I have listened to McGrew's words against Dr. White. I have also read the above misrepresentations of what Dr. White really said. In the end, the summary of this sheet and the previous video is that GOD is not Sovereign to do any thing He wants with any of us who He has made.
Yes, I am a 6 point Calvinist
There is no six point Calvinist, just as there is no six star general—even if it did exist it would only be a figurehead position since it overlaps with the roles and responsibilities and duties of other offices.
This is why there's no six star general, it's not that there's no six star general office—it's that the office itself cannot be occupied at the same time as a number of other offices which are constantly occupied. Those powers overlap and conflict, and so it's just ofc way easier to hold the office vacant instead of appoint or elect a man to sit in that seat.
And, your mentioning Jacob and Esau above—Romans 9 was obv in the context of Paul explaining why or how even though the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob generated Christ according to the flesh, and that they were specially chosen in that way, in this case, qua Jesus coming into the World as an Israelite, and a Judahite, more specifically, makes Judah Esau, and Jacob was the Gentiles, and God chose Judah, and particularly, Mary, that time, "By the Holy Spirit," "incarnate of the Virgin Mary".
But, Christ and the Gospel were not received by Judah and the rest of the Israelites, and Paul bemoans and explains this, offering us up Jacob and Esau as what's called a type. It's when there's a prophecy embedded in the pattern of an event in antiquity, and it turns out to have been a prophetic parable almost, not explicitly, but that's what Paul's doing rn in Romans 9, as he bemoans the fate of the Israelites, all of whom—except for a remnant—reject Christ. That's the fulfillment of the type which occurred when God chose Jacob, the younger, over Esau, the firstborn.
That just doesn't have anything at all to do with individual predestination. It's more about explaining an irony. It's not an irony that we should "see" going on rn (except for the CONTINUED rejection by the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob TODAY) in the private, personal, individual lives of us Roman Catholics who believe Bergolio is in fact the Pope rn—that has NOTHING to do with our lives, as Roman Catholics who believe Bergolio is in fact the successor of Peter. Because there is no IRONY, in my life—in our lives. Paul's explaining IRONY. Where is your irony? This type has been fulfilled, one-and-done.
We believe in Jesus and the Gospel or we don't. Jacob and Esau don't enter into it. If we don't believe, it's not because we were Esau in the womb, otherwise we'd be evil. If we're not obv evil, then we must be elect, under your reading of Romans 9 (because, see below, about how the reprobate would reveal themselves to be evil when they are little children).
and believe in the doctrines of Election. Yes, God has the right to elect or non-elect whom He choses including babies...This is what Dr. White has said and only this....yet three hours of lecture is given against him for saying that GOD purposely kills (un-elects) babies in the womb much like those of Baal did.
Abortion is a tragedy but did you know about five sixths of them are procured by unmarried women?
I for one also believe that in GOD's Word (the Bible) teaches that for anyone to get to heaven, their hearts must be as little children, loving without conditions. because of these many verses, I believe that the baby or young child who happens to die at these tender years would be on the elect side of the equation. Yet there are children, whose hearts are so dark and black. Does He elect these or not....I do not Know for only He knows.....
Under this reading—there are so few legitimately terrible children, that almost everybody must therefore be elect, no? Because if little children (recall "Suffer little children to come unto Me") radiate the disposition of their soul accurately, and only vanishingly few radiate true evil, then therefore, mustn't we conclude that near all of us must be saved (or will be—see below, about being regenerated by the Holy Spirit irresistibly)?
Do you understand what I mean? I mean that, if one is reprobate from conception, from the womb, then that's going to show itself in little children. Any little children who display evil must therefore be reprobate—and also therefore, any little children who do not display evil, must therefore be favored, if not already saved—regenerated irresistibly by the Holy Spirit of promise.
John the Baptist was filled with the Holy Spirit in the womb.
One point that comes out of this and I have said it many times. Everyone and I mean everyone must make the decision (their free will) on whether GOD is totally sovereign or NOT! A simple Yes or NO...there is no in between. Those who say He is sovereign, can say the Words in the Bible (all of them) are What GOD HATH SAID!. Those who do not believe He is sovereign cannot say "Yeah, Hath God Said" but rather 'I have said after determining what God's or man's word means."
So now tell me. If we merely posit the above, about how surely, at least five sixths of us are elect at our conception, if not far more, then are you of the opinion that hundreds of thousands of babies being put to death, five sixths of them by unmarried women, every few months in this country, is something we should chalk up to God's sovereignty? Or should we actually kind of prioritize this as doing the Lord's work, stamping out at least the promiscuous culture, if not legal abortion itself? How did God, being sovereign, permit such a state of affairs to obtain, and for so LONG? He is sovereign—so ... He's ... involved in this—according to you, right?
"You meant it for evil but God meant it for good", right?
I will not disparage anyone for believing in their theology. I will simply disagree and hope they treat me with the same respect and not like that of McGrews Words against someone who follows the Word of GOD as it is taught in that little black book called the Holy Bible.
The truth is nuanced, that's all we can say. And it's not just the truth in words and propositions—creeds—it's ontological, metaphysical, the difference between law and virtue. It's just nuanced, but it can be said briefly, if the truth is ontic and exists. Such as, as a counter example, there's no surefire way to win in tic tac toe if you're going second, the first mover advantage in tic tac toe is insurmountable, and so there is no true way to win if you go second in tic tac toe. But if the truth in any field does ontologically exist, even if we don't know what it is yet, it can nonetheless be briefly stated, as an ontological property. The truth, if it exists, is amenable to brief summary.
Have a great day to all. and Happy New YEAR!
Under your idea that at least five sixths of us easy are elect at our conception, then infant baptism ofc makes tons of sense and is unsurprising. It would be sort of, kind of surprising to baptize infants if only one sixth of us are elect at conception though. Under your theology of election, it would seem, if only closer to one sixth of us are elect at conception (and therefore, elect simpliciter, because there's no way to change the status of elect or reprobate from conception, it is an everlasting mark or brand on our soul, according to your view or reading of Romans 9), then baptizing infants wouldn't make much sense unless you're very [optimistic], which means you probably side with me in saying that any truly reprobated person is going to act like it very early on, before they know their left from their right, when they are still little children (Suffer little children to come unto Me").
Anyway I think we could ram through a law which gravely obligates abortionists to baptize the baby before he destroys the baby in the womb. As for it being prejudicial against all other religions, I'd just say that not even Judaism has anything similar, since you've got to be eight days old by law before you can be circumcised, so that's not applicable before an abortionist destroys the tissue of a baby, without even inconveniencing the tissue of the woman (five sixths of them being unmarried women). But baptism of the baby is possible, and easily so, for an abortionist, who's able to target and destroy just the tissue of the baby, and none of the tissue of the women procuring the abortion (five sixths of them aren't married). They can easily baptize that baby, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, amen. He (or she—or neither he nor she) just must be legally compelled to utter, "I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, amen," while washing or rinsing the baby with fresh water. That's not a tall order at all, and won't take but a minute, so it's not going to pose any sort of inconvenience for the abortionist, or for the woman procuring the abortion (five sixths of them aren't married).
Call it, Prohibition's Revenge, this law making it a felony for an abortist to fail to baptize a baby he destroys according to the rubric. It will have harsh sentences. We may not be able to stop unmarried women from being promiscuous, and we may not be able to stop legal abortion being available, but we can force you as the abortionist, to baptize that baby before you destroy it.
Prohibition was WAY more of an inconvenience to men, than this law will be to women (five sixths of them aren't married). So it's a very very gentle vengance, a slap on the wrist. It won't be difficult, and honestly, once this law is in place, we're just going to let that "heat dot" do its work. It's out of our hands after that. Do what you will, you women procuring abortions (five sixths of them are SINGLE), and you abortionist "doctors"—but you better baptize [those precious little angels first].
