« On Calvinism and Infant Salvation: A Brief Proposal by Peter Lumpkins | Main | Reading Minds the Future of Fighting Crime? by Peter Lumpkins »



Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Ron Hale

The phrase "the patience of Job" ... has been changed to "the patience of Peter Lumpkins" :)


LOL -- I notice you have said a couple of times: "for my own purposes". "Me" centered Job? What about "for God's purposes"? What about honoring Him and glorifying Him in all that we say and do?

Peter, I was going to make a comment that there is a denomination called Free Will Baptist which as I understand it is truly Arminian -- i.e., they believe a person can lose their salvation.

Calling a non-calvinist or a non-5 pointer an Arminian is simply a put down and basically a strawman argument. Many times, we are also called at least a semi-pelagian if not an outright pelagian.

The thing is the same issue applies to BOTH calvinism and arminianism. If you are NOT a 5 pointer in either system, then you are NOT a calvinist OR an arminian. So, where does it leave many of us who are like that? I, too, call myself a Biblicist.

In other words, simple name calling is not glorifying to the Lord.

Stephen M. Garrett

Dear Peter:

You said:

"I may be mistaken, but I think Dr. Yarnell was much more interested in Romans 5, where, he argued, Augustine pulled an exegetical rabbit out of a hat. Yet when he inquired concerning the passage, it's tuck tails and run for cover time."

You are certainly mistaken! Dr. Yarnell never made an argument on this passage, but simply made an assertion! I asked him to make his argument, not his assertion, but he is the one who "tucked his tail" and ran.

I also challenged you and him to debate this, but you all tucked your tails in and ran.

Get it right, brother.



peter lumpkins


A) To the contrary, Stephen, Dr. Yarnell asked *you* for *your* interpretation of Rom. 5:12. I challenge anyone on this thread to look at your response and glean *your* interpretation of this verse, Stephen. Instead, you simply came back asking questions of Dr. Yarnell.

B) Debate you? Ran for cover? I'm unsure what you mean by either I or Dr. Yarnell "running for cover." The last I heard, my brother, was you telling me you were leaving the discussion and that I had the last word, a fair gesture, since I wrote the OP mind you, but obviously an empty gesture since you are now back.

C) I can see why someone would want to debate me, Stephen. I come across at times as not having too many head-smarts being from West Georgia and all. But brother, get real and get over yourself: to challenge Dr. Yarnell to "debate me" comes across profoundly arrogant in my view, not to mention entirely premature. For heaven's sake, man, you had a *single comment* exchange with Dr. Yarnell!

Now, Stephen, my welcome to you remains. Usually, your contributions here have been sound, reasonable, and courteous. But if you're *not* satisfied with this medium, I suggest you not show up here, only to log a comment or two, but then, when challenged, actually drop out, all the while ridiculously yelling, "Debate me! Debate me! Formally debate me!"

Grace, brother.
With that, I am...

peter lumpkins


A) Think as you wish
B) I asked you *not* to bring this back up, a simple request from my vantage point
C) Now I'm telling you *not* to bring this back up, a simple requirement from my vantage point.

With that, I am...


Debbie made the statement earlier on that Job 3:11 seemed to support her view of infant reprobation. My question is this: How? How does a statement made by Job after he had lost practically everything and wishing that he would have just died at birth supposed to support her point of view? That says nothing about his "election" or that he would have been condemned to hell at all. The problem with many people who espouse the view of infant reprobation and many other beliefs is that they come more from tradition than anything else and they read into the Scripture what tradition has taught them.

Debbie Kaufman

Steve Lemke: I agree with what you have said 100%. It does show his character and his heart. I think that what you have said goes even more with what I have said. The Bible says we are born into sin, which means that babies born into this world are with sin and need a Savior. Any baby that dies is transformed, a work done in his/her heart so that they might enter into heaven. Christ died for more than just sin, it opened a whole new door to the New Covenant.


I've noticed that anytime one disagrees with Calvinism, the Calvinist claim the dissenters "do not understand Calvinism". And equally as often, I hear them say that all beliefs other than Calvinism, are philosophical. This makes real conversation with the calvinist very frustrating to say the least. Peter, I'm not sure why you keep plugging away with people who close their mind so much and would rather believe in a god that they had to twist scriptures to find, but I'm glad you do.

As for this belief in Calvinism, I don't know how any woman can be a Calvinist and give birth to any child. I would have had my tubes tied before I brought a child into this world that I thought could be damned to hell merely because they were born, having never sinned before. Where is the justice in that? I thank God, that the Bible makes it clear that He loves mercy and justice. I'm so thankful that the calvinist's god is NOT the God of the Bible.

Don Johnson


Thanks for pointing out Luke 18:15. It was Doctor Luke who informed us that these little children were in fact infants.

Verse 16 Jesus said these of these infants "of such is the Kingdom of God."

Jesus also did not qualify which little children should come unto Him. Which would mean all, not simply the "elect."

Verse 17 Jesus did not say the infants needed to grow up and be like the disciples. Instead, He said the disciples needed to be like the infants.

Do infants that die go to Heaven? YES!

Don Johnson


I agree completely.

My wife and I lost twins before they were born. Though it happened 20 years ago, I'm thankful we don't have to worry about where they went. "Of such is the Kingdom of God."

Don Johnson

One more text to ponder.

"And should not I spare Nineveh, that great city, wherein are more than sixscore thousand persons that cannot discern between their right hand and their left hand; and also much cattle? Jonah 4:11

Notice, it was God who said "should not I spare." Jonah did not have any love for the people of Nineveh, but God did, as Jonah makes clear in verse two (look it up).

Not only did God have concern for the people who can't tell their right from their left, but also for the animals.

It's amazing how one could think God would spare those who can't tell their right from their left, but would send babies to Hell.

Can an infant tell his right from his left? NO!

All infants who die go to Heaven! Even among the heathen.

The comments to this entry are closed.