John UK wrote:
Well I would debate it with you HYH...but...
#1 I'm pushed for time
#2 I'm in agreement with what you say

#1. My post was addressed to Hailsham.
#2. I had read your earlier posts and knew that you did not agree with Hailsham.

Hailsham wrote:
HYH and Guinness choose another path. They therefore imply by their posts that the children of the Elect are going to hell. They have even further implied that the spouse also goes to hell? Some covenant they have!!
THIS is UNScriptural.
Isaiah 44:1-8, 61:9, 65:23. A Promise of GOD! Amen!

Your imagined covenant which makes the children and the spouse "elect" is just that viz. pure fiction and runs counter to all that we read of Salvation in the NT.

Guinness wrote:
HYH,
Let's deal with that if he begins to engage with his own fallacious argument.
I don't think it will ever happen ....
On a side note may I urge you to draw greater distinction between the actual Canons of Dordt and any ignorant reinterpretation, reconstruction and reinvention of them. It would be akin to judging the theology of the 39 Articles by J H Newman's fanciful and ludicrous Tract 90.

Guinness wrote:
Well, now you've reverted back to your previous postings how about you actually interact with the logical fallacy.
A believer's children and unbelieving spouse have the SAME standing in the source proof text - i.e. in this case holy/sanctified.
So what you argue for children, you have to argue for unbelieving spouses.
By your reasoning therefore from the same text YOU also "have no reason to doubt of the election and salvation of" unbelieving spouses.
If you were consistent you would "judge of the will of God from his Word" for the election of all unbelieving spouses as well as all children.
It seems Hailsham is all knotted up with Marlow Ropes!

Hailsham wrote:
But the promise and election are Biblical and factual.

Mike wrote:
I am more comforted in trusting God's character, John. And I might agree in part with what you said about him not being under any obligation to save a single soul, but for this: He is under obligation to his own character, which is just, loving, and incapable of error. In the creation of humans, we have to either say he made a mistake, or he didn't. God doesn't make mistakes, therefore he must for that reason alone save some. He is not under obligation to us, but he is to himself. There is no scenario possible where he would choose not to save a single soul.

Candle Lit wrote:
Oh, it could be that liars really upset me.

Candle Lit wrote:
That is NOT meaning behind what I said. You took that out of context. Perhaps the reason that you miss the meaning is because English is NOT your first language.

That derogatory comment reveals a jealous heart, insecure and immature.
English is my first language, and I am American. I know that when English is someone's second language, nuances, idioms, and even humour, do not translate easily, if at all. Text alone does not convey perfect meaning, and it must be particularly difficult for foreigners.
Perhaps that was our problem. You just never understood the meaning behind the words.
I have good friends from other countries, and although they are brilliant, they often have this problem with English. OTOH, their writing skills are impeccable, which may be your pursuit on these boards.

Mike wrote:
So the children of Godly parents are elect if they die young. What if they don't die young? Is there an death-age at which they might not be elect anymore? Or are the children of Godly parents automatically elect?

_____________________________________

Candle Lit

Candle Lit wrote:
Jesus said to the Pharisees "You white-washed sepulchres, full of dead men's bones."
Are you a Pharisee? Do you love the letter of the Law, but deny the Lord Jesus Christ with your life? Are you filled with the Spirit of God?
Or, do you love yourself? Your words say that you love yourself, and you have something to gain by being religious.
When we are filled with the Spirit, there is a love for others, especially those who are in Christ. And, there is the witness of the Spirit with that of the other that they too are in Christ.

And since you will not even engage with the Scriptures, you obviously do not have a love of the Bible! Are you a Pharisee, only pretending to love God's word?

_________________________________

Adokimos

It was never about winning the argument, but I know what you mean. CL is not one for engaging with the Bible. She likes to be spoon fed and then trots out all the stock answers without knowing how or why they may be right or wrong.

Candle Lit wrote:
I was going to respond in kind, but, you know what? I can't. I would feel realllly bad, to know that I would respond as an unbeliever would.
My suggestion to you: read John/UK's posts. Repent and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and be saved.
Read DJC49's post for good doctrinal teaching.
Read the Gospels over and over until you know the person of Jesus Christ as YOUR Saviour.
You need the work of the Saviour to change your proud heart.

I am the one trying to engage you with the Bible and you ask me whether I love God's word. That's real smart and smug!

____________________

Hailsham

Candle Lit wrote:
You re-state what I had pointed out to Mike/NY as SINS of omission and commission, as though you are having an epiphany!!!!

Candle Lit wrote:
There is no meeting of minds between us..I think we live in different worlds.

Candle Lit wrote:
P.S. I'm not interested in WINNING an argument. Only TRUTH!

Are you up to the challenge? If so, start by giving one single verse that clearly teaches that God will send to hell someone who is born with a sin nature but never had the opportunity to commit actual sin because they died in infancy.

If you really are interested in the truth, engage with the Scriptures as I am encouraging you to do, rather than attempting to take the moral high ground. Your "understand what sin is" statement could be turned upon you, because you are confusing a sin nature with actual sins. And BTW sins of omission and commission still relate to the law and are indeed a breach of the law!

Mike NY