What must I do to be Born Again?

[NormATive]

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 have no "belief" on anything. If you notice, I always use the word "think." Belief is too restrictive for our limited capacity for understanding. I see new things under the sun every day. I can only evaluate things from my perspective, so if it is new to me, it is new under the sun.

As far as this being to my detriment - well, I live a far more fulfilled life than when I was restricted by my religious superstition.

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

What makes you think the Bible is divine?

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.

I think the good old USA is a pretty rockin' place, and it is a "civil government." I've lived in countries that are theocracies - it isn't a pretty sight.

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.

That's your opinion. If you choose to worship a book, more power to you! You remind me of the Hasidim who think that the Tanakh (but only in its original ancient Paleo-Hebrew text) was HAND WRITTEN by G-d himself! The most amazing thing about this is that barely anyone knows how to read it!!!!

It would be just as valid for me to say that the words of the Talmud are "inspired." Some consider Shammai and Hillel "near to the heart of G-d." So...

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

On the contrary - I haven't encountered anyone who truly believes that their god will punish them for doing something wrong (except in the aforementioned theocracies). Most people think that they are good people, and so - if they believe in a god - are deserving of Heaven (or whatever). I intentionally ask people, just so you know. So, I am not assuming this.

NORM

[RBerman]

As far as this being to my detriment - well, I live a far more fulfilled life than when I was restricted by my religious superstition.

I have no doubt that it seems that way to you from your current horizon.

What makes you think the Bible is divine?

The doctrine of Scripture takes a while to discuss in detail, but in brief, various books of the Bible treat other specific books as "Scripture" and/or the "Word of God." The Old Testament canon enjoyed broad consensus by Jesus' day, and with a few exceptions, the New Testament canon also enjoyed relatively rapid consolidation as to which books did and did not belong in it. If you want to know more about that, I can point you to some resources.

I think the good old USA is a pretty rockin' place, and it is a "civil government." I've lived in countries that are theocracies - it isn't a pretty sight.

I agree that modern theocracies are not the solution. As I said, there won't be a great solution until Jesus comes back.

That's your opinion. If you choose to worship a book, more power to you! You remind me of the Hasidim who think that the Tanakh (but only in its original ancient Paleo-Hebrew text) was HAND WRITTEN by G-d himself! The most amazing thing about this is that barely anyone knows how to read it!!!!

I can see why one person who takes the Bible seriously will remind you of another person who does as well. The Bible does speak of a couple of places where God wrote "with his own hand," but the Christian doctrine of the Bible's inspiration is more nuanced than that.

It would be just as valid for me to say that the words of the Talmud are "inspired." Some consider Shammai and Hillel "near to the heart of G-d." So...

To say that the words are "inspired by God" (Greek theopneustos) is, literally, to say that they were "breathed out by God." That is, the words should be treated as coming from the mouth of God; they are inerrant, infallible, and authoritative-- they must be followed, not judged or challenged. Are you willing to give the Talmud that sort of power in your life? If so, then yes, you do treat the Talmud as "inspired." If not, then not.

On the contrary - I haven't encountered anyone who truly believes that their god will punish them for doing something wrong (except in the aforementioned theocracies). Most people think that they are good people, and so - if they believe in a god - are deserving of Heaven (or whatever). I intentionally ask people, just so you know. So, I am not assuming this.

That depends on how you frame the question. Here is an article discussing poll results that 59% of Americans believe in Hell, presumably meaning a Hell that is not empty of people who are being punished for their sins. If you ask people, "Has anyone been bad enough that they deserve punishment in Hell?" most people will assent. If you ask those same people if they think that they have been bad enough to go to Hell, the results will be substantially less affirmative. We operate on a double standard; we want justice for others, but mercy for ourselves. This is partly because both of those are good impulses. There is such a thing as justice, i.e. punishment for sin. We know it, deep down. But we also long for mercy. God answered that desire by coming himself, incarnating as Jesus Christ, to take the punishment for sin upon himself. What an incredible act of love! If someone offers to rescue you, and you refuse, whose fault is that?

[whag]

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.

First you said they don't take a position on elect infants. Clearly they do.


What's the value of holding the belief that "elect" infants are saved ? It would seem to be a meaningless tautology, since election guarantees salvation.

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

That's precisely why I brought up unelect infants. If there are elect infants, then there are unelect ones. If they are unelect, what sins are they punished for?

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 don't think you have a personal stake in this, but you did introduce a problem with the reformed position. First, you incorrectly claimed they don't say whether elect and unelect infants exist. After I pointed out they do take a position, you said they don't specify the number of elect. Who said anything about the number?

Elect infants implies there are unelect babies. You see why this is curious?

[RBerman]

First you said they don't take a position on elect infants. Clearly they do. What's the value of holding the belief that "elect" infants are saved ? It would seem to be a meaningless tautology, since election guarantees salvation.

The fact that you're reading it as a tautology is a clue that you're reading it wrong; they wouldn't have bothered to say "red is red." An expanded version of the brief sentence would mean some thing like, "If infants can be elect, then they can be saved, like all other elect people." If I say, "unicorns are horselike creatures with a single horn," I'm describing what unicorns would be like, if they existed. You might have to read my other works to know if I think they exist, though. And if you read the other works of the men who crafted the Westminster Confession, you'll find a diversity of views. Some may have believed that all infants who die are elect and thus saved. Some believed that only the children of Christians, dying in infancy, were elect. Or any of a number of other possible variations on similar themes.

That's precisely why I brought up unelect infants. If there are elect infants, then there are unelect ones. If they are unelect, what sins are they punished for?

The sin of rebelling against God in their hearts.

Elect infants implies there are unelect babies.

Possibly, but not necessarily. The chosen wording was intended to leave either option open, though it leans toward affirming the premise by implication.

[NormATive]

Whag: ...If there are elect infants, then there are unelect ones. If they are unelect, what sins are they punished for?

The sin of rebelling against God in their hearts.

That's just creepy.

Are you familiar with Mr. Pennywise?

NORM

[NormATive]

The doctrine of Scripture takes a while to discuss in detail, but in brief, various books of the Bible treat other specific books as "Scripture" and/or the "Word of God." The Old Testament canon enjoyed broad consensus by Jesus' day, and with a few exceptions, the New Testament canon also enjoyed relatively rapid consolidation as to which books did and did not belong in it.

Old men picking books. This says "inspired" to you?

I agree that modern theocracies are not the solution. As I said, there won't be a great solution until Jesus comes back.

In the meantime, I think our civil society is pretty cool.

the words [of the Bible] should be treated as coming from the mouth of God; they are inerrant, infallible, and authoritative-- they must be followed, not judged or challenged. Are you willing to give the Talmud that sort of power in your life? If so, then yes, you do treat the Talmud as "inspired." If not, then not.

As I said, books are written by men and women and from their own perspective. I don't believe in "divine writing" (you can dance around this term all you like, but when you say things like "they are inerrant, infallible, and authoritative - they must be followed, not judged or challenged," I find that very frightening. On the old T-Web there was a lengthy thread that went deeply into this subject. Those who described the Bible in the terms you just used had no problem killing innocent babies should their scripture instruct them so.

59% of Americans believe in Hell, presumably meaning a Hell that is not empty of people who are being punished for their sins. If you ask people, "Has anyone been bad enough that they deserve punishment in Hell?" most people will assent. If you ask those same people if they think that they have been bad enough to go to Hell, the results will be substantially less affirmative. We operate on a double standard; we want justice for others, but mercy for ourselves. This is partly because both of those are good impulses. There is such a thing as justice, i.e. punishment for sin. We know it, deep down. But we also long for mercy. God answered that desire by coming himself, incarnating as Jesus Christ, to take the punishment for sin upon himself. What an incredible act of love! If someone offers to rescue you, and you refuse, whose fault is that?

I did not create a survey or a poll. I sat down individually, alone with each person and questioned them on their beliefs. When you hammer down to what they REALLY believe in their hearts, not too many people will admit that they think their deity will punish them for their sins.

When asked if there were any certain types of people who they believe could be sent to eternal punishment by a deity, nearly all at first said "murderers." When asked if that would include those who murdered for their government, the issue became a little cloudier.

So, what it tells me is that most people are very relativistic in their religious views. They are quick to back-peddle on dogma when the situation is not so clear cut. So, when I hear all these theories and doctrines being staunchly defended by religious proponents, I have to chuckle to myself a bit.

You guys are more like me than you would like to think!

NORM

[whag]

The fact that you're reading it as a tautology is a clue that you're reading it wrong; they wouldn't have bothered to say "red is red." An expanded version of the brief sentence would mean some thing like, "If infants can be elect, then they can be saved, like all other elect people." If I say, "unicorns are horselike creatures with a single horn," I'm describing what unicorns would be like, if they existed. You might have to read my other works to know if I think they exist, though. And if you read the other works of the men who crafted the Westminster Confession, you'll find a diversity of views. Some may have believed that all infants who die are elect and thus saved. Some believed that only the children of Christians, dying in infancy, were elect. Or any of a number of other possible variations on similar themes.

What would election sans salvation look like?

The sin of rebelling against God in their hearts.

I'm still not understanding how a baby rebels against God in her heart.

Possibly, but not necessarily. The chosen wording was intended to leave either option open, though it leans toward affirming the premise by implication.

To reiterate, what would election entail if not salvation?

[RBerman]

That's just creepy.

Are you familiar with Mr. Pennywise?

I am not. Are you familiar with ad hominem? "Creepy" is not an argument; it generally just marks an idea that is unsettling by virtue of being unfamiliar.

[whag]

I am not. Are you familiar with ad hominem? "Creepy" is not an argument; it generally just marks an idea that is unsettling by virtue of being unfamiliar.

Creepy isn't the best adjective to describe the punishment of babies for rebellion in their hearts. What adjective would you choose to describe it?

[RBerman]

Creepy isn't the best adjective to describe the punishment of babies for rebellion in their hearts. What adjective would you choose to describe it?

I've never felt the need to apply an adjective to it. How about "biblical"?

[whag]

I've never felt the need to apply an adjective to it. How about "biblical"?

The bible says babies will be punished for rebelling against God in their hearts?

[RBerman]

The bible says babies will be punished for rebelling against God in their hearts?

Not directly. The Bible says that people rebel against God, and it treats babies as people.

[whag]

Not directly. The Bible says that people rebel against God, and it treats babies as people.

I thought that's where you were going with this. Babies deserve eternal punishment because they, like all adults, rage against God in their hearts.

[RBerman]

I thought that's where you were going with this. Babies deserve eternal punishment because they, like all adults, rage against God in their hearts.

You were correct. You sound skeptical. On what biblical grounds?

[whag]

You were correct. You sound skeptical. On what biblical grounds?

I have no biblical grounds for my skepticism of the belief that God torments unelect babies. Have that discussion with Arminians, not skeptics.

I once saw Dee Dee said something to the effect of "we don't know if all babies go to heaven," but it was in a forum where I couldn't respond. I was hoping someone would later clarify if this was something Christians believed on biblical grounds. Thank you for clearing it up.