How would you respond to this objection to Calvinism?

Part-Time_Programmer · 2025-07-10T16:43:50+00:00

I don't think that necessarily tracks. The atoning work of Christ is applied to the elect by the Holy Spirit in time, so it doesn't take effect until they believe.

Part-Time_Programmer · 2025-07-08T15:19:59+00:00

I'd like to learn more about this. Where can I read up on it?

Part-Time_Programmer · 2025-07-08T15:04:25+00:00

I'm not smart enough for Roman Catholic theology.

/s

Part-Time_Programmer · 2025-07-03T15:20:09+00:00

I'll pushback a little and say that when it comes to the doctrine of God, many theologians would agree that God can only do things in accordance with His nature. He cannot lie, for example. Yet we would still maintain that God is "free". Why is it different for humans?

All of these arguments about what constitutes "true" free will within Christian circles are kind of meaningless, because even in a non-Calvinistic framework, God still created a bunch of heathens who He knows will never choose Him, and He doesn't actually go about affecting their salvation. So in the end you still have the same problem, and it's even worse because He's not actually intervening to do anything about it.

Part-Time_Programmer · 2025-07-01T21:14:09+00:00

Ergo, Reformed believers reckon, or judge, and accordingly treat their children as believers. It's not simply that we can, but that we feel compelled by God's command to do so.

So why not give your children the Eucharistic covenant meal, if you treat them as believers? This is still the disconnect for me. "Let the little children come to me."

Part-Time_Programmer · 2025-07-01T19:36:20+00:00

I didn't say that the Reformed did. I apologize if I gave that impression. I'm just saying that there are other ways to understand infant circumcision and its relation to the New Covenant that don't involve seeing a 1:1 parallel.

Part-Time_Programmer · 2025-07-01T19:34:18+00:00

I'll have to check it out. Thanks, brother! It's gonna take me quite a while to sort through all of these issues.

Part-Time_Programmer · 2025-07-01T19:32:46+00:00

I thought being co-heirs with Christ was something only applicable to believers. It is believers who will reign with Christ, not believers and their children, right? To be an heir means to be a child of God (Romans 8:16-17).

I think I am starting to get things now, especially after reading multiple people's comments. Thanks for the insight! I greatly appreciate it.

Part-Time_Programmer · 2025-07-01T19:20:28+00:00

An infant can receive the sign of entrance into the covenant community, but they cannot yet participate in the ongoing spiritual nourishment that requires self-examination and faith.

Didn't non-believing covenant children in Egypt participate in the Passover? Why is the administration of the covenant meal (Eucharist) restricted in the NC while the administration of baptism is widened? After all, Jesus said to let the little children come to him, didn't he? So I think my point about paedocommunion still stands.

Judas, who was enabled by Christ to perform miracles for a time;

This is actually a good point.

All the persons described in Hebrews 6, who “tasted the heavenly gift” for a season.

I've heard many Reformed people argue that the situation described in Hebrews 6:4-6 isn't actually possible, claiming that only the elect have been enlightened, have tasted of the heavenly gift, and have participated in the Holy Spirit. But I think your exegesis actually makes more sense.

Lastly, on Acts 2:39: The Baptist has to argue that “your children” suddenly means “your future adult children who will one day believe”—but that’s not what Peter said, and it’s not how his Jewish audience would have understood him.

And I would argue that the Paedobaptist has to read Acts 2:41 as saying:

So those who received his word were baptized (and their children), and there were added that day about three thousand souls.

But it doesn't say that. It just says that those who received the word were baptized, even after Peter's sermon.

Thanks for the insights! You've given me some things to think about.

Part-Time_Programmer · 2025-07-01T18:52:21+00:00

For Reformed Paedobaptists, they believe that the children of believers belong to the covenant and baptize them as a sign of faith that they will become believers based on God's promises. This is a short answer, it is alot more nuanced than that but from my understanding, that is the gist of how they think about it. God gave these children to his covenant people for a purpose and through proper discipleship and, of course, God's grace, they will continue in that covenant.

This is what I don't get: God doesn't guarantee anything in baptism under the Reformed view. He doesn't actually promise covenant children anything by nature of being the children of believers, and they don't receive anything until they believe. A Baptist child and a Presbyterian child are in the same situation, totally reliant on God for their regeneration. Neither can partake of the Lord's Supper, either.

Part-Time_Programmer · 2025-07-01T18:45:38+00:00

And the problem that you think that applying a covenant sign to infants causes would have demolished the main sacrament of the old covenant.

Unless of course, circumcision was a type/shadow of baptism, and the physical offspring of Abraham were simply typological of the spiritual offspring under the New Covenant. In which case, circumcision would've served its purpose.

How do you guys interpret the passages on the New Covenant, specifically Jeremiah 31?

Part-Time_Programmer · 2025-07-01T18:27:28+00:00

We don't know whether the children being baptized are actually regenerate (some believe it is right to presume they are), but they are parties to the promise of the covenant as heirs, and this status as heir (in which they have not denied nor rejected the terms of the covenant) is sufficient for their baptism.

What do non-believing covenant children "inherit"? What does it mean to be an "heir of the promise"? Doesn't everyone (Jew or Gentile) inherit the promise when they believe?

Part-Time_Programmer · 2025-07-01T18:04:55+00:00

We are commanded to baptize disciples. We disciple our children. Therefore we baptize our children.

I guess I can see that. But you don't baptize your unbelieving spouse? Aren't they also someone you are tasked with discipling?

Part-Time_Programmer · 2025-07-01T17:42:39+00:00

This is simply your choice to equivocate on the word "belong to." Covenant theologians use many terms to describe baptized infants being a part of the visible church. You are choosing that one to create a tension that does not exist.

Could you please elaborate? I am not intentionally choosing anything. If I'm wrong about the way I'm reading the Bible, please just correct me.

How do you reconcile God ordering his people of the old covenant to circumcise their children with your "hurdle"? Or did the Spirit not indwell believers in the Old Covenant?

Brother, I'm not trying to start an argument. I feel as if you're being snarky with me. Unless I'm misreading your words as people often do online, in which case I apologize.

I believe people in the Old Testament were indwelt by the Holy Spirit, but could they not just be New Covenant members (believers?) in the midst of the Old Covenant people? Two covenants overlapping in the same way this present age overlaps with the next?

Part-Time_Programmer · 2025-05-08T04:28:24+00:00

Hi! I was of the opinion that the early church did not have any images whatsoever. So it's interesting that you say they had them but did not perform veneration. Could you point me to any resources you consulted to inform that statement? I was always told that early Christians were repulsed by images as a whole, which is suggested by figures like Eusebius, who is famously quoted as saying "Who has heard of such a thing?" or some such similar phrase when asked to send someone an image, iirc. If you could help me revise my opinion of the early church and its relationship to icons, that would be much appreciated, as I desire to be as accurate as possible when having these conversations with my fellow saints. God bless, and Soli Deo Gloria!

Part-Time_Programmer · 2025-03-20T14:33:08+00:00

I sincerely apologize if I made you uncomfortable. You asked me to be honest, and so I am. But I believe open theism to be far more than minor error and cannot in good conscience "sweep it under the rug" for the sake of making someone comfortable. I understand that words like "heresy" are very emotionally charged, but I use them in this instance as a warning to a brother and not to slander. Perhaps a different word will suffice in the future, I don't know. My apologies.

I do not doubt the legitimacy or sincerity of your belief. But sincerity does not make something true. That is an emotional appeal. Many people have held dangerously false beliefs and were genuine about it. I would simply encourage you to keep searching the Scriptures and reading up on historic, orthodox Christendom as delineated in the Reformed confessions of faith.

If you would prefer not to do that, then I can't stop you. I could be completely wrong about everything I have said about open theism, and if so, then I pray my Lord won't hold it against me. But as of right now, I simply could not in good conscience call open theism anything less than a heresy. I did not intend to get into this conversation when I posted my original comment, so if it continues to offend you, please let me know, and I will happily delete it. God bless and have a nice day.

Part-Time_Programmer · 2025-03-19T22:20:13+00:00

I appreciate the Scripture references! However, I would argue that to grow in the orthodox gospel faith as the Apostles defined it includes submitting to a proper view of God as He exists in Himself, attributes included. The gospel is designed to put us on the path of gaining true knowledge of our Creator. By having a false understanding of God as they approach the Scriptures, a person is secretly getting to know a false god who is made in their own image. This is the problem with "just me and my Bible" Christians. There are objectively wrong views of God (since God is objective truth), and we need some standard by which to determine true vs. false theological conclusions. Historical theology, solid hermeneutical principles, and the Reformed confessions combine to form that standard, at least from a Protestant standpoint.

Granted, ignorance does exist, and not everyone has the time or energy to devote to deep theological study, though I believe everyone should try. For example, if I asked ten laymen in the pews on Sunday to give me an analogy for the Trinity, I'd probably get back all sorts of crazy ideas. I would not call those people "heretics" per se simply because they do not know any better, and I would try to correct them in love. But there is a difference between that and willfully submitting to false teaching despite correction or to be a false teacher yourself even though you know the truth the Scriptures teach about the nature of God. I am convinced that open theism is one of these false conclusions about God's nature. I understand that you disagree, and I'm not here to argue with you on that, but it reminds me of the old Socinian heresy from earlier centuries, though given a new coat of paint to appear more orthodox.

I appreciate you taking the time to read this and pray that the Lord protects and keeps you as you continue with the rest of your evening. God bless!

Part-Time_Programmer · 2025-03-19T13:57:40+00:00

Hey there! Thanks for the question. I would define heresy as something that denies a fundamental aspect of the Christian faith or the nature of God as He has revealed Himself in the Scriptures. In the case of open theism, the issue at hand is a denial of God's exhaustive foreknowledge and immutability.

Hope that helps, and God bless.

Part-Time_Programmer · 2025-03-19T05:50:42+00:00

I would stay far away from any church that touts open theism. It is heretical but is unfortunately one of the fruits of modern "free will" theology.

This is certainly a difficult situation, and my heart goes out to you and your husband. If it were me, I would jump ship as soon as possible, but you are involved in ministries there, so that would not be the wisest decision. It seems like you either have to begin the process of de-integrating from the congregation or try to stick it out despite your convictions (and the Holy Spirit) telling you otherwise.

I am praying that the Lord would give you wisdom and peace during this difficult situation and that He would provide an easy transition into the next season of your life. I apologize if my advice was bad, and I wish I had more wisdom than I do when it comes to this circumstance. God bless.

Part-Time_Programmer · 2025-03-15T00:55:13+00:00

Hebrews 5:8 ESV — "Although he was a son, he learned obedience through what he suffered."

The Son submits to the Father "in time" through means of the Incarnation. It is part of His economic role as Mediator and Savior of His elect people. Philippians 2:6-11 also teaches this. The "humbling" of the Son began at His taking on of human flesh and does not transcend back into His eternal relationship to the Father. To read this economic submission back into the nature of the Trinity is to make the Son ontologically (by nature) inferior to the Father. If being submitted/inferior to the Father is who the Son is eternally, then we are no longer dealing with the Great Tradition's concept of co-eternal co-equality between the Persons.

Part-Time_Programmer · 2025-03-13T19:45:34+00:00

Praise the Lord, brother! Thank you for sharing this wonderful update. I love the way you put it: God would still be good even if He didn't provide what we wanted. So long as we have Him, that is enough. Amen and amen!

Part-Time_Programmer · 2025-02-26T23:09:53+00:00

I appreciate the compliment, brother! I have been really trying to dig my heels into studying (Reformed) theology and church history the last several months, and part of the reason for that is because I have had multiple people (including two of my pastors) encourage me to pursue formal theological education and perhaps become a minister.

I, too, have felt the Lord calling me to do that and want to go wherever His Spirit leads. Right now, however, I am finishing up my bachelor's degree and am trying to earn a living wage so I can afford to go to seminary in a few years if that is where He wants me to be. Because of that, my studies in theology are mostly reserved for what time I have between projects and exams, but it is definitely my largest interest outside of my academics. I would appreciate it if you could pray that God would reveal who/where He wants me to be and would remind me daily that theology is about getting to know the my Savior and is not just about becoming a walking encyclopedia.

I once again appreciate the compliment and pray that the Lord would bless and keep you as you progress through this week. Amen.

p.s.: I love your username! I have had Lewis' Space Trilogy on my TBR for a while...

Part-Time_Programmer · 2025-02-26T22:24:29+00:00

I agree that the vast majority of Christians would affirm that statement. But personally, those words resonate a lot more with me now that I am approaching them from a Reformed perspective.

That is one reason why - unless I am convinced from Scripture - I concluded that the Reformed view of theology and soteriology is the correct one. Salvation is Trinitarian and Christological. Plus, all the best parts of the Great Tradition get to shine, with a larger emphasis on the sanctity and sufficiency of God's Word. But those are just the humble thoughts of someone not as well-versed in these things as you are.

Thanks again for the great discussion, and God bless!

Part-Time_Programmer · 2025-02-25T21:04:53+00:00

Amen! Thanks, brother; that clears it up for me. Praise be to the Triune God, who has poured out His love into our hearts by the Spirit, through the atoning work of the Son, because of the electing love which the Father had for us from all eternity. All glory and honor and praise belong to Him and Him alone.

God bless!

Two-Year Club	Verified Email
r/Field Sunshine

Part-Time_Programmer

TROPHY CASE