Is God angry with sin , and was sin the Sovereign plan of God ?

The sovereignty of God vs the responsibility of man is something no one will fully understand. I can't think of anyone in church history who was more evangelistic than Charles Spurgeon and yet he was a five point Calvinist. He even preached a series of sermons on the T.U.L.I.P. with one Sunday dedicated to each letter. And yet Spurgeon freely admitted he couldn't reconcile the sovereignty of God with the responsiblity of man. He just knew that both were true.
How do we reconcile these verses?

Romans 3:9-12
9What then? Are we Jews any better off? No, not at all. For we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin, 10as it is written: “None is righteous, no, not one;
11no one understands;
no one seeks for God.
12All have turned aside; together they have become worthless;
no one does good,
not even one.”

Ephesians 2:1-3 ESV​

And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience— among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind.

John 6:65 ESV /​

And he said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.”

John 6:65 ESV
And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord, and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed.

Acts 11:18 ESV
When they heard these things they fell silent. And they glorified God, saying, “Then to the Gentiles also God has granted repentance that leads to life.”

John 3:16 King James Bible
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Acts 17:30 King James Bible
And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:

To me the problem with non-Calvinists is they can't grasp the fact that we are a sinful race that deserves to go to hell. They see election in a negative light thinking God is unjust in allowing some to incur the just penalty of their sin - God's wrath. God does not make men sinful, but he leaves them in the sin they have chosen (Romans 9:22). If God did not choose to elect some then no one would be saved because there is no one that seeks after God! God receives glory in his wrath as well as his mercy.

Instead of arguing about it go out and spread the gospel as we are commanded and leave the results in God's hands.
 
Huk said:
As I stated before, I was raised in a non-Calvinist Baptist church. It was not until my late teens/early adulthood that I encountered Calvinists. Having studied the issue thoroughly enough, I’ve come to the conclusion that it’s simply not knowable one way or the other, but in my heart, I hope Calvinism is not true, because I’d hate to think that there are babies being born into the world without a chance of salvation because they were not elected.
Click to expand...
Jesus made it very clear in Matthew 19:14-15 that little children and infants make up the kingdom of heaven. It isn't an age of accountability God looks at but a condition of accountability. Those who because of age or mental deficiency are incapable of exercising faith in the atoning work of Christ aren't held accountable. Jonah 4:11 talks about little children who couldn't discern between their right hand from their left and this is the same group Jesus said made up the kingdom of heaven. Compare this with Jeremiah 19:4 where child sacrifices were practiced and they were called innocents. Revelation 20:12 is very clear that we are damned by our works. Little children don't have that record of works. Matthew 18:3 pictures faith as the simple, helpless, trusting dependence of those who have no resources of their own.

Charles Spurgeon was disgusted with those who taught God sent little chldren to hell and said he never met a Calvinist who taught that. Just because there are some hyper-Calvinists walking around that do doesn't make the doctrines of grace void. With all this being said, the primary damning sin is unbelief (John 3:18).
 
Ransom said:
That's because it's clay
Click to expand...
What does Paul mean when he uses the potter-clay analogy?

But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?'" Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use?
Click to expand...

He quotes Isaiah 29:16, in which God responds to the secret thoughts and deeds of the Israelites, who think no one knows what they are doing because it's done in the cover of darkness. They think the clay has better understanding than the potter (v. 15). But, God responds, they've got it upside-down.He is the potter, they are the clay. They are the ones lacking understanding; he moulds them as he desires.

Jeremiah uses the same analogy in chapter 18: "like the clay in the potter's hand, so are you in my hand, O house of Israel" (v. 6). He does with them as he pleases. If he wants to bless a nation, he will bless them. If he wants to destroy them, he will destroy them.

Paul's question is entirely rhetorical. Can the clay question the potter? Of course not! God has absolute power over the clay--over us. We have none. He tears down entire nations with a word. Can a mere human heart and will withstand that power?

Everyone reading Romans understood this. Which makes Leatherneck's assertion that the clay has some say in the matter, hilariously inept. On a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 is clay and 10 is God, man sits somewhere in the vicinity of 1.00000001. We're a lot closer to the clay than to the Potter. Leatherneck wouldn't get the point if he was impaled on it.
 
biscuit1953 said:
Instead of arguing about it go out and spread the gospel as we are commanded and leave the results in God's hands.
Click to expand...
Big AMEN to this.

The one benefit from my foray into "Calvinism" is realizing God is not obligated in any way to save a single soul. Period. As far as understanding how/why He has chosen to show mercy to some and chosen to allow others to continue in rebellion, I see no mandate in the Scriptures to understand. Just to go and be a witness.

Over the past couple days I've been reading through the Pauline Epistles and there are plenty of admonitions not to get caught up in arguing.
 
Last edited:
biscuit1953 said:
Jesus made it very clear in Matthew 19:14-15 that little children and infants make up the kingdom of heaven. It isn't an age of accountability God looks at but a condition of accountability. Those who because of age or mental deficiency are incapable of exercising faith in the atoning work of Christ aren't held accountable. Jonah 4:11 talks about little children who couldn't discern between their right hand from their left and this is the same group Jesus said made up the kingdom of heaven. Compare this with Jeremiah 19:4 where child sacrifices were practiced and they were called innocents. Revelation 20:12 is very clear that we are damned by our works. Little children don't have that record of works. Matthew 18:3 pictures faith as the simple, helpless, trusting dependence of those who have no resources of their own.

Charles Spurgeon was disgusted with those who taught God sent little chldren to hell and said he never met a Calvinist who taught that. Just because there are some hyper-Calvinists walking around that do doesn't make the doctrines of grace void. With all this being said, the primary damning sin is unbelief (John 3:18).
Click to expand...
You’re exactly right about this. I failed to take into consideration the Bible’s teachings about the age of accountability. This applies, regardless of Calvinism.
 
Ransom said:
That's because it's clay

🤣🤣🤣
Click to expand...
Huk said:
You’re exactly right about this. I failed to take into consideration the Bible’s teachings about the age of accountability. This applies, regardless of Calvinism.
Click to expand...
A quote from Charles Haddon Spurgeon:
Spurgeon recognized that both Arminians and Calvinists were correct in many of their understandings of Scripture, but their mistake was in choosing one set of truths over another, rather than accepting both regardless of their apparent contradiction. He attributed our lack of understanding to our finite and fallen minds, not to problems with God or Scripture. Spurgeon put it this way:

The Calvinist has said, and said right bravely, that salvation is of grace alone; and the Arminian has said, and said most truthfully, that damnation is of man’s will alone, and as the result of man’s sin, and of that only. Then they have fallen out with one another. The fact is, they had each one laid hold of a truth, and if they could have put their heads together, and accepted both truths, it might have been greatly for the advantage of the Church of Christ. These two doctrines are like tram lines that you can travel on with safety and comfort, these parallel lines—ruin, of man; restoration, of God: sin, of man’s will; salvation, of God’s will: reprobation, of man’s demerit; election, of God’s free and sovereign grace: the sinner lost in hell through himself alone, the saint lifted up to heaven wholly and alone by the power and grace of God. Get those two truths thoroughly engraven upon your heart, and you will then hold comprehensively the great truths of Scripture. You will not need to crowd them into one narrow system of theology, but you will have a sort of duplicate system. (Metropolitan Tabernacle https://www.epm.org/resources/2010/Mar/22/spurgeons-theology-embracing-biblical-paradox/ I believe both election and free will are valid and God’s plan.
Click to expand...
 
Following up on my earlier statement regarding the Bible’s age of accountability, and as I think about this more in depth, I think Biscuit1953’s statement about Calvinism would contradict this.

If a Calvinist does believe that a soul is predestined prior to birth, I see no logical exception for that magical moment a person is considered to have reached the age of accountability. Are you saying that God doesn’t know a soul’s ultimate destination during the first ten or eleven years of life?
 
Huk said:
Following up on my earlier statement regarding the Bible’s age of accountability, and as I think about this more in depth, I think Biscuit1953’s statement about Calvinism would contradict this.

If a Calvinist does believe that a soul is predestined prior to birth, I see no logical exception for that magical moment a person is considered to have reached the age of accountability. Are you saying that God doesn’t know a soul’s ultimate destination during the first ten or eleven years of life?
Click to expand...
The Bible teaches we will be judged by our works Rev 20:12. Little children and those who don't have the mental capacity to exercise saving faith in the atoning work of Christ on the cross aren't held accountable and are covered by grace. The difference between infants and little children and those who have never heard the gospel is every man and woman who has the law written in their hearts have willfully sinned against God because of the fact that we are sinners by nature. I confess very plainly that I don't fully know how to reconcile the sovereign grace of God with man's responsibility any more than Spurgeon did. Jesus didn't come into the world to condemn the world because we are already condemned. The Calvinists have it right in that our responsibility is to preach the gospel and leave the results in God's hands. I believe Jesus was very clear that infants and little children are covered under God's grace.
 
biscuit1953 said:
Jesus made it very clear in Matthew 19:14-15 that little children and infants make up the kingdom of heaven.
Click to expand...
The passage is very clear indeed, and it doesn't sound anything like you said. Not even close.

Jesus said, "Let the children come to me. Don't stop them! For the Kingdom of Heaven belongs to those who are like these children." NLT.

Mark's account adds this, "I tell you the truth, anyone who doesn't receive the Kingdom of God like a child will never enter it," Mark 10:15

So-called age of accountability, and the notion that all are somehow born saved, can not in any wise be gleaned by what Christ said about children here.
 
Ekklesian said:
Is faith a spiritual or a cognitive exercise?
Click to expand...
Unless God grants repentance no one will come to saving faith. Yet we are all responsible for our own sin. I can't explain it and don't wish to argue the point. Even babies are born sinners, else why do they die? Cf. Psa 51:5. Whether faith is spiritual or cognitive, Jesus tied little children in with the kingdom of God. I take Him at face value.

Romans
3 For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect?
3:7 For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto his glory; why yet am I also judged as a sinner?
3:19 Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.
 
biscuit1953 said:
Unless God grants repentance no one will come to saving faith. Yet we are all responsible for our own sin. I can't explain it and don't wish to argue the point.
Click to expand...
Of course, it would challenge your cherished notions.

biscuit1953 said:
Even babies are born sinners, else why do they die? Cf. Psa 51:5.
Click to expand...
If they die, they're accountable. But that's beside the point. You've asserted that children who haven't achieved a certain cognitive ability aren't able to exercise faith, and yet you also assert they enter into the fold. That is tantamount to asserting that there is a way into the fold other than through Door, and that is to die in infancy.

I am compelled by the Scriptures to deny that. There is only one way, and that is by grace through faith in Jesus Christ.

biscuit1953 said:
Jesus tied little children in with the kingdom of God.
Click to expand...
No He didn't. He tied those who are childlike in with the kingdom of God.

biscuit1953 said:
I take Him at face value.
Click to expand...
Alas, you do not, as I have shown, but I do.
 
Ekklesian said:
If they die, they're accountable. But that's beside the point. You've asserted that children who haven't achieved a certain cognitive ability aren't able to exercise faith, and yet you also assert they enter into the fold. That is tantamount to asserting that there is a way into the fold other than through Door, and that is to die in infancy.
Click to expand...
Do you hold to the Seminal or Federal view of imputation?

The Seminal view holds that all of mankind was present IN ADAM when Adam fell into sin resulting in man's culpability for Adam's sin as if he himself committed this very sin. This position renders a man guilty before God and dead in sin to the extent that EVERY infant including those who die due to miscarriage will end up in Hell. The only way around such a predicament is through infant baptism and the acceptance of baptismal regeneration. This is where the Roman Catholic Church adopted its position of infant baptism for the eradication of "Original Sin." Lutherans also hold to a Seminal view and their infant baptism is also regarded as "Salvific" although things start to get a little convoluted afterwards.

The Federal View is held by most reformed denominations who embrace "Covenant" theology. With the Federal view, Mankind enters into a covenantal relationship through Adam who is our "Federal Head." Adam breaks this covenant through his disobedience which breaks our covenant as well. Adam alone was culpable for HIS sin yet all of mankind suffers the CONSEQUENCES of Adam's sin, is dead in trespasses and sin, and cannot do anything else but sin. The Federal View therefore makes accommodation for the so-called "Age of Accountability."

RC Sproul makes his case using Romans 1:20 - For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse. We understand that EVERY MAN is given "General Revelation" according to this passage but at what point is one able to acknowledge these things which are "Clearly Seen" and what do we do with it. At what point does a man have the ability to comprehend such things which are "Clearly Seen" and at what point does God hold such a man accountable? What of one who is mentally incapacitated to the point where he will NEVER be able to comprehend such things?
Ekklesian said:
I am compelled by the Scriptures to deny that. There is only one way, and that is by grace through faith in Jesus Christ.
Click to expand...
The question is not whether or how an infant comes to faith in Christ and receives pardon for sin. It is universally understood by all that such is an absolute impossibility. The question is therefore whether an infant or pre-born human could be held accountable for things which are "Clearly Seen" if they have not yet seen nor have the ability to comprehend such things?

And how would you handle David's statement in 2 Sam12:23 - But now he is dead, wherefore should I fast? can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me. How could David make such a presumption?
 
Baptist Renegade said:
Do you hold to the Seminal or Federal view of imputation?

The Seminal view holds that all of mankind was present IN ADAM when Adam fell into sin resulting in man's culpability for Adam's sin as if he himself committed this very sin. This position renders a man guilty before God and dead in sin to the extent that EVERY infant including those who die due to miscarriage will end up in Hell. The only way around such a predicament is through infant baptism and the acceptance of baptismal regeneration. This is where the Roman Catholic Church adopted its position of infant baptism for the eradication of "Original Sin." Lutherans also hold to a Seminal view and their infant baptism is also regarded as "Salvific" although things start to get a little convoluted afterwards.

The Federal View is held by most reformed denominations who embrace "Covenant" theology. With the Federal view, Mankind enters into a covenantal relationship through Adam who is our "Federal Head." Adam breaks this covenant through his disobedience which breaks our covenant as well. Adam alone was culpable for HIS sin yet all of mankind suffers the CONSEQUENCES of Adam's sin, is dead in trespasses and sin, and cannot do anything else but sin. The Federal View therefore makes accommodation for the so-called "Age of Accountability."

RC Sproul makes his case using Romans 1:20 - For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse. We understand that EVERY MAN is given "General Revelation" according to this passage but at what point is one able to acknowledge these things which are "Clearly Seen" and what do we do with it. At what point does a man have the ability to comprehend such things which are "Clearly Seen" and at what point does God hold such a man accountable? What of one who is mentally incapacitated to the point where he will NEVER be able to comprehend such things?

The question is not whether or how an infant comes to faith in Christ and receives pardon for sin. It is universally understood by all that such is an absolute impossibility. The question is therefore whether an infant or pre-born human could be held accountable for things which are "Clearly Seen" if they have not yet seen nor have the ability to comprehend such things?

And how would you handle David's statement in 2 Sam12:23 - But now he is dead, wherefore should I fast? can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me. How could David make such a presumption?
Click to expand...
Are you telling me that there are sects of Christians who believe infants go to hell? Sheesh…I’d prefer the company of atheists than them.
 
in 1907 by R. A. Webb (a Presbyterian) wrote this. “If a dead infant were sent to hell on no other account than that of original sin, there would be a good reason to the divine mind for the judgment because sin is a reality. But the child’s mind would be a perfect blank as to the reason of its suffering. Under such circumstances, it would know suffering but it would have no understanding of the reason for its suffering. It could not tell itself why it was so awfully smitten; and, consequently, the whole meaning and significance of its sufferings being to it a conscious enigma, the very essence of the penalty would be absent and justice would be disappointed, cheated of its validation.” Written in 1907 by R. A. Webb ((1856-1919, a Presbyterian).

When men and women who have never had the chance to hear the gospel stand before God, they will not have the excuse that “I never heard the name of Jesus.” They will accuse God of being unjust (Romans 3:4). However God put his law in their hearts and also gave them a conscience knowing right from wrong.

Romans 2:14-16

14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:

15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and [their] thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another

16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.

They will go to hell for lying, stealing, adultery, idolatry, etc. They will be judged according to their works (Rev 20:11-15). Infants and little children have no history of works to condemn them. Hyper-Calvinists talk about principles. One principle is “the son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.”

To deny that God has the ability to show grace to those who have never broken His law and have never even had a knowledge of sin is ludicrous. God has already shown his grace to countless undeserving sinners by granting them repentance unto life. No scripture talks about little children and infants burning in hell. They have done nothing to repent of.
 
Last edited:
Huk said:
Are you telling me that there are sects of Christians who believe infants go to hell? Sheesh…I’d prefer the company of atheists than them.
Click to expand...
The question is, are we going to maintain that infants aren't guilty of Adam's sin? That would be Pelagianism. (And why would so many Christians baptize them? Disagree with paedobaptism all you want, but the practice didn't come out of thin air and is rigourously debated on theological grounds.)

There is no "age of accountability" before which a person is not culpable for their sins: "The wicked are estranged from the womb; they go astray from birth, speaking lies" (Psa. 58:3). And even if a person was theoretically sinless from birth, if he died in that state he would still be guilty of original sin. Being born into the right family does not save them; "the soul who sins shall die" (Ezek. 18:4)

While a fairly good indirect case can be made for infant salvation, ultimately we can't know the fate of a baby who dies with any certainty. There's a reason some of the confessions and catechisms address the salvation of "elect children," but remain agnostic as to which children are the elect. (See, for example, the Westminster Confession of Faith 10.3, or the London Baptist Confession of Faith, also 10.3.)

The more fundamental question is whether we will trust that God will deal with them justly.
 
Last edited:
Ransom said:
The question is, are we going to maintain that infants aren't guilty of Adam's sin?
Click to expand...
I don’t disagree that babies are born sinful. I don’t believe in the tabula rasa idea.
Ransom said:
And why would so many Christians baptize them? Disagree with paedobaptism all you want, but the practice didn't come out of thin air and is rigourously debated on theological grounds.)
Click to expand...
My understanding is that the practice of infant baptism is symbolic, equivalent to the Baptist practice of “baby dedication” in front of a congregation. I think it’s pretty universally held among Christians that baptism doesn’t save, but perhaps I’m incorrect in this assumption.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top