What must I do to be Born Again?

[RBerman]

On saved elect infants, how nice. What about the unelect ones?

Unknown whether there are any. If there are, the same happens to them as to all others not elect.

You should do works solely from your love to do them. You should avoid short changing a customer solely because that's part of your character, not because you think that act will have eternal consequences.

You are welcome to your opinion on the matter. For myself, I see no harm and some good from a system which encourages the desired behavior. Many people who speed in their cars will drive slowly in the presence of a policeman.

[whag]

Unknown whether there are any. If there are, the same happens to them as to all others not elect.

You're unsure if there are any non-elect human beings?

You are welcome to your opinion on the matter. For myself, I see no harm and some good from a system which encourages the desired behavior. Many people who speed in their cars will drive slowly in the presence of a policeman.

It amounts to a negligible reduction in malfeasance, I would say. I also reiterate it's not the ideal motivation since it legitimizes a form of selfishness that derives from the extreme consequences.

[37818]

On saved elect infants, how nice. What about the unelect ones?

God is omniscient in these matters of election. Since it is God who elects.

"But Jesus called them [unto him], and said, Allow little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God. Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child shall in no wise enter therein." -- Luke 18:16, 17. That is why we who are of age, must be born over (John 3:3), else we have no hope. Note the requirement!

[whag]

God is omniscient in these matters of election. Since it is God who elects.

"But Jesus called them [unto him], and said, Allow little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God. Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child shall in no wise enter therein." -- Luke 18:16, 17. That is why we who are of age, must be born over (John 3:3), else we have no hope. Note the requirement!

That's an obfuscation. The way you and RBerman have presented it renders "elect" meaningless.

[RBerman]

You're unsure if there are any non-elect human beings?

You were asking about infants. I'm unsure whether there are any elect or non-elect infants. The Bible doesn't address the topic, which is why the Westminster Assembly did not either.

It amounts to a negligible reduction in malfeasance, I would say. I also reiterate it's not the ideal motivation since it legitimizes a form of selfishness that derives from the extreme consequences.

Certainly punishment is not the ideal motivation, but then we don't live in an ideal world. Perfect love casts out all fear. Not all self-interest is selfishness in the evil sense.

[whag]

You were asking about infants. I'm unsure whether there are any elect or non-elect infants. The Bible doesn't address the topic, which is why the Westminster Assembly did not either.

They directly addressed the existence of elect kids:

Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated, and saved by Christ, through the Spirit, who works when, and where, and how He pleases: so also are all other elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word. (WCF 10:3)

"Elect" has no meaning here. Did the assembly simply mean "dying infants"?

[JimL]

I think that this question has been and continues to be misunderstood by many people, including myself for many years.

Years ago, I would have told you that being Born Again meant asking Jesus into your heart: a spiritual acceptance of Jesus as Messiah and Savior through his sacrifice on the Cross. Accepting such would invite The Holy Spirit to dwell within us. This, of course, must be preceded by repentance for past and present sinfulness, which I understood was innate - born into us because of Adam's "fall" from grace. Sometimes this is referred to as Original Sin.

Accepting the "free gift" would entitle you to a crown of jewels, and a room in Heaven, where the streets were paved in gold, and you would join a chorus of angels singing praises to the Godhead (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) forever and ever, Amen.

Not accepting this "free gift" would guarantee that you would spend eternity in Hell. At the time (I was raised Baptist), I believed that Hell was a physical place somewhere beneath the Earth's surface where lakes of fire (As a teenager, I imagined it as Magma) would burn the unrepentant for ever and ever.

Is this what you, dear Christian, think?

On the other hand, there are many people - Christians included - who understand the "Born Again" question of Nicodemus as more of an intellectual query rather than a magical formula. In other words, what Jesus was really saying was that you need to accept a turn about in your heart of hearts, and act in a way that embodies the intent of The Law. The Sermon on the Mount has Jesus turning familiar commandments made by Moses into a more modern interpretation.

For example:



And so on.

In other words, what is the purpose of the more apocalyptic version of Christianity? Why is that preferable to the more "down to earth" version of simply following Jesus' lead in how we live, think and relate to others? Do not both ways lead to a closer walk with G-d?

Also, why is there the need to be threatened with eternal punishment? If Jesus was intended to be a sacrifice for sins: , why didn't it take for everyone?

NORM

To be born again of the spirit, from my perspective, is a psychological metaphor. In other words it means to change your mind. Of course from the Christian perspective it simply means to believe as the Christians believe rather than what you have been taught to believe and in doing so you are promised a reward. We should all be born again in that we question the ideas, many of which are hurtful, that were impressed upon us in our naivete, and that includes Christians.

[RBerman]

They directly addressed the existence of elect kids:

They were careful to specify the method by which elect infants are saved without saying how many there are. I agree that the wording seems to tilt toward there being at least some elect children, without saying whether all are elect.

[whag]

They were careful to specify the method by which elect infants are saved without saying how many there are.

That's a backpeddle. Now you're saying they acknowledged elect kids but didn't say the exact number of them.

It's still confusing.

I agree that the wording seems to tilt toward there being at least some elect children, without saying whether all are elect.

So the question now is what would happen to an unelect/unappointed baby. What's the Calvinist position on that?

[NormATive]

We do need God's approval, one way or the other. Even if you think God forgives everyone, that's still true. The question is whether God has told us the terms of his own approval. According to the New Testament, the terms are the faith in Christ I described earlier.

I don't think anyone needs approval from their deity. I think that we create this notion in our minds because we've inherited thousands of years of collective guilt from our shamans and religious aristocracy. We are only accountable to each other. I think that is the direction religion / philosophy ought to trend.

What is most important is accepting what God has said about Christ, not only as an example for men but also as a substitute before God.

I don't think we should rely on only what is written in some book to inform human society. There is experience and listening to other cultures / people. I think we fail to grow and evolve if we are narrowly focused on just one perspective.

Certainly if everyone agreed, there would be less turmoil. There would be less turmoil if everyone was less obsessed with left wing causes too, yes? God has promised a perfect future world, ruled by Jesus Christ, in which not only the man-caused turmoil, but all natural suffering, has ended.

I seriously doubt the answer is some form of theocracy, either from the right or the left.

We went around this before in the other thread and found that your version of Judaism gets its ideas on this matter not from what God himself has said in the Bible, but from what various men subsequently said in the Talmud.

Well, in the Reformed community, there is little emphasis on the origin of wisdom, and (hint) the words of the Tanakh also come from various men.

It is not clear that universalism is an improvement on legalism. As with the mis-shapen version of Christianity I disowned upthread, the man who believes he's already been forgiven everything might be a terrible monster who has lost all incentive for moral behavior. Better to believe that your actions have eternal consequences.

If it takes threats from a deity to inspire you to do the right thing, then I fear you most of all!!

NORM

[whag]

If it takes threats from a deity to inspire you to do the right thing, then I fear you most of all!!

NORM

I'd actually wager RBerman's an exemplary citizen. I'm more saddened by his bleak view than I am fearful. Religion told him that God sends unelect babies to hell. =\


This must cause unneccessary conflict in his thought processes. How could it not?

[NormATive]

Religion told him that God sends unelect babies to hell.

I don't think he truly believes that. I don't think anyone - in their heart of hearts - believes that for one minute.

NORM

[whag]

I don't think he truly believes that. I don't think anyone - in their heart of hearts - believes that for one minute.

NORM

That reformed authorities go about fathoming eternally forsaken babies boggles my mind.
If there are elect babies then there are unelect ones. what's the point of the adjective if not to specify one's destiny?

I'm sad and slightly creeped out by this view, but I do not fear RBerman.

[RBerman]

That's a backpeddle. Now you're saying they acknowledged elect kids but didn't say the exact number of them. It's still confusing.

The matter cannot help but be uncertain when it's not addressed by the Bible. We can extrapolate and guess but should hold our views lightly in that circumstance, which I think is what they were trying to with their wording.

So the question now is what would happen to an unelect/unappointed baby. What's the Calvinist position on that?

The fate of all unelect persons is the same. They are punished for their sins in Hell.

That reformed authorities go about fathoming eternally forsaken babies boggles my mind. If there are elect babies then there are unelect ones. what's the point of the adjective if not to specify one's destiny?

We each believe according to the authorities we trust. If you have biblical grounds to present that I should believe differently than I do, I'm happy to hear them. I have no personal stake that requires anything in particular of unelect people just for my own sake.

I'm sad and slightly creeped out by this view, but I do not fear RBerman.

Well, good!

[RBerman]

I don't think anyone needs approval from their deity. I think that we create this notion in our minds because we've inherited thousands of years of collective guilt from our shamans and religious aristocracy. We are only accountable to each other. I think that is the direction religion / philosophy ought to trend.

Your belief on this matter is exactly the sort of thinking found in men throughout the Bible, to their detriment. There's nothing new under the sun. The very first sin was imagining that God's instructions can be disregarded with impunity.

I don't think we should rely on only what is written in some book to inform human society. There is experience and listening to other cultures / people. I think we fail to grow and evolve if we are narrowly focused on just one perspective.

If I thought the Bible was just "some book" I would probably agree with you.

I seriously doubt the answer is some form of theocracy, either from the right or the left.

The problem of civil government among fallible men is not going to be solved until Jesus comes back to claim his throne. Telling him that he is a meanie is not going to go very far then.

Well, in the Reformed community, there is little emphasis on the origin of wisdom, and (hint) the words of the Tanakh also come from various men.

The words of God in the Tanakh did come through men, but God's Word is inerrant and authoritative, whereas commentaries on it, like the Talmud, are only valuable to the extent that they comport with it.

If it takes threats from a deity to inspire you to do the right thing, then I fear you most of all!!

Then you must walk the streets quite frightened; most people for most of history have at root a belief similar to mine.

I don't think he truly believes that. I don't think anyone - in their heart of hearts - believes that for one minute.

This sounds like projection of your own belief.