Author: Steve Amato
Keywords: bible study,Calvinist,Calvinism,free will

## Discussions with a Calvinist

# Discussion with Teresa
Round 12

Teresa wrote:

> On Aug 14, 2004, at 10:27 PM, Steve Amato wrote:
> Teresa,

> You say,"It is interest though because if you believe that a child is born free of sin, then there was not much special about jesus being born sinless."

> Excuse me! What did I just say. Let me repeat it: "The Biblical concept of original sin is that as a result of Adam's sin,people are born with a sinful nature." So how did you manage to misconstrue that statement to conclude that I believe that children are born free of sin?

I thought you did ??? Didn't you say they were born with a sin nature? I did not understand that to be the same as imputed sin . Is a sin nature the same as sin? If you see it as the same as sin, would you then agree that men are born with the imputed sin nature of Adam and that we that are saved have the imputed righteousness of Christ? Therefore having a consequence of the work or deed (over which we had no control ) of Adam and the benefit of righteousness Christ?

We see the idea of imputed sin in Hebrews. Levi, who was a descendant of Abraham, paid tithes to Melchizedek while still in the loins, "seed," of his father Abraham, even though Levi was not yet alive. Where are we disagreeing here?

> And you continue your misrepresentation of what others believe, saying, "Of Course the Arminians stand every one that is saved deserve it because they chose correctly and acted correctly. No grace or mercy needed . So perhaps it fits well with your theology." Maybe you can show me where Arminians actually say that. Or are you just making it up?

Steve it is a one plus one thing,

Grace is unmerited favor , justice is getting what you deserve, mercy is getting what you do not deserve.

So the minute that a man decides to repent and believe ( in Arminian theology ) , He has independently decided to be obedient to the gospel

If we look at election because of foreknowledge .God is looking down the tube of time, seeing the independent decisions of a man to elect (choose ) him. Because it is the correct choice God responds to the act of man by saving (electing) the man . God has rewarded the correct choice of the man as He had promised. This makes God the debtor of men . He has not needed to send grace nor give mercy. The man has chosen wisely and therefore God rewards that . It is not giving Mercy , because non was needed. The man has suddenly merited the grace of God (wages due) by acting correctly .

> Let me tell you that my position concerning original sin, as contemptuous you might view it, is consistent with that of the Southern Baptists and Christians of the Orthodox Church, well within professing Christianity. In fact I quote directly from their sources:

> Southern Baptist http://www.sbc.net/bfm/bfm2000.asp#iii Through the temptation of Satan man transgressed the command of God, and fell from his original innocence whereby his posterity inherit a nature and an environment inclined toward sin.

I would suggest that you take time to read the early confessions of the southern Baptists before they fell victim to a man based faith . Were the early Baptists worshipping another God?

> Orthodox Church http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Original_sin The Orthodox Church rejects the very common Western concept that Original Sin is some sort of inherited guilt. People are not presumed to bear personal responsibility for the acts of Adam.

Having Orthodox friends they tell me they deny any original sin. All are born pure. They actually deny original sin .

> The guilt of sin thereby applies only when the child becomes aware of the enormity of sinning against God, commonly called the "age of accountability."

Baptists are generally claim to be a bible based faith.

Could you show me anywhere in scripture where an age of reason is taught?

Again if that were true then a child that dies would not need grace or mercy, God would be giving him what he deserves. Salvation with no grace and no mercy just as his due.

I look forward to your citations on this.

In the mean time you might like to look at scripture and see if or when The inspired word of God ever claims the innocence for infants and children you do. I would suggest you read the accounts of the 2 greatest judgments of God on the sin of men , and show me where he made ANY exemptions for infants in the womb , infants at the breast or young children at play or the mentally handicapped. Did He not call all sinners and hold them responsible?

It is interesting that we all accept the words of scripture without question, nor do we ask if they support our basic premises about God. We are all , everyone, the children of wrath. The bible tells us that there are NO "good" people . There is no one that deserves to be saved. sin is not an action , it is the condition we are born in.

> Now you say, "I trust you believe that a saved man has the imputed righteousness of Christ. (or maybe not) So in your economy righteousness can be imputed and not sin?"

> I answered that in the email, which you again may have overlooked so I quote it here yet again: "As for imputed righteousness, yes I believe in imputed righteousness. For while it is unjust to condemn the innocent, the guilty can be forgiven if atonement is made. Calvinistic justice on the otherhand holds that since righteousness can be imputed to the guilty therefore guilt can be imputed to the innocent."

My Bible tells me no one is innocent. Can you show me were anyone is innocent since the fall? (Romans 2) God is never unjust in His condemnation of the lost. For we all deserve condemnation. That is why we speak of the Mercy of God. Not one of us deserved it MERCY. So are you saying that righteousness is only imputed to the innocence? A man must earn the righteousness of Christ first? I do not think I am understanding your position ) If a man is innocent why would he need the imputed of Christ, he already has his own??? If a man can chose Christ without first the intervention of God, why would it be necessary for God to "elect" him?Or predestinate him? it would have already happened with God as an observer. It would be an established fact, with god only as reporter.

Could you tell me who is innocent in your perspective ?

Should God lower his standards for man because man is now unable to meet God's Lawful requirements? According to your sense of justice every single man should be able NOW to completely fulfill the requirements of the Law. That elevates man to the status of Jesus.

It sounds like you are saying that (as i have said) Arminans do not believe that God saves the guilty , only those that are innocent because they made the right choice (God as man debtor)

Eph 2:3 Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.

Eph 2:4 But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us,

Eph 2:5 Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;)

Eph 2:6 And hath raised [us] up together, and made [us] sit together in heavenly [places] in Christ Jesus:

Eph 2:7 That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in [his] kindness toward us through Christ Jesus.

Eph 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: [it is] the gift of God:

Eph 2:9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

It is an unearned gift , not a reward for correct choices .

Let me ask you this steve . Was anyone saved at the cross? Or was it only a potential salvation ?

Was the cross of Christ only a hypothetical salvation?

Did Jesus satisfy the wrath of God against us or do we satisfy it when we believe?

> Yes I know under Calvinism God imputes guilt upon the innocent. And somehow Calvinists feel that is just and fair because God imputes righteousness upon the guilty. Once again such logic is non-sequitor. It's a logical fallacy.

I have offered you the grace to assume you are saved (I do not know that as a fact) I would appreciate the same consideration ) Do you believe that the early Baptists that were "calvinists" worshipperes of another God? Are your faith fathers burning in hell?

God imputes the righteousness of Christ on unworthy sinners . Heaven is full of undeserving sinners clothed in the righteousness of Christ . We enter heaven not based on any thing we have done or said, We enter heaven clothed in the righteousness of Christ which we can do noting to earn, that is imputed to us .

> As for Romans 5 you can view my study guide at http://www.bcbsr.com/books/rom5b.html if you're interested in my non-Calvinistic interpretation. As for 1Cor 15 that chapter is talking about physical resurrection. Nothing about imputed guilt there.

Consider this verse and what we know from scripture itself . This one verse PROVES there is imputed sin .Romans 5;13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

From the very first there was law . Adam sinned when he broke the covenant God had made with Him. The breaking of that law was imputed to the offspring of Adam .( As seen in Gen5)

Romans tells us the law is on the heart of all men , thus even before the law of Noah, men were held responsible for the law God placed on his heart. If not that it was an unjust God that drowned all men , women , infants and children. They were every one guilty .

Through ONE man sin entered the world , and so for all times men had sin imputed to them. You may not see that as "fair" but it is the truth taught in the scriptures .

> You say, "Scripture CLEARLY teaches that infants are sinners." Yes, infants are sinners by their very nature, just as I have stated.

> You say, "No one gets a free pass as sinless except Christ."

> Excuse me! If the guilt of original sin applies to all who are born human, then logically Christ should also have been imputed guilty, and as such could not have been our substitutionary atonement since he would not have been the innocent lamb of God.

Steve may I ask what kind of training you have?

This is a theological discussion that has been held for generations of all doctrinal positions. Even I, a lay person have read and studied this.

A man that taught at Dallas Seminary sent me a book on this. So I am wondering if you really do not know or if you believe you are laying a trap for me??

I will say first that the same problem exists if you believe infants are born with a sin nature or with original sin. Either way some of the sin Eden would have dwelled in Christ.

Now for the fairly well accepted theological view.

All through the old Testament it was the sin of the Father that was passed onto the son. There is no scripture that indicates sin or curses coming through the mother.

Seeing that the father of Jesus is the holy God, there was no sin passed on to Jesus.

Col 2:9 says, "For in Him dwells all the fullness of deity in bodily form." Jesus received His human nature from Mary, but He received His divine nature through God the Holy Spirit.

> In fact you had previously stated, "God can and does at times and for His purpose hold men responsible for things over which they have no contro. Jesus was held responsible for the sin of all men." So which is it? Was Christ imputed with the guilt of sin or was he not?

Steve please do not play 'gotcha' . I am a devoted student of the word of God. A question like this does nothing to further our discussion .

Jesus was free of all sin, in your preferred doctrine did not have a sin nature.

I do not understand how you can look around you and see the results of the fall that have been passed on through Adam to all his offsprings (death , disease, painful labor , working with the sweat of your brow) and somehow thing the most significant thing of the fall was not, that is a sin that required a covering of blood .

> As for the verses you point out concerning man's innate sinfulness, my position is that people are guilty because they sin, not because their neighbor sinned or some guy sinned thousands of years before they were even born. Many of the verses like, "Psa 51:5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me" can be viewed as merely referring to the sinful nature and not imputed guilt. As for Rom 3:10-12 you might want to check out their original context as Paul was quoting from the Old Testament. In fact let me quote myself from part of an email I recently wrote in a discussion with another Calvinist concerning that section in Romans:

So then if men are born without any sin, any man could if he exercised his will, live a completely sinless life and be just like Jesus ?

You may want to consider to whom Paul was speaking. He spoke to the elect church in Rome. believers. The first chapters are a doctrinal treatise on needing a Savior. There is none that is righteous they all need Christ . You may want to brush it off as not a universal truth , but then you risk saying that men can be righteous in themselves and have no need for a savior .

Speaking to the gentiles Romans 3:9- 11 What then? are we better [than they]? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin;

As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:

There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.

He does not restate the words of David limiting the scope of the words. To the Romans that had little or no knowledge of the scriptures Paul under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit takes the words and makes a broad inditement against all men .

-----------------------------

> As you well know these were not statements which were introduced by Paul, but rather he was quoting verses in the Old Testment. Here's an idea! Let's go back and find the context of those verses in the Old Testament! The first set of verses come from Ps 14:1-3 (or Ps 53:1-3 if you like) This was a Psalm written by David. How does it start off? "The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God.' They are corrupt, their deeds are vile; there is no one who does good." Who is the "they" and the "their" he is referring to among whom is no one who does good? It is a category of people who are atheistic fools. In verse 4 he speaks of "evildoers", and in verse 5 he contrasts them with the righteous. With respect to what this Psalm says concerning those who don't seek God and such it appears to be speaking categorically and not universally. For example I certainly don't get the impression reading this Psalm that David reckoned himself "wicked", a fool who says in his heart that there is no God, and who does not seek God.

2Cr 11:23 Are they ministers of Christ? (I speak as a fool) I [am] more; in labours more abundant, in stripes above measure, in prisons more frequent, in deaths oft.

The problem is David prophesied clearly that no man seeks God Psalm 14: 2-4

The LORD looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, [and] seek God.

They are all gone aside, they are [all] together become filthy: [there is] none that doeth good, no, not one.

PSA 53:2God looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were [any] that did understand, that did seek God.

> If Paul's point is to prove the Universal concept that all have sinned, why doesn't he simply use Ecc 7:20 and have done with it, which states very clearly, "There is not a righteous man on earth who does what is right and never sins."

Do you dispute this?

Paul did not Rom 3:23

For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

So did John 1 john 1:10

If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.

> Instead he is using statements from the Old Testament which are spoken in a categorical sense and not in a universal sense, and which furthermore are observationally based rather than propositional. (Although one could argue that even Ecc 7:20 is observationally based) And just to clarify by this I mean that Paul is not simply saying that "The Bible says the everyone sinned and that's all that needs saying", much as modern evangelicalism does tend to present that aspect of the gospel - people's sinfulness - a relatively propositional sense. Rather Paul gives particular instances and observations of sin. (I will show later that Jesus presents the gospel in a similar manner with respect to the issue of sin)

> But before I draw conclusions let's observe the context of the other Old Testament verses to see if they are speaking in a universal sense or a categorical sense. Another verse he uses is Ps 5:9 which he uses in Romans 3:13. Ps 5:9 says, "Not a word from their mouth can be trusted; their heart is filled with destruction. Their throat is an open grave; with their tongue they speak deceit" Who is the "their" the Psalmist refers to? Is he speaking of everyone in the world, or only a category of people?

Every man that is not in Christ.

> The context indicates he is referring to "the wicked, the arrogant, those who tell lies, the bloodthirsty, and deceitful men". Again, do you get to the impression that the Psalmists is referring to himself? Quite the contrary. For he is contrasting himself with them.

HE was a man declared righteous by God. He could contrast the righteous man with the unrighteous.

The problem is Steve you do not really seem to think men are sinful or that they really do not need a savior. It sounds as if in your theology men are good enough that they deserve to be saved,

I read that as MY past, who I was before I was saved. In spite of what the world saw , wife , mother, nurse , "nice person". I was so wicked , my heart was hard and black in the eyes of God. The good I did was sin in the eye of God

The problem with the world is men compare themselves with other men and they come away thinking "I am not as wicked as my neighbor" I do not cheat or steal or beat my wife. Yea I will go to heaven.

There was a day , before I was saved ,that I wondered what religion was 'true" . I asked God, who is Jesus? Then the holy Spirit of God opened my eyes and showed me who I was. For that moment I saw myself , not as the world saw me, or I saw myself. I saw me as God saw me.

Steve that knocked me to my knees in repentance. That chapter in Romans is a true assessment of a man without Christ. A man that can not see the holiness of God, has no idea how he looks to God, Paul was putting our spiritual condition, without Christ on view.

One of my favorite chapters in the OT says it so well.

Isa 6 And one cried unto another, and said, Holy, holy, holy, [is] the LORD of hosts: the whole earth [is] full of his glory.

And the posts of the door moved at the voice of him that cried, and the house was filled with smoke.

Then said I, Woe [is] me! for I am undone; because I [am] a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips: for mine eyes have seen the King, the LORD of hosts.

Then flew one of the seraphims unto me, having a live coal in his hand, [which] he had taken with the tongs from off the altar:

And he laid [it] upon my mouth, and said, Lo, this hath touched thy lips; and thine iniquity is taken away, and thy sin purged.

Also I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, Whom shall I send, and who will go for us? Then said I, Here [am] I; send me.

Seeing the holiness of God , next to your best makes the words of Paul live.

There is none righteous , no not one.

They are all gone out of their way .

The they is me and countless others that walked in a world and thought they were good. Only to learn the truth of the words of Christ . There is no one good but God.

> Continuing on, Rom 3:13 also quotes Ps 140:3b "the poison of vipers is on their lips" Who is the "their" the Psalmist is referring to? Is it universal or categorical? The context indicates that the "their" refers to evil men, men of violence. Is the Psalmist including himself in that category? Again, quite the contrary.

Open your ears man , what do you hear in the world? Do you see holiness and righteousness in the unsaved world? What words flow from their lips? Steve do you think men are basically good?

> You continue, "You may not like it Steve but this truth is woven through out scripture, and can be seen in the world around us." So where in the world around us do you see guilt being imputed to the innocent. Oh I guess you must be referring to Islamic Terrorism. Have you considered become a Muslim?

Steve the principal of election is throughout scripture.

You read it , but do not consider it. Was Abraham not chosen by God? Moses? Was the nation of Israel not chosen over all the other nations of the world? Was the line of Jesus ordained? Was mary elect of God? The apostles? Paul?

God elects nations and people for His purposes. God elect people to be His.

Steve do you ever sing "This is my Fathers world?" I mean it when i sing it. It is his world

Consider this

If Arminian Theology is correct, and all men are worthy of being saved , so Christ died for all of them . The Father is not trustworthy because He has sent those "he loves " to burn in hell , in spite of the fact that the price was paid for their sin, and they had been redeemed by Christ.

That is God demanding double payment . Is that God?

Blessings from one that professes Jesus as Lord, and God as sovereign over every hair that falls and bird that falls.

Terry

# BCBSR Reponse

Teresa,

Your original email to me accused me of misrepresenting Calvinism specifically on the issue of the order of faith and regeneration. Yet through our correspondence I have proven that I am innocent of such a charge. In addition you have confirmed my understanding of other aspects of Calvinism as follows. And though you may disagree with my theological position and continue to argue that Calvinism is more Biblical, the fact is I am accurately portraying Calvinism.

1. Imputed Guilt Paul's reasoning in Romans, yes even in the context of the verses saying that all have sinned, is that people are guilty because they sin. The issue of innocence is irrelevant. The issue is whether Paul is arguing that people are guilty not because of their own behavior or because Adam sinned on their behalf. If Paul was saying that all are guilty because Adam sinned then there was no need to speak about people's actual behavior in the first two and a half chapters. Nor does the Bible ever say, "All are guilty because Adam sinned." Thus when Paul says that we observe that all (categories of people) sin, he was saying that all such people commit sinful acts and are therefore guilty. And nowhere in the first two and a half chapters leading up to his statement that all have sinned did he mention Adam. It's just not part of his proof. This in contrast to Calvinism which teaches that people are guilty because somebody else sinned. As such Calvinists portray God as unjust, holding people accountable for things they had no control over. And this you have affirmed.

Furthermore along this same line, given your interpretation of verses like Ex 20:25, you hold that children are not only guilty of the sin of Adam but also for the sins of all their ancestors starting from their father. Or is it that you limit it the third or forth generation? Is it that you reckon yourself guilty of the sins of your great-great grandfather, but not of your great-great-great grandfather? Oops! If that were you interpretation then no one today would be reckoned guilty of Adam's sin since he was many generations prior to that. So I guess it follows that you figure you're guilty of all the sins of your ancestors all the way back to Adam.

But consider the application of this concept. If indeed you really believe what you say you believe. If Calvinism were actually applied in a justice system one would be reckoned guilty of and should pay for the crimes of their ancestors. However both Calvinistis and non-Calvinistics recognize this as injustice. And so also the Bible. Ex 23:7 "Have nothing to do with a false charge and do not put an innocent or honest person to death, for I will not acquit the guilty." Yet how is one to determine the innocence of the person if one is reckoned guilty of the sins of all their ancestors including that of Adam? It is fortunate that Calvinists don't actually practice what they preach.

2. Order of Regeneration Going back to your first email you accuse me of misrepresenting Calvinism on this point. But I have shown Calvinism teaches that people are born-again before repenting and coming to faith in Christ, which of course is contrary to many verses such as John 1:12.

3. Grace and Mercy and Debts. Calvinism, as you affirm, holds that grace and mercy are not grace and mercy if it involves the one receiving such grace or mercy doing something. This in contrast to the Bible which answers the question, "What must I DO to be saved." with the answer, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved". And we have illustrations such as the blind men of Mat 9:27 who cried out to Jesus, "Have mercy on us, Son of David!" You're essentially saying that their crying out is a work of which Jesus is under obligation to pay them back by healing them. Thus it follows that your theology holds that under such conditions Jesus did not have mercy on them because none was needed!

Furthermore in real life it's a pretty silly position to say that people deserve things just because they seek them. God graciously holds out the gift of eternal life to us, offering it freely. You're saying that if we freely take it, our taking it nullifies God's graciousness. It's foolishness. If I came to your door and offered you a $20 bill for free, you're saying that the act of taking it from me earns you the $20 bill. So instead of thanking me for being gracious, you feel that your earned it by simply taking it. (Just how lazy are do-nothing Calvinists anyway?) Consider also the parable of the unforgiving servant in Matt 18. It says, "The servant fell on his knees before him. 'Be patient with me,' he begged, 'and I will pay back everything.' The servant's master took pity on him, canceled the debt and let him go." Was it out of grace or was it out of obligation that the master cancelled his debt? Under you Calvinistic scheme of things it follows that he would have been under obligation to forgive.

4. Faith a Gift Contrary to the Bible, Calvinists abhor the idea that faith is something that you do. And thus they view it as simply a gift given to men in a puppet-like fashion. Many of your false accusations against non-Calvnists are based on the idea that faith is a work if it is something that we do. But the Bible doesn't categorize faith as a work and yet it does categorize it as something we do. Something indeed that we are COMMANDED to do.

Notice Romans 4:2,3 "If, in fact, Abraham was justified by works, he had something to boast about- but not before God. What does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness." Notice that "believing" is not categorized as a "work". For why would Paul say that Abraham was not justified by works and then prove his point by bringing in faith. It is because faith is not a work. It's an attitude. But nonetheless it is something that we do. Or how would you answer the question "What must I DO to be saved?" So also it says, "to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness," We notice again that "faith" is not categorized as a work.

5. Free Choice Under Calvinism man freely chooses to do evil. But in fact the model of choice portrayed by Calvinism eliminates the possibility of choice and as such ends up simply with a puppet model. If one has two alleged choices but if one choice is not possible then choice does not come into play at all. One does not chose between one thing. Choice only comes into play when there are a number of things to chose from.

CONCERNING YOUR REPRESENTATION OF THE FAITH OF NON-CALVINISTS

In your first email you stated, "As Christians we have an obligation not to misrepresent the faith of others." A presume you have taken that to heart in your attempt to portray the position of non-Calvinists in the following statements you have made:

1. You say, "According to your sense of justice every single man should be able NOW to completely fulfill the requirements of the Law."

Of course that is not my position. Nor can I see how your logic follows. It is a non sequitor logical fallcy. A false accusation.

2. You say, "Arminians do not believe that God saves the guilty , only those that are innocent because they made the right choice (God as man debtor)"

This again is a false accusation. You can ask any Arminian, "Do you as an Arminian believe that God does not save the guilty but only those who are innocent because they made the right choice? (God as man's debtor)" With righteous indignation you say, "I wish you would take some time to study reform theology ( even if you never agree.)As Christians we have an obligation not to misrepresent the faith of others." If this is what you're claiming Arminians believe then it doesn't seem to me that you've made much of an effort to find out what they actually believe. Maybe you should spend some time with Arminians and study Arminian theology before you claim what they do or do not believe, because you got it wrong here.

3. You say, "The problem is Steve you do not really seem to think men are sinful or that they really do not need a savior."

Once again clearly a false accusation, even to the point of slander.

4. You say, "If Arminian Theology is correct, and all men are worthy of being saved, so Christ died for all of them . The Father is not trustworthy because He has sent those "he loves " to burn in hell , in spite of the fact that the price was paid for their sin, and they had been redeemed by Christ. That is God demanding double payment ."

This again is a slanderously false accusation.

Furthermore not only are these false accusations in the sense of misrepresenting the positions of others, but even purposely defaming, slanderous to the point of accusing non-Calvnists of heresy, though such rhetoric is not uncommon among your theological forefathers. But if this is to be characteristic of your rhetoric then I will no longer carry on this relationship, as it is written, "I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler." 1Cor 5:11 And take heed that "slanderers .. will not inherit the kingdom of God." 1Cor 6:10 Maybe you're just an immature Christian, but when you become an older woman the Bible instructs, "teach the older women to be reverent in the way they live, not to be slanderers or addicted to much wine, but to teach what is good." Tit 2:3 Your love for other Christians is seriously in question from my point of view. And as it is written, "This is how we know who the children of God are and who the children of the devil are: Anyone who does not do what is right is not a child of God; nor is anyone who does not love his brother." 1John 3:10 I'm particularly confident at this point that you are a child of God. Not that it matters to you. But I suggest out of your free will you chose to repent.

Now you also ask, "Are your faith fathers burning in hell?" You're mistaking the fact that I happen hold some beliefs in common with some denominational types with the idea that I base my theology on their dogma. Actually, unlike those who base their theology on post-Bibical theologians, I based my faith directly on the Bible and as such my "faith fathers" (as you call them) are the authors of the Bible. But concerning post-Biblical theologians I do have serious doubts about John Calvin himself, seeing as he was an unrepented murderer. (See http://www.bcbsr.com/topics/servetus.html) I also have serious doubts over other such Calvnists involved in the murder of other Christians over such issues as infant baptism. For the Bible says, "Anyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life in him." 1John 3:15 Indeed they would have probably burned me at the stake if I had lived back then. I encourage you to follow the Bible and not Calvinism.

Love in Christ,

Steve Amato
The Berean Christian Bible Study Resources

The Berean Christian Bible Study Resources