man would do. The faith which God foresaw and upon which He based His choice was not given to the sinner by God (it was not created by the regenerating power of the Holy Spirit) but resulted solely from man's will. It was left entirely up to man as to who would believe and therefore as to who would be elected unto salvation. God chose those whom He knew would, of their own free will, choose Christ. Thus the sinner's choice of Christ, not God's choice of the sinner, is the ultimate cause of salvation.

That's very different from Calvinism.

[Billyray]

Here's an easy side by side chart that shows the major differences.

http://www.the-highway.com/compare.html

Arminian - Conditional Election

God's choice of certain individuals unto salvation before the foundation of the world was based upon His foreseeing that they would respond to His call. He selected only those whom He knew would of themselves freely believe the gospel. Election therefore was determined by or conditioned upon what man would do. The faith which God foresaw and upon which He based His choice was not given to the sinner by God (it was not created by the regenerating power of the Holy Spirit) but resulted solely from man's will. It was left entirely up to man as to who would believe and therefore as to who would be elected unto salvation. God chose those whom He knew would, of their own free will, choose Christ. Thus the sinner's choice of Christ, not God's choice of the sinner, is the ultimate cause of salvation.

That's very different from Calvinism.
Not that must differnce at all if you honestly look at it. BTW I already listed for you the agreements and the difference.

1. Both believe the there are specific individuals who are elect prior to the foundation of the world.

2. Both believe that those who are elect (before they are even born) will be saved.

3. Where they differ is why God chooses specific individuals as elect prior to their birth.

Libby let me ask you from either the Calvinist or the Arminian point of view can a person who is elect prior to his birth can that person become unelect?

[Libby]

Libby let me ask you from either the Calvinist or the Arminian point of view can a person who is elect prior to his birth can that person become unelect?

Some Arminians believe that even though elect, one can still fall from grace, if faith is neglected.

I really don't know. I would think that (probably) once God "knows" something....it is fixed.

[Billyray]

Some Arminians believe that even though elect, one can still fall from grace, if faith is neglected.

But that is inconsistent with their own position that a specific group of individuals are elect from before the foundation of the world.

[Billyray]

I really don't know. I would think that (probably) once God "knows" something....it is fixed.
If you really think about it the Arminian position is really not that much different than the Calvinist position in that a specific group of individuals are elect before they are even born and this fixed group of individuals will all remain elect and all be saved.

[Libby]

If you really think about it the Arminian position is really not that much different than the Calvinist position in that a specific group of individuals are elect before they are even born and this fixed group of individuals will all remain elect and all be saved.

I think the fact that Arminians believe man has the free will to choose God is a very important difference....and a very big difference.

Like I said, earlier, it's a big enough difference to have some in each group claiming the other is not Christian.

[Billyray]

I think the fact that Arminians believe man has the free will to choose God is a very important difference....and a very big difference.

As I mentioned before can a person who is elect before he is even born become unelect?

BTW you are mischaracterizing the Calvinist position because Calvinists believe that we all make choices and those who reject Christ do so by choice.

[Billyray]

Like I said, earlier, it's a big enough difference to have some in each group claiming the other is not Christian.
I don't know anyone personally--Arminian or Calvinist--who thinks that those who hold the other position is not Christian. Both share the same belief that those who place their faith in Christ will be saved. They also believe that the elect are "elect" prior to their birth and every single one of them will remain "elect" and be saved. So you are simply trying to create more division and discord among Christians, which to me shows more outward evidence of who you truly are.


Proverbs 6:16-19 ESV
There are six things that the Lord hates, seven that are an abomination to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked plans, feet that make haste to run to evil, a false witness who breathes out lies, and one who sows discord among brothers.

[Libby]

As I mentioned before can a person who is elect before he is even born become unelect?

BTW you are mischaracterizing the Calvinist position because Calvinists believe that we all make choices and those who reject Christ do so by choice.

Sure, you can choose to sin, but you cannot choose God (according to Calvinists). So, what choices do you truly have?

[Libby]

I don't know anyone personally--Arminian or Calvinist--who thinks that those who hold the other position is not Christian. Both share the same belief that those who place their faith in Christ will be saved. They also believe that the elect are "elect" prior to their birth and every single one of them will remain "elect" and be saved. So you are simply trying to create more division and discord among Christians, which to me shows more outward evidence of who you truly are.


Proverbs 6:16-19 ESV
There are six things that the Lord hates, seven that are an abomination to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked plans, feet that make haste to run to evil, a false witness who breathes out lies, and one who sows discord among brothers.

Whatever, Billy. I'm not the one sowing discord on a daily basis. That's your department.

[Billyray]

Sure, you can choose to sin, but you cannot choose God (according to Calvinists). So, what choices do you truly have?

Calvinism teaches that those who reject Christ, reject him based on their own choice.

BTW those that I know who hold the reformed position follow the Bible not the writings of Calvin or any other person for that matter. And the Bible clearly teaches that we each have choices to either follow Christ or reject him.

[Billyray]

Whatever, Billy. I'm not the one sowing discord on a daily basis. That's your department.
You don't see me criticizing other Christians on this board "on a daily basis", this is characteristic of you not me. Nor is it characteristic of any other Christian who posts here. That is what I have tried to point out to you but you just don't seem to get it do you Libby?

[Libby]

Calvinism teaches that those who reject Christ, reject him based on their own choice.

BTW those that I know who hold the reformed position follow the Bible not the writings of Calvin or any other person for that matter. And the Bible clearly teaches that we each have choices to either follow Christ or reject him.

Well, if you truly believe that we can choose Christ, of our own free will, without God's intervention, then you're not really a Calvinist....you're an Arminian.

I AGREE with you that free will is taught in the Bible...but, I'm very surprised to hear YOU say that. Most Calvinists deny that we have free will to choose God.

[Libby]

You don't see me criticizing other Christians on this board "on a daily basis", this is characteristic of you not me. Nor is it characteristic of any other Christian who posts here. That is what I have tried to point out to you but you just don't seem to get it do you Libby?

This is the arrogance of your statement, Billy. Really, you don't have a clue who, here, is Christian and who is not....including amongst the Latter-day Saints.

Not only that, but I see Christians fighting amongst themselves all the time. It's not "sowing discord" to take notice of that.

I might argue DOCTRINE with another Christian (like we are doing right here)...if THAT is considered "sowing discord" between "brothers", then there is certainly a lot of discord in the Body of Christ....and YOU are not exempt.

[Libby]

Arminians are NOT Christian (http://markmcculley.wordpress.com/2010/09/13/arminians-are-not-christians-and-christians-are-not-arminians/)

Calvinism is utterly Evil (http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/calvinism_evil.htm)

That's just two of MANY sites where Christians speak emphatically against one or the other!

[Billyray]

That's just two of MANY sites where Christians speak emphatically against one or the other!

As I said above I personally don't know a single person who holds either view to consider the other as non Christian. Remember just because someone--including yourself--says that they are truly Christian does not mean that they are truly Christian. We are taught in the Bible tares are within the wheat, and these tares are the ones who sow discord in an attempt to discredit Christianity.

The Arminian AND the Calvinist position both believe that we are saved when we place our faith in Christ.

[nrajeffreturns]

... Calvinists believe that we all make choices and those who reject Christ do so by choice.
But according to Calvinism, that "choice" was one where the person had no choice in the matter, since God had DECREED (Calvin's word)--before that person was even created--that the person WOULD, definitely, reject Him.

In other words, God created a hopeless being. The person had no hope of ever accepting God, and the REASON is that GOD sovereignly created the person to be a vessel of destruction.

Don't deny that Calvinists teach this, Billy. Seems like every time they say "No we don't believe that" and then I tell them what I said above, they say "But that's what the Bible teaches." Which means that when they denied believing it, they weren't telling the truth.

[nrajeffreturns]

The Arminian AND the Calvinist position both believe that we are saved when we place our faith in Christ.
Doesn't Calvinism teach that you're saved first, and THEN, you are ABLE to have faith? I think I have been told that the unsaved are unable to have faith in Christ......

[Billyray]

Doesn't Calvinism teach that you're saved first, and THEN, you are ABLE to have faith? I think I have been told that the unsaved are unable to have faith in Christ......

No. Salvation takes place at the time of conversion (repentance and faith).

As far as those who do not come to Christ they choose to reject him.

[nrajeffreturns]

No. Salvation takes place at the time of conversion (repentance and faith).
OK, but which comes first in Calvinism? In what order do those events occur according to Calvinism?

a. Faith
b. repentance
c. conversion
d. salvation


As far as those who do not come to Christ they choose to reject him.
But according to Calvinistic Predestination, weren't those people's choices predestined, or, in Calvin's language, God decreed or ordained that person's rejection of Him, for His glory and pleasure?

[Billyray]

OK, but which comes first in Calvinism? In what order do those events occur according to Calvinism?

a. Faith
b. repentance
c. conversion
d. salvation

Conversion = faith and repentance which results in salvation.

http://www.monergism.com/directory/link_category/Ordo-Salutis/
Reformed
1) election/predestination (in Christ),
2) Atonement
3) gospel call
4) inward call
5) regeneration
6) conversion (faith & repentance),
7) justification,
8) sanctification
9) glorification

Arminian
1) outward call
2) faith/election,
3) repentance,
4) regeneration
5) justification
6) perseverance
7) glorification.

[Libby]

The big difference between the two, as I've said before, is that Arminians believe mankind has the ability to choose God, whereas, Calvinists believe in total depravity and that mankind is so corrupted they don't even have the ability to choose God of their own free will.

Calvinism = God chooses for salvation

Arminianism = Man chooses God of his own free will and God, who is omniscient, knows who will choose Him.

[Billyray]

The big difference between the two, as I've said before, is that Arminians believe mankind has the ability to choose God, whereas, Calvinists believe in total depravity and that mankind is so corrupted they don't even have the ability to choose God of their own free will.

OK lets look at it from an Arminian point of view. Can a person who is elect from before the foundation of the world choose not to follow God and become unelect?

[Libby]

OK lets look at it from an Arminian point of view. Can a person who is elect from before the foundation of the world choose not to follow God and become unelect?

Doesn't matter....they have chosen.

From a Calvinist perspective, they definitely cannot choose. The individual has nothing to do with whether or not he/she chooses God. Nothing.

[Billyray]

Doesn't matter....they have chosen.

http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/misunderstandings.html
". . .The idea that God's predestination of some to believe is based on foreknowledge of their faith encounters still another problems: upon reflection, this system turns out to give no real freedom to man either. For if God can look into the future and see that person A will come to faith in Christ, and that person B will not come to faith in Christ, then those facts are already fixed, they are already determined. If we ***ume that God's knowledge of the future is true (which it must be), then it is absolutely certain that person A will believe and person B will not. There is no way that their lives could turn out any differently than this. . ."

[Billyray]

Doesn't matter....they have chosen.

It does matter. Can you answer my question?

Can a person who is elect from before the foundation of the world choose not to follow God and become unelect?

[Billyray]

Doesn't matter....they have chosen.

And Calvinists also believe that individuals have chosen.

[Libby]

It does matter. Can you answer my question?

Can a person who is elect from before the foundation of the world choose not to follow God and become unelect?

I already answered this question. I'm not going to get on your merry-go-round. You are trying to make it appear that God choosing and the individual choosing are somehow the same...when you know very well, it is NOT the same. That's very dishonest, Billy.

[Libby]

And Calvinists also believe that individuals have chosen.


Again, very dishonest. What it is they have chosen?? What is it that they CANNOT choose? Please answer directly and honestly.

[Libby]

Total depravity (also called absolute inability, radical corruption, or total corruption) is a theological doctrine derived from the Augustinian concept of original sin. It is the teaching that, as a consequence of the Fall of Man, every person born into the world is enslaved to the service of sin and, apart from the efficacious or prevenient grace of God, is utterly unable to choose to follow God

[Billyray]

Total depravity (also called absolute inability, radical corruption, or total corruption) is a theological doctrine derived from the Augustinian concept of original sin. It is the teaching that, as a consequence of the Fall of Man, every person born into the world is enslaved to the service of sin and, apart from the efficacious or prevenient grace of God, is utterly unable to choose to follow God

And they make a choice based on their nature to reject Christ. Nobody is forcing them to reject Christ and if they did accept Christ they would be saved. The Bible clearly teaches that we have choices and that we are responsible for those choices.

[Libby]

And they make a choice based on their nature to reject Christ. Nobody is forcing them to reject Christ and if they did accept Christ they would be saved. The Bible clearly teaches that we have choices and that we are responsible for those choices.

If he has a total inability to choose God, he does NOT have a choice to choose him. That's like saying a blind man could really see, if he wanted to or a lame man could really walk, if he'd just get up and do it.

It's nonsense, and you know it.

[Billyray]

If he has a total inability to choose God, he does NOT have a choice to choose him.
Sure he has a choice and the Bible teaches us that we make a choice to either accept Christ or to reject him. Nobody is forcing a person to reject Christ against his will.

[Libby]

Sure he has a choice and the Bible teaches us that we make a choice to either accept Christ or to reject him. Nobody is forcing a person to reject Christ against his will.

Very dishonest, Billy...and anyone who is reading this conversation can see that.

[Billyray]

Very dishonest, Billy...and anyone who is reading this conversation can see that.

Calvinism doesn't teach that a person does not have a choice, nor does the Bible teach that a person does not have a choice. You are the one who is dishonest by trying to misrepresent their viewpoint.

[Libby]

Can man choose God without God intervening and giving him a new heart? Yes or no?

If he cannot (and you know that is the correct answer for Calvinists) then does he really have a choice to do anything other than sin? Yes or no?

[Billyray]

Can man choose God without God intervening and giving him a new heart? Yes or no?

If he cannot (and you know that is the correct answer for Calvinists) then does he really have a choice to do anything other than sin? Yes or no?

Man without being regenerated will willfully choose to reject Christ. He makes a choice based on what he wants to do.

[Billyray]

BTW I could make the exact same augment against the Arminian position. But obviously you have been blind to that fact.

[Libby]

BTW I could make the exact same augment against the Arminian position. But obviously you have been blind to that fact.

No, you really couldn't, because Arminians do not believe in the total depravity of man. They believe we are ABLE to choose God with our own will. Calvinists do not believe that, despite your constant attempts to twist it and make it APPEAR that they can choose God. That's very deceitful, Billy, when you know better.

[Billyray]

No, you really couldn't,

Sure I can and I already have. Let me give you an example. If I knew everything that you are going to do tomorrow can you choose something different?

[Libby]

Sure I can and I already have. Let me give you an example. If I knew everything that you are going to do tomorrow can you choose something different?

That has absolutely nothing to do with the differences that you and I both know are there.

[Libby]

Does unregenerate man have the ABILITY to choose God?

You are not answering my questions.

[Billyray]

Does unregenerate man have the ABILITY to choose God?

The same exact argument can be used for the Arminian position Libby. Do you realize that?

Does unregenerate man have the ABILITY to choose God? (Calvinism)

Does unelect man have the ABILITY to choose God? (Arminian)

[Libby]

The same exact argument can be used for the Arminian position Libby. Do you realize that?

Does unregenerate man have the ABILITY to choose God? (Calvinism)

Does unelect man have the ABILITY to choose God? (Arminian)

The unelect at least HAD a choice...a real choice! In Calvinism, we have no choice. Supposedly, God chooses.

[Billyray]

The unelect at least HAD a choice...a real choice!
And so does the unregenerate man.

You are still not getting it are you?

[Libby]

And so does the unregenerate man.

You are still not getting it are you?

I "get it" just fine. You are the one who is twisting and turning in the wind.

If one cannot choose God (and in fact, God chooses THEM), they have NO CHOICE, other than to sin.

If God allows MAN the choice (a real choice, from his own free will) then he did, indeed, have a real choice. Whether or not that choice can be changed, because God knows about it, makes not one wit of difference. I am talking about man's freedom to choose God. Or lack thereof.

[Libby]

This is also goes to culpability, IMO. I don't believe man can be held responsible for NOT choosing something he had NO ability to choose, to begin with.

Like I said, it would be like telling a blind man to see.

[Billyray]

I "get it" just fine.

OK then tell me why you think that the arguments are any different?

[Billyray]

I don't believe man can be held responsible for NOT choosing something he had NO ability to choose, to begin with.
.
Then you would agree that the same is true with the Arminian position. Right?

[Libby]

Then you would agree that the same is true with the Arminian position. Right?

Why would I, when the choice is man's? Not the same, Billy, no matter how you try to twist it.

You're not very good at owning up to your own beliefs. I think you know there is something not right about them.

[Billyray]

Here is the way I see it for both positions.

1. The person makes a choice.

2. However one could argue for both position that the choice is not a real choice.

[Billyray]

Why would I, when the choice is man's?
Can a person who is unelect before he is even born choose to follow Christ?

[Libby]

Well, I think you are completely wrong, especially, if we are talking about beliefs - Arminian vs Calvinist. There are, indeed, some profound differences between the two that you don't seem to want to own up to.

[Billyray]

You're not very good at owning up to your own beliefs. I think you know there is something not right about them.
I certainly own up to my beliefs but you seem to having a real hard time trying to show me that there is a difference between the two positions with respect to your own argument.

[Billyray]

Well, I think you are completely wrong, especially, if we are talking about beliefs - Arminian vs Calvinist. There are, indeed, some profound differences between the two that you don't seem to want to own up to.
OK tell me how your argument against Calvinsim doesn't equally apply to Arminianism?

[Libby]

Can a person who is unelect before he is even born choose to follow Christ?

No, but God knows who will choose (of their own free will) and who will decline (of their own free will).

Calvinists have God choosing who will be saved..and by default, who will not be saved. No real choice for anyone, other than to sin. Total depravity. It has a definition. You seem to be ignoring it. Do you not believe in it?

[Libby]

I certainly own up to my beliefs but you seem to having a real hard time trying to show me that there is a difference between the two positions with respect to your own argument.

Calvinism = God choosing for salvation

Arminianism = man choosing for salvation (with his own free will)

You know this, Billy, and I'm not going to keep repeating myself.

Off the merry-go-round.

[Billyray]

Calvinism = God choosing for salvation

Arminianism = man choosing for salvation (with his own free will)

But you haven't shown me why your argument doesn't apply in the same way to Arminianism since I have shown you multiple times now that it does.

[Billyray]

Arminianism = man choosing for salvation (with his own free will)

From the Arminian point of view

Can a person who is elect before he is even born ever choose to reject Christ?

Can a person who is unelect before he is even born ever choose to accept Christ?

[Libby]

WHAT argument?

You are trying to claim that just because God knows something there was NO choice to begin with. That's simply not true.

I agree that when God knows something, it "probably" cannot be changed, but that doesn't mean there was no choice to begin with (as in Calvinism, where God, supposedly, does the choosing).

You are twisting things and trying to make them the same, when they are clearly not.

[Billyray]

WHAT argument?

You are trying to claim that just because God knows something there was NO choice to begin with.
From the Arminian point of view

Can a person who is elect before he is even born ever choose to reject Christ?

Can a person who is unelect before he is even born ever choose to accept Christ?

[Libby]

Can a person who is unelect before he is even born ever choose to accept Christ?

God sees into the future that this person will not choose Christ. Still, he did have the free will choice, whether or not to accept Christ.

Does your Calvinism give anyone that ability to choose Christ?

[Billyray]

God sees into the future that this person will not choose Christ.
Why don't you answer my question?

Can a person who is unelect before he is even born ever choose to accept Christ?

[Libby]

Why don't you answer my question?

Can a person who is unelect before he is even born ever choose to accept Christ?

Can the person who will not accept Christ during his lifetime, choose Christ? The decision has already been made...by that person.

God is in the eternal present, anyway, so he doesn't really see past or future...he only sees NOW.

[Billyray]

The decision has already been made...by that person.

So you would agree then that you cannot choose anything different in the future since it has already been decided what you will do today, tomorrow, next week etc.?

And you call that free choice?

[Libby]

You are trying to claim that just because God knows something there was NO choice to begin with. That's simply not true.

I agree that when God knows something, it "probably" cannot be changed, but that doesn't mean there was no choice to begin with (as in Calvinism, where God, supposedly, does the choosing).

You are twisting things and trying to make them the same, when they are clearly not.

[nrajeffreturns]

Can a person who is unelect before he is even born ever choose to accept Christ?
No, according to Calvinism. In Calvinism, the people whom God decided to create unable to ever choose Him, are DOOMED to be forever unable to choose Him. That's what makes Calvinism so messed up, IMO.
P.S.--Arminianism and Calvinism can't be that close to each other, or Father JD wouldn't have said that Arminians believe stuff that is unbiblical.

[Libby]

No, according to Calvinism. In Calvinism, the people whom God decided to create unable to ever choose Him, are DOOMED to be forever unable to choose Him. That's what makes Calvinism so messed up, IMO.
P.S.--Arminianism and Calvinism can't be that close to each other, or Father JD wouldn't have said that Arminians believe stuff that is unbiblical.

Yes, and that is mild compared to what I saw from a couple of other posters over there. There was one called rhuckle (or something like that) who hated Arminians and thought they were going straight to hell.

[Billyray]

You are trying to claim that just because God knows something there was NO choice to begin with. That's simply not true.

From either the Calvinist or the Arminian perspective isn't the fate of every single person fixed BEFORE they are even born?

[Billyray]

No, according to Calvinism.

And NO according to Arminianism. Libby is trying to make an argument that equally applies to both Calvinism and Arminianism. Some LDS scholars realize this issue and have tried to get around it by saying that God is not all knowing.

BTW Libby and I have already had this discussion



Perhaps God's knowledge is dynamic rather than static..constantly interactive and moving. He is a living, dynamic en***y (e-n-t-i-t-y is censored??), not a stone wall on which all knowledge is written. That's man's concept, but not likely the reality of it.


http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_a.../Foreknowledge

. . . If God knew from all eternity exactly what any of us would do at any given time, then it is difficult to claim we have agency in any legitimate sense. As Blake Ostler put it:

. . .It follows that either God does not have foreknowledge or I am not free.

Do you agree with the above quote that if God is all knowing (omniscient) then you don't have free will? (BTW apparently this is the view of Daniel Peterson as noted by a poster on another board via direct communication)

[Libby]

Daniel Peterson and other LDS may very well believe that, because I don't think they believe that God is omniscient. But, I do...and I also believe that we have the ability to choose God, when he draws us.


Libby is trying to make an argument that equally applies to both Calvinism and Arminianism.

NO, actually, that would be YOU. I have stated often that I believe the two are very different.

[Billyray]

Daniel Peterson and other LDS may very well believe that, because I don't think they believe that God is omniscient. But, I do...and I also believe that we have the ability to choose God, when he draws us.

Both the Arminians and the Calvinists teach that we have a choice to accept or reject Christ. You have tried to make up an argument to dispute the Calvinist claim that a person has a choice but in doing so you didn't realize that it equally applies to the Arminian perspective. That is the whole reason Dan Peterson and other LDS scholars claim that God is not omniscient in order to get around this issue.

[Billyray]

NO, actually, that would be YOU.

No it is you that is making that argument--which BTW equally applies to both sides. You are trying to argue that a person doesn't have a choice. I have always maintained that from both the Arminian and the Calvinist position we all have a choice to either accept Christ or to reject him and that we are all held responsible for that choice.

[Libby]

No it is you that is making that argument--which BTW equally applies to both sides. You are trying to argue that a person doesn't have a choice. I have always maintained that from both the Arminian and the Calvinist position we all have a choice to either accept Christ or to reject him and that we are all held responsible for that choice.

Billy, please show me where I have EVER made the argument that we don't have a choice! That's just an outright misstatement of what I have been saying.


I have always maintained that from both the Arminian and the Calvinist position we all have a choice to either accept Christ or to reject him

If you believe that, good for you. But, I certainly wouldn't call you a Calvinist, if you do, genuinely, hold that belief. Because, Calvinists believe in total depravity and that the unregenerated have no ability to choose God.

[Billyray]

Billy, please show me where I have EVER made the argument that we don't have a choice! That's just an outright misstatement of what I have been saying.

Don't you even remember what you have been posting over the last day or so?


If he has a total inability to choose God, he does NOT have a choice to choose him.

[Billyray]

If you believe that, good for you. But, I certainly wouldn't call you a Calvinist, if you do, genuinely, hold that belief.

Calvinists teach that everyone has a choice to either accept Christ or reject him and they are responsible for that choice and this is what the Bible teaches. Calvinist also say that those who are not elect will not choose him because of their nature.

[Libby]

Calvinists teach that everyone has a choice to either accept Christ or reject him and they are responsible for that choice and this is what the Bible teaches. Calvinist also say that those who are not elect will not choose him because of their nature.

They don't say "will not", Billy....they say, "cannot".

Total Depravity (the "T" in TULIP) - "...is the teaching that, as a consequence of the Fall of Man, every person born into the world is enslaved to the service of sin and, apart from the efficacious or prevenient grace of God, is utterly UNABLE to choose to follow God, refrain from evil, or accept the gift of salvation as it is offered."

"Utterly UNABLE", Billy. Does that sound, to you, like everyone has a choice? Anyone and everyone CAN choose God, if they wish?? Nope, Calvinists most definitely do not believe that. Heck, I'm attending a Reformed Church...I KNOW that is not what they believe.

[Billyray]

They don't say "will not", Billy....they say, "cannot".

Total Depravity (the "T" in TULIP) - "...is the teaching that, as a consequence of the Fall of Man, every person born into the world is enslaved to the service of sin and, apart from the efficacious or prevenient grace of God, is utterly UNABLE to choose to follow God, refrain from evil, or accept the gift of salvation as it is offered."

"Utterly UNABLE", Billy. Does that sound, to you, like everyone has a choice? Anyone and everyone CAN choose God, if they wish?? Nope, Calvinists most definitely do not believe that. Heck, I'm attending a Reformed Church...I KNOW that is not what they believe.
And an unelect Arminian "is utterly UNABLE to choose to follow God". Libby you are trying to condemn one side with your argument but you seem to be i-gnorant of the fact that both positions can be criticized by using the same argument.

[Billyray]

Libby where in the Bible does it say that the basis for God electing certain individuals is based on God looking forward in time and seeing their faith? (BTW Romans 8 never makes this claim).

[Libby]

And an unelect Arminian "is utterly UNABLE to choose to follow God". Libby you are trying to condemn one side with your argument but you seem to be i-gnorant of the fact that both positions can be criticized by using the same argument.

That's not true. Anyone is free and ABLE to make the choice. Some don't choose God, but they are "able" to, if they wish. Not so for the Calvinist position, where the belief is in "total depravity".

If Arminianism and Calvinism were that similar, you wouldn't see so many vigorous debates between the two.

You're the one who is trying to make them appear similar. I think you really don't like or believe the Calvinist position on this. I don't blame you. I don't like it, either.

[Billyray]

That's not true. Anyone is free and ABLE to make the choice. Some don't choose God, but they are "able" to, if they wish. Not so for the Calvinist position, where the belief is in "total depravity".

And not so for the Arminian who is unelect to be able to choose God. Libby why are you having such a hard time understanding that your argument equally applies to the Arminian position?

[Billyray]

I think you really don't like or believe the Calvinist position on this. I don't blame you. I don't like it, either.
And I don't think you really like the Arminian position either because with that postion you also have the same problem of not really being able to choose one way or the other, rather this is fixed at birth. You seem more comfortable with the LDS position such as Dan Peterson's position that God is not omniscient, which then will allow "free agency".

[Libby]

And not so for the Arminian who is unelect to be able to choose God. Libby why are you having such a hard time understanding that your argument equally applies to the Arminian position?

No problem at all. No, an "unelect" will not choose God, but at least he/she was ABLE to, when the choice was presented. In the Calvinist scenario, there was no choice, because the person was completely UNABLE to choose God.

And, no, I totally reject the LDS view, on the issue of salvation. I believe God is Spirit and completely omniscient.

[Billyray]

No, an "unelect" will not choose God, but at least he/she was ABLE to, when the choice was presented.

But that choice was presented to him well after he was born. So now are you changing positions and telling me that an "unelect" individual can accept God?

[Billyray]

I believe God is Spirit and completely omniscient.

But then you must also agree that from either the Arminian OR the Calvinist position people like you will attempt to make an argument that neither position allows an individual a real choice.

[Libby]

But that choice was presented to him well after he was born. So now are you changing positions and telling me that an "unelect" individual can accept God?

I don't think you're really understanding the argument, Billy.

Arminians believe that God knows whether or not we will choose him, but they most definitely believe that the choice is given to us.

You are thinking in linear terms of time and space. God doesn't dwell in time and space. He is outside of it, in an ever present NOW. For Him, there is not past or future, just now. It's something we humans don't really comprehend.

The whole point is that from an Arminian view we DO have the ability to freely choose God or not. He KNOWS which decision we will make.

From a Calvinist point of view, man is so totally depraved he CANNOT choose God. God actually does the choosing and decides who will come to him and by default, who will not. In other words, he doesn't just KNOW...he also does the choosing.

How you are scrabbling those two vastly different points is beyond me.

[Billyray]

I don't think you're really understanding the argument, Billy.

I don't think you understand that both positions can be seen by others as not having a real choice. This goes for both the Arminian and the Calvinist position and that is the exact reason why some LDS scholars are now saying that God is not omniscient.


Arminians believe that God knows whether or not we will choose him, but they most definitely believe that the choice is given to us.

How can a person have a real choice if that choice is set in stone BEFORE that person is even born.

[Billyray]

From a Calvinist point of view, man is so totally depraved he CANNOT choose God.

From a Reformed point of view, which is consistent with the Bible, all mankind makes a choice to either accept Christ or reject him and they are responsible for their choices. To the person making the choice it is a real choice based on exactly what he or she wanted. But equally true is that those who are not elect will not choose to follow Christ.

[Billyray]

Libby where in the Bible does it say that the basis for God electing certain individuals is based on God looking forward in time and seeing their faith? (BTW Romans 8 never makes this claim).
Bump for Libby

[Billyray]

http://maxwellins***ute.byu.edu//publications/pdf/review/634226456-8-2.pdf

'. . .Suppose that God has always believed that I will rob a 7–Eleven at a certain time t. My refraining from robbing the 7–Eleven at time t certainly entails that God has not always believed that I will rob at t. Because God has always believed that I will rob the 7–Eleven at t, I cannot have the power to refrain from robbing, since this power would entail power to change God’s past beliefs. No person has the power to alter the past. Yet to be free with respect to whether I rob, I must have power to refrain from robbing the 7–Eleven at t. It follows that either God does not have foreknowledge or I am not free. . ."

[Libby]

I don't think you understand that both positions can be seen by others as not having a real choice. This goes for both the Arminian and the Calvinist position and that is the exact reason why some LDS scholars are now saying that God is not omniscient.

How can a person have a real choice if that choice is set in stone BEFORE that person is even born.

Because it isn't set in stone. God doesn't dwell in "time". That's a very important aspect of this discussion.

[Libby]

Originally Posted by Billyray
Libby where in the Bible does it say that the basis for God electing certain individuals is based on God looking forward in time and seeing their faith? (BTW Romans 8 never makes this claim).

I think it is implied all throughout the Bible, starting with Genesis and Adam & Eve. They had the ability to disobey, even way back then. If we didn't have free will, we would have never gotten into the situation we're in now.

[Billyray]

Because it isn't set in stone. God doesn't dwell in "time". That's a very important aspect of this discussion.

Sure it is set in stone Libby. If God is all knowing and he knows exactly what you will do before you are even born then your entire life is planned out for every detail of your life. Certainly someone live yourself could say that you really don't have any choices.

[Billyray]

I think it is implied all throughout the Bible, starting with Genesis and Adam & Eve. They had the ability to disobey, even way back then. If we didn't have free will, we would have never gotten into the situation we're in now.

You see you have no Biblical verses to support your position but if feels right to you so you ***ert it to be true.

[Libby]

Sure it is set in stone Libby. If God is all knowing and he knows exactly what you will do before you are even born then your entire life is planned out for every detail of your life. Certainly someone live yourself could say that you really don't have any choices.

It is not "planned out", Billy. It is known how you will live it. There is a difference.

[Libby]

You see you have no Biblical verses to support your position but if feels right to you so you ***ert it to be true.

Do you deny that Adam and Eve had free will? Do you believe God predestined Eve to eat of the forbidden fruit?

[Billyray]

Do you deny that Adam and Eve had free will? Do you believe God predestined Eve to eat of the forbidden fruit?

How are you defining free will?

[Billyray]

It is not "planned out", Billy. It is known how you will live it. There is a difference.
Does God know exactly what you will eat for breakfast tomorrow? Do you have a choice to change that?

[Libby]

How are you defining free will?

Having the ability to choose between good and evil.

[Libby]

Does God know exactly what you will eat for breakfast tomorrow? Do you have a choice to change that?

Yes, I have a chance to change that, because God is in the ever present NOW.

But, if I've already chosen, why would I change it?

You are mistaking God's knowing as, somehow, limiting our free will. That's simply not the case.

[Billyray]

Yes, I have a chance to change that, because God is in the ever present NOW.


If you can change that then you must believe what LDS scholars believe that God is not omniscient.


http://maxwellins***ute.byu.edu//publications/pdf/review/634226456-8-2.pdf

'. . .Suppose that God has always believed that I will rob a 7–Eleven at a certain time t. My refraining from robbing the 7–Eleven at time t certainly entails that God has not always believed that I will rob at t. Because God has always believed that I will rob the 7–Eleven at t, I cannot have the power to refrain from robbing, since this power would entail power to change God’s past beliefs. No person has the power to alter the past. Yet to be free with respect to whether I rob, I must have power to refrain from robbing the 7–Eleven at t. It follows that either God does not have foreknowledge or I am not free. . ."

[Billyray]

Having the ability to choose between good and evil.

The Calvinists believe that we all--including the unelect--choose between good and evil.

Perhaps you need to modify your definition.

[Libby]

The Calvinists believe that we all--including the unelect--choose between good and evil.

Perhaps you need to modify your definition.

Calvinists do not. They don't believe man can choose good of his own free will. He is not able. Total depravity, remember?

[Billyray]

Calvinists do not.

Sure they do. Wayne Grudem holds the reformed position and he certainly teaches that man has a choice and that he is responsible for that choice. He also teaches that if a person is not elect his choice will be to reject Christ. This is also the position that is taught in the Bible.

[Billyray]

Calvinists do not. They don't believe man can choose good of his own free will. He is not able. Total depravity, remember?
Wikipedia Calvinism

"Total depravity," also called "total inability," ***erts that as a consequence of the fall of man into sin, every person is enslaved to sin. People are not by nature inclined to love God but rather to serve their own interests and to reject the rule of God. Thus, all people by their own faculties are morally unable to choose to follow God and be saved because they are unwilling to do so out of the necessity of their own natures"

[alanmolstad]

I have been on the road for the last 2 weeks....anything new here?

[Libby]

Wikipedia Calvinism

"Total depravity," also called "total inability," ***erts that as a consequence of the fall of man into sin, every person is enslaved to sin. People are not by nature inclined to love God but rather to serve their own interests and to reject the rule of God. Thus, all people by their own faculties are morally unable to choose to follow God and be saved because they are unwilling to do so out of the necessity of their own natures"

Thus, all people by their own faculties are morally UNABLE to choose to follow God

[Billyray]

Thus, all people by their own faculties are morally UNABLE to choose to follow God
And why is that? Because they are unwilling to do so.

Libby Calvinism teaches that we all have a choice and those who reject Christ choose to do so.

[dberrie2000]

Wikipedia Calvinism

"Total depravity," also called "total inability," ***erts that as a consequence of the fall of man into sin, every person is enslaved to sin. People are not by nature inclined to love God but rather to serve their own interests and to reject the rule of God. Thus, all people by their own faculties are morally unable to choose to follow God and be saved because they are unwilling to do so out of the necessity of their own natures"

Billyray--where do you believe their natures come from?

[Billyray]

Billyray--where do you believe their natures come from?
As a result of the fall of Adam

[dberrie2000]

As a result of the fall of Adam

Billyray--all men were condemned due to the Fall. That fell on all men up to the Atonement.

All men were Redeemed due to the Atonement--one cannot differentiate one man from another min either of those events--if a nature fell on one man--it fell on them all. The Atonement was to Redeemed all men from the condemnation of the Fall--not just a few. You can't maintain your stance if that is true:


Romans 5:18---King James Version (KJV)


18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.

[Billyray]

All men were Redeemed due to the Atonement--one cannot differentiate one man from another min either of those events--if a nature fell on one man--it fell on them all. The Atonement was to Redeemed all men from the condemnation of the Fall--not just a few. You can't maintain your stance if that is true:


Romans 5:18---King James Version (KJV)


18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.


Define justification one more time for me.

[Libby]

And why is that? Because they are unwilling to do so.

Libby Calvinism teaches that we all have a choice and those who reject Christ choose to do so.

You've got the cart before the horse, Billy. It says that men are unwilling to choose God, because of their nature (total depravity), which causes them to be UNABLE to choose God.

Their condition, which is total depravity, completely mired in the flesh, causes them to be UNABLE to choose God of their own free will.

[Billyray]

You've got the cart before the horse, Billy. It says that men are unwilling to choose God, because of their nature (total depravity), which causes them to be UNABLE to choose God.

Their condition, which is total depravity, completely mired in the flesh, causes them to be UNABLE to choose God of their own free will.
Again why is that? because they are unwilling to do so

Libby, the Bible teaches that we all have a choice to either accept Christ or reject Him and we are responsible for that choice. This is consistent with other Calvinists that I have heard speak on this matter such as Wayne Grudem who holds the Reformed position.

[Billyray]

Libby why do you believe the Arminian position is the correct one with respect to election rather than the Calvinist position?

[Libby]

I'm done with you, Billy.

Off your carousel that goes in both directions, depending on what you are trying to prove.

[Billyray]

I'm done with you, Billy.

Perhaps you realize that you are wrong and can't back up your false beliefs by using the Bible. I hope this is the case.

[Libby]

Testimonies from Christians:


When men speak of the "age of accountability", they refer to that time when men become accountable to God because of sin. This accountability is based upon knowledge. The tree forbidden by God was a tree of knowledge of good and evil. Babies do not possess that knowledge. They have no shame in nakedness and they do not fear God. (This is also true of those who have the mind of a child.) Without the knowledge of right and wrong, there is no accountability before God.

Romans 10:9-10 says, "If you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation." If babies sin, how can they fulfill Romans 10:9-10? They cannot confess with their mouth and believe in their heart what they do not understand. Their hearts cannot believe righteousness without knowledge and their mouths cannot make confession unto salvation. To baptize a baby is no more than getting the head wet (infant baptism is not even baptism=immersion). Babies do not sin.

By Kent Heaton

http://www.simplebiblestudies.com/GAbabiesin.htm

http://www.topicalbiblestudies.com/original-sin.php

The Arminian view on this (Arminians are Christians, right?)


The other view (held primarily by Armenians, anabaptists, and a number of other
Christan religions) teaches that we are not born as sinners per se, but rather, we are born with a "sin nature." In other words, man is not forced to sin because
he has the "sin gene" p***ed on to him from Adam, but instead, he has the "free will"
choice to sin or not. He is also able to believe in God (Jn 3:16,18,36)(Jn 1:12)
(Eph 1:13)(Heb 11:6)(Jn 8:24), repent (Acts 3:19)(2 Cor 7:10)(Lk 13:3,5)(Mt 4:17)
(Acts 11:18)(Mk 1:15), and call upon the Lord (Rom 10:12-14)(Acts 2:21) in order to
be saved without first being regenerated.


http://jesusalive.cc/ques156.htm

In other words, Billy is trying to claim that these people, who are accepted as Christians, by most Calvinists, as well as the rest of the Body of Christ, and who teach and believe, just as I have, that babies do not sin, but possess a "sin nature", are "false teachers". Is that right, Billy? This Arminian belief makes all Arminians "false teachers"?

[Billyray]

In other words, Billy is trying to claim that these people, who are accepted as Christians, by most Calvinists, as well as the rest of the Body of Christ, and who teach and believe, just as I have, that babies do not sin, but possess a "sin nature", are "false teachers". Is that right, Billy? This Arminian belief makes all Arminians "false teachers"?
It is not just this belief but many beliefs that you hold along with the fact that you reject sections of scripture that is not consistent with being a Christian. Along with the fact that your main purposisoniazid this board seems to be to sew discord among fellow Christians rather than discuss Mormonism which is the focus of this board.

[Billyray]

This Arminian belief makes all Arminians "false teachers"?
I know many Arminians and we disagree in very few areas and I never see the discord that I see from you. In my opinion you are here to simply stir up trouble.

[Billyray]

Libby why do you believe the Arminian position is the correct one with respect to election rather than the Calvinist position?

Libby do you have any answers with Biblical verses for me or not?

[Billyray]

When men speak of the "age of accountability", they refer to that time when men become accountable to God because of sin. This accountability is based upon knowledge. The tree forbidden by God was a tree of knowledge of good and evil. Babies do not possess that knowledge. They have no shame in nakedness and they do not fear God. (This is also true of those who have the mind of a child.) Without the knowledge of right and wrong, there is no accountability before God.


By Kent Heaton
Notice he mentioned accountability not sin. We have already discussed the difference were you asleep when we talked about this?

[Libby]

I know many Arminians and we disagree in very few areas and I never see the discord that I see from you. In my opinion you are here to simply stir up trouble.

You know, Billy, you are the one who loves to argue endlessly and always has to be right, no matter how wrong you have been shown to be. You are actually the one stirring trouble.

I believe a lot of what you believe, but you never focus there. Babies not sinning is really not a huge issue and there are varying beliefs on it, even within the Body of Christ. But, you just don't want to admit that and let it go...you seem to want to argue endlessly. I should not indulge you in that (a lot of other people have stopped). I would rather just agree to disagree and acknowledge that there are differing beliefs on that one issue. Can you do that?

[Billyray]

You know, Billy, you are the one who loves to argue endlessly and always has to be right, no matter how wrong you have been shown to be. You are actually the one stirring trouble.

First off you have yet to back up any of your beliefs from the Bible, rather you seem to take your beliefs from you feelings. Second you are the one who has persisted in stirring up discord among Christians and this is not just with me but with most of the other Christians who have posted on this board. You seem uninterested in actually sticking to the topic of this forum which is Mormonism. Are you totally unaware of this?

[Libby]

Notice he mentioned accountability not sin. We have already discussed the difference were you asleep when we talked about this?

Read further. Don't just read the small part you think agrees with you.


This accountability is based upon knowledge. The tree forbidden by God was a tree of knowledge of good and evil. Babies do not possess that knowledge.

If you don't possess a knowledge of "good and evil", you are innocent, as Adam and Eve were, before they ate of the fruit. They were not ashamed of their nakedness; they were without guile. They were not sinners, not until they ate of the fruit of the tree and gained knowledge of "good and evil".

[Libby]

First off you have yet to back up any of your beliefs from the Bible, rather you seem to take your beliefs from you feelings. Second you are the one who has persisted in stirring up discord among Christians and this is not just with me but with most of the other Christians who have posted on this board. You seem uninterested in actually sticking to the topic of this forum which is Mormonism. Are you totally unaware of this?

And you are the one who said you didn't mind discussing Calvinism and other such matters, even though they are not the subject of this forum.

Babies not sinning is also a belief of Mormonism, only for slightly different reasons, than Arminians.

I have not "stirred any trouble" here. I've mostly been discussing with you. You just don't like the way the discussion has gone.

And, yes, there are Bible verses and I have posted them in the many links I have provided. This belief is very well established in the Bible, as noted in my post above.

[Billyray]

And you are the one who said you didn't mind discussing Calvinism and other such matters, even though they are not the subject of this forum.

Babies not sinning is also a belief of Mormonism, only for slightly different reasons, than Arminians.

I don't mind speaking about Calvinism verses Arminianism at all. But you have yet to support any of your beliefs from the Bible. And even your non Biblical quote was speaking about accountability which is different from sin. And we have already discussed in in prior posts.

Not only do you not want to talk about Mormonism you don't seem to want to discuss what the Bible even says. You just want to cause strife. I gave you ample time to support the Arminian position with respect to election but this far you don't even seem interested to find any support for it from the Bible.

[Billyray]

I have not "stirred any trouble" here. I've mostly been discussing with you. You just don't like the way the discussion has gone.

The way that our discussion has gone is that you have thus far fallen flat on your face and you have yet to actually address any of the verses that I have given you, nor have you given me any support for your position. Don't you agree that this is how our discussion has gone thus far in this thread?

[Billyray]

Libby why do you believe the Arminian position is the correct one with respect to election rather than the Calvinist position?
You want to talk about Calvinism are you ever going to address my question?

[Billyray]

I'm done with you, Billy.

I didn't expect you to keep your word Libby.

[Libby]

I don't mind speaking about Calvinism verses Arminianism at all. But you have yet to support any of your beliefs from the Bible. And even your non Biblical quote was speaking about accountability which is different from sin. And we have already discussed in in prior posts.

Not only do you not want to talk about Mormonism you don't seem to want to discuss what the Bible even says. You just want to cause strife. I gave you ample time to support the Arminian position with respect to election but this far you don't even seem interested to find any support for it from the Bible.

As I said, I have given you biblical support for this Arminian belief that babies cannot sin. It is centered around Genesis and the story of Adam and Eve. You never accept biblical references, even when they are given. You just ignore it and continue quoting what you believe supports your position. That's fine, but at some point, we both have to agree to disagree.

I don't mind discussing Mormonism. What do you want to talk about?

[Libby]

I didn't expect you to keep your word Libby.

Hey, when you keep insulting me, as you do, I am probably going to defend myself...just as you or anyone else would.

[Billyray]

As I said, I have given you biblical support for this Arminian belief that babies cannot sin. It is centered around Genesis and the story of Adam and Eve.

What verses state that babies do not sin because nothing thus far has stated this?

[Billyray]

Hey, when you keep insulting me, as you do, I am probably going to defend myself...just as you or anyone else would.

How can you defend yourself against the truth? It is your fault that you take the truth as an insult.

[Libby]

You want to talk about Calvinism are you ever going to address my question?

Nope. We have already had that discussion. It has to do with culpability. I don't believe Calvinism allows for human culpability, when it gives all of the responsibility for salvation to God. But, more importantly, I don't believe it is biblically supported, either. Too many places in the Bible that give man responsibility for not turning to God or doing as God commanded. If man were not ABLE to turn to God, then why would God expect it?

Not going another twenty rounds on that.

[Libby]

How can you defend yourself against the truth? It is your fault that you take the truth as an insult.

Very funny. Because it's NOT the truth. I would tell you the "truth" about yourself, except I am not going to break the rules of this forum, as you have.

[Libby]

What verses state that babies do not sin because nothing thus far has stated this?

SIGH I don't think you're really this unintelligent, Billy. Did you read the links I provided? Did you hear what I said TWICE now, about Adam and Eve? Is that not biblical??

[Billyray]

Nope. We have already had that discussion. It has to do with culpability. I don't believe Calvinism allows for human culpability, when it gives all of the responsibility for salvation to God. But, more importantly, I don't believe it is biblically supported, either. Too many places in the Bible that give man responsibility for not turning to God or doing as God commanded. If man were not ABLE to turn to God, then why would God expect it?

Not going another twenty rounds on that.
Can't you even recognize that you are not supporting your beliefs from the Bible but rather on your feelings?

My question was what Biblical support do you have for claiming that the reason that God choose the elect was based on Him looking into the future and seeing a person's faith as the sole reason for electing them?

[Billyray]

SIGH I don't think you're really this unintelligent, Billy. Did you read the links I provided? Did you hear what I said TWICE now, about Adam and Eve? Is that not biblical??

Give me a verse that says that babies and young children do not sin.

BTW I gave you multiple verses that say that ALL have sinned. Are you ever going to address those verses? Just to remind you we are talking about sin NOT about accountability for sin like the quote that you gave me that you thought supported your position but in reality it did not.

[Libby]

Give me a verse that says that babies and young children do not sin.

BTW I gave you multiple verses that say that ALL have sinned. Are you ever going to address those verses? Just to remind you we are talking about sin NOT about accountability for sin like the quote that you gave me that you thought supported your position but in reality it did not.

There is obviously no verse (that I know of) that says "specifically" that babies do not sin. Nor is there one that says "specifically" that babies DO sin. That's why this subject is contentious.

You have heard my thoughts and reasoning on this, which is in conjunction with most other Arminian believers. Take it or leave it.

[Libby]

Can't you even recognize that you are not supporting your beliefs from the Bible but rather on your feelings?

My question was what Biblical support do you have for claiming that the reason that God choose the elect was based on Him looking into the future and seeing a person's faith as the sole reason for electing them?

Scriptures used to support
These are Scriptures commonly used in support of Conditional election
Isaiah 45:22 "Turn to Me and be saved, all the ends of the earth, for I am God, and there is no other."
Mathew 11:28 Jesus said "Come to me, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest."
John 3:16 "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life."
John 7:17 "If any man is willing to do His will, he shall know of the teaching, whether it is of God, or whether I speak from Myself."
John 7:37 "Now on the last day of the great feast, Jesus stood and cried out, saying "If any man is thirsty, let him come to Me and drink."
John 12:32 Jesus said "And if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto Myself
Romans 8:29-30 [NIV] "For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son [...] And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified."
Acts 17:30 "Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now commanding all men everywhere to repent."
1 Timothy 2:3-4 "For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; Who will have all men to be saved and to come unto the knowledge of the truth."
2 Peter 3:9 " The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance."
Revelation 22:17 The Spirit and the Bride say, "Come." And let the one who hears say, "Come." And let the one who is thirsty come; let the one who desires take the water of life without price.

[Billyray]

Scriptures used to support
These are Scriptures commonly used in support of Conditional election
Isaiah 45:22 "Turn to Me and be saved, all the ends of the earth, for I am God, and there is no other."
Mathew 11:28 Jesus said "Come to me, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest."
John 3:16 "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life."
John 7:17 "If any man is willing to do His will, he shall know of the teaching, whether it is of God, or whether I speak from Myself."
John 7:37 "Now on the last day of the great feast, Jesus stood and cried out, saying "If any man is thirsty, let him come to Me and drink."
John 12:32 Jesus said "And if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto Myself
Romans 8:29-30 [NIV] "For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son [...] And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified."
Acts 17:30 "Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now commanding all men everywhere to repent."
1 Timothy 2:3-4 "For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; Who will have all men to be saved and to come unto the knowledge of the truth."
2 Peter 3:9 " The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance."
Revelation 22:17 The Spirit and the Bride say, "Come." And let the one who hears say, "Come." And let the one who is thirsty come; let the one who desires take the water of life without price.

Do any of the verses in your list make any mention at all that the basis for God electing specific individuals was based on God looking forward in time and seeing that a person had faith as the basis for their election?

BTW why do you say conditional election? Either a person is elect from before the foundation of the earth or he is not.

[Libby]

Do any of the verses in your list make any mention at all that the basis for God electing specific individuals was based on God looking forward in time and seeing that a person had faith as the basis for their election?

No, but those verses DO show that God knows that we have the ability to turn to him of our own free will. And, also, in 1 Timothy and other verses, that it is His intention and desire to save "all men", if they come to him willingly.

[Billyray]

No, but those verses DO show that God knows that we have the ability to turn to him of our own free will.
That is not what Jesus taught

John 6:36*But you haven’t believed in me even though you have seen me. 37*However, those the Father has given me will come to me, and I will never reject them.

John 6:44*For no one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them to me, and at the last day I will raise them up

[Libby]

That is not what Jesus taught

John 6:36*But you haven’t believed in me even though you have seen me. 37*However, those the Father has given me will come to me, and I will never reject them.

John 6:44*For no one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them to me, and at the last day I will raise them up

How does that negate what I have said? Yes, the Father draws all of us, and those he knows in advance will follow Christ, are chosen and given to him.

You're just used to seeing those verses through your own Calvinist lens.

[Billyray]

How does that negate what I have said? Yes, the Father draws all of us, and those he knows in advance will follow Christ, are chosen and given to him.


John 6:44*For no one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them to me, and at the last day I will raise them up

Read the verse again Libby it doesn't say that God draws ALL men now does it?

[Billyray]

How does that negate what I have said? Yes, the Father draws all of us, and those he knows in advance will follow Christ, are chosen and given to him.


John 6:36*But you haven’t believed in me even though you have seen me. 37*However, those the Father has given me will come to me, and I will never reject them.

Who will come to Jesus according to verse 37?

[Libby]

John 6:36*But you haven’t believed in me even though you have seen me. 37*However, those the Father has given me will come to me, and I will never reject them.

Who will come to Jesus according to verse 37?

Those the Father has given him. (Because he knew in advance who would accept him)

[Billyray]

Those the Father has given him. (Because he knew in advance who would accept him)
But how can they accept him unless they were given to the Son by the Father?

[Libby]

But how can they accept him unless they were given to the Son by the Father?

They were given by the Father to the Son, because the Father KNEW IN ADVANCE who would choose him.

[alanmolstad]

They were given by the Father to the Son, because the Father KNEW IN ADVANCE who would choose him.Yes God knew in advance, as it was He alone who predestined the very people he saw in advance!

The foreknowledge of God does not happen "before" the predestination of God.....

Read the verse!.......

[alanmolstad]

They were given by the Father to the Son, because the Father KNEW IN ADVANCE who would choose him.

see, this is the 'safe' thinking way at work...

It makes you feel safe to think that God was just sitting around and noticed that in the future some people believed in him anyway, so he decided to base his predestination on the people he saw in the future believing.


This makes God into a very lazy being........

This is an example of people making their personal god in their own image.

This is an example of a god that is simply 'reacting" to what men are doing...



It's also not what the bible is teaching.
The reason it's not what the Bible is teaching is it makes the "predestination" of people by God happen after the "foreknowledge" of God informs Him of future events that he just simply then 'reacts" to.

Thats not the god of the Bible....

Thats a god that seems trapped in time...

Thats different than the God of the bible, because the God of the Bible does not have this "after".....What I means is that with the true God of the Bible the "predestination" of some people to believe does not come "after" the foreknowledge of God informed him of the future.

The foreknowledge of GOD always happens with the predestination of god....they are all aspects of god and do not happen one after the other....because god has no 'before"...no "after"

Read the verse!

Romans 8:29 "For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, ..."

Notice it says "he also"

Not - "he later"

Not - "he was forced to..."

Not "because of..."




"also"........also ......not after....not before....but just "with"

[nrajeffreturns]

Give me a verse that says that babies and young children do not sin.
It's obvious based on the story of David's baby who died at an age of less than one month, using Protestant soteriology. If that baby had sinned, the only way it could have made it to heaven would be by repenting before death. But if the Bible teaches that the baby went to heaven upon dying, then the baby must have committed no sins, since the baby didn't repent of any sins before it died.


BTW I gave you multiple verses that say that ALL have sinned.
If you ***ume "all" refers literally to every human being who was ever conceived or who will ever be conceived, including aborted babies and baby Jesus, then you're ***uming way too much IMO.

Due to the influential nature of John Calvin and his teachings, many people have taught that sin is “p***ed” from one generation to the next. It is believed by many religious people that children “inherit” the sins of their parents. Yet, the Bible pointedly and explicitly teaches that such is not the case.http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=13&article=1201

[Billyray]

They were given by the Father to the Son, because the Father KNEW IN ADVANCE who would choose him.

But they were unable to come to him unless the Father gave them to the Son.

[Billyray]

It's obvious based on the story of David's baby who died at an age of less than one month, using Protestant soteriology.

That doesn't say that the baby didn't sin rather this speaks about accountability. These are two different issues.

[Libby]

That doesn't say that the baby didn't sin rather this speaks about accountability. These are two different issues.

No, you're not understanding. It also gives the reason why babies don't sin...the one I explained twice, about Adam and Eve not sinning until they ate from the tree of "good and evil" and understood the difference.

[Libby]

But they were unable to come to him unless the Father gave them to the Son.

Yes. But, that doesn't automatically translate into the Father "choosing" who would accept the Son. He did choose, but he chose those whom he knew would accept him. That's the only way that man can still remain culpable for his/her decision. If man doesn't have the "ability" to choose and God actually does the choosing, then man is not responsible for his "unbelief".

[Billyray]

Yes. But, that doesn't automatically translate into the Father "choosing" who would accept the Son. He did choose, but he chose those whom he knew would accept him.
So he didn't look forward in time and see who would come to Christ by faith?

[Libby]

So he didn't look forward in time and see who would come to Christ by faith?

Why are you asking that? Of course...that's exactly what I'm saying. He knew in advance who would believe.

[Billyray]

Why are you asking that? Of course...that's exactly what I'm saying.

But they couldn't come to Christ without being drawn first so how could he look forward and see who would come to him unless he drew them first?

[Billyray]

No, you're not understanding. It also gives the reason why babies don't sin...the one I explained twice, about Adam and Eve not sinning until they ate from the tree of "good and evil" and understood the difference.

Nothing you have given me shows that babies don't sin. If you disagree give me a verse.

[Libby]

But they couldn't come to Christ without being drawn first so how could he look forward and see who would come to him unless he drew them first?

You are limiting God, Billy. God is omniscient and sees ALL. He knows who will respond to His drawing and who will not. Plus, as I said before, God does not operate within time and space. He is outside of time in an ever present NOW. That plays into the difference between how we see things and how HE sees things.

[Billyray]

You are limiting God, Billy. God is omniscient and sees ALL. He knows who will respond to His drawing and who will not.
Who would come to Christ on his own without being drawn first?

[Libby]

Nothing you have given me shows that babies don't sin. If you disagree give me a verse.

Well, I disagree. The story of Adam and Eve is a "perfect" example and correlation to why it is babies do not sin....and it is from the Bible.

Do you really believe that embryos sin?

You like to ask dozens of questions, often the same one over and over, even after you have received an adequate answer...but, you seldom, directly, answer my questions. You avoid, because I think you really know that I am right.

[Billyray]

Well, I disagree. The story of Adam and Eve is a "perfect" example and correlation to why it is babies do not sin....and it is from the Bible.

Any verses for me?

[Billyray]

You like to ask dozens of questions, often the same one over and over, even after you have received an adequate answer...but, you seldom, directly, answer my questions. You avoid, because I think you really know that I am right.
I have given you multiple verses that say we all sin. I have asked you to support your position for the Bible by giving me a verse but thus far you have been unable to do so. Should I take your opinions based on your feelings instead of what the Bible teaches?

[Libby]

I have given you multiple verses that say we all sin. I have asked you to support your position for the Bible by giving me a verse but thus far you have been unable to do so. Should I take your opinions based on your feelings instead of what the Bible teaches?

You are out and out telling untruths, now, Billy. I gave you, not just a verse, but the entire story of Adam and Eve (you do believe that's "biblical"..right???). Therefore, to say my defense is simply based on "feelings" is absolutely UNTRUE.

And, you still haven't answered my question. Do embryos sin? They are human! Are they a part of this ALL you keep citing??

All WILL sin, but I doubt embryos or newborn babes CAN sin. They have not the understanding of right and wrong (just like Adam and Eve) to sin!

[Billyray]

You are out and out telling untruths, now, Billy. I gave you, not just a verse, but the entire story of Adam and Eve (you do believe that's "biblical"..right???). Therefore, to say my defense is simply based on "feelings" is absolutely UNTRUE.
There is not a single verse that you have given me that says that babies/infants do not sin. If you think you have one then post the verse againand we can look at it.

[Libby]

There is not a single verse that you have given me that says that babies/infants do not sin. If you think you have one then post the verse againand we can look at it.

Not true.

We're done with this, Billy. You are simply flailing about, trying to make yourself appear to be correct. Anyone who reads this exchange with unbiased eyes will see what you have been doing. You are a master at twisting things about, trying to make it fit your own belief system.

[alanmolstad]

.....using Protestant soteriology. who here teaches this teaching?

what poster here suggests this idea?

[alanmolstad]

No, you're not understanding. It also gives the reason why babies don't sin...the one I explained twice, about Adam and Eve not sinning until they ate from the tree of "good and evil" and understood the difference.

thats not really what it says in genesis.....

[Billyray]

Not true.

We're done with this, Billy. You are simply flailing about, trying to make yourself appear to be correct. Anyone who reads this exchange with unbiased eyes will see what you have been doing. You are a master at twisting things about, trying to make it fit your own belief system.
I have asked you multiple times now to give me a verse so we can look at it. Are you ever going to give it to me or not?

[Billyray]

Not true.

We're done with this, Billy. You are simply flailing about, trying to make yourself appear to be correct. Anyone who reads this exchange with unbiased eyes will see what you have been doing. You are a master at twisting things about, trying to make it fit your own belief system.
Anyone reading this exchange can only conclude that you have failed to provide me with any verse that supports your position. While at the same time they will see that you ignore clear verses that refute your position.

[alanmolstad]

The story of the sin of Adam is much like how we all go into this...

before the law came to Adam he was alive....it's not that he could not sin, its just that because he did not know of the Law yet and the Law was not over him , all his sins would be 'overlooked"

God overlooked my own sins as a child too!

but once the Law comes to us things change...

The flesh in us, sees a chance within the context of the law to sin, we desire to sin and so sin springs to life in us and we die...

this is what happened to Adam, and what Paul talks about...

[alanmolstad]

If you ***ume "all" refers literally to every human being who was ever conceived or who will ever be conceived, including aborted babies and baby Jesus,

No the Bible teaches also that Jesus was without sin.....

Thus all have sinned, as the bible states, and it also states that Jesus did not sin....so the Bible makes sure it shows us what it is talking about...


Jesus did not sin.....EVER!

So all have sinned except for the one exception of Jesus as taught in the Bible....

[alanmolstad]

No the Bible teaches also that Jesus was without sin.....

Thus all have sinned, as the bible states, and it also states that Jesus did not sin....so the Bible makes sure it shows us what it is talking about...


Jesus did not sin.....EVER!

So all have sinned except for the one exception of Jesus as taught in the Bible....


why is this bible idea so hard to trust?

[nrajeffreturns]

who here teaches this teaching?
what poster here suggests this idea?

Maybe all of you, or maybe some or none. Let's find out.

Do you believe that it's possible for people who never accepted Jesus before they died, to be saved?
Do you believe that those who died without the ability or opportunity to hear the gospel, repent, and accept Jesus, will get that chance after they die?

Now see where your answers to those questions take you in light of what I said:

Using Protestant soteriology, if a baby has sinned, the only way it could have made it to heaven would be by repenting before death. But if the Bible teaches that David's baby went to heaven after living for less than a month, then that baby must have committed no sins, since the baby failed to repent of any sins before it died.

You see, the genius of LDS doctrine on this issue is that babies who die in infancy are innocent of any sin, and the fact that they never accepted Jesus while alive can't keep them from salvation anyway since they will get that chance in the hereafter. Which makes LDS soteriology the only one in Christianity that I know of, that is fair to those babies.

[Billyray]

Using Protestant soteriology, if a baby has sinned, the only way it could have made it to heaven would be by repenting before death. But if the Bible teaches that David's baby went to heaven after living for less than a month, then that baby must have committed no sins, since the baby failed to repent of any sins before it died.

Other than the example about David's child the Bible is silent on this issue. The issue in the case of a baby who dies is not sin but accountability for that sin. Christians do not give a firm answer one way or the other because as I said before the Bible is silent on this issue with the exception above. You just gave us a straw man argument Jeff because no Christian that I have ever heard says that a one month is capable of repenting and accepting Christ. You just made that one up didn't you?

[nrajeffreturns]

Other than the example about David's child the Bible is silent on this issue.
One example should be all you need to establish a precedent.


The issue in the case of a baby who dies is not sin but accountability for that sin.
If a person is not at a state of accountability, then nothing he does should be called a sin, since the definition of sin includes the person being aware that the bad thing he is doing is wrong. The two necessary ingredients are the knowledge that it's the wrong the thing to do, and then deliberately doing it anyway. Any act that didn't have both of those ingredients isn't a sin. If a 4-month-old baby smacks you on the head, it can't be a sin because the baby didn't know that it's wrong to hit people, and the baby didn't hit you on purpose either.


You just gave us a straw man argument Jeff because no Christian that I have ever heard says that a one month is capable of repenting and accepting Christ.
Exactly. That is MY point. Now let common sense and logic rule your mind for a minute: Since we all agree that NO one month-old baby is capable of repenting and accepting Christ, then you have a problem. Do you believe that salvation comes to people who didn't accept Christ before they died?
The Athanasian Creed states that anyone who wants to be saved MUST faithfully believe all the dogmas of Trinitarianism, and that anyone who doesn't faithfully believe all the dogmas of Trinitarianism cannot be saved.

The LDS don't have that dilemma in their doctrines. But you do. What's your answer?

[Billyray]

One example should be all you need to establish a precedent.

Let's look at that and see what precedent has been set by what we know. Since this is the only verse that I am aware of that speaks on this issue what can we conclude? That the children of believers who die at an early age will be saved. Not a single verse ever says that the children of non believes who die at a young age are saved. So are you willing to accept as precedent that the children of believers will be saved and the children of non believers will not be saved?

[nrajeffreturns]

No, it's not saying that if you're an unbeliever and your baby dies it will have to go to hell.
ALL babies, whether their parents are believers or unbelievers, are unable to repent, therefore they are unable to sin, therefore they do not sin. It doesn't matter who your parents are. That doesn't magically make you saved or unsaved.

[Billyray]

No, it's not saying that if you're an unbeliever and your baby dies it will have to go to hell.

But the only verse that we have is that of a baby of a believer who appears to go to heaven. We have no verse whatsoever that says the babies of unbelievers who die go to heaven. So is that the precedent that you want to take home from this one p***age?

[nrajeffreturns]

But the only verse that we have is that of a baby of a believer who appears to go to heaven. We have no verse whatsoever that says the babies of unbelievers who die go to heaven. So is that the precedent that you want to take home from this one p***age?

That's like saying that since we have no verse whatsoever that says that people named Billyray will go to heaven, we should conclude that you aren't going to heaven.

[Billyray]

That's like saying that since we have no verse whatsoever that says that people named Billyray will go to heaven, we should conclude that you aren't going to heaven.
That is not the same at all and you know it. There are examples in the Bible where a child was saved physically simply because he lived with a believer and a child was killed simply because he did not live with a believer.

[alanmolstad]

actually I notice a lot of posting, and very few Bible verses listed to support the views listed.

If you have a teaching that has a clear bible verse or two to support it, then your view is worth listing.

But if you got no support in the bible for what you are saying then I got to tell you right now...
"YOU ARE MAKING STUFF UP"

[alanmolstad]

Maybe all of you, or maybe some or none. Let's find out.

Do you believe that it's possible for people who never accepted Jesus before they died, to be saved?

.
The Bible at no place teaches that people go to hell only because they never learned about Jesus...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vVXMUDC_pw8

What we are told is that even the unbeliever has around them at all times, the "proof" that they need to believe and draw close to God.

This is why all people are held as guilty because all have had all the proof they need at all times all around them.

So a person needs to respond to the light they receive...
The calling of GOD goes out...He is drawing all men to himself....But we need to respond to that calling, to respond to the light we are given, and that light will lead us to the brighter light of Jesus.

[alanmolstad]

But if the Bible teaches that David's baby went to heaven after living for less than a month, then that baby must have committed no sins, since the baby failed to repent of any sins before it died.

.
The Bible does not tell inform us about the sins or lack of sins of the child....

thus the answer given by Paul is still the answer for us about the fate of all children who die.

[nrajeffreturns]

The Bible at no place teaches that people go to hell only because they never learned about Jesus...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vVXMUDC_pw8

What we are told is that even the unbeliever has around them at all times, the "proof" that they need to believe and draw close to God.

This is why all people are held as guilty because all have had all the proof they need at all times all around them.

So a person needs to respond to the light they receive...
The calling of GOD goes out...He is drawing all men to himself....But we need to respond to that calling, to respond to the light we are given, and that light will lead us to the brighter light of Jesus.
I noticed that you didn't quote any Bible verses to support this post, so it's safe to conclude that you're making things up, right?

[alanmolstad]

I noticed that you didn't quote any Bible verses to support this post, so it's safe to conclude that you're making things up, right?
Actually I am providing a synopsis of what is on the video that I also provide the link to.....but you would have already know that had you bothered to watch the video clip

[dberrie2000]

see, this is the 'safe' thinking way at work...

It makes you feel safe to think that God was just sitting around and noticed that in the future some people believed in him anyway, so he decided to base his predestination on the people he saw in the future believing.


This makes God into a very lazy being........

This is an example of people making their personal god in their own image.

This is an example of a god that is simply 'reacting" to what men are doing...



It's also not what the bible is teaching.
The reason it's not what the Bible is teaching is it makes the "predestination" of people by God happen after the "foreknowledge" of God informs Him of future events that he just simply then 'reacts" to.

Thats not the god of the Bible....


Hebrews 5:9---King James Version (KJV)


9 And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;


Could you explain the fact the scriptures have God giving His grace to those who obey Him--all who obey Him, past, present, and future---and it not be a reaction of God to the future actions of those who have faith in Christ?

[Billyray]

Could you explain the fact the scriptures have God giving His grace to those who obey Him--all who obey Him, past, present, and future---and it not be a reaction of God to the future actions of those who have faith in Christ?

God also gives grace to unbelievers in many ways but salvation takes place when you place your faith in Christ.

[dberrie2000]

dberrie----Hebrews 5:9---King James Version (KJV)


9 And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;


Could you explain the fact the scriptures have God giving His grace to those who obey Him--all who obey Him, past, present, and future---and it not be a reaction of God to the future actions of those who have faith in Christ?


God also gives grace to unbelievers in many ways

But not His grace unto eternal life--that goes to those who obey God.

[Billyray]

But not His grace unto eternal life--that goes to those who obey God.

It is clear that salvation goes to those who place their faith in Christ for salvation. This is not earned by doing works.

[nrajeffreturns]

It is clear that salvation goes to those who place their faith in Christ for salvation. .

Do babies who die when they are under 1 week old have the ability to place their faith in Christ and thus be saved? How can they accept the gospel unless they can hear it? And how can they hear it if there wasn't a teacher to preach it to them while they were alive?