Post by Dr James Ach on Oct 13, 2014 14:08:26 GMT 3
My Twishort response to JD Hall's rebuttal to some video about Calvinism:
Some Infants Are Going To Hell-According to Calvinism. Is It True Or Is It Propaganda? #oldpaths #Calvinism
Phil Johnson began posting a video that got passed around which discussed Calvinism by 2 pastors, and immediately the Servetus Klans began circling the wagons. I personally listened to about the first 10 minutes of the message, and it was actually pretty accurate, even though Calvinists don't want to admit it. Folks like JD Hall found several things about their church to critique first before he even began an attempt to refute what they said. You have to understand that this has become a pillar of Calvinist polemics. Calvinists are becoming aware that with the growing revolt against Calvinism that there are just some things that the Reformers CAN NOT answer, and so what the Calvinist does is harpoon the audience with something considered offensive so that the listener will reject the content by default (this is a tactic used against us FREQUENTLY: "they are KJVO so it's not possible that they can be right about the Trinity, eternal security, virgin birth, salvation by grace through faith, etc..").
But something that these 2 pastors said in which JD Hall had NO answer for was the contention these pastors made that Calvinism believes that infants are made to burn in hell. Hall calls this "propaganda".
Now without even citing any argument these 2 pastors made for this other than just simply mentioning that they made the accusation, what did John Calvin himself say about the destiny of infants?
*************************
""We may rest assured that God would never have suffered any infants to be slain except those who were already damned and predestined for eternal death." - John Calvin, Harmony of the Law, Vol 2, "Judicial Supplements", Comments on Deut ch 13.
*************************
So if they were "ALREADY DAMNED", then how can someone ALREADY be damned-as an INFANT-without it being God's INTENTION that it be so? Does God do things He doesn't INTEND to do? (That is a question for the Calvinist, not for those who understand the fallacy of determinism) If salvation is merely based on election, then if God COULD HAVE saved the unelect and didn't, then it can't be chalked up to "passing over" them, but to God's intention and desire that it be so (And you will NEVER see a reasonable Calvinist explanation of Ezekiel 18:23 without witnessing the total annihilation of common sense and proper Biblical interpretation). Hall did not and CAN NOT answer this without condemning his own theology. So the next best defense is camouflage, subterfuge and obfuscation. I have HUNDREDS of saved quotes from Calvinist theologians that espouse to this well-known historical Calvinist position but if the Calvinists like Hall can be seen fuddling on just one piece of evidence that should be all you need to understand the character of Calvinists.
Hall argues that infants that are elected to hell because they "grow into adults". That's absurd because then it couldn't be considered INFANT damnation now could it? The subject was about elect INFANTS who as Calvin taught, go to hell IN THEIR INFANCY because they were so elected that way. However, Hall's logic still fails because if a person is not elect than it doesn't matter when he dies, he was elected to burn in hell whether he was 6 months old or 6000 months old. Hall's reasoning is to simply take the sting out of an offensive doctrine to help folks ignore its repugnancy if you just kick the can further down the road. In other words, it doesn't sound so offensive if you get rid of the infant equation EVEN THOUGH IT'S STILL THE SAME REDUCTION IF IT WERE AN ADULT.
The question isn't whether or not the concept of infant damnation is repulsive or not (and it is) but whether or not the claims that Reformed theology teaches this has historical support and we have shown that it does. Whether Hall thinks it's "propaganda" or not, HIS THEOLOGY TEACHES IT: IT IS THE ABSOLUTE HISTORICAL POSITION OF REFORMED THEOLOGY. So what CALVINists do is first, they assault your personality, character, and even tie color, then they assault your academia, and finally they attempt to make the listener believe that Calvinists have never taught this, and by the time they are finished, you forget they bypassed the historical proof that Calvinism has taught this for centuries, and therefore it is not propaganda to claim that Reformed Theology has a god that burns infants in hell for his pleasure and glory. Calvinists want their theology to be palpable to the masses because it's only recently made a resurgence, so they can't afford to be TOO honest about what their theology really teaches.
True, that Calvinists have a few Reformed theologians they can cherry pick from but the Calvinists would have you believe it's an "Arminian conspiracy" foisting something on Calvinism that they've never taught. Shedd, in a Defense of Westminster Standards, argued that it was only within that "last century" -writing in 1893-that Calvinists began vehement disagreement, but then if Calvinists themselves have proven to fight over it, why is it called "difference" among Calvinists, but "propaganda" when a Non Calvinist raises the issue?
One of the ugliest things about Calvinism are the attempts to refine and repackage it to make it sellable and credible. This is FOUNDATIONAL to Calvinism, and they don't get to slice and dice the parts of Calvin's theology that suits them and refine the offensive matters because it jeopardizes their credibility. Moderate Muslims are still Muslims even if they don't agree with cutting off the heads of 'infidels' (something in common with Calvin, by the way). Beheading of infidels was/is FOUNDATIONAL to the religion, and the so-called "radical" Muslims always go back to it because it is FOUNDATIONAL to their religion just as much as infant damnation is FOUNDATIONAL TO CALVINISM.
Some Infants Are Going To Hell-According to Calvinism. Is It True Or Is It Propaganda? #oldpaths #Calvinism
Phil Johnson began posting a video that got passed around which discussed Calvinism by 2 pastors, and immediately the Servetus Klans began circling the wagons. I personally listened to about the first 10 minutes of the message, and it was actually pretty accurate, even though Calvinists don't want to admit it. Folks like JD Hall found several things about their church to critique first before he even began an attempt to refute what they said. You have to understand that this has become a pillar of Calvinist polemics. Calvinists are becoming aware that with the growing revolt against Calvinism that there are just some things that the Reformers CAN NOT answer, and so what the Calvinist does is harpoon the audience with something considered offensive so that the listener will reject the content by default (this is a tactic used against us FREQUENTLY: "they are KJVO so it's not possible that they can be right about the Trinity, eternal security, virgin birth, salvation by grace through faith, etc..").
But something that these 2 pastors said in which JD Hall had NO answer for was the contention these pastors made that Calvinism believes that infants are made to burn in hell. Hall calls this "propaganda".
Now without even citing any argument these 2 pastors made for this other than just simply mentioning that they made the accusation, what did John Calvin himself say about the destiny of infants?
*************************
""We may rest assured that God would never have suffered any infants to be slain except those who were already damned and predestined for eternal death." - John Calvin, Harmony of the Law, Vol 2, "Judicial Supplements", Comments on Deut ch 13.
*************************
So if they were "ALREADY DAMNED", then how can someone ALREADY be damned-as an INFANT-without it being God's INTENTION that it be so? Does God do things He doesn't INTEND to do? (That is a question for the Calvinist, not for those who understand the fallacy of determinism) If salvation is merely based on election, then if God COULD HAVE saved the unelect and didn't, then it can't be chalked up to "passing over" them, but to God's intention and desire that it be so (And you will NEVER see a reasonable Calvinist explanation of Ezekiel 18:23 without witnessing the total annihilation of common sense and proper Biblical interpretation). Hall did not and CAN NOT answer this without condemning his own theology. So the next best defense is camouflage, subterfuge and obfuscation. I have HUNDREDS of saved quotes from Calvinist theologians that espouse to this well-known historical Calvinist position but if the Calvinists like Hall can be seen fuddling on just one piece of evidence that should be all you need to understand the character of Calvinists.
Hall argues that infants that are elected to hell because they "grow into adults". That's absurd because then it couldn't be considered INFANT damnation now could it? The subject was about elect INFANTS who as Calvin taught, go to hell IN THEIR INFANCY because they were so elected that way. However, Hall's logic still fails because if a person is not elect than it doesn't matter when he dies, he was elected to burn in hell whether he was 6 months old or 6000 months old. Hall's reasoning is to simply take the sting out of an offensive doctrine to help folks ignore its repugnancy if you just kick the can further down the road. In other words, it doesn't sound so offensive if you get rid of the infant equation EVEN THOUGH IT'S STILL THE SAME REDUCTION IF IT WERE AN ADULT.
The question isn't whether or not the concept of infant damnation is repulsive or not (and it is) but whether or not the claims that Reformed theology teaches this has historical support and we have shown that it does. Whether Hall thinks it's "propaganda" or not, HIS THEOLOGY TEACHES IT: IT IS THE ABSOLUTE HISTORICAL POSITION OF REFORMED THEOLOGY. So what CALVINists do is first, they assault your personality, character, and even tie color, then they assault your academia, and finally they attempt to make the listener believe that Calvinists have never taught this, and by the time they are finished, you forget they bypassed the historical proof that Calvinism has taught this for centuries, and therefore it is not propaganda to claim that Reformed Theology has a god that burns infants in hell for his pleasure and glory. Calvinists want their theology to be palpable to the masses because it's only recently made a resurgence, so they can't afford to be TOO honest about what their theology really teaches.
True, that Calvinists have a few Reformed theologians they can cherry pick from but the Calvinists would have you believe it's an "Arminian conspiracy" foisting something on Calvinism that they've never taught. Shedd, in a Defense of Westminster Standards, argued that it was only within that "last century" -writing in 1893-that Calvinists began vehement disagreement, but then if Calvinists themselves have proven to fight over it, why is it called "difference" among Calvinists, but "propaganda" when a Non Calvinist raises the issue?
One of the ugliest things about Calvinism are the attempts to refine and repackage it to make it sellable and credible. This is FOUNDATIONAL to Calvinism, and they don't get to slice and dice the parts of Calvin's theology that suits them and refine the offensive matters because it jeopardizes their credibility. Moderate Muslims are still Muslims even if they don't agree with cutting off the heads of 'infidels' (something in common with Calvin, by the way). Beheading of infidels was/is FOUNDATIONAL to the religion, and the so-called "radical" Muslims always go back to it because it is FOUNDATIONAL to their religion just as much as infant damnation is FOUNDATIONAL TO CALVINISM.