# Piper/Desiring God believe that all infants........



## Scott Bushey

dying in infancy are elect!

Taken from:

http://www.desiringgod.org/library/theological_qa/infant_salv/infants.html

John Piper and many others, however, believe that there is one more biblical strand of evidence which must be considered. This evidence leads us to conclude that God saves all infants who die.

In a funeral sermon several years ago for an infant, Dr. Piper summarized the basis for his conclusion:

Jesus says in John 9:41 to those who were offended at his teaching and asked if he thought they were blind-he said, "If you were blind, you would not have had sin; but since you say, 'We see,' your sin remains."

*In other words, if a person lacks the natural capacity to see the revelation of God's will or God's glory then that person's sin would not remain-God would not bring the person into final judgment for not believing what he had no natural capacity to see.*

The other text is Romans 1:20 where Paul is dealing with persons who have not heard the gospel and have no access to it, but who do have access to the revelation of God's glory in nature:

Romans 1:20 "Since the creation of the world God's invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse."

*In other words: if a person did not have access to the revelation of God's glory - did not have the natural capacity to see it and understand it, then Paul implies they would have an excuse at the judgment.*

The point for us is that even though we human beings are under the penalty of everlasting judgment and death because of the fall of our race into sin and the sinful nature that we all have, nevertheless God only executes this judgment on those who have the natural capacity to see his glory and understand his will, and refuse to embrace it as their treasure.

Infants, I believe, do not yet have that capacity; and therefore, in God's inscrutable way, he brings them under the forgiving blood of his Son.

Scott adds: This would have to include people whom have never heard the gospel or never heard of Jesus

In another sermon, he adds:

God in his justice will find a way to absolve infants who die of their depravity. It will surely be through Christ. But beyond that we would be guessing. It seems to me that the most natural guess would be that babies will grow up in the kingdom (either immediately, or over time) and will by God's grace come to faith so that their justification is by faith alone just like ours.
It is important to emphasize that, in our view, God is not saving infants because they are innocent. They are not innocent, but guilty. He is saving them because, although they are sinful, in his mercy he desires that compassion be exercised upon those who are sinful and yet lack the capacity to grasp the truth revealed about Him in nature and to the human heart.


my emphasis added w/ color and bolded areas. spb

[Edited on 11-20-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## panta dokimazete

Isn't that a ntural extension of the WCF ch. X?:

III. Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated, and saved by Christ, through the Spirit, who works when, and where, and how He pleases: so also are all other elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.


http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/ch_X.html


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> Isn't that a ntural extension of the WCF ch. X?:
> 
> III. Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated, and saved by Christ, through the Spirit, who works when, and where, and how He pleases: so also are all other elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.
> 
> 
> http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/ch_X.html



Elect infants, not all infants!


----------



## panta dokimazete

Who is to judge that all infants aren't *potentially* elect?


----------



## piningforChrist

> Infants, I believe, do not yet have that capacity; and therefore, in God's inscrutable way, he brings them under the forgiving blood of his Son.
> 
> Scott adds: This would have to include people whom have never heard the gospel or never heard of Jesus



Scott, Piper is saying infants do not have the capacity to know and reject God's eternal attributes seen in His creation. Most people who are alive that have never heard the gospel or Jesus have this capacity, excluding infants and the SEVERELY mentally ill whose brains function as infants' brains do. Therefore, Piper would claim that all people who have mental capacity to see and reject God's eternal attributes in His creation, whether they be with or without knowlegde of Christ, will be without excuse on judgment day.


----------



## Scott Bushey

Gods word is. There is no proof texts to support universalism when it comes to the infant. In fact, all the major creeds disagree that all infants are elect. I know of no historic reformer who holds such a position. 

'Potential' is no more than speculation. Gods word is clear; there are two kinds of peoples, elect and reprobate. This description crosses the parameter of creation.


----------



## BrianBowman

> _Originally posted by piningforChrist_
> 
> 
> 
> Infants, I believe, do not yet have that capacity; and therefore, in God's inscrutable way, he brings them under the forgiving blood of his Son.
> 
> Scott adds: This would have to include people whom have never heard the gospel or never heard of Jesus
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scott, Piper is saying infants do not have the capacity to know and reject God's eternal attributes seen in His creation. Most people who are alive that have never heard the gospel or Jesus have this capacity, excluding infants and the SEVERELY mentally ill whose brains function as infants' brains do. Therefore, Piper would claim that all people who have mental capacity to see and reject God's eternal attributes in His creation, whether they be with or without knowlegde of Christ, will be without excuse on judgment day.
Click to expand...


Matthew, how does this square with God being sovereign in His act of regenerating an elect person? - or would Piper simply say that _all_ infants who die/severe mentally ill are elect to begin with?


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by piningforChrist_
> 
> 
> 
> Infants, I believe, do not yet have that capacity; and therefore, in God's inscrutable way, he brings them under the forgiving blood of his Son.
> 
> Scott adds: This would have to include people whom have never heard the gospel or never heard of Jesus
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scott, Piper is saying infants do not have the capacity to know and reject God's eternal attributes seen in His creation. Most people who are alive that have never heard the gospel or Jesus have this capacity, excluding infants and the SEVERELY mentally ill whose brains function as infants' brains do. Therefore, Piper would claim that all people who have mental capacity to see and reject God's eternal attributes in His creation, whether they be with or without knowlegde of Christ, will be without excuse on judgment day.
Click to expand...


Again,
this cannot be supported theologiclly. As I mentioned above, God has created two peoples; elect and reprobate. Infants, like the adult are brought forth in sin. To assume God saves all children is speculating upon emotion and borders upon universalism. What about the indian deep in the forrest of africa that has never heard the gospel and never will?


----------



## satz

Correct me if i am wrong, but

Even if an infant or disabled person could never reject God personally, wouldn't he or she still be guilty for Adams sin?


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by satz_
> Correct me if i am wrong, but
> 
> Even if an infant or disabled person could never reject God personally, wouldn't he or she still be guilty for Adams sin?



Absolutely! Thats the point; Gods word says that no one can complain to the potter, why have you made me as such. He will have mercy upon whom He will have mercy upon........

III. Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated, and saved by Christ, through the Spirit,[12] who worketh when, and where, and how he pleaseth:[13] so also are all other elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.[14]

12. Gen. 17:7; Luke 1:15; 18:15-16; Acts 2:39; John 3:3, 5; I John 5:12
13. John 3:8
14. John 16:7-8; I John 5:12; Acts 4:12

The idea of universalism would have to be taken then to it's farthest conclusion, that being, all men whom have not knowledge about Christ and His gospel would need to be graded upon this same curve. It just doesn't work. It's a faulty theology. One cannot just include the infant and exclude the other levels of ignorance.

[Edited on 11-20-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## panta dokimazete

"Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated, and saved by Christ, through the Spirit, who works *when, and where, and how He pleases*" WCF X

What if the Spirit pleased that ALL infants that died are elect?

The fact is there is not a solid Scriptural defense *against* this prospect - and I think it is supported by "suffer the little children".

[Edited on 11-20-2005 by jdlongmire]


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> "Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated, and saved by Christ, through the Spirit, who works *when, and where, and how He pleases*" WCF X
> 
> What if the Spirit pleased that ALL infants that died are elect?
> 
> The fact is there is not a solid Scriptural defense *against* this prospect - and I think it is supported by "suffer the little children".
> 
> [Edited on 11-20-2005 by jdlongmire]



The little children spoken of above were covenant children. Christ Himself says that they belong to the kingdom. Would he have said that as well about the Egyptian children whom perished in the flood during Noahs day? 

Gen 6:5 And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 
Gen 6:6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. 
Gen 6:7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them. 
Gen 6:8 But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD. 

*All the thoughts of all men were wicked. Continually evil. Only Noah found GRACE; no one else. all perished. This to include children! 

Gen 6:17 And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die.


----------



## Scott Bushey

Mat 19:13 Then children were brought to him that he might lay his hands on them and pray. The disciples rebuked the people, 
Mat 19:14 but Jesus said, "Let the little children come to me and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven." 
Mat 19:15 And he laid his hands on them and went away. 

The greek for children here is paidion. 

G3813
Ï€Î±Î¹Î´Î¹ÌÎ¿Î½
paidion
pahee-dee'-on
Neuter diminutive of G3816; a childling (of either sex), that is, (properly) an infant, or (by extension) a half grown boy or girl; figuratively an immature Christian: - (little, young) child, damsel.

In this case, cobvenant children or _immature Christian_


----------



## Pilgrim

Ch. X (Effectual Calling) of the London Confession of Baptist Faith doth appear to suggest that all infants are saved, or at the least it comes closer to it than the WCF since it removes the qualifier "elect": 


III. Infants dying in infancy are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit;[10] who worketh when, and where, and how He pleaseth;[11] so also are all elect persons, who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.

10. John 3:3, 5-6
11. John 3:8


----------



## gwine

> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> "Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated, and saved by Christ, through the Spirit, who works *when, and where, and how He pleases*" WCF X
> 
> What if the Spirit pleased that ALL infants that died are elect?
> 
> The fact is there is not a solid Scriptural defense *against* this prospect - and I think it is supported by "suffer the little children".
> 
> [Edited on 11-20-2005 by jdlongmire]



I myself cannot imagine why the Lord would have Joshua devote all those cities to destruction and then choose to save some of the infants.



> Jos 8:24 When Israel had finished killing all the inhabitants of Ai in the open wilderness where they pursued them, and all of them to the very last had fallen by the edge of the sword, all Israel returned to Ai and struck it down with the edge of the sword.
> Jos 8:25 And all who fell that day, both men and women, were 12,000, all the people of Ai.
> Jos 8:26 But Joshua did not draw back his hand with which he stretched out the javelin until he had devoted all the inhabitants of Ai to destruction.
> Jos 8:27 Only the livestock and the spoil of that city Israel took as their plunder, according to the word of the LORD that he commanded Joshua.





> Jos 10:35 And they captured it on that day, and struck it with the edge of the sword. And he devoted every person in it to destruction that day, as he had done to Lachish.
> Jos 10:36 Then Joshua and all Israel with him went up from Eglon to Hebron. And they fought against it
> Jos 10:37 and captured it and struck it with the edge of the sword, and its king and its towns, and every person in it. He left none remaining, as he had done to Eglon, and devoted it to destruction and every person in it.
> Jos 10:38 Then Joshua and all Israel with him turned back to Debir and fought against it
> Jos 10:39 and he captured it with its king and all its towns. And they struck them with the edge of the sword and devoted to destruction every person in it; he left none remaining. Just as he had done to Hebron and to Libnah and its king, so he did to Debir and to its king.



And it goes on and on . . .


----------



## panta dokimazete

Death is the prescribed post-fall normative method to pass from life into the presence of God for judgment - death is not the determinator of election - God is.

"Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated, and saved by Christ, through the Spirit, who works when, and where, and how He pleases" WCF X

Again - who determines the disposition of the elect? why could ALL infants not be elect?

How does Christ exhibit God's character toward children? Mercy or judgment?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

I think it is always dangerous to speak where the Scriptures are silent on a matter such as election of infants. To say "all babies go to heaven" is not a statement Scripture makes explicitly and I think it is a stretch to try and infer it strongly from any texts as well.

Saying elect infants are saved is safe because, by definition, the elect are saved. Saying anything more is purely speculative.

At least three Scriptural analogies that might infer *against* that idea are the Flood, the judgment of Sodom and Gommorrah, and the _harim_ or the ban. During the Flood and the judgment of Sodom and Gommorrah, everything was killed. During the _harim_, as Israel was commanded to kill every man, woman, child, and animal in a city it was particularly graphic. One might argue that destroying a whole city by fire and brimstone is one thing but specifically ordering that infants be killed by the sword is quite another.

The election of all infants is, for me, a subject I just leave to God. It's never really edifying to talk about and causes more consternation in immature believers than it's worth as a subject to consider.

Insofar as Scripture is not silent about the election of Covenant Children who die in infancy it is a way to give real hope and comfort to believing parents. Insofar as Scripture is silent about the election of pagan infants (and even might militate to assume the opposite) it just isn't something I'm willing to give any confidence to.


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by Pilgrim_
> Ch. X (Effectual Calling) of the London Confession of Baptist Faith doth appear to suggest that all infants are saved, or at the least it comes closer to it than the WCF since it removes the qualifier "elect":
> 
> 
> III. Infants dying in infancy are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit;[10] who worketh when, and where, and how He pleaseth;[11] so also are all elect persons, who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.
> 
> 10. John 3:3, 5-6
> 11. John 3:8



Chris,
The 1689 reads:

3. *Elect infants* dying in infancy are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit; who worketh when, and where, and how he pleases; so also are all elect persons, who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word. 
( John 3:3, 5, 6; John 3:8 ) 

Gerry, this is true.

Jos 10:28 And that day Joshua took Makkedah, and smote it with the edge of the sword, and the king thereof he utterly destroyed, them, and all the souls that were therein; he let none remain: and he did to the king of Makkedah as he did unto the king of Jericho.


----------



## Pilgrim

Scott, 

After seeing your post and looking up the 1689 LBCF on Reformed Reader, Founders, CCEL, etc., I stand corrected. 

I pasted the 1689 from the Reformed Confessions.exe file by Daric Bossman. He cites the Primitive Baptist Web Station as the source for the 1689, but now that I think of it, I've found errors and typos in the LBCF as posted there before. I had remembered a sermon where a pastor (Bob Vincent) compared the WCF and LBCF here, and that's why I posted it. Obviously he must have been using Bossman's software too because every other version I found online said "elect infants".


----------



## panta dokimazete

Briefly:

Each life has a purpose and definite span.

Each life is judged on the basis of their innate potential to acknowledge and submit to the sovereignty of God for eternity.

Some have the innate potential, some do not.

The gateway from temporal existence to a-temporal existence is death. (because of A&E)

The span and quantity of life before death is determined by God and:

1. Provides God with people for His plan with whom He will have eternal communion - the Elect

2. Provides God with people for His plan from whom He will be eternally separated - the Reprobate

Both types exist to serve His purpose. Soli Deo Gloria.

2's exist to become self aware and objectively prove that Man cannot achieve his own salvation and as catalytic and interactive participants in God's plan of redemptive history.

1's exist to become self aware and objectively/temporally understand that the consequences of sin and Free Will are detrimental to them and to trust and love God as He will eventually remove their capacity to sin in Eternity.

1's vary individually by the innate potential to acknowledge and submit to God's sovereignty.

Some 1's do not even need to experience a full span of corporeal existence, thus they pass through the gateway of death into life eternal quickly.

Since they pass quickly from temporal to a-temporal life, do not become self aware to good and evil and therefore are not accountable for their sin (infants), they join God in eternal communion to have ultimate truth revealed to them and their capacity to sin stripped away.

- pax vobiscum -

[Edited on 11-20-2005 by jdlongmire]

[Edited on 11-20-2005 by jdlongmire]


----------



## Semper Fidelis

> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> Briefly:
> 
> Each life has a purpose and definite span.
> 
> Each life is judged on the basis of their innate potential to acknowledge and submit to the sovereignty of God for eternity.
> 
> Some have the innate potential, some do not.
> 
> The gateway from temporal existence to a-temporal existence is death. (because of A&E)
> 
> The span and quantity of life before death is determined by God and:
> 
> 1. Provides God with people for His plan with whom He will have eternal communion - the Elect
> 
> 2. Provides God with people for His plan from whom He will be eternally separated - the Reprobate
> 
> Both types exist to serve His purpose. Soli Deo Gloria.
> 
> 2's exist to become self aware and objectively prove that Man cannot achieve his own salvation and as catalytic and interactive participants in God's plan of redemptive history.
> 
> 1's exist to become self aware and objectively/temporally understand that the consequences of sin and Free Will are detrimental to them and to trust and love God as he will eventually remove the capcity to sin in Eternity.
> 
> 1's vary individually by the innate potential to acknowledge and submit to God's sovereignty.
> 
> Some 1's do not even need to experience a full span of corporeal existence, thus they pass through the gateway of death into life eternal quickly.
> 
> Since they pass quickly from temporal to a-temporal life, do not become self aware to good and evil and therefore are not accountable for their sin (infants), they join God in eternal communion to have ultimate truth revealed to them and their capacity to sin stripped away.
> 
> - pax vobiscum -
> 
> [Edited on 11-20-2005 by jdlongmire]


Scripture please for some of your foundational arguments. If you can establish the core principle by appealing to a Scriptural principle then I'll buy the argument.


----------



## panta dokimazete

will do - tomorrow - gotta go to bed - leading worship in the morning

FYI: My foundational Scripture is:

Philippians 2:6
who, though he (Christ) was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped,

...as opposed to Adam and Eve, who DID consider equality with God something to be grasped...thus initiating God's great plan to winnow the wheat from the chaff...SOLI DEO GLORIA...


----------



## panta dokimazete

Also - my proposition (I believe) is a natural extension of Augustinian doctrinal positions - non posse peccatore...as well as the reformed doctrinal foundation of the sovereignty of God as the center of theology.

-pax-

[Edited on 11-20-2005 by jdlongmire]


----------



## LawrenceU

Just to clear something up:



> What about the indian deep in the forrest of africa that has never heard the gospel and never will?



The last time I checked indians were living in India. 

Sorry, I'm ducking out now.


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by LawrenceU_
> Just to clear something up:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What about the indian deep in the forrest of africa that has never heard the gospel and never will?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The last time I checked indians were living in India.
> 
> Sorry, I'm ducking out now.
Click to expand...


My mistatke; I meant 'native'. What about the native deep in the forrest of africa that has never heard the gospel and never will?


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> Briefly:
> 
> Each life has a purpose and definite span.
> 
> Each life is judged on the basis of their innate potential to acknowledge and submit to the sovereignty of God for eternity.
> 
> Some have the innate potential, some do not.
> 
> The gateway from temporal existence to a-temporal existence is death. (because of A&E)
> 
> The span and quantity of life before death is determined by God and:
> 
> 1. Provides God with people for His plan with whom He will have eternal communion - the Elect
> 
> 2. Provides God with people for His plan from whom He will be eternally separated - the Reprobate
> 
> Both types exist to serve His purpose. Soli Deo Gloria.
> 
> 2's exist to become self aware and objectively prove that Man cannot achieve his own salvation and as catalytic and interactive participants in God's plan of redemptive history.
> 
> 1's exist to become self aware and objectively/temporally understand that the consequences of sin and Free Will are detrimental to them and to trust and love God as He will eventually remove their capacity to sin in Eternity.
> 
> 1's vary individually by the innate potential to acknowledge and submit to God's sovereignty.
> 
> Some 1's do not even need to experience a full span of corporeal existence, thus they pass through the gateway of death into life eternal quickly.
> 
> Since they pass quickly from temporal to a-temporal life, do not become self aware to good and evil and therefore are not accountable for their sin (infants), they join God in eternal communion to have ultimate truth revealed to them and their capacity to sin stripped away.
> 
> - pax vobiscum -
> 
> [Edited on 11-20-2005 by jdlongmire]
> 
> [Edited on 11-20-2005 by jdlongmire]



JD,
I will quote you:



> Since they pass quickly from temporal to a-temporal life, do not become self aware to good and evil and therefore are not accountable for their sin (infants),



Think about this; your proposition is that some people, not just the infant, God grades upon a curve. That curve must be, must include those who have even been exposed to a partial gospel. For instance, as mentioned, the _native_ who has never heard, or the person who never had the chance to hear the whole of Christs gospel message. The same system of understanding given the infant must be extended to adult situations who have the same level of neglect.

[Edited on 11-20-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## panta dokimazete

> The same system of understanding given the infant must be extended to adult situations who have the same level of neglect.



And it is - to the adult that is mentally unable to develop the knowledge of good and evil - that is the capacity to discern moral truth and act upon it positively or negatively.

The knowledge of good and evil is our inherited curse from Adam - everyone that realizes the curse is accountable for their sin before God.

The Gospel is that Jesus Christ died to allow sinners an escape from the just judgment of God, which stretches across the boundaries of time.

Whom God chooses - the native, the infant, the mentally handicapped - is His sovereign privilege - and He is not bound by ANYTHING to do so, when, where, and why He wills.

So, net effect - God could choose to save the native in Africa - and Christ died to make it possible to satisfy God's Justice.

That said - it is Scripturally clear that God discriminates - it is also clear that it is not our job to judge who is elect...and who is not.

- pax -

[Edited on 11-20-2005 by jdlongmire]


----------



## Scott Bushey

JD,
So, although Gods word says:

Gen 6:7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them. 
Gen 6:8 But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD. 


Gen 6:17 And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, *to destroy all flesh*, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die. 

All flesh, does not mean literally _all flesh_. It means those with knowledge about God, Christ and the gopsel?


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> 
> 
> 
> The same system of understanding given the infant must be extended to adult situations who have the same level of neglect.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And it is - to the adult that is mentally unable to develop the knowledge of good and evil - that is the capacity to discern moral truth and act upon it positively or negatively.
> 
> The knowledge of good and evil is our inherited curse from Adam - everyone that realizes the curse is accountable for their sin before God.
> 
> The Gospel is that Jesus Christ died to allow sinners an escape from the just judgment of God, which stretches across the boundaries of time.
> 
> Whom God chooses - the native, the infant, the mentally handicapped - is His sovereign privilege - and He is not bound by ANYTHING to do so, when, where, and why He wills.
> 
> So, net effect - God could choose to save the native in Africa - and Christ died to make it possible to satisfy God's Justice.
> 
> That said - it is Scripturally clear that God discriminates - it is also clear that it is not our job to judge who is elect...and who is not.
> 
> - pax -
> 
> [Edited on 11-20-2005 by jdlongmire]
Click to expand...


No one is judging but you whom is elect or non elect. The reformed position is that there are some elect infants and there are some reprobate. You are saying that all infants are elect. The reformed view is the most biblically sound position. In your estimation, based upon what you believe, it would be a better program to abort all children as this would guarantee their salvation.

[Edited on 11-20-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## panta dokimazete

> All flesh, does not mean literally all flesh. It means those with knowledge about God, Christ and the gopsel?




I am not sure I follow the post before - sorry - you are posting FAST 

[Edited on 11-20-2005 by jdlongmire]

[Edited on 11-20-2005 by jdlongmire]


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> 
> 
> 
> All flesh, does not mean literally all flesh. It means those with knowledge about God, Christ and the gopsel?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not sure I follow the post before - sorry - you are posting FAST
> 
> [Edited on 11-20-2005 by jdlongmire]
> 
> [Edited on 11-20-2005 by jdlongmire]
Click to expand...


When God said he will _destroy_ *all* flesh, the word destroy does not necessarily mean that all the flesh destroyed persihed to hell?


----------



## panta dokimazete

> No one is judging but you whom is elect or non elect. The reformed position is that there are some elect infants and there are some reprobate. You are saying that all infants are elect. The reformed view is the most biblically sound position. In your estimation, based upon what you believe, it would be a better program to abort all children as this would guarantee their salvation.



Ah, reductio ad absurdum!

1. I am not judging whom specifically is elect - I am merely making a reasonable conclusion based on the nature of God's Justice and Mercy in light of Christ's revelation of God's nature.

2. The abortion of an infant fits this conclusion when one considers that the death would serve God's purpose to reveal the depravity of Man and substantiate His judgment of the killers while mercifully electing the infant to eternal communion with Him.

In what instance would condeming an infant fit the revealed character of God in Christ?

[Edited on 11-20-2005 by jdlongmire]


----------



## panta dokimazete

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> 
> 
> 
> All flesh, does not mean literally all flesh. It means those with knowledge about God, Christ and the gopsel?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not sure I follow the post before - sorry - you are posting FAST
> 
> [Edited on 11-20-2005 by jdlongmire]
> 
> [Edited on 11-20-2005 by jdlongmire]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When God said he will _destroy_ *all* flesh, the word destroy does not necessarily mean that all the flesh destroyed persihed to hell?
Click to expand...


Where does it state that the destruction of flesh _necessarily_ implies eternal condemnation for all destroyed?


----------



## Scott Bushey

> In what instance would condeming an infant fit the revealed character of God in Christ?



In many biblical instances God commands Israel to destroy communities (that which have even the infant at the teat). So, if the idea is absurd, you must then extend the absurdum to Gods decree because this is exactly what he did in some cases.

Exo 12:1 The LORD said to Moses and Aaron in the land of Egypt, 
Exo 12:2 "This month shall be for you the beginning of months. It shall be the first month of the year for you. 
Exo 12:3 Tell all the congregation of Israel that on the tenth day of this month every man shall take a lamb according to their fathers' houses, a lamb for a household. 
Exo 12:4 And if the household is too small for a lamb, then he and his nearest neighbor shall take according to the number of persons; according to what each can eat you shall make your count for the lamb. 
Exo 12:5 Your lamb shall be without blemish, a male a year old. You may take it from the sheep or from the goats, 
Exo 12:6 and you shall keep it until the fourteenth day of this month, when the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel shall kill their lambs at twilight. 
Exo 12:7 "Then they shall take some of the blood and put it on the two doorposts and the lintel of the houses in which they eat it. 
Exo 12:8 They shall eat the flesh that night, roasted on the fire; with unleavened bread and bitter herbs they shall eat it. 
Exo 12:9 Do not eat any of it raw or boiled in water, but roasted, its head with its legs and its inner parts. 
Exo 12:10 And you shall let none of it remain until the morning; anything that remains until the morning you shall burn. 
Exo 12:11 In this manner you shall eat it: with your belt fastened, your sandals on your feet, and your staff in your hand. And you shall eat it in haste. It is the LORD's Passover. 
Exo 12:12 For I will pass through the land of Egypt that night, and I will strike all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both man and beast; and on all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgments: I am the LORD. 
Exo 12:13 The blood shall be a sign for you, on the houses where you are. And when I see the blood, I will pass over you, and no plague will befall you to destroy you, when I strike the land of Egypt. 
Exo 12:14 "This day shall be for you a memorial day, and you shall keep it as a feast to the LORD; throughout your generations, as a statute forever, you shall keep it as a feast. 
Exo 12:15 Seven days you shall eat unleavened bread. On the first day you shall remove leaven out of your houses, for if anyone eats what is leavened, from the first day until the seventh day, that person shall be cut off from Israel. 
Exo 12:16 On the first day you shall hold a holy assembly, and on the seventh day a holy assembly. No work shall be done on those days. But what everyone needs to eat, that alone may be prepared by you. 
Exo 12:17 And you shall observe the Feast of Unleavened Bread, for on this very day I brought your hosts out of the land of Egypt. Therefore you shall observe this day, throughout your generations, as a statute forever. 
Exo 12:18 In the first month, from the fourteenth day of the month at evening, you shall eat unleavened bread until the twenty-first day of the month at evening. 
Exo 12:19 For seven days no leaven is to be found in your houses. If anyone eats what is leavened, that person will be cut off from the congregation of Israel, whether he is a sojourner or a native of the land. 
Exo 12:20 You shall eat nothing leavened; in all your dwelling places you shall eat unleavened bread." 
Exo 12:21 Then Moses called all the elders of Israel and said to them, "Go and select lambs for yourselves according to your clans, and kill the Passover lamb. 
Exo 12:22 Take a bunch of hyssop and dip it in the blood that is in the basin, and touch the lintel and the two doorposts with the blood that is in the basin. None of you shall go out of the door of his house until the morning. 
Exo 12:23 For the LORD will pass through to strike the Egyptians, and when he sees the blood on the lintel and on the two doorposts, the LORD will pass over the door and will not allow the destroyer to enter your houses to strike you. 
Exo 12:24 You shall observe this rite as a statute for you and for your sons forever. 
Exo 12:25 And when you come to the land that the LORD will give you, as he has promised, you shall keep this service. 
Exo 12:26 And when your children say to you, 'What do you mean by this service?' 
Exo 12:27 you shall say, 'It is the sacrifice of the LORD's Passover, for he passed over the houses of the people of Israel in Egypt, when he struck the Egyptians but spared our houses.'" And the people bowed their heads and worshiped. 
Exo 12:28 Then the people of Israel went and did so; as the LORD had commanded Moses and Aaron, so they did. 
Exo 12:29 At midnight the LORD struck down all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh who sat on his throne to the firstborn of the captive who was in the dungeon, and all the firstborn of the livestock. 
Exo 12:30 And Pharaoh rose up in the night, he and all his servants and all the Egyptians. And there was a great cry in Egypt, for there was not a house where someone was not dead. 
Exo 12:31 Then he summoned Moses and Aaron by night and said, "Up, go out from among my people, both you and the people of Israel; and go, serve the LORD, as you have said. 
Exo 12:32 Take your flocks and your herds, as you have said, and be gone, and bless me also!" 
Exo 12:33 The Egyptians were urgent with the people to send them out of the land in haste. For they said, "We shall all be dead." 
Exo 12:34 So the people took their dough before it was leavened, their kneading bowls being bound up in their cloaks on their shoulders. 
Exo 12:35 The people of Israel had also done as Moses told them, for they had asked the Egyptians for silver and gold jewelry and for clothing. 
Exo 12:36 And the LORD had given the people favor in the sight of the Egyptians, so that they let them have what they asked. Thus they plundered the Egyptians. 
Exo 12:37 And the people of Israel journeyed from Rameses to Succoth, about six hundred thousand men on foot, besides women and children. 
Exo 12:38 A mixed multitude also went up with them, and very much livestock, both flocks and herds. 
Exo 12:39 And they baked unleavened cakes of the dough that they had brought out of Egypt, for it was not leavened, because they were thrust out of Egypt and could not wait, nor had they prepared any provisions for themselves. 
Exo 12:40 The time that the people of Israel lived in Egypt was 430 years. 
Exo 12:41 At the end of 430 years, on that very day, all the hosts of the LORD went out from the land of Egypt. 
Exo 12:42 It was a night of watching by the LORD, to bring them out of the land of Egypt; so this same night is a night of watching kept to the LORD by all the people of Israel throughout their generations. 
Exo 12:43 And the LORD said to Moses and Aaron, "This is the statute of the Passover: no foreigner shall eat of it, 
Exo 12:44 but every slave that is bought for money may eat of it after you have circumcised him. 
Exo 12:45 No foreigner or hired servant may eat of it. 
Exo 12:46 It shall be eaten in one house; you shall not take any of the flesh outside the house, and you shall not break any of its bones. 
Exo 12:47 All the congregation of Israel shall keep it. 
Exo 12:48 If a stranger shall sojourn with you and would keep the Passover to the LORD, let all his males be circumcised. Then he may come near and keep it; he shall be as a native of the land. But no uncircumcised person shall eat of it. 
Exo 12:49 There shall be one law for the native and for the stranger who sojourns among you." 
Exo 12:50 All the people of Israel did just as the LORD commanded Moses and Aaron. 
Exo 12:51 And on that very day the LORD brought the people of Israel out of the land of Egypt by their hosts. 

Is it your position that the Egyptian infants that God had destryed here were elect?

[Edited on 11-20-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> 
> 
> 
> All flesh, does not mean literally all flesh. It means those with knowledge about God, Christ and the gopsel?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not sure I follow the post before - sorry - you are posting FAST
> 
> [Edited on 11-20-2005 by jdlongmire]
> 
> [Edited on 11-20-2005 by jdlongmire]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When God said he will _destroy_ *all* flesh, the word destroy does not necessarily mean that all the flesh destroyed persihed to hell?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where does it state that the destruction of flesh _necessarily_ implies eternal condemnation for all destroyed?
Click to expand...


Gen 6:5 And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 
Gen 6:6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. 
Gen 6:7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them. 
Gen 6:8 But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD. 

1) Wickedness was great
2) EVERY imagination was evil continually (No pauses in evil)
3) God compares man with even the creeping thing
4) Only Noah found grace

2Pe 2:5 if he did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a herald of righteousness, with seven others, when he brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly; 

G5339
Ï†ÎµÎ¹ÌÎ´Î¿Î¼Î±Î¹
pheidomai
fi'-dom-ahee
Of uncertain affinity; to be chary of, that is, (subjectively) to abstain or (objectively) to treat leniently: - forbear, spare.

Peter describes the world as 'ungodly'.

G765
Î±Ì“ÏƒÎµÎ²Î·ÌÏ‚
asebeÌ„s
as-eb-ace'
From G1 (as a negative particle) and a presumed derivative of G4576; irreverent, that is, (by extension) impious or wicked: - ungodly (man).


----------



## panta dokimazete

Reflected reasonably against the nature of God revealed in the NT through Christ Jesus?

Yes.

"on all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgments"

not the infants - death is NOT eternal judgment; it is the gateway to judgment.


----------



## panta dokimazete

Do you think Noah needs the blood of Christ to stand before God for his eternal disposition?

[Edited on 11-20-2005 by jdlongmire]


----------



## Scott Bushey

Exo 12:27 you shall say, 'It is the sacrifice of the LORD's Passover, for he passed over the houses of the people of Israel in Egypt, when he struck the Egyptians but spared our houses.'" And the people bowed their heads and worshiped. 

He spared the Israely _houses_; I assume you would agree he doesn't mean a structure? Houses includes children. In the case of the Egyptians, God did not _spare_ thier _houses_. 

Exo 34:6 The LORD passed before him and proclaimed, "The LORD, the LORD, a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness, 
Exo 34:7 keeping steadfast love for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, but who will by no means clear the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children and the children's children, to the third and the fourth generation."


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> Do you think Noah needs the blood of Christ to stand before God for his eternal disposition?
> 
> [Edited on 11-20-2005 by jdlongmire]



Noah _had_ the blood of Christ at that given moment.

Heb 11:7 By faith Noah, being warned by God concerning events as yet unseen, in reverent fear constructed an ark for the saving of his household. By this he condemned the world and became an heir of the righteousness that comes by faith.


----------



## Scott Bushey

God word clearly states:

2Pe 2:5 if he did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a herald of righteousness, with seven others, when he brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly; 

G5339
Ï†ÎµÎ¹ÌÎ´Î¿Î¼Î±Î¹
pheidomai
fi'-dom-ahee
Of uncertain affinity; to be chary of, that is, (subjectively) to abstain or (objectively) to treat leniently: - forbear, spare.


he did not SPARE the ancient world; that is, outside of sparing Noah and those on the ark. Note the Greek: "to treat leniently". God was not lenient w/ any of them.



[Edited on 11-20-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## panta dokimazete

ok - I think we have a disconnect here:

Death is not final judgment. One could feel the effect of generational (temporal) judgment, yet still be Elect, no?

For example: I experience the effects of the deteriation of my body because of the temporal judgment by God on the sin of Adam, yet when I die, I will escape eternal judgment because of the propitiative life and death of Christ.

[Edited on 11-20-2005 by jdlongmire]


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> ok - I think we have a disconnect here:
> 
> Death is not final judgment. One could feel the effect of generational (temporal) judgment, yet still be Elect, no?
> 
> For example: I experience the effects of the deteriation of my body because of the temporal judgment by God on the sin of Adam, yet when I die, I will escape eternal judgment because of the propitiative life and death of Christ.
> 
> [Edited on 11-20-2005 by jdlongmire]



No where does the bible speak in these terms. In these cases I have quoted, judgment is being administered; it may not be the final judgment, but it is judgment. For instance, you would agree that Esau is in hell as we dialog?


----------



## panta dokimazete

I would say that Esau is probably in hell - he was a fully realized man and accountable before God for His own sin and a vessel created for dishonor (see my description of number 1's)...do you think David's baby is?

[Edited on 11-20-2005 by jdlongmire]


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Once again J.D. I will reiterate what I said earlier, it is perilous to speculate beyond the boundaries that Scripture reveals. Nobody argues about the election of Covenant children who die in infancy because there is some Scriptural evidence to assure us that we will see them again. On the election of all infants who die in infancy the Scriptures are silent. I think your Covenant Theology is severely lacking in the Federal burden that infants who die in infancy bear in your assumption that God _must_ elect them to be just and merciful.

Is it _possible_ that all infants who die in infancy are elect? Perhaps. Is it certain? By no means. It is purely speculative to draw your hard conclusions. I don't care what ruthless logic you utilize, you're making your intitial leap with your feet planted in mid-air if your foundation is un-Scriptural.

[Edited on 11-20-2005 by SemperFideles]


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> I would say that Esau is probably in hell - he was a fully realized man and accountable before God for His own sin and a vessel created for dishonor (see my description of number 1's)...do you think David's baby is?
> 
> [Edited on 11-20-2005 by jdlongmire]



Ok. So then going back to your previous premise, judgment is presently taking place?

As all the reformed creeds state, if Davids son was elect, yes, he is w/ the Lord even now.


----------



## panta dokimazete

So, Semper Fi - to remain doctrinally pure - one _must_ concede that God condemns some infants to Hell?

Emphasize God's Justice over His Grace through our own ruthlessly rationalized system when redemptive history reveals the latter?

Is this a winsome position?

[Edited on 11-20-2005 by jdlongmire]


----------



## panta dokimazete

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> I would say that Esau is probably in hell - he was a fully realized man and accountable before God for His own sin and a vessel created for dishonor (see my description of number 1's)...do you think David's baby is?
> 
> [Edited on 11-20-2005 by jdlongmire]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok. So then going back to your previous premise, judgment is presently taking place?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes. a-temporally.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As all the reformed creeds state, if Davids son was elect, yes, he is w/ the Lord even now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How does one discriminate one infant from the other?
Click to expand...


----------



## Semper Fidelis

> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> So - to remain doctrinally pure - one _must_ concede that God condemns some infants to Hell?
> 
> Emphasize God's Justice over His Grace through our own ruthlessly rationalized system when redemptive history reveals the latter?


...or you can just conclude that God saves elect infants and not conclude anything more than that. The confession does not say who is elect just as Scripture does not.

Our redemptive history reveals that Christ was the second Adam so God can be the Just and Justifier of those whose sins He atoned for and none else. Nobody is denying God's mercy found in Christ Jesus, we are just questioning the assumption that God _must_ elect all infants or He would be unjust or unmerciful. You speak as if Adam's guilt imputed to his posterity is insufficient for condemnation.

[Edited on 11-20-2005 by SemperFideles]


----------



## panta dokimazete

Which position do you think would comfort and be winsome to grieving parents?

Or would you fall back to the positon...well, God elects SOME infants, let's hope yours was elect...but we really can't infer from Scripture...(when we really can)

What a wimpy position.

-JD

[Edited on 11-20-2005 by jdlongmire]


----------



## Scott Bushey

> How does one discriminate one infant from the other?



Thats not our job; what our responsibility is is holding fast the doctrine under the premise of harmonious truth. As far as grieving parents go, my councel would be that God IS merciful to his people; I would not expound upon any particular person or persons. Christ came to save _His people_ from their sins; surely elect children fall under this idea.


----------



## gwine

> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> I would say that Esau is probably in hell - he was a fully realized man and accountable before God for His own sin and a vessel created for dishonor (see my description of number 1's)...do you think David's baby is?
> 
> [Edited on 11-20-2005 by jdlongmire]


David's baby (by Bathsheba) is in heaven, unless you would be willing to say that David is not in heaven.



> 2Sa 12:18 On the seventh day the child died. And the servants of David were afraid to tell him that the child was dead, for they said, "Behold, while the child was yet alive, we spoke to him, and he did not listen to us. How then can we say to him the child is dead? He may do himself some harm."
> 2Sa 12:19 But when David saw that his servants were whispering together, David understood that the child was dead. And David said to his servants, "Is the child dead?" They said, "He is dead."
> 2Sa 12:20 Then David arose from the earth and washed and anointed himself and changed his clothes. And he went into the house of the LORD and worshiped. He then went to his own house. And when he asked, they set food before him, and he ate.
> 2Sa 12:21 Then his servants said to him, "What is this thing that you have done? You fasted and wept for the child while he was alive; but when the child died, you arose and ate food."
> 2Sa 12:22 He said, "While the child was still alive, I fasted and wept, for I said, 'Who knows whether the LORD will be gracious to me, that the child may live?'
> 2Sa 12:23 But now he is dead. Why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? *I shall go to him*, but he will not return to me."


 (ESV)


----------



## johnrsorrell

Here is a transcription from Grace to You where John MacArthur answers this question from a caller. Also, there is NO glory in God through the eternal punishment of an infant.

_I have been doing some study on that very issue, because when I was at a conference recently, and that question was asked of a panel, of very astute theologians--no one gave an adequate answer. And I thought, "How can we have theologians who don't know the answer to that question," "What about the children before the age of accountability, when they die, do they go to heaven?" I think the answer is "yes," and I think it is a strong "YES," based upon the confidence of David who said, when his little baby died, "He cannot come to me, but I shall go to him." And David knew where he was going; David knew where he was going to heaven--he knew that. There wasn't any question in his mind about that, and when he said, "I shall go to him," in those words was the anticipation, and the hope and the joy of reunion. Now, some people have said, "Well, all he meant was, 'I am going to be buried next to him.'" There wouldn't be any reason to say, "He can't come to me, but, Oh I'm so glad I am going to be buried next to him!" There would be no joy in that; that wouldn't satisfy anything. So I think at that point, he was expressing the confidence that he was going to heaven, he knew that, and that's exactly where he would find his son, who had died before the age of accountability.

Another interesting thing that occurs numerous times in the Old Testament, is that children are referred to, and those children who die, as well, are referred to as "innocent," and the Hebrew word that is used for "innocent" is used numerous times in the Old Testament, refer to "not being guilty"--literally, "being taken to court and found 'not guilty.'" In fact, you remember, that it refers to the babies that were passed through the fire to Moloch [false god] as the "innocents", so I believe that God, prior to the "Age of Accountability" treats them as "innocent." It doesn't mean that they are no fallen; doesn't mean that they are not sinful--it does mean that God mercifully treats them as "innocent" in spite of that, and He has to exercise grace to do that, just as He exercises grace to save those who believe. _


----------



## Scott Bushey

Pro 16:4 The LORD has made everything for its purpose, even the wicked for the day of trouble.

Larger Catechism

Q12: What are the decrees of God?
A12: God's decrees are the wise, free, and holy acts of the counsel of his will,[1] whereby, from all eternity, he hath, for his own glory, unchangeably foreordained: Whatsoever comes to pass in time,[2] especially concerning angels and men.

1. Eph. 1:11; Rom. 9:14-15, 18; 11:33
2. Eph. 1:4, 11; Rom. 9:22-23; Psa. 33:11

Q13: What hath God especially decreed concerning angels and men?
A13: God, by an eternal and immutable decree, out of his mere love, for the praise of his glorious grace, to be manifested in due time, hath elected some angels to glory;[1] and in Christ hath chosen some men to eternal life, and the means thereof:[2] and also, according to his sovereign power, and the unsearchable counsel of his own will (whereby he extendeth or withholdeth favor as he pleases), hath passed by and foreordained the rest to dishonor and wrath, to be for their sin inflicted, to the praise of the glory of his justice.[3]

1. I Tim. 5:21
2. Eph. 1:4-6; II Thess. 2:13-14
3. Rom. 9:17-18, 21-22; Matt. 11:25-26; II Tim. 2:20; Jude 1:4; I Peter 2:8

Q14: How doth God execute his decrees? 
A14: God executeth his decrees in the works of creation and providence, according to his infallible foreknowledge, and the free and immutable counsel of his own will.[1]

1. Eph. 1:11


Shorter Catechism:

Q7: What are the decrees of God? 
A7: The decrees of God are, his eternal purpose, according to the counsel of his will, whereby, for his own glory, he hath fore-ordained whatsoever comes to pass.[1] 

1. Eph. 1:11-12

Q8: How doth God execute his decrees? 
A8: God executeth his decrees in the works of creation [1] and providence.[2] 

1. Rev. 4:11
2. Dan. 4:35


Romans 11:33-36

Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways! 34 "œFor who has known the mind of the Lord, or who has been his counselor?" 35 "œOr who has given a gift to him that he might be repaid?" 36 For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen.


[Edited on 11-20-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Scot

I hold to Scott's position.

Gen. 18:32 "...Peradventure ten shall be found there. And he said, I will not destroy it for ten's sake."

I'm sure that there were more than ten babies in the entire city of Sodom. If they were righteous in God's eyes, he wouldn't have destroyed the city.


----------



## panta dokimazete

How can a baby be righteous?

How is righteousness accounted?

I am with MacArthur on this.

III. Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated, and saved by Christ, through the Spirit,[12] who works when, and where, and how He pleases:[13] so also are all other elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.[14]

[12] LUK 18:15 And they brought unto him also *infants*, that he would touch them: but when his disciples saw it, they rebuked them. 16 But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God. ACT 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. 39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call. JOH 3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. 5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. 1JO 5:12 He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life. ROM 8:9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

[13] JOH 3:8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.

[14] 1JO 5:12 He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life. ACT 4:12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.

..............................................

Jeremiah 19:4
Because the people have forsaken me and have profaned this place by making offerings in it to other gods whom neither they nor their fathers nor the kings of Judah have known; and because they have filled this place with the blood of innocents, 


[Edited on 11-20-2005 by jdlongmire]


----------



## Larry Hughes

John Calvin, the sixteenth-century Reformer for whom Calvinism is named, asserted, "I do not doubt that the infants whom the Lord gathers together from this life are regenerated by a secret operation of the Holy Ghost." And "he speaks of the exemption of infants from the grace of salvation 'as an idea not free from execrable blasphemy'" (cited by Augustus Strong in Systematic Theology). He furthermore declared that "to say that the countless mortals taken from life while yet infants are precipitated from their mothers' arms into eternal death is a blasphemy to be universally detested" (quoted in Presbyterian and Reformed Review, Oct. 1890: pp.634-51).


Charles Hodge was a 19th-century professor of theology at Princeton Seminary, which was in those days a foremost American bastion of Calvinism. He wrote: "All who die in infancy are saved. This is inferred from what the Bible teaches of the analogy between Adam and Christ. 'As by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.' (Rom. v.18,19.) We have no right to put any limit on these general terms, except what the Bible itself places upon them. The Scriptures nowhere exclude any class of infants, baptized or unbaptized, born in Christian or in heathen lands, of believing or unbelieving parents, from the benefits of the redemption of Christ. All the descendants of Adam, except Christ, are under condemnation; all the descendants of Adam, except those of whom it is expressly revealed that they cannot inherit the kingdom of God, are saved. This appears to be the clear meaning of the Apostle, and therefore he does not hesitate to say that where sin abounded, grace has much more abounded, that the benefits of redemption far exceed the evils of the fall; that the number of the saved far exceeds the number of the lost" (Systematic Theology, vol.I, p.26)


John Newton, author of the favorite hymn "Amazing Grace," became a Calvinistic Anglican minister in 1764, serving the English parishes in Olney, Buckinghamshire, and London. In a letter to a friend he wrote, "Nor can I doubt, in my private judgment, that [infants] are included in the election of grace. Perhaps those who die in infancy, are the exceeding great multitude of all people, nations, and languages mentioned, Revelations, vii.9, in distinction from the visible body of professing believers, who were marked in the foreheads, and openly known to be the Lord's" (The Works of John Newton, vol.VI, p.182)


Alvah Hovey was a 19th-century American Baptist who served many years in Newton Theological Institution, and edited The American Commentary. He wrote in one of his books: "Though the sacred writers say nothing in respect to the future condition of those who die in infancy, one can scarcely err in deriving from this silence a favorable conclusion. That no prophet or apostle, that no devout father or mother, should have expressed any solicitude as to those who die before they are able to discern good from evil is surprising, unless such solicitude was prevented by the Spirit of God. There are no instances of prayer for children taken away in infancy. The Savior nowhere teaches that they are in danger of being lost. We therefore heartily and confidently believe that they are redeemed by the blood of Christ and sanctified by His Spirit, so that when they enter the unseen world they will be found with the saints" (Biblical Eschatology, pp.170f).


Lorraine Boettner was a 20th-Century Presbyterian who taught Bible for eight years in Pikeville College, Kentucky. In his book The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination he wrote at some length in defense of the Calvinist doctrine of infant salvation. We here quote from his remarks: "Calvinists, of course, hold that the doctrine of original sin applies to infants as well as to adults. Like all other sons of Adam, infants are truly culpable because of race sin and might be justly punished for it. Their 'salvation' is real. It is possible only through the grace of Christ and is as truly unmerited as is that of adults. Instead of minimizing the demerit and punishment due to them for original sin, Calvinism magnifies the mercy of God in their salvation. Their salvation means something, for it is the deliverance of guilty souls from eternal woe. And it is costly, for it was paid for by the suffering of Christ on the cross. Those who take the other view of original sin, namely, that it is not properly sin and does not deserve eternal punishment, make the evil from which infants are 'saved' to be very small, and consequently the love and gratitude which they owe to God to be small also.


"... Calvinism ... extends saving grace far beyond the boundaries of the visible church. If it is true that all of those who die in infancy, in heathen as well as in Christian lands, are saved, then more than half of the human race up to the present time has been among the elect."


B.B. Warfield, born in Kentucky in 1851, was along with Abraham Kuyper and Herman Bavinck one of the three most outstanding Reformed theologians in his day. He wrote concerning those who die in infancy: "Their destiny is determined irrespective of their choice, by an unconditional decree of God, suspended for its execution on no act of their own; and their salvation is wrought by an unconditional application of the grace of Christ to their souls, through the immediate and irresistible operation of the Holy Spirit prior to and apart from any action of their own proper wills... And if death in infancy does depend on God's providence, it is assuredly God in His providence who selects this vast multitude to be made participants of His unconditional salvation.... This is but to say that they are unconditionally predestinated to salvation from the foundation of the world" (quoted in Boettner's book).


Charles Haddon Spurgeon is perhaps the most-widely recognized name among Calvinists next to John Calvin. He served many years in the 19th-century as pastor in the Metropolitan Tabernacle in London, England. He preached on September 29, 1861, a message entitled "Infant Salvation" (#411 in Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit). In this message, Mr. Spurgeon not only convincingly proved from Holy Scriptures the belief of Calvinists that all persons dying in infancy are saved, but also soundly rebuked those Arminians and others who wrongly accuse us otherwise:


"It has been wickedly, lyingly, and slanderously said of Calvinists, that we believe that some little children perish. Those who make the accusation know that their charge is false. I cannot even dare to hope, though I would wish to do so, that they ignorantly misrepresent us. They wickedly repeat what has been denied a thousand times, what they know is not true.... I know of no exception, but we all hope and believe that all persons dying in infancy are elect. Dr. Gill, who has been looked upon in late times as being a very standard of Calvinism, not to say of ultra-Calvinism, himself never hints for a moment the supposition that any infant has perished, but affirms of it that it is a dark and mysterious subject, but that it is his belief, and he thinks he has Scripture to warrant it, that they who have fallen asleep in infancy have not perished, but have been numbered with the chosen of God, and so have entered into eternal rest. We have never taught the contrary, and when the charge is brought, I repudiate it and say, 'You may have said so, we never did, and you know we never did. If you dare to repeat the slander again, let the lie stand in scarlet on your very cheek if you be capable of a blush.' We have never dreamed of such a thing. With very few and rare exceptions, so rare that I never heard of them except from the lips of slanderers, we have never imagined that infants dying as infants have perished, but we have believed that they enter into the paradise of God."

L


----------



## Scott Bushey

First of all, we have all been saying that the creeds state that * elect infants dying in infancy* are regenerated/converted and saved by Christ. You previously implied:



> Again - who determines the disposition of the elect? why could ALL infants not be elect?



and here:



> Since they pass quickly from temporal to a-temporal life, do not become self aware to good and evil and therefore are not accountable for their sin (infants),




and MacArthurs quote Johnsorrel provided stated:



> I have been doing some study on that very issue, because when I was at a conference recently, and that question was asked of a panel, of very astute theologians--no one gave an adequate answer. And I thought, "How can we have theologians who don't know the answer to that question," "What about the children before the age of accountability, when they die, do they go to heaven?" I think the answer is "yes," and I think it is a strong "YES," based upon the confidence of David who said, when his little baby died, "He cannot come to me, but I shall go to him." And David knew where he was going; David knew where he was going to heaven--he knew that. There wasn't any question in his mind about that, and when he said, "I shall go to him," in those words was the anticipation, and the hope and the joy of reunion. Now, some people have said, "Well, all he meant was, 'I am going to be buried next to him.'" There wouldn't be any reason to say, "He can't come to me, but, Oh I'm so glad I am going to be buried next to him!" There would be no joy in that; that wouldn't satisfy anything. So I think at that point, he was expressing the confidence that he was going to heaven, he knew that, and that's exactly where he would find his son, who had died before the age of accountability.
> 
> Another interesting thing that occurs numerous times in the Old Testament, is that children are referred to, and those children who die, as well, are referred to as "innocent," and the Hebrew word that is used for "innocent" is used numerous times in the Old Testament, refer to "not being guilty"--literally, "being taken to court and found 'not guilty.'" In fact, you remember, that it refers to the babies that were passed through the fire to Moloch [false god] as the "innocents", so I believe that God, prior to the "Age of Accountability" treats them as "innocent." It doesn't mean that they are no fallen; doesn't mean that they are not sinful--it does mean that God mercifully treats them as "innocent" in spite of that, and He has to exercise grace to do that, just as He exercises grace to save those who believe.



Macarthur implies that all infants are elect. This contradicts the confession and what the historic church believed. The creeds state ELECT INFANTS! The statement distinguishes between the two camps: Elect & Reprobate. If we were speaking of adults, elect men, you would not have a quandry at all understanding the distinguishment being implied, but because we are talking of infants, we create this ambiguous curve. And for the record, there is no such thing as an age of accountability in the bible.

Larry,
There is not one shred of biblical evidence that God universally saves children. At what age does God cease? 2, 4, 6 , 8, 12? The bible does not support universalism. calvin is wrong here. 

[Edited on 11-20-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## panta dokimazete

Calvin and Spurgeon!!

woo-woo!

Thanks, Larry!




[Edited on 11-20-2005 by jdlongmire]


----------



## panta dokimazete

Universalism?

Who said anything about universalism?

Don't move the goalposts, please.


----------



## panta dokimazete

The age of accountability is a term of art, referring to the time in which a person becomes self aware and realizes the inherited curse of Adam - the knowledge of good and evil - and becomes accountable for their OWN sin.

There is no specific age at which this happens.


----------



## Scot

> How can a baby be righteous?
> 
> How is righteousness accounted?



"For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him." 2 Cor. 5:21

If Christ died for all babies, becoming sin for them, then his righteousness will be imputed unto them. Yet, there were not even ten righteous in Sodom. Are we to assume that there were not ten babies in the entire city?

Also, scripture teaches that faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God. I don't see an exception when it comes to infants. There are millions of infants that die without hearing the gospel. It doesn't matter if they understand intellectually, God uses his word to open the spiritual eyes and ears of an individual. If a baby has not been under the hearing of the word of God (be it while it's in the womb or otherwise), I see no scriptural evidence that supports that baby going to heaven.


----------



## Scott Bushey

Please define: 
Election
Total Depravity

John Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion.

"...Original sin, then, may be defined a hereditary corruption and depravity of our nature, extending to all the parts of the soul, which first makes us obnoxious to the wrath of God, and then produces in us works which in Scripture are termed works of the flesh...The two things, therefore, are to be distinctly observed, viz., that being thus perverted and corrupted in all the parts of our nature, we are, merely on account of such corruption, deservedly condemned by God, to whom nothing is acceptable but righteousness, innocence, and purity...Hence Augustine, though he often terms it another´s sin (that he may more clearly show how it comes to us by descent), at the same time asserts that it is each individual´s own sin. And the Apostle most distinctly testifies, that "œdeath passed upon all men, for that all have sinned" (Romans 5:12); that is, are involved in original sin, and polluted by its stain. Hence, even infants bringing their condemnation with them from their mother´s womb, suffer not for another´s, but for their own defect. For although they have not yet produced the fruits of their own unrighteousness, they have the seed implanted in them. Nay, their whole nature is, as it were, a seed-bed of sin, and therefore cannot but be odious and abominable to God..." (2.1.8)


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> Universalism?
> 
> Who said anything about universalism?
> 
> Don't move the goalposts, please.



You said that God saves all infants. That's universalism.


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> The age of accountability is a term of art, referring to the time in which a person becomes self aware and realizes the inherited curse of Adam - the knowledge of good and evil - and becomes accountable for their OWN sin.
> 
> There is no specific age at which this happens.



A 'term of art' ??? Please provide a scripture to support such a novel idea.


----------



## panta dokimazete

Scripture teaches that God is Sovereign and has no requirement in His will other than the death of Christ to adopt sinners to Him.

Scripture teaches that God's mercy tempers His justice.

Scripture teaches that Christ loved infants.

Scripture teaches that noone will be etrnally seperated, except on the merit of their OWN sin.

Look past your phylactary.


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by Scot_
> 
> 
> 
> How can a baby be righteous?
> 
> How is righteousness accounted?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him." 2 Cor. 5:21
> 
> If Christ died for all babies, becoming sin for them, then his righteousness will be imputed unto them. Yet, there were not even ten righteous in Sodom. Are we to assume that there were not ten babies in the entire city?
> 
> Also, scripture teaches that faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God. I don't see an exception when it comes to infants. There are millions of infants that die without hearing the gospel. It doesn't matter if they understand intellectually, God uses his word to open the spiritual eyes and ears of an individual. If a baby has not been under the hearing of the word of God (be it while it's in the womb or otherwise), I see no scriptural evidence that supports that baby going to heaven.
Click to expand...


Dan, I have as well mentioned the flood. No response.


----------



## panta dokimazete

Universalism - an understanding of the all-encompassing nature of salvation, including the belief that ultimately all will be saved.

This is not what we have been discussing.


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> Scripture teaches that God is Sovereign and has no requirement in His will other than the death of Christ to adopt sinners to Him.
> 
> Scripture teaches that God's mercy tempers His justice.
> 
> Scripture teaches that Christ loved infants.
> 
> Scripture teaches that noone will be etrnally seperated, except on the merit of their OWN sin.
> 
> Look past your phylactary.



Please show me the passage that proves that Christ loved ALL infants/children???? 

The infants you describe were covenant children. I provided the Greek; Paidion:

G3813
Ï€Î±Î¹Î´Î¹ÌÎ¿Î½
paidion
pahee-dee'-on
Neuter diminutive of G3816; a childling (of either sex), that is, (properly) an infant, or (by extension) a half grown boy or girl; figuratively *an immature Christian*: - (little, young) child, damsel.

[Edited on 11-20-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> Universalism - an understanding of the all-encompassing nature of salvation, including the belief that ultimately all will be saved.
> 
> This is not what we have been discussing.



You say ALL infants and children are elect; that universalistic.


----------



## Larry Hughes

Scott,

Respectfully, I disagree as it is drawn from the nature of grace itself and the consistency of Christ's view to children. In any case at least one Reformer whom I quoted did believe that.

L


----------



## panta dokimazete

> A 'term of art' ??? Please provide a scripture to support such a novel idea.



term of art...you know - like the term of art for the three in one God - Trinity?

Technical terminology is the specialised vocabulary of a *profession* or of some other activity to which a group of people dedicate significant parts of their lives (for instance, hobbies). Sometimes technical terminology is termed jargon or, particularly in law, terms of art or words of art. 
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Term_of_art

[Edited on 11-20-2005 by jdlongmire]


----------



## panta dokimazete

> You say ALL infants and children are elect; that universalistic.



No, if I said "everyone is Elect" - that is universalism - I am not on a slippery slope.

[Edited on 11-20-2005 by jdlongmire]


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by Larry Hughes_
> Scott,
> 
> Respectfully, I disagree as it is drawn from the nature of grace itself and the consistency of Christ's view to children. In any case at least one Reformer whom I quoted did believe that.
> 
> L



Larry,
Please tell me what this passage means?

Gen 17:14 And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant. 

Were these uncircumcised children cut off from Israel? What are the implications of being cut off from not circumcising your child? Why did Zipporah call Moses 'father of blood'?


----------



## Peter

There is one way to heaven: faith Eph 2:8 Infants do not get a free pass

God is glorified in sending babies to hell. First, babies fell with Adam in his first transgression. They are all guilty of original sin. Second, all babies that have the capacity to sin do commit actual sin. Even pre-born fetuses early in a woman's pregnancy have a brain* and can think, so they can think sinful thoughts no matter how simple and relatively benign. Remember, David said that he sinned while his body was formed within his mothers womb Ps 51 and the soul that sins shall die. However, God does regenerate babies and consequently they do have faith. Just because they cannot profess it doesn't mean they dont possess it.


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> 
> 
> 
> You say ALL infants and children are elect; that universalistic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, if I said "everyone is Elect" - that is universalism - I am not on a slippery slope.
> 
> [Edited on 11-20-2005 by jdlongmire]
Click to expand...


JD,
Lets simplify this: Infants whom die, do you say that they are elect or not?


----------



## Larry Hughes

Doesn't anyone see the real problem here at all? You are bending yourselves around the axle on the unsearchable labrinth of God's election, and lost sight of Christ altogether. That IS ALWAYS the danger when we decentralize the Gospel even when attempting to understand other real doctrines. 

The reality is this: YOU and ME being mere finite men (very sinful men at that) cannot search like some gnostic the mind of God to know what you seek to know. You simply cannot and are left with idol building speculations about Sodom and other Scriptures. But Christ said all Scripture bore witness to Him. Whether we vainly seek to "detect a man's heart" so that we might baptism him at just the right time OR seek to know the eternal destiny of every infant on this earth both by God's secret only election we climb a Gnostic latter.

We can only know God not in His naked glory which kills us but at the point of the Suffering Son of God, the cross of Christ. There and there alone can we know ANYTHING about God that doesn't damn our souls. Looking at the cross of Christ suffering I can ONLY conclude and hope and expect until glory in eternity by that immeasurable grace and mercy that all infants have had such immeasurable grace and mercy given them. Of what insidious and vain purpose is it to speculate otherwise? Because as soon as one does such speculation you can indeed feel it in your own hearts this very moment that you have raised yourself up in the eyes of God.

Better to look at Christ's cross and think that God's grace and mercy extends to all infants and I received this same undeserved grace and mercy FOR Christ'S sake than to like some high flying spirit peer into something l cannot fathom or live thereby seeing.

L


----------



## panta dokimazete

Colossians 3:11
Here there is not Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave, free; but Christ is all, and in all.


----------



## JohnV

> _Originally posted by Peter_
> There is one way to heaven: faith Eph 2:8 Infants do not get a free pass
> 
> God is glorified in sending babies to hell. First, babies fell with Adam in his first transgression. They are all guilty of original sin. Second, all babies that have the capacity to sin do commit actual sin. Even pre-born fetuses early in a woman's pregnancy have a brain* and can think, so they can think sinful thoughts no matter how simple and relatively benign. Remember, David said that he sinned while his body was formed within his mothers womb Ps 51 and the soul that sins shall die. However, God does regenerate babies and consequently they do have faith. Just because they cannot profess it doesn't mean they dont possess it.



In the Dutch forms for baptism it says that children are "conceived and born in sin". This comes directly from Scripture; Psalm 51. The question is not whether there is sufficient grounds to condemn children. The question is whether Christ's covenantal atonement is for them. I think this is not in our hands, nor within our scope to know. We can only draw comfort from the fact that our children who die in infancy do die in the promises, not outside it. So there is a hope for the parents left behind that their child is safe in the arms of Jesus. But it is more than a hope, as it is an assurance as well that, if Christ made such promises to the parents, that He will not break them. 

They are not saved based on foreseen faith, but on the basis of election. Take that away, and it is all just wishful thinking.


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by Larry Hughes_
> Doesn't anyone see the real problem here at all? You are bending yourselves around the axle on the unsearchable labrinth of God's election, and lost sight of Christ altogether. That IS ALWAYS the danger when we decentralize the Gospel even when attempting to understand other real doctrines.
> 
> The reality is this: YOU and ME being mere finite men (very sinful men at that) cannot search like some gnostic the mind of God to know what you seek to know. You simply cannot and are left with idol building speculations about Sodom and other Scriptures. But Christ said all Scripture bore witness to Him. Whether we vainly seek to "detect a man's heart" so that we might baptism him at just the right time OR seek to know the eternal destiny of every infant on this earth both by God's secret only election we climb a Gnostic latter.
> 
> We can only know God not in His naked glory which kills us but at the point of the Suffering Son of God, the cross of Christ. There and there alone can we know ANYTHING about God that doesn't damn our souls. Looking at the cross of Christ suffering I can ONLY conclude and hope and expect until glory in eternity by that immeasurable grace and mercy that all infants have had such immeasurable grace and mercy given them. Of what insidious and vain purpose is it to speculate otherwise? Because as soon as one does such speculation you can indeed feel it in your own hearts this very moment that you have raised yourself up in the eyes of God.
> 
> Better to look at Christ's cross and think that God's grace and mercy extends to all infants and I received this same undeserved grace and mercy FOR Christ'S sake than to like some high flying spirit peer into something l cannot fathom or live thereby seeing.
> 
> L



Larry,
The problem with this thinking is that it is not harmonious with scripture. YTou are basing your position upon emotions. Have all sinned? Are all men totally depraved? Are children, from the womb speaking deceit? Is there such a thing as the elective decree? Does that decree include everyone? Did the potter make one vessel for mercy and the other for dishonor; not based upon anything the vessel did?

Rom 9:21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? 
Rom 9:22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: 
Rom 9:23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory, 

Forgive me for pressing you. I only want us to be responsible for what God HAS revealed. Why did Zipporah call Moses "husband of blood"

?I for one will not complain to the potter, why have you made me as such!


----------



## panta dokimazete

> JD,
> Lets simplify this: Infants whom die, do you say that they are elect or not?



I say that infants whom die are elect by the grace of God through Christ Jesus whose life, death and resurrection enabled elect sinners to escape the just judgment of God unconditionally.


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> 
> 
> 
> JD,
> Lets simplify this: Infants whom die, do you say that they are elect or not?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I say that infants whom die are elect by the grace of God through Christ Jesus whose life, death and resurrection enabled elect sinners to escape the just judgment of God unconditionally.
Click to expand...


Thats universalism. You have just saved every infant whom ever died. That includes all the infants of Sodom and Gomorah, the Flood, etc.

Universalism; period!

Please tell me what God meant when he commanded Abraham to place the sign upon all the male children and if a male child was negelected, that child was 'cut off'?


----------



## panta dokimazete

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Larry Hughes_
> Doesn't anyone see the real problem here at all? You are bending yourselves around the axle on the unsearchable labrinth of God's election, and lost sight of Christ altogether. That IS ALWAYS the danger when we decentralize the Gospel even when attempting to understand other real doctrines.
> 
> The reality is this: YOU and ME being mere finite men (very sinful men at that) cannot search like some gnostic the mind of God to know what you seek to know. You simply cannot and are left with idol building speculations about Sodom and other Scriptures. But Christ said all Scripture bore witness to Him. Whether we vainly seek to "detect a man's heart" so that we might baptism him at just the right time OR seek to know the eternal destiny of every infant on this earth both by God's secret only election we climb a Gnostic latter.
> 
> We can only know God not in His naked glory which kills us but at the point of the Suffering Son of God, the cross of Christ. There and there alone can we know ANYTHING about God that doesn't damn our souls. Looking at the cross of Christ suffering I can ONLY conclude and hope and expect until glory in eternity by that immeasurable grace and mercy that all infants have had such immeasurable grace and mercy given them. Of what insidious and vain purpose is it to speculate otherwise? Because as soon as one does such speculation you can indeed feel it in your own hearts this very moment that you have raised yourself up in the eyes of God.
> 
> Better to look at Christ's cross and think that God's grace and mercy extends to all infants and I received this same undeserved grace and mercy FOR Christ'S sake than to like some high flying spirit peer into something l cannot fathom or live thereby seeing.
> 
> L
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Larry,
> The problem with this thinking is that it is not harmonious with scripture. YTou are basing your position upon emotions. Have all sinned? Are all men totally depraved? Are children, from the womb speaking deceit? Is there such a thing as the elective decree? Does that decree include everyone? Did the potter make one vessel for mercy and the other for dishonor; not based upon anything the vessel did?
> 
> Rom 9:21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?
> Rom 9:22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:
> Rom 9:23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,
> 
> Forgive me for pressing you. I only want us to be responsible for what God HAS revealed. Why did Zipporah call Moses "husband of blood"
> 
> ?I for one will not complain to the potter, why have you made me as such!
Click to expand...


Why do you try and frame this as an appeal to emotion?

Christ - in Scripture - expressed God's character and rebuked his DISCIPLES when they wanted to take the infants away. He then said - "of such is the Kingdom of Heaven" - why is this hard to understand?

You have been given confirmation that at least 2 great reformed thinkers agree with this - why would you constrain God's mercy on this one item?


----------



## panta dokimazete

> Please tell me what God meant when he commanded Abraham to place the sign upon all the male children and if a male child was negelected, that child was 'cut off'?



Do you believe that uncircumcised folk are cut off from the kingdom of Heaven?


----------



## panta dokimazete

Also - we are talking about infants that die - not children in general. I do not believe that all children are Elect.


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Larry Hughes_
> Doesn't anyone see the real problem here at all? You are bending yourselves around the axle on the unsearchable labrinth of God's election, and lost sight of Christ altogether. That IS ALWAYS the danger when we decentralize the Gospel even when attempting to understand other real doctrines.
> 
> The reality is this: YOU and ME being mere finite men (very sinful men at that) cannot search like some gnostic the mind of God to know what you seek to know. You simply cannot and are left with idol building speculations about Sodom and other Scriptures. But Christ said all Scripture bore witness to Him. Whether we vainly seek to "detect a man's heart" so that we might baptism him at just the right time OR seek to know the eternal destiny of every infant on this earth both by God's secret only election we climb a Gnostic latter.
> 
> We can only know God not in His naked glory which kills us but at the point of the Suffering Son of God, the cross of Christ. There and there alone can we know ANYTHING about God that doesn't damn our souls. Looking at the cross of Christ suffering I can ONLY conclude and hope and expect until glory in eternity by that immeasurable grace and mercy that all infants have had such immeasurable grace and mercy given them. Of what insidious and vain purpose is it to speculate otherwise? Because as soon as one does such speculation you can indeed feel it in your own hearts this very moment that you have raised yourself up in the eyes of God.
> 
> Better to look at Christ's cross and think that God's grace and mercy extends to all infants and I received this same undeserved grace and mercy FOR Christ'S sake than to like some high flying spirit peer into something l cannot fathom or live thereby seeing.
> 
> L
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Larry,
> The problem with this thinking is that it is not harmonious with scripture. YTou are basing your position upon emotions. Have all sinned? Are all men totally depraved? Are children, from the womb speaking deceit? Is there such a thing as the elective decree? Does that decree include everyone? Did the potter make one vessel for mercy and the other for dishonor; not based upon anything the vessel did?
> 
> Rom 9:21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?
> Rom 9:22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:
> Rom 9:23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,
> 
> Forgive me for pressing you. I only want us to be responsible for what God HAS revealed. Why did Zipporah call Moses "husband of blood"
> 
> ?I for one will not complain to the potter, why have you made me as such!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you try and frame this as an appeal to emotion?
> 
> Christ - in Scripture - expressed God's character and rebuked his DISCIPLES when they wanted to take the infants away. He then said - "of such is the Kingdom of Heaven" - why is this hard to understand?
> 
> You have been given confirmation that at least 2 great reformed thinkers agree with this - why would you constrain God's mercy on this one item?
Click to expand...


Why do you neglect the Greek I presented. Do a word study. The term is used to describe a disciple or young Christian.


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> Also - we are talking about infants that die - not children in general. I do not believe that all children are Elect.



I understand. But you do believe that all children or infants whom die are elect. You are basing this upon the idea that Christ had a special love for ALL children. Since Christ is God, this idea must cross all parameters of time. This to include (as previously mentioned) the children of the flood, S & G, etc. etc.

Do the word study. These children were covenant children; all circumcised!

As far as what I believe, I believe Gods word. His word states that if the sign is not placed upon our children, those children are cut off. Is that what God said?

[Edited on 11-20-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## panta dokimazete

?????

15Now they were bringing even infants to him that he might touch them. And when the disciples saw it, they rebuked them. 16But Jesus called them to him, saying, "Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of God. 

So you believe that the term infant used here means a disciple or young Christian?


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> ?????
> 
> 15Now they were bringing even infants to him that he might touch them. And when the disciples saw it, they rebuked them. 16But Jesus called them to him, saying, "Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of God.
> 
> So you believe that the term infant used here means a disciple or young Christian?



I don't believe it, I know it!
Let me ask you: Did the law allow for the Jews to come in contact with the gentiles? Did Jesus call the gentiles, "DOGS" ?

Mar 7:25 For a certain woman, whose young daughter had an unclean spirit, heard of him, and came and fell at his feet: 
Mar 7:26 The woman was a Greek, a Syrophenician by nation; and she besought him that he would cast forth the devil out of her daughter. 
Mar 7:27 But Jesus said unto her, Let the children first be filled: for it is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it unto the dogs. 

Did Jesus break the law? No! Did he lay His hands upon gentiles? No! The children brougjht to him were covenant children (paidion) and were circumcised..............


[Edited on 11-20-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## panta dokimazete

Lu 18:15
And they brought unto him also infants, that he would touch them: but when his disciples saw it, they rebuked them. 

Prosevferon de; aujtw'/ kai; ta; brevfh i&na aujtw'n a&pthtai: ijdovnteÃŸ de; oiJ maqhtai; ejpetivmwn aujtoi'ÃŸ. 


Original Word Word Origin 
brevfoÃŸ of uncertain affin. 
Transliterated Word TDNT Entry 
Brephos 5:636,759 
Phonetic Spelling Parts of Speech 
bref'-os Noun Neuter 

Definition 
an unborn child, embryo, a foetus 
a new-born child, an infant, a babe


----------



## panta dokimazete

where does it say they were covenant infants?

Christ was constantly surrounded by "sinners" [Gentiles]

Mark 2:15
And as he reclined at table in his house, many tax collectors and sinners were reclining with Jesus and his disciples, for there were many who followed him. 

Matthew 9:13
Go and learn what this means, 'I desire mercy, and not sacrifice.' For I came not to call the righteous, but sinners." 


Matthew 26:45
Then he came to the disciples and said to them, "Sleep and take your rest later on. See, the hour is at hand, and the Son of Man is betrayed into the hands of sinners.

Romans 5:19
For as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous.

[Edited on 11-20-2005 by jdlongmire]


----------



## Scott Bushey

In L 18:15, the Greek used is Brephos, in verse 16, it is paidion. The children that were brought, whether infant or young child, were covenant children. It was not Gentile children.


----------



## Scott Bushey

Are you reading my posts?


----------



## Scott Bushey

Paidion:

G3813
Ï€Î±Î¹Î´Î¹ÌÎ¿Î½
paidion
pahee-dee'-on
Neuter diminutive of G3816; a childling (of either sex), that is, (properly) an infant, or (by extension) a half grown boy or girl; *figuratively an immature Christian*: - (little, young) child, damsel.

G1025
Î²ÏÎµÌÏ†Î¿Ï‚
brephos
bref'-os
Of uncertain affinity; *an infant *(properly unborn) literally or figuratively: - babe, (young) child, infant.

Could Jesus touch a gentile?


----------



## Peter

Mt 19:1 "he departed from Galilee, and came into the coasts of Judaea beyond Jordan"


----------



## Peter

> _Originally posted by JohnV_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Peter_
> There is one way to heaven: faith Eph 2:8 Infants do not get a free pass
> 
> God is glorified in sending babies to hell. First, babies fell with Adam in his first transgression. They are all guilty of original sin. Second, all babies that have the capacity to sin do commit actual sin. Even pre-born fetuses early in a woman's pregnancy have a brain* and can think, so they can think sinful thoughts no matter how simple and relatively benign. Remember, David said that he sinned while his body was formed within his mothers womb Ps 51 and the soul that sins shall die. However, God does regenerate babies and consequently they do have faith. Just because they cannot profess it doesn't mean they dont possess it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the Dutch forms for baptism it says that children are "conceived and born in sin". This comes directly from Scripture; Psalm 51. The question is not whether there is sufficient grounds to condemn children. The question is whether Christ's covenantal atonement is for them. I think this is not in our hands, nor within our scope to know. We can only draw comfort from the fact that our children who die in infancy do die in the promises, not outside it. So there is a hope for the parents left behind that their child is safe in the arms of Jesus. But it is more than a hope, as it is an assurance as well that, if Christ made such promises to the parents, that He will not break them.
> 
> They are not saved based on foreseen faith, but on the basis of election. Take that away, and it is all just wishful thinking.
Click to expand...


This post was a response to the Piper and MacAuthor quotes which said that babies cannot go to hell because they cannot see the revelation of God's will.


----------



## JohnV

> _Originally posted by Peter_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by JohnV_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Peter_
> There is one way to heaven: faith Eph 2:8 Infants do not get a free pass
> 
> God is glorified in sending babies to hell. First, babies fell with Adam in his first transgression. They are all guilty of original sin. Second, all babies that have the capacity to sin do commit actual sin. Even pre-born fetuses early in a woman's pregnancy have a brain* and can think, so they can think sinful thoughts no matter how simple and relatively benign. Remember, David said that he sinned while his body was formed within his mothers womb Ps 51 and the soul that sins shall die. However, God does regenerate babies and consequently they do have faith. Just because they cannot profess it doesn't mean they dont possess it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the Dutch forms for baptism it says that children are "conceived and born in sin". This comes directly from Scripture; Psalm 51. The question is not whether there is sufficient grounds to condemn children. The question is whether Christ's covenantal atonement is for them. I think this is not in our hands, nor within our scope to know. We can only draw comfort from the fact that our children who die in infancy do die in the promises, not outside it. So there is a hope for the parents left behind that their child is safe in the arms of Jesus. But it is more than a hope, as it is an assurance as well that, if Christ made such promises to the parents, that He will not break them.
> 
> They are not saved based on foreseen faith, but on the basis of election. Take that away, and it is all just wishful thinking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This post was a response to the Piper and MacAuthor quotes which said that babies cannot go to hell because they cannot see the revelation of God's will.
Click to expand...


Sorry, Peter. I failed to say that I was not disagreeing, but expanding on your thought. Leaving that out, as I see now (with thanks), makes it appear different. My apologies.


----------



## panta dokimazete

Strong's Number: 3813 Browse Lexicon 
Original Word Word Origin 
paidivon from dimin. of (3816) 
Transliterated Word TDNT Entry 
Paidion 5:636,759 
Phonetic Spelling Parts of Speech 
pahee-dee'-on Noun Neuter 

Definition 
a young child, a little boy, a little girl 
infants 
children, little ones 
an infant 
of a (male) child just recently born 
of a more advanced child; of a mature child; 
metaph. children (like children) in intellect 

This does not mean - or imply - that they were not infants or that they were circumcised.

[Edited on 11-20-2005 by jdlongmire]


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> where does it say they were covenant infants?
> 
> Christ was constantly surrounded by "sinners" [Gentiles]
> 
> Mark 2:15
> And as he reclined at table in his house, many tax collectors and sinners were reclining with Jesus and his disciples, for there were many who followed him.
> 
> Matthew 9:13
> Go and learn what this means, 'I desire mercy, and not sacrifice.' For I came not to call the righteous, but sinners."
> 
> 
> Matthew 26:45
> Then he came to the disciples and said to them, "Sleep and take your rest later on. See, the hour is at hand, and the Son of Man is betrayed into the hands of sinners.
> 
> Romans 5:19
> For as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous.
> 
> [Edited on 11-20-2005 by jdlongmire]



So.........sinners=gentiles???? oh my. 

Thank you for the dialog.


----------



## panta dokimazete

you are welcome - the term sinners can certainly be applied inclusively to Gentiles or the uncircumcised

[Edited on 11-20-2005 by jdlongmire]


----------



## Scott Bushey




----------



## panta dokimazete

Galatians 2:15 

15We ourselves are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners;


----------



## Herald

Could it just be that the answer to this question is beyond our understanding?


----------



## LawrenceU

Scott, I'm just curious. What lexicon are you using in your word study?


----------



## doulosChristou

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> The reformed position is that there are some elect infants *and there are some reprobate.*



Are you deducing this from inferences, Scott, or is there some Reformed confession or systematic theology positively asserting that there are some reprobate infants?

Calvin seems to suggest that any person asserting such a thing as fact was guilty of blasphemy: "to say that the countless mortals taken from life while yet infants are precipitated from their mothers' arms into eternal death is a blasphemy to be universally detested." The Princetonians agree with the magisterial reformer on this point. It appears Piper is agreeing as well. I know of several examples of Reformed folks who have said this is a dark and mysterious subject upon which we cannot know and I believe the WCF's statement is the safest one to make, but I am not aware of any who have gone so far as you to say that it is their position that there are some reprobate infants. Yet, you say above that this is the Reformed position. You then suggest the Egyptian infants are in hell. Am I misunderstanding you? If not, I'd like to know where you think this position is set forth as the Reformed position.


----------



## Scott Bushey

Lawrence,
I'm using Esword and BibleWorks5. Esword uses the Strongs definitions.

Doulos,
I am using the WCF and LBC; both assert that _elect_ infants dying in infancy are saved via Christ; not all infants. 

III. Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated, and saved by Christ, through the Spirit,[12] who worketh when, and where, and how hepleaseth:[13] so also are all other elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.[14]

12. Gen. 17:7; Luke 1:15; 18:15-16; Acts 2:39; John 3:3, 5; I John 5:12
13. John 3:8
14. John 16:7-8; I John 5:12; Acts 4:12


The assertion, taken to it's conclusion implies that if there are elect infants, there as well MUST be reprobate/non elect ones as well.

I disagree w/ Calvin on the point you cite; he is pushing the envelope.

He is much clearer below.
John Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion.

"...Original sin, then, may be defined a hereditary corruption and depravity of our nature, extending to all the parts of the soul, which first makes us obnoxious to the wrath of God, and then produces in us works which in Scripture are termed works of the flesh...The two things, therefore, are to be distinctly observed, viz., that being thus perverted and corrupted in all the parts of our nature, we are, merely on account of such corruption, deservedly condemned by God, to whom nothing is acceptable but righteousness, innocence, and purity...Hence Augustine, though he often terms it another´s sin (that he may more clearly show how it comes to us by descent), at the same time asserts that it is each individual´s own sin. And the Apostle most distinctly testifies, that "œdeath passed upon all men, for that all have sinned" (Romans 5:12); that is, are involved in original sin, and polluted by its stain. Hence, even infants bringing their condemnation with them from their mother´s womb, suffer not for another´s, but for their own defect. For although they have not yet produced the fruits of their own unrighteousness, they have the seed implanted in them. Nay, their whole nature is, as it were, a seed-bed of sin, and therefore cannot but be odious and abominable to God..." (2.1.8) 


[Edited on 11-21-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## pastorway

the Second London Confession as amended by CH Spurgeon (the version our church adopted) says:

_Infants dying in infancy are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit, Who works when, where, and how He pleases. So also are all elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word. _

I agree with Spurgeon's edit here and believe that the best book I have read on the topic is MacArthur's _Safe in the Arms of God_.

Otherwise, please excuse me as I have no desire whatsoever to enter this debate.

Phillip


----------



## panta dokimazete

> If infants and others not capable of being called by the gospel are to be saved, they must be regenerated and sanctified immediately by God without the use of means. If God could create Adam holy without means, and if he can new-create believers in righteousness and true holiness by the use of means which a large part of men use without profit, he can certainly make infants and others regenerate without means. Indeed, the natural depravity of infants lies before moral action, in the judicial deprivation of the Holy Ghost. The evil is rectified at that stage, therefore, by the gracious restoration of the soul to its moral relation to the Spirit of God. The phrase "elect infants" is precise and fit for its purpose. It is not intended to suggest that there are any infants not elect, but simply to point out the facts -- (1.) That all infants are born under righteous condemnation; and (2.) That no infant has any claim in itself to salvation; and hence (3.) The salvation of each infant, precisely as the salvation of every adult, must have its absolute ground in the sovereign election of God. This would be just as true if all adults were elected, as it is now that only some adults are elected. It is, therefore, just as true, although we have good reason to believe that all infants are elected. The Confession adheres in this place accurately to the facts revealed. It is certainly revealed that none, either adult or infant, is saved except on the ground of a sovereign election; that is, all salvation for the human race is pure grace. It is not positively revealed that all infants are elect, but we are left, for many reasons, to indulge a highly probable hope that such is the fact. The Confession affirms what is certainly revealed, and leaves that which revelation has not decided to remain, without the suggestion of a positive opinion upon one side or the other.



http://www.rtrc.net/documents/wcf/hodge/wcfaah10.htm


----------



## Herald

> _Originally posted by pastorway_
> the Second London Confession as amended by CH Spurgeon (the version our church adopted) says:
> 
> _Infants dying in infancy are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit, Who works when, where, and how He pleases. So also are all elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word. _
> 
> I agree with Spurgeon's edit here and believe that the best book I have read on the topic is MacArthur's _Safe in the Arms of God_.
> 
> Otherwise, please excuse me as I have no desire whatsoever to enter this debate.
> 
> Phillip



Phillip, you ARE as smart as you look!


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> 
> 
> 
> If infants and others not capable of being called by the gospel are to be saved, they must be regenerated and sanctified immediately by God without the use of means. If God could create Adam holy without means, and if he can new-create believers in righteousness and true holiness by the use of means which a large part of men use without profit, he can certainly make infants and others regenerate without means. Indeed, the natural depravity of infants lies before moral action, in the judicial deprivation of the Holy Ghost. The evil is rectified at that stage, therefore, by the gracious restoration of the soul to its moral relation to the Spirit of God. The phrase "elect infants" is precise and fit for its purpose. It is not intended to suggest that there are any infants not elect, but simply to point out the facts -- (1.) That all infants are born under righteous condemnation; and (2.) That no infant has any claim in itself to salvation; and hence (3.) The salvation of each infant, precisely as the salvation of every adult, must have its absolute ground in the sovereign election of God. This would be just as true if all adults were elected, as it is now that only some adults are elected. It is, therefore, just as true, although we have good reason to believe that all infants are elected. The Confession adheres in this place accurately to the facts revealed. It is certainly revealed that none, either adult or infant, is saved except on the ground of a sovereign election; that is, all salvation for the human race is pure grace. It is not positively revealed that all infants are elect, but we are left, for many reasons, to indulge a highly probable hope that such is the fact. The Confession affirms what is certainly revealed, and leaves that which revelation has not decided to remain, without the suggestion of a positive opinion upon one side or the other.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.rtrc.net/documents/wcf/hodge/wcfaah10.htm
Click to expand...


Again, 
this is speculation at best. What the scriptures do convey is that all ahev sinned and God punishes sin. The fact that it is Adamic, is irrelevent. The elective decree is limiting. No race or gender is above the doctrine, not even children. 

As I have mentioned numerous times, one must then take this idea to it;s farthest conclusion: all muslim children, all the children in Noahs flood, the children of S & G, the native child who has never heard the gospel etc.

This is a form of universalism. The abortion premise is not absurd; one could guarantee more elections based upon this premise, and isn't ot better for someone to be in Heaven than hell? So lets abort children.


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by BaptistInCrisis_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by pastorway_
> the Second London Confession as amended by CH Spurgeon (the version our church adopted) says:
> 
> _Infants dying in infancy are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit, Who works when, where, and how He pleases. So also are all elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word. _
> 
> I agree with Spurgeon's edit here and believe that the best book I have read on the topic is MacArthur's _Safe in the Arms of God_.
> 
> Otherwise, please excuse me as I have no desire whatsoever to enter this debate.
> 
> Phillip
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phillip, you ARE as smart as you look!
Click to expand...


The 1689 LBC states:

3. *Elect infants dying in infancy are regenerated* and saved by Christ through the Spirit; who worketh when, and where, and how he pleases; so also are all elect persons, who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word. 
( John 3:3, 5, 6; John 3:8 )


----------



## Scot

I've read the arguements before from both sides and still cannot see scripturally were the Bible teaches that infants who die are "automatically in." I see were the Bible teaches about the elect and the non-elect. Nowhere do I see an "age of accountability" or anything of the sort. 

In fact, when I first became a believer and was reading Boettner's "The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination", I thought his belief on all that die in infancy being elect was inconsistant. The book was great except for that chapter.

I can see the arminians believing this since they believe that you make the choice in order to become saved but I can't understand how those who hold to the doctrines of total depravity, God's sovereignty, etc. hold this belief.

I believe the scriptures teach that in faith comes by hearing the word of God. Is there another way that I'm missing here? Isn't this what the Bible states? If this is the case, how can infants be saved that have not been under the hearing of the word? If God elects an individual, he also makes sure that they're spiritual eyes and ears are opened to hear the word. There are many individuals who die without ever hearing the gospel. This obviously shows that they were not elect. These are infants, children and adults. Where in scripture does it speak of an exception to this rule?


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by Scot_
> I've read the arguements before from both sides and still cannot see scripturally were the Bible teaches that infants who die are "automatically in." I see were the Bible teaches about the elect and the non-elect. Nowhere do I see an "age of accountability" or anything of the sort.
> 
> In fact, when I first became a believer and was reading Boettner's "The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination", I thought his belief on all that die in infancy being elect was inconsistant. The book was great except for that chapter.
> 
> I can see the arminians believing this since they believe that you make the choice in order to become saved but I can't understand how those who hold to the doctrines of total depravity, God's sovereignty, etc. hold this belief.
> 
> I believe the scriptures teach that in faith comes by hearing the word of God. Is there another way that I'm missing here? Isn't this what the Bible states? If this is the case, how can infants be saved that have not been under the hearing of the word? If God elects an individual, he also makes sure that they're spiritual eyes and ears are opened to hear the word. There are many individuals who die without ever hearing the gospel. This obviously shows that they were not elect. These are infants, children and adults. Where in scripture does it speak of an exception to this rule?



Dan,
God assuredly saves some infants; the elect one's. God does, by His wise council, goes to these infants and administers His word as he see's fit; it is mysterious tio a degree. However to assume God elects all infants dying in infancy is extra biblical and universalist.

[Edited on 11-21-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Semper Fidelis

I preferred Larry's quotes of major Reformed thinkers to MacArthur's reasoning though I do like much of MacArthur's stuff. All of the Reformed quotes insisted that infants must be elect as the basis of their salvation. MacArthur appeals to an age of accountability which weakens the notion of imputed guilt from Adam. 

I've got a 1.5 year old girl who definitely shows she is a descendant from Adam like her daddy. I praise God to be in Covenant with Him and to have faith that He is the God of my daughter so I can pray together with her when she disobeys God regularly though her defiance of parental authority. I view parenting through the eyes of faith but her wanton refusal to comply with instruction is stunning at times. Our three year old is a bit more verbal about it but the younger is more appropriate to the discussion because most would view a 1.5 year old as not having achieved any sort of "accountability" for their defiance as if it's some sort of animal response and they are unaware of their defiance. A parent knows that his 1.5 year old girl understands it beyond some animal response especially after he restores her with loving discipline and prays with her to ask God to forgive her for her sins.

I've refused, since this thread began, to be dogmatic except to say that elect infants are saved and none other without defining the extent of that population. From my initial post, I have always found these discussions to be speculative and not terribly edifying. I don't fall hard on any side except to preserve the idea that even infants need to be covered by the blood of Christ to be saved.

[Edited on 11-21-2005 by SemperFideles]


----------



## Scott Bushey

Rich,
I have children as well. I understand what you are saying. The argument is not based on the idea that God punishes infants but what Gods word supports. That is what flag I am planting. The topic in general is secondary.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

> I've refused, since this thread began, to be dogmatic except to say that elect infants are saved and none other without defining the extent of that population.



Rich - you are following Westminster's careful attention to this as int he statement above. That is why Westminster was SO careful not to place this passage:

"Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated, and saved by Christ, through the Spirit, who worketh when, and where, and how he pleaseth: so also are all other elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word."

- in the section entitled: The Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter X: Of Effectual Calling

AND NOT in the section: The Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter III: Of God's Eternal Decree

They are not making the same statement that you are not making. They are being careful.

It is true that many of the good Puritans believed ALL _covenantal_ infants go to heaven. Some of them even believed ALL infants in general, from the flood, from Sodom, etc., were all saved. But most of the Puritans relied on arguing back from coveant to God's grace. In other words, presuming thier children were in covenant also presupposed God's gracious promises to them, and thus they argued they would be saved. Otherwise, its just a coin toss.

I would like to comment on this statement made by Piper:

"In other words, if a person lacks the natural capacity to see the revelation of God's will or God's glory then that person's sin would not remain-God would not bring the person into final judgment for not believing what he had no natural capacity to see."

This is *utterly ludicrous* according to the fallen condition of all in Adam. He is befuddling federal theology and representative theology in this way. Adam 1) had the natural capacity to see the revelation of God's will, 2) had the capacity to see God's glory, 3) was able to believe everything in relation to those things, and 4) transmitted either his belief of unbeleif to all his progeny. We know it was unbelief and the fall that now reigns in us. To say that people will not come into judgment for this is to deny a PIVITOL point in understanding Adam as our representative head.

[Edited on 11-21-2005 by webmaster]


----------



## panta dokimazete

***sigh***

Scott,

1. universalism is NOT what I am proposing - God discriminates - there is the Elect and the Reprobate - everyone will not be saved - I state this unequivocally - PLEASE quit casting that aspersion - it is insulting to me and a misuse of the term.

2. ALL children are not Elect - I propose that only infants that die in infancy and the mentally defective are Elect due to the fact that they do not become self-aware to the knowledge of good and evil and are incapable of violating the moral/spiritual law. Thus - to satisfy your need to confirm the condemnation of children to an Eternity of punishment - SOME - probably MOST - of the children of the Flood, etc are not Elect.

3. I am not stating that God MUST Elect them to be a Just and Loving God - I say that the nature of these folk and our understanding of the nature of God revealed in Christ leads me to this conclusion.

4. attempting reductio ad absurdum to this conclusion and proposing that this would justify abortion is foolish - God alone determines the disposition of His Creation - but the death of the unborn do serve a purpose to the Glory of God - they will be the voices of condemnation to the Reprobate and the chorus of all nations/races worshipping God at the Last judgment.

Addendum:

The nature of Adam's sin was not about his belief/unbelief - it was his desire to grasp equality with God - the very same sin of the Deceiver and the antithesis of the nature of Christ - the difference between the consequences of Adam's sin and the Evil One is that God has delayed His Just judgment of Adam and his progeny to glorify Himself and redeem His Elect through Jesus Christ.

The Elect are those that will blissfully embrace _non posse peccatore_ and the absolute sovereignty of God Almighty for Eternity.

- pax -

[Edited on 11-21-2005 by jdlongmire]

[Edited on 11-21-2005 by jdlongmire]


----------



## Bladestunner316

What's the difference between a mentaly handicapped person and a normal man? are they not blinded spiritually by sin? both incapable of redemption unless given it by God's grace? 

blade


----------



## panta dokimazete

Yes, please take the harshest position possible - make sure to emphasize the judgment of God over His Mercy and become an ineffectual instrument of the revelation of Christ to the Elect.

The good thing is - God will send someone that understands Love, Grace and Mercy to open their eyes to His salvation through Christ.

Praise be unto Him that His will is not dependant upon us!


----------



## Scot

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Dan,
> God assuredly saves some infants; the elect one's. God does, by His wise council, goes to these infants and administers His word as he see's fit; it is mysterious tio a degree. However to assume God elects all infants dying in infancy is extra biblical and universalist.



 Agreed. 




> _Originally posted by Bladestunner316_
> What's the difference between a mentaly handicapped person and a normal man? are they not blinded spiritually by sin? both incapable of redemption unless given it by God's grace?
> 
> blade



There is no difference spiritually. Our mental capacity has nothing to do with salvation (unless you take an arminian position that our decision is what saves us). I see no scripture that says God has elected all those who don't have the mental capacity to understand the gospel.


----------



## Bladestunner316

JD says,


> Yes, please take the harshest position possible - make sure to emphasize the judgment of God over His Mercy and become an ineffectual instrument of the revelation of Christ to the Elect.



I'm confused why you would even suggest this? Did you not read where I said,



> both incapable of redemption unless given it by God's grace?



So show me where I was emphasizing God's judgment more so than his grace! 

Honestly if you think that then you would be putting forward the opposite over emphasizing God's mercy over his justice(as opposed to judgment as you were saying). 

I think we somehow let are emotions overshadow truth for the sake of satisfying our emotions. It's not that we should'nt have mercy on those who are in mental or physical need. 

It's over manipulating Biblical with our emotions like the charismatics do. I'm not accusing you of being a charismatic just trying to make a point. 

People suffer mental or physical affirmities for whatever purpose God has in store. But because they have such does not exscuse any man of his spiritual state before a Holy God. 

We were all born sinners. Normal healthy children and those who were not born healthy. I pray that God in his mercy would take those whom he predestined to be born such a way to Heaven with him. But I cannot say that he will without going against Scripture. 

I apologize if I somehow offened you in anyway. I by no mean's want to offend anyone who has had children born with such disabilities I have worked with kids who have mental handicaps. 

In Christ,
Blade


----------



## Bladestunner316

Thank You Dan. I agree.

Blade


----------



## Semper Fidelis

> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> 2. ALL children are not Elect - I propose that only infants that die in infancy and the mentally defective are Elect due to the fact that they do not become self-aware to the knowledge of good and evil and are incapable of violating the moral/spiritual law.


This is where you and I disagree. What you give in one hand (the need for election) you take away from the other (why do they need election if they have not violated any moral/spiritual law?).

If all infants are saved then, I agree with Charles Hodge and other Reformed writers, that it is on account of Christ's imputed righteousness and not because they are innocent.


----------



## Larry Hughes

Scott,

First let´s quickly dispense with something that it is not the absents of the sign but the despising of it (I believe BB Warfield made that observation) that condemns. The problem is when you pull those scriptures out you are tearing them away from Christ. For Christ said "œYou search the Scriptures and think that by them you have life, but it are these that continuously bear witness to Me." And he also demanded of the Pharisees to understand this, "œthat I desire not sacrifice but mercy." They had no clue what He meant for they had turned the things that point to Him, including the Scriptures and the signs into things "˜they do´ or seek out so they can "œdo" to garner God´s favor.

None of my appeal was emotion based, but rather as I´ve said about a million times on this board, the cross of Christ. I cannot know, nor can you, the fate of ourselves OR the children thus born and died in infancy apart from Christ ALONE. And add to that all the aborted children from conception onward either by natural loss or by man´s murderous hands in the 20th and 21st centuries. 

That is a simple FACT not emotions! You, nor I, nor any man can peer into eternity and determine this in ANY naked way. You, nor I, cannot go up to, right now, a book, called the Lamb´s book of life, turn to a page look in the B´s or the H´s and say, "œAhhh, there it is my name, yep, I"˜m in, I"˜m elect." FACT, not emotion. Neither you nor I can look and examine our lives and find faultless fruit that cannot be faked by the best pagan´s whereby you or I can say, "œYep, I´ve done enough to assure myself of election." If so give me the measure, quantity and quality, I´m a scientist I deal in magnitude and nature not emotions, so give them to me that I might measure them. None of us can and those that think they can are those deceived the most. And that is FACT, not emotion. Many, many IN covenant are apostate in the end, and that is FACT not emotion. They had the promises, the Law and so forth so what gives?

Because at the end of the day the REAL question underlying the surface of infants is how can I know? And we can only know by looking to Christ. And while looking at Christ I see an immeasurable mercy given, not a universalism for many deny Christ. But a shear mercy and grace and that´s all I have at the end of the day"¦that IS the sum total of all Theology worth speaking of when its all added up. And so what about dying infants? I must look at that same cross that I must objectively believe and truly and boldly hope in - that´s the only way I can answer the question. For I cannot answer it any other way.

If you are not looking at Scripture through the Cross, then you´ve missed everything no matter how much one can quote from memory. Christ is the Scriptures, remove Him and you have absolutely nothing. Christ is the full revelation of God:

Colossians 2:9-10, "œFor in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form, 
and in Him you have been made complete, and He is the head over all rule and authority"

1 Corinthians 2:8, "œthe wisdom which none of the rulers of this age has understood; for if they had understood it they would not have crucified the Lord of glory"

2 Corinthians 4:4, "œin whose case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving so that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God."

2 Corinthians 6:4, "œFor God, who said, " Light shall shine out of darkness," is the One who has shone in our hearts to give the Light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ."

John 1:18, "œNo one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him."

Colossians 1:15, "œHe is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation."

Since I can only know God this way without garnering His wrath, thus I must assess dying infants. And that is not sheer emotions but FACT.

And it is not more glorifying to have some infants go to hell, as we can easily see from these verses that God the Son´s holy blood on the cross is the apple of His eye, His grand glory all in all. Thus, if God so chooses to glorify His Son all the more and Himself to save ALL infants that died, then He has truly glorified Himself.

And yes there is no Scripture that says God saves us due to our mental acumen. You talk about dispensationalist inability to draw an inference but needing an explicit Scripture! NO, no man is saved by his mental ability or lack there of. And that's the point of both infants and the mentally incapable. But there is a Scripture that certainly says, "œbut God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to shame the things which are strong." Thus, saving them thus is not saying God saves them on the basis of their mental handicap, but on the basis that HE might glorify HIMSELF FOR HIS IMMEASURABLE GRACE AND MERCY.

I´d rather over assess His mercy concerning infants dying than under assesses it any day based upon Christ.

And the inanity of the "œuniversalist" claim on all infants lies in this: infants can not deny Christ, yet adults can and do. Thus, it is one thing to say a universalist is one who says even those (adults) who deny Christ as Christ are saved. And quite another to say a universalist is one who says infants with the inability to deny Christ are saved. If that is not obvious then I can help no further.

L

[Edited on 11-21-2005 by Larry Hughes]


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

***BIG SIGH***



> Yes, please take the harshest position possible - make sure to emphasize the Judgment of God over His Mercy and become an ineffectual instrument of the revelation of Christ to the Elect.



I don´t think anyone is trying to take a harsh position over another. I think what they are seemingly trying to do is be as biblical as possible and not turn God into the cosmic grandfather most think He is. 13% of everything Christ said was concerning judgment. That means if the Son of God were to come down from heaven, and teach people 6 things (adding up to 100%) they needed to know about God, one of those 6 things is Judgment and hell. Another percentage, equally in favor of being on the most that Christ taught, is the concept of law and justice. Certainly we would not want to dismiss John 3:17 at the expense of John 3:16. Instead, we look for a full biblical theology to demonstrate His character. And as we know, most of the teaching of the Bible concerning God revolves around a sinner´s relationship with that which is holy. Love is not mentioned of God as nearly as much as He has revealed Himself as holy. Sinner must take great pains to discern their relationship between that which is not holy (them) and that which is infinite holy "“ God.

After Christ and the apostles, one of the greatest "œpreachers" that ever lived was Edwards. Edwards said that the BEST way to preach is through eschatological preaching, or scare theology. Demonstrating the sinner´s plight, and the condemnation awaiting them, and appealing to their self-interest, is what makes Edward´s sermons not only cool, calm and collected, but intensely "œintense.". It would be a mistake to say that he only preached this way "“ but it would be a greater mistake to say he did not preach this way often.



> I propose that only infants that die in infancy and the mentally defective are Elect due to the fact that they do not become self-aware to the knowledge of good and evil and are incapable of violating the moral/spiritual law.



This is blatant nonsense, and indefensible biblically. Its Pelagian. The moment the cells form a human being in the womb, they are at instant enmity against God for violating the moral Law IN ADAM. They are held guilty, defiled and abominable as they partook of the forbidden fruit in the loins of the father. As a result, they are judged for everything upon judgment that Adam transgressed as if they ate the fruit themselves. To say otherwise is to become Pelagian. Are you really saying what it seems you are saying



> attempting reductio ad absurdum to this conclusion and proposing that this would justify abortion is foolish - God alone determines the disposition of His Creation - but the death of the unborn do serve a purpose to the Glory of God - they will be the voices of condemnation to the Reprobate and the chorus of all nations/races worshipping God at the Last judgment.



Think through this "“ 

If the most important thing in life is to be saved, and if infants die because they are simply not aware of the moral law, as you say, and have not violated it, as you say, and that they go to heaven if they are elect, as you say, then it would behoove you to stand on the street corner with a sign saying that every child should aborted. Why? Not because it is absurd, but because the lesser evil of murder is better than the greater evil of allowing them all to go to hell when we could stop it with a surgeon´s knife. It would be better to abort them, kill them early, and have them go to heaven, than to allow them the chance of never coming to Christ later on. 

But this is ABSURD because they are morally held responsible for Adam´s sin (Psalm 51:5) at the moment of conception. Thus, abortion is a quick step to judgment for every human being aborted. It is not only murder, but it seals the fate of MOST children dying in judgment and without Christ if they are not elected.



> The nature of Adam's sin was not about his belief/unbelief - it was his desire to grasp equality with God - the very same sin of the Deceiver and the antithesis of the nature of Christ - the difference between the consequences of Adam's sin and the Evil One is that God has delayed His Just Judgment of Adam and his progeny to glorify Himself and redeem His Elect through Jesus Christ.



I´m not sure which bible you are reading here. The nature of ANY sin is unbelief. To deny this is to miss how you own sin operates!! 

"œOur first parents, being seduced by the subtlety and temptation of Satan, sinned, in eating the forbidden fruit." Westminster Confession of Faith Chapter VI - Of the Fall of Man, of Sin, and of the Punishment Thereof

2 Corinthians 11:3 But I fear, lest somehow, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, so your minds may be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.

What is deception but unbelief? Adam´s desire to be like God was through deception. He did not believe what God had said, and instead believed the serpent. He broke the Law. How could one conclude that it was not unbelief? Adam did not do what Abraham did do - Romans 4:20 He did not waver at the promise of God through unbelief, but was strengthened in faith, giving glory to God. 

VI. *Every sin*, both original and actual, being a transgression of the righteous law of God, and contrary thereunto,[13] doth, in its own nature, bring guilt upon the sinner,[14] whereby he is bound over to the wrath of God,[15] and curse of the law,[16] and so made subject to death,[17] with all miseries spiritual,[18] temporal,[19] and eternal.[20]

13. I John 3:4
14. Rom. 2:15; 3:9, 19
15. Eph. 2:3
16. Gal. 3:10
17. Rom. 6:23
18. Eph. 4:18
19. Rom. 8:20; Lam. 3:39
20. Matt. 25:41; II Thess. 1:9


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by Larry Hughes_
> Scott,
> 
> First let´s quickly dispense with something that it is not the absents of the sign but the despising of it (I believe BB Warfield made that observation) that condemns. The problem is when you pull those scriptures out you are tearing them away from Christ. For Christ said "œYou search the Scriptures and think that by them you have life, but it are these that continuously bear witness to Me." And he also demanded of the Pharisees to understand this, "œthat I desire not sacrifice but mercy."



Larry,
The above makes it sound as if God is more merciful than judgemental. This of course is impossible. If that was the case, more people would be saved than perish, and we both know that the road to Heaven is narrow and few are they that find it. Tearing them away from Christ? I believe Christ talked twice as much about hell than he did heaven!



> They had no clue what He meant for they had turned the things that point to Him, including the Scriptures and the signs into things "˜they do´ or seek out so they can "œdo" to garner God´s favor.
> 
> None of my appeal was emotion based, but rather as I´ve said about a million times on this board, the cross of Christ.



Well then we are on the same page. If this is true, both of us want to be as sound biblically as we can be, hence the rationale of my position. Is my position more biblically based? Is there any proof, outside of your personal feelings or some erring commentary that supports God saving all infants dying in infancy? Even the confessions don't agree with this!



> I cannot know, nor can you, the fate of ourselves OR the children thus born and died in infancy apart from Christ ALONE.



I can't know my fate? What is faith?

Heb 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. 

1Jo 5:13 These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; *that ye may know* that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God. 

2Pe 1:10 Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for *if ye do these things, ye shall never fall:* 

2Co 13:5 Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; *prove your own selves*. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates? 




> And add to that all the aborted children from conception onward either by natural loss or by man´s murderous hands in the 20th and 21st centuries.
> That is a simple FACT not emotions! You, nor I, nor any man can peer into eternity and determine this in ANY naked way. You, nor I, cannot go up to, right now, a book, called the Lamb´s book of life, turn to a page look in the B´s or the H´s and say, "œAhhh, there it is my name, yep, I"˜m in, I"˜m elect." FACT, not emotion. If so give me the measure, quantity and quality, I´m a scientist I deal in magnitude and nature not emotions, so give them to me that I might measure them. None of us can and those that think they can are those deceived the most. And that is FACT, not emotion. Many, many IN covenant are apostate in the end, and that is FACT not emotion. They had the promises, the Law and so forth so what gives?



Larry, I disagree! The bible tells us that we can know. Sorry, buit I believe the bible.



> Neither you nor I can look and examine our lives and find faultless fruit that cannot be faked by the best pagan´s whereby you or I can say, "œYep, I´ve done enough to assure myself of election."



I agree. I have no assurance if I believe the above. The above is nothing but Arminianism. The bible exhorts us to make our election SURE! Hebrews writes:

Heb 3:12 Take care, brothers, lest there be in any of you an evil, unbelieving heart, leading you to fall away from the living God. 

Larry,
Do you Love Jesus; is he a tender saviour to you? Do you believe? Have you received, accepted, repented? Does Gods spirit bear withness with yours? Do you love the brethren? Christs bride? Do you treat your wife like Christ loves His church? If you have these characteristics, not works, why doubt? These fruits are assurance.




> Because at the end of the day the REAL question underlying the surface of infants is how can I know?



Lets stick with what we know: All have sinned and God punishes sin; period! Some infants (according to the bible and the confessions) are elect; not all, some!



> And we can only know by looking to Christ. And while looking at Christ I see an immeasurable mercy given, not a universalism for many deny Christ. But a shear mercy and grace and that´s all I have at the end of the day"¦that IS the sum total of all Theology worth speaking of when its all added up.



Larry,
If Christ is merciful to all infants based upon His mercy, whom else can we extend this grace to? Looking to Christ means looking to His scriptures. There is no scripture supporting this type of thinking. In fact, as JD has now agreed to the idea that:



> SOME - probably MOST - of the children of the Flood, etc are not Elect.



Does God grade upon a curve? Or the season? Or the time of day?



> And so what about dying infants? I must look at that same cross that I must objectively believe and truly and boldly hope in - that´s the only way I can answer the question. For I cannot answer it any other way.



Again, what you mean to say is you want to look to truth. Christ said He is truth! The truth is, the scriptures clearly define that all have sinned and that there is a doctrine called election. That doctrine is excluding. It does not include all of the nation Israel. Based upon some people, one would think that this group would be the most fitting for a all-inclusive elective assignment, but no. God does not even deal with His nation in this manner, yet, some people here want to do that with the infant populus.



> If you are not looking at Scripture through the Cross, then you´ve missed everything no matter how much one can quote from memory. Christ is the Scriptures, remove Him and you have absolutely nothing. Christ is the full revelation of God:



Larry,
I look at scripture through my glasses! Christ gives me spiritual eyes to see truth; that amounts to being born again.

Joh 3:3 Jesus answered him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God." 

Your statement above sounds charismatic. 



> Colossians 2:9-10, "œFor in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form,
> and in Him you have been made complete, and He is the head over all rule and authority"
> 
> 1 Corinthians 2:8, "œthe wisdom which none of the rulers of this age has understood; for if they had understood it they would not have crucified the Lord of glory"
> 
> 2 Corinthians 4:4, "œin whose case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving so that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God."
> 
> 2 Corinthians 6:4, "œFor God, who said, " Light shall shine out of darkness," is the One who has shone in our hearts to give the Light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ."
> 
> John 1:18, "œNo one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him."
> 
> Colossians 1:15, "œHe is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation."



*Joh 3:3 Jesus answered him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God." *



> Since I can only know God this way without garnering His wrath, thus I must assess dying infants. And that is not sheer emotions but FACT.
> 
> And it is not more glorifying to have some infants go to hell, as we can easily see from these verses that God the Son´s holy blood on the cross is the apple of His eye, His grand glory all in all. Thus, if God so chooses to glorify His Son all the more and Himself to save ALL infants that died, then He has truly glorified Himself.



You have just broken the second command,ment; you have made God into your own image.

Gods word clearly states:

Rom 9:20 But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, "Why have you made me like this?" 
Rom 9:21 Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honored use and another for dishonorable use? 
Rom 9:22 What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 
Rom 9:23 in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory-- 



> And yes there is no Scripture that says God saves us due to our mental acumen. You talk about dispensationalist inability to draw an inference but needing an explicit Scripture! NO, no man is saved by his mental ability or lack there of.



This is true to a degree. The man whom is saved will have the faculties to understand whom God is and what His scriptures teach about the kingdom of God. A man whom does not know about Christs justifying propitiation, is not, will not ever be saved in that condition.




> that's the point of both infants and the mentally incapable.



I agree. The _elect_ infant and imbecile God goes to.........



> But there is a Scripture that certainly says, "œbut God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to shame the things which are strong."



The above only supports the elective decree. 



> Thus, saving them thus is not saying God saves them on the basis of their mental handicap, but on the basis that HE might glorify HIMSELF FOR HIS IMMEASURABLE GRACE AND MERCY.



God does this as well by creating the reprobate for distruction.

Rom 9:22 What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 
Rom 9:23 in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory-- 



> I´d rather over assess His mercy concerning infants dying than under assesses it any day based upon Christ.



I'll attempt to be as biblically accurate as I can and God allows rather than 'over assess'.



> And the inanity of the "œuniversalist" claim on all infants lies in this: infants can not deny Christ, yet adults can and do.



The infant denies Christ by the stain of Adam's sin. 



> Thus, it is one thing to say a universalist is one who says even those (adults) who deny Christ as Christ are saved. And quite another to say a universalist is one who says infants with the inability to deny Christ are saved. If that is not obvious then I can help no further.



Universalism, in this regard is based upon the idea that God saves a certain group of peoples. Would it not be universalisticto say God will save all of Israel?



[Edited on 11-21-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Larry Hughes

> I can't know my fate? What is faith?



Scott, I think you misunderstood me, LOOKING at Christ alone IS faith & thus alone we know our destiny. I think we just spoke pat each other on this one. Because what you said, above quoted, IS the entire thrust of what I said. In other words "looking" (which is metaphoric for faith/trus) to Christ alone IS the solid Rock upon which I/we can know. "Looking" otherwise apart from faith leads to NOT knowing. So, I really think we are on the same page here.

Point #2 it is one thing to be "biblcally accurate, have a high view of Scripture, & have Christ as Christ as the center of all Scripture. Hence Christ saying, "you search the Scriptures...etc..." The Pharisees certainly had an unsurpassed supreme view of Scripture & an accuracy unsurpassed to today - yet they missed Christ as Christ & thus everything.

And about breaking the 2cd commandment. I think not since I'm holding as my highest view Christ & His mercy and if I have in my ignorance...Christ is STILL MY unshakable righteousness.

As to the fruits of faith, yes of course those are present in my life, but I do not put stock in them nor glory in them & they are of course tainted still, mixed with my sin - thus my cry is Christ alone. And to Him do I point people NOT my life.

As to this argument, I suppose we will have to agree to disagree completely until glory - For Christ AS Christ is my understanding. God's justice was CLEAREST at the cross.

The last word for my part is yours brother,

Larry


----------



## gwine

> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> 
> The good thing is - God will send someone that understands Love, Grace and Mercy to open their eyes to His salvation through Christ.



The only person that satisfied that was Christ himself.


----------



## doulosChristou

Scott,

I said:


> _Originally posted by doulosChristou_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> The reformed position is that there are some elect infants *and there are some reprobate.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you deducing this from inferences, Scott, or is there some Reformed confession or systematic theology positively asserting that there are some reprobate infants?
> 
> Calvin seems to suggest that any person asserting such a thing as fact was guilty of blasphemy: "to say that the countless mortals taken from life while yet infants are precipitated from their mothers' arms into eternal death is a blasphemy to be universally detested." The Princetonians agree with the magisterial reformer on this point. It appears Piper is agreeing as well. I know of several examples of Reformed folks who have said this is a dark and mysterious subject upon which we cannot know and I believe the WCF's statement is the safest one to make, but I am not aware of any who have gone so far as you to say that it is their position that there are some reprobate infants. Yet, you say above that this is the Reformed position. You then suggest the Egyptian infants are in hell. Am I misunderstanding you? If not, I'd like to know where you think this position is set forth as the Reformed position.
Click to expand...


You replied:


> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Doulos,
> I am using the WCF and LBC; both assert that _elect_ infants dying in infancy are saved via Christ; not all infants.
> 
> III. Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated, and saved by Christ, through the Spirit,[12] who worketh when, and where, and how hepleaseth:[13] so also are all other elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.[14]
> 
> 12. Gen. 17:7; Luke 1:15; 18:15-16; Acts 2:39; John 3:3, 5; I John 5:12
> 13. John 3:8
> 14. John 16:7-8; I John 5:12; Acts 4:12
> 
> 
> *The assertion, taken to it's conclusion implies that if there are elect infants, there as well MUST be reprobate/non elect ones as well.*
> 
> I disagree w/ Calvin on the point you cite




Okay, I see the problem. You are ignoring the context. The subject of the Confession in Chapter X is Effectual Calling. It is dealing with the *way* people are saved not the *number* of such persons. The word "elect" correctly implies the need of redemption for infants but it is not a necessary inference that some are not elect. While infants cannot be called by the word and Spirit in the ordinary way, they can still be saved because of the electing love of the Father, the atonement of Christ and regeneration by the Spirit. That is the point. So your inference is unwarranted. More than that, your assertion that your personal inference is *the* Reformed position is utterly unwarranted. As far as I know, it is completely novel. All of the commentaries on the Confession take Section III of Chapter X in its proper context. Representative is A. A. Hodge's _A Commentary on the The Westminster Confession of Faith_, in which he comments on this section:

_The outward call of God's Word, and all the "means of grace" provided in the present dispensation, of course presuppose intelligence upon the part of those who receive them. The will of God, also, is revealed only as far as it concerns those capable of understanding and profiting by the revelation. His purposes with respect to either persons or classes not thus addressed are not explicitly revealed. If infants and others not capable of being called by the gospel are to be saved, they must be regenerated and sanctified immediately by God without the use of means. If God could create Adam holy without means, and if he can new-create believers in righteousness and true holiness by the use of means which a large part of men use without profit, he can certainly make infants and others regenerate without means. Indeed, the natural depravity of infants lies before moral action, in the judicial deprivation of the Holy Ghost. The evil is rectified at that stage, therefore, by the gracious restoration of the soul to its moral relation to the Spirit of God. The phrase "elect infants" is precise and fit for its purpose. It is not intended to suggest that there are any infants not elect, but simply to point out the facts -- (1.) That all infants are born under righteous condemnation; and (2.) That no infant has any claim in itself to salvation; and hence (3.) The salvation of each infant, precisely as the salvation of every adult, must have its absolute ground in the sovereign election of God. This would be just as true if all adults were elected, as it is now that only some adults are elected. It is, therefore, just as true, although we have good reason to believe that all infants are elected. The Confession adheres in this place accurately to the facts revealed. It is certainly revealed that none, either adult or infant, is saved except on the ground of a sovereign election; that is, all salvation for the human race is pure grace. It is not positively revealed that all infants are elect, but we are left, for many reasons, to indulge a highly probable hope that such is the fact. The Confession affirms what is certainly revealed, and leaves that which revelation has not decided to remain, without the suggestion of a positive opinion upon one side or the other. _

http://www.mbrem.com/confessions/wcf10.htm

There actually is no such a thing as the Reformed position on this issue. Within the Reformed faith, you will find two positions:

(1) All infants dying in infancy are elect.

(2) It is murky and mysterious and we just don't know enough to say.

But the position you avow, that there are certainly infants in hell, is not in the least bit Reformed.

Affectionately yours in Christ, 

dC


----------



## gwine

> But there is a Scripture that certainly says, "œbut God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to shame the things which are strong."



Seems to me the only foolishness and weakness written about concerns the Gospel. Am I missing something here?



> 1Co 1:18 For *the word of the cross is folly* to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.
> 1Co 1:19 For it is written, "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart."
> 1Co 1:20 Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?
> 1Co 1:21 For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through *the folly of what we preach* to save those who believe.
> 1Co 1:22 For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom,
> 1Co 1:23 but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles,
> 1Co 1:24 but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.
> 1Co 1:25 For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
> 
> 1Co 2:1 And I, when I came to you, brothers, did not come proclaiming to you the testimony of God with lofty speech or wisdom.
> 1Co 2:2 For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified.
> 1Co 2:3 And I was with you *in weakness* and in fear and much trembling,
> 1Co 2:4 and my speech and my message were not in plausible words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power,
> 1Co 2:5 *that your faith might not rest in the wisdom of men but in the power of God*.


----------



## Scott Bushey

> Okay, I see the problem. You are ignoring the context.



Ignoring? Thats challenging.



> The subject of the Confession in Chapter X is Effectual Calling. It is dealing with the *way* people are saved not the *number* of such persons.



I never said it was a tool of numeration. 



> The word "elect" correctly implies the need of redemption for infants but it is not a necessary inference that some are not elect.



The doctrine of election itself excludes, or at least dilineates the regenerate and reprobate.




> While infants cannot be called by the word and Spirit in the ordinary way, they can still be saved because of the electing love of the Father, the atonement of Christ and regeneration by the Spirit. That is the point.



I believe you are missing the point. 



> So your inference is unwarranted.



It is? Is everyone elect? No! When the apostle uses the term elect, he is not talking of the whole world. In the same way, when the confession speaks of it, it as well excludes those that are not elect.

Obviously Phillip Way understands it as such as well as Spurgeon. Spurgeon redefined the confession to remove the excluding term "elect':



> the Second London Confession as amended by CH Spurgeon (the version our church adopted) says:
> 
> Infants dying in infancy are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit, Who works when, where, and how He pleases. So also are all elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.
> 
> I agree with Spurgeon's edit here and believe that the best book I have read on the topic is MacArthur's Safe in the Arms of God.



[Edited on 11-21-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## doulosChristou

Sorry, Spurgeon did not make the same false inference as yourself. He simply ammended the confession to rule out Reformed position #2 and to make explicit Reformed position #1. The WCF and LBCF1689 prudently allow for both. Who, besides you, has inferred from the WCF with certitude that there are infants in hell? Are you the first to come up with that interpretation of Chapter X? Who else says so?


----------



## Scott Bushey

Please define election for me?


----------



## doulosChristou

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Please define election for me?



By dodging my question with a question (leading to a semantic defense of _your_ doctrine), are you admitting that you stand alone, that it is not the Reformed position after all, that the confession that God certainly reprobates a number of infants who die in infancy is a novel position? 

If not, then who else says so? Who else interprets chapter X of the WCF in the way you do? After all, if it is the Reformed position as you claim, there must be an impressive number of Reformed giants who likewise confess the certainty of reprobate infants dying in infancy.


----------



## Scott Bushey

"Reprobate infants are vipers of vengeance, which Jehovah will hold over hell in the tongs of his wrath until they turn and spit venom in his face....God holds sinners in his hands over the mouth of hell as so many spiders over the fire, and he is dreadfully provoked; and he not only hates them, but holds them in utmost contempt, and will trample them beneath his feet with inexpressible fierceness; he will crush their blood out, and will make it fly so that it will sprinkle his garments and stain all his raiment."”Jonathan Edwards (1703-1758), American theologian, sermon, The Eternity of Hell's Torments." 


"There are babies a span long in hell." John Calvin 

Do you as well believe that the children that died in the flood are in Heaven? The egyptian children, Muslim, devil worshippers?

Again I ask, please define election in light of your premise.

I as well stand firm with the penners of the WCF; when they use the term 'elect', they are excluding the reprobate from the equation.



[Edited on 11-21-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## doulosChristou

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> "Reprobate infants are vipers of vengeance, which Jehovah will hold over hell in the tongs of his wrath until they turn and spit venom in his face....God holds sinners in his hands over the mouth of hell as so many spiders over the fire, and he is dreadfully provoked; and he not only hates them, but holds them in utmost contempt, and will trample them beneath his feet with inexpressible fierceness; he will crush their blood out, and will make it fly so that it will sprinkle his garments and stain all his raiment."”Jonathan Edwards (1703-1758), American theologian, sermon, The Eternity of Hell's Torments."
> 
> 
> "There are babies a span long in hell." John Calvin





Scott,

These are things anti-Calvinists invented and propogated on the Web to slander and misrepresent true Calvinists. Edwards never said "Reprobate infants are vipers of vengeance, which Jehovah will hold over hell in the tongs of his wrath until they turn and spit venom in his face."  And I am surpised you were hoodwinked to believe he did. Here is the text of his sermon _he Eternity of Hell's Torments_:

http://www.biblebb.com/files/edwards/eternity.htm

Try searching the volumes of actual Reformed books at your disposal from your shelves to see if your doctrine is actually *the* Reformed position, rather than "google" for it.


----------



## Dan....

Scott,

I'm not touching this debate with a 10 ft. poll, but am reading along.

I found Edward's sermon here:
http://www.jonathanedwards.com/sermons/Warnings/Eternity.htm

I did a search of the sermon and could not find your quote. Please advise if there is a different location wherein I can find the quote.

Second,

Please advise the source of the Calvin quote.

Thanks.


----------



## Dan....

Nevermind my post as it appears that Greg beat me to the punch on questioning the source.


Still, please advise the source of Calvin's quote.

Thanks.






[Edited on 11-21-2005 by Dan....]


----------



## tcalbrecht

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> "There are babies a span long in hell." John Calvin



I'm curious, where did Calvin say that?


----------



## Scott Bushey

OK,
I'll admit I was 'hoodwinked'. I don't have the sources. However, I still hold to what I have said. As far as reputable sources. I will lay claim to my interpretation of the WCF. as well as seek Matt for sources as I know he agree's with me.

At least you got a good laugh! See, thats twice this week I admitted I was wrong.

Greg,
Strill waiting for your answers:

Do you as well believe that the children that died in the flood are in Heaven? The egyptian children, Muslim, devil worshippers?

Again I ask, please define election in light of your premise.

I as well stand firm with the penners of the WCF; when they use the term 'elect', they are excluding the reprobate from the equation.

[Edited on 11-21-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## johnrsorrell

Where does regeneration, the new birth fit into this scenario? How can an infant act out in faith through repentance, proceeded by regeneration? I may have missed this in this polemic thread.
I would assume that all on this board would agree with the fact that God's saving grace comes through regeneration, repentance, confession and so on. So, based on this fact, NO child could ever be saved from Hell as they are incapable of this.
I think the age of accountability weighs heavily here. The Scriptures never uses this term but it is inferred heavily if not explicitly. See where all those under the age of 20, I believe, were not held accountable for the sins of their fathers and allowed entrance into the Promised Land.
Also, I disagree with whoever posted that original sin is enough to impute eternal punishment. Original sin does not necessitate that all have sinned, but that all will sin because of the broken relationship with God through Adam's disobedience.

[Edited on 11-21-2005 by johnrsorrell]


----------



## Scott Bushey

John,
All elect infants are saved in the same manner as we are. God goes to them and saves them by His word, regenerates, converts etc.

III. Elect infants, dying in infancy, *are regenerated, and saved by Christ, through the Spirit,[12] who worketh when, and where, and how he pleaseth*:[13] so also are all other elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.[14]

12. Gen. 17:7; Luke 1:15; 18:15-16; Acts 2:39; John 3:3, 5; I John 5:12
13. John 3:8
14. John 16:7-8; I John 5:12; Acts 4:12


----------



## Peter

Two contrary views holding to the salvation of all infants are being advanced on the thread:

1.) Age of accountability - All infants are saved because they are incapable seeing God's revelation and/or unable to discern good from evil. This is plainly against the Bible. Ro 5 teaches that sin was imputed to all through the sin of Adam regardless of their choice or ability to choose. Besides, Ro 2 teaches that the things of God are revealed plainly to everyone without exception. 

Psa 22:9,10 says that some newborn and pre-born babies love God and are holy to him. Though this is eminently of Christ it is a psalm of David.

Psa 58:3,4 says that babies are estranged from the womb and commit actual transgressions from birth.

2.) That God regenerates all infants dying in infancy. This view is false because there is nothing in the bible to even suggest it. It is a purely contrived notion. All our conceptions of God and religion must be from scripture. The bible may say that the children of believers are covenantally holy but not those of athiests, mohammedans, jews, and other infidels.


----------



## johnrsorrell

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> John,
> All elect infants are saved in the same manner as we are. God goes to them and saves them by His word, regenerates, converts etc.
> 
> III. Elect infants, dying in infancy, *are regenerated, and saved by Christ, through the Spirit,[12] who worketh when, and where, and how he pleaseth*:[13] so also are all other elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.[14]
> 
> 12. Gen. 17:7; Luke 1:15; 18:15-16; Acts 2:39; John 3:3, 5; I John 5:12
> 13. John 3:8
> 14. John 16:7-8; I John 5:12; Acts 4:12



I assume then that this is the point where my alignment with Lordship Salvation would come into play and I would disagree, to an extent, with this point of the confession.


----------



## Peter

John, the wind bloweth where it listeth. The Spirit can give the new birth to whom ever it pleases. Just because an infant cannot audibly profess its faith does not mean it does not possess it. Also your view of orginial sin is almost Pelagian.


----------



## johnrsorrell

> _Originally posted by Peter_
> John, the wind bloweth where it listeth. The Spirit can give the new birth to whom ever it pleases. Just because an infant cannot audibly profess its faith does not mean it does not possess it. Also your view of orginial sin is almost Pelagian.



WOW, that was harsh. How is it "almost Pelagian"? I am not denying that all WILL sin and have received the curse OF sin from Adam. I am asserting my belief that original sin is different than actual sin.


----------



## johnrsorrell

> _Originally posted by Peter_
> Two contrary views holding to the salvation of all infants are being advanced on the thread:
> 
> 1.) Age of accountability - All infants are saved because they are incapable seeing God's revelation and/or unable to discern good from evil. This is plainly against the Bible. Ro 5 teaches that sin was imputed to all through the sin of Adam regardless of their choice or ability to choose. Besides, Ro 2 teaches that the things of God are revealed plainly to everyone without exception.
> 
> Psa 22:9,10 says that some newborn and pre-born babies love God and are holy to him. Though this is eminently of Christ it is a psalm of David.
> 
> Psa 58:3,4 says that babies are estranged from the womb and commit actual transgressions from birth.
> 
> 2.) That God regenerates all infants dying in infancy. This view is false because there is nothing in the bible to even suggest it. It is a purely contrived notion. All our conceptions of God and religion must be from scripture. The bible may say that the children of believers are covenantally holy but not those of athiests, mohammedans, jews, and other infidels.



Let me re-quote my MacArthur post:



> "Another interesting thing that occurs numerous times in the Old Testament, is that children are referred to, and those children who die, as well, are referred to as "innocent," and the Hebrew word that is used for "innocent" is used numerous times in the Old Testament, refer to "not being guilty"--literally, "being taken to court and found 'not guilty.'" In fact, you remember, that it refers to the babies that were passed through the fire to Moloch [false god] as the "innocents", so I believe that God, prior to the "Age of Accountability" treats them as "innocent." It doesn't mean that they are no fallen; doesn't mean that they are not sinful--it does mean that God mercifully treats them as "innocent" in spite of that, and He has to exercise grace to do that, just as He exercises grace to save those who believe."



How do you answer this?


----------



## doulosChristou

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> OK,
> I'll admit I was 'hoodwinked'. I don't have the sources. However, I still hold to what I have said. As far as reputable sources. I will lay claim to my interpretation of the WCF. as well as seek Matt for sources as I know he agree's with me.
> 
> At least you got a good laugh! See, thats twice this week I admitted I was wrong.



Good form, Scott. Now, while you are in a frame to take back things you have asserted rashly, perhaps you'd be willing to take back the statement that yours is the Reformed position by at least admitting that you are no longer sure what the Reformed position is, since you need to check with Matt as to whether any Reformed theologians actually believe what you assert.



> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Greg,
> Strill waiting for your answers:
> 
> Do you as well believe that the children that died in the flood are in Heaven? The egyptian children, Muslim, devil worshippers?



Again, from the Reformed position, there are two answers to the fate of the infants who died in the flood, etc. The first (Calvin, Newton, A. A. Hodge, Charles Hodge, Warfield, Boettner, etc.) would say that these infants are definitely in heaven. The second group (Gill & Berkhof, for example) would say that we do not have enough Scriptural evidence to say for certain. Personally, I lean toward the second group, though I sympathize with Calvin's view.


----------



## Peter

As I understand it Pelagius' view of OS was that Adam's posterity sinned by imitating his sin. If I read you correctly, your view is that the OS caused the corruption of the will to be imputed but not the guilt of Adam's sin. If this is incorrect I apologize, if not it is a very serious departure from orthodoxy.


----------



## Peter

> _Originally posted by johnrsorrell_
> 
> Let me re-quote my MacArthur post:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Another interesting thing that occurs numerous times in the Old Testament, is that children are referred to, and those children who die, as well, are referred to as "innocent," and the Hebrew word that is used for "innocent" is used numerous times in the Old Testament, refer to "not being guilty"--literally, "being taken to court and found 'not guilty.'" In fact, you remember, that it refers to the babies that were passed through the fire to Moloch [false god] as the "innocents", so I believe that God, prior to the "Age of Accountability" treats them as "innocent." It doesn't mean that they are no fallen; doesn't mean that they are not sinful--it does mean that God mercifully treats them as "innocent" in spite of that, and He has to exercise grace to do that, just as He exercises grace to save those who believe."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do you answer this?
Click to expand...


Perhaps innocent before men, but not the tribunal of God.


----------



## johnrsorrell

> _Originally posted by Peter_
> As I understand it Pelagius' view of OS was that Adam's posterity sinned by imitating his sin. If I read you correctly, your view is that the OS caused the corruption of the will to be imputed but not the guilt of Adam's sin. If this is incorrect I apologize, if not it is a very serious departure from orthodoxy.



No, no, no...I agree with what you said. However, how to you define "guilt?"


----------



## Peter

I mean all the sons of Adam are personally guilty or responsible for Adam's disobedience. Is that OK. I'm still not sure what you believe.


----------



## johnrsorrell

> _Originally posted by Peter_
> I mean all the sons of Adam are personally guilty or responsible for Adam's disobedience. Is that OK. I'm still not sure what you believe.



Responsible is the key term. I agree. I was trying to differentiate between OS and actual sin. I misrepresented myself.

However, you did not adequately answer the MacArthur quote, scripturally.


----------



## johnrsorrell

This Spurgeon quote sums up what I was trying to say:



> Our first parents were utter bankrupts. They left us nothing but a heritage of old
> debts, and a propensity to accumulate yet more personal obligations.


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by doulosChristou_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> OK,
> I'll admit I was 'hoodwinked'. I don't have the sources. However, I still hold to what I have said. As far as reputable sources. I will lay claim to my interpretation of the WCF. as well as seek Matt for sources as I know he agree's with me.
> 
> At least you got a good laugh! See, thats twice this week I admitted I was wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good form, Scott. Now, while you are in a frame to take back things you have asserted rashly, perhaps you'd be willing to take back the statement that yours is the Reformed position by at least admitting that you are no longer sure what the Reformed position is, since you need to check with Matt as to whether any Reformed theologians actually believe what you assert.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Greg,
> Strill waiting for your answers:
> 
> Do you as well believe that the children that died in the flood are in Heaven? The egyptian children, Muslim, devil worshippers?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, from the Reformed position, there are two answers to the fate of the infants who died in the flood, etc. The first (Calvin, Newton, A. A. Hodge, Charles Hodge, Warfield, Boettner, etc.) would say that these infants are definitely in heaven. The second group (Gill & Berkhof, for example) would say that we do not have enough Scriptural evidence to say for certain. Personally, I lean toward the second group, though I sympathize with Calvin's view.
Click to expand...


Greg,
You are correct. I _assumed_ that the reformed position was thus. Based upon what you as well as others have provided in the lines of reputable citations, I stand corrected. I am researching the subject and will inform you through this thread what I find.

To be honest, I cannot understand how the reformers held to the position they did in light of the statement in the creeds. I cannot for the life of me, understand how they could use such a discriminating term as 'elect infants' and mean all infants.

Whatever the case, I am willing to learn.


----------



## doulosChristou




----------



## Dan....

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> To be honest, I cannot understand how the reformers held to the position they did in light of the statement in the creeds. I cannot for the life of me, understand how they could use such a discriminating term as 'elect infants' and mean all infants.



Scott,

Actually, given the two positions cited by Greg,

(1) All infants dying in infancy are elect.

(2) It is murky and mysterious and we just don't know enough to say.

...the wording of the confessions make the best sense:



> Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated, and saved by Christ, through the Spirit,[12] who worketh when, and where, and how he pleaseth:[13] so also are all other elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.[14]




Both positions 1 and 2 can agree to this statement. Group 1, in making the subset "elect infants, dying in infancy" to include "all infants dying in infancy", can agree, given the all-inclusive parameters of their subset. Group 2, in making the subset "elect infants, dying in infancy" to include "anything from all to less than all infants, dying in infancy", can also agree, given the uncertain limitations of their parameters.

A graph:

1. All infants dying in infancy: 
((elect infants))

2. All infants dying in infancy: 
((elect infants)..(??possible non-elect infants?))


Think about it this way:

Both groups 1 and 2 are gathered together and must come up with a statement to which both can agree -what would they come up with that both can actually agree on?? (Hint, see the confession).




[Edited on 11-22-2005 by Dan....]


----------



## Scott Bushey

Dan,
Maybe it's me, but the statement 'elect infants' do not include all infants. The confession discriminates in other places about the elect.

For example, here in ch 11:

IV. God did, from all eternity, decree to justify all the elect,[11] and Christ did, in the fullness of time, die for their sins, and rise again for their justification:[12] nevertheless, they are not justified, until the Holy Spirit doth, in due time, actually apply Christ unto them.[13]

Elect people God justifies, not all people.


----------



## panta dokimazete

> I propose that only infants that die in infancy and the mentally defective are Elect due to the fact that they do not become self-aware to the knowledge of good and evil and are incapable of violating the moral/spiritual law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is blatant nonsense, and indefensible biblically. Its Pelagian. The moment the cells form a human being in the womb, they are at instant enmity against God for violating the moral Law IN ADAM. They are held guilty, defiled and abominable as they partook of the forbidden fruit in the loins of the father. As a result, they are judged for everything upon judgment that Adam transgressed as if they ate the fruit themselves. To say otherwise is to become Pelagian. Are you really saying what it seems you are saying
Click to expand...


The infants are not Elect soley on this point - they are Elect soley by the Sovereign Grace of God not by any merit of their own - that, too me, is a given - the discriminator is the fact that they have no opportunity to develop the curse of Adam - the knowledge of Good and Evil - or to experience the fruit of that curse - rejecting God's sovereignty in favor of grasping for equality with God, thus they are positioned as beneficiaries of God's Grace and Mercy as they pass through the gateway of Death into Eternal Communion with Him.

My position is that the nature of the Elect is that God foreknew their potential to accept His sovereignty and mercifully predestined them to eternal communion with Him happily non posse peccatore.

Corporeal existance for the Elect is to interact with other Elect and the Reprobate for whatever amount of time (from 0 to ??) to act as instruments of His will, advance redemptive History soli Deo gloria and to prepare to accept non posse peccatore willingly after the pain of temporal existance.


----------



## fredtgreco

Scott,

Dan is right. The language was specifically written to cover both interpretations.

I am sure Chris Coldwell might be able to help with citations, but that is a fact. We often forget that the Confession is a _consensus _document. There is no need to read it more restrictively than its face. It was not intended to be restrictive.


----------



## Dan....

> Maybe it's me, but the statement 'elect infants [dying in infancy]' do not include all infants  [dying in infancy]  .



Of course, (given your presupposition), to you it doesn't; but to those in group 1 (given their presupposition) it does. We may not all see the statement to mean the same thing, but we can all agree with the statement.


[Edited on 11-22-2005 by Dan....]


----------



## pastorway

*Isaiah 55*

8 "œ For *My thoughts are not your thoughts, Nor are your ways My ways*," says the LORD. 9 "œ *For as the heavens are higher than the earth, So are My ways higher than your ways, And My thoughts than your thoughts. * 10 "œ For as the rain comes down, and the snow from heaven, And do not return there, But water the earth, And make it bring forth and bud, That it may give seed to the sower And bread to the eater, 11 So shall My word be that goes forth from My mouth; It shall not return to Me void, But it shall accomplish what I please, And it shall prosper in the thing for which I sent it.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

> _Originally posted by Dan...._
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe it's me, but the statement 'elect infants [dying in infancy]' do not include all infants  [dying in infancy]  .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, (given your presupposition), to you it doesn't; but to those in group 1 (given their presupposition) it does. We may not all see the statement to mean the same thing, but we can all agree with the statement.
Click to expand...

The wording of the WCF is very prudent.

Are there any historians of the WCF here that have access to any writings that discussed why they wrote it the way they did?

Surely the WCF divines were aware of Calvin's belief on the subject.

Is it possible that they say "elect infants" in order to explain that the infants are saved by Grace too against any other idea that they might not be under some sort of curse? In other words, the tenor of the WCF emphasizes God's sovereign grace and is not, primarily addressing the population set of who is elect. They emphasize that, like adults, even infants and the mentally impaired, are under the Curse and deserve condemnation except they be elect and are saved by Grace.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I propose that only infants that die in infancy and the mentally defective are Elect due to the fact that they do not become self-aware to the knowledge of good and evil and are incapable of violating the moral/spiritual law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is blatant nonsense, and indefensible biblically. Its Pelagian. The moment the cells form a human being in the womb, they are at instant enmity against God for violating the moral Law IN ADAM. They are held guilty, defiled and abominable as they partook of the forbidden fruit in the loins of the father. As a result, they are judged for everything upon judgment that Adam transgressed as if they ate the fruit themselves. To say otherwise is to become Pelagian. Are you really saying what it seems you are saying
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The infants are not Elect soley on this point - they are Elect soley by the Sovereign Grace of God not by any merit of their own - that, too me, is a given - the discriminator is the fact that they have no opportunity to develop the curse of Adam - the knowledge of Good and Evil - or to experience the fruit of that curse - rejecting God's sovereignty in favor of grasping for equality with God, thus they are positioned as beneficiaries of God's Grace and Mercy as they pass through the gateway of Death into Eternal Communion with Him.
> 
> My position is that the nature of the Elect is that God foreknew their potential to accept His sovereignty and mercifully predestined them to eternal communion with Him happily non posse peccatore.
Click to expand...

You might want to ammend your signature where you write you are "reformed to the core" to say you don't subscribe to unconditional election if that is your position regarding election.

[Edited on 11-22-2005 by SemperFideles]


----------



## fredtgreco

> _Originally posted by SemperFideles_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I propose that only infants that die in infancy and the mentally defective are Elect due to the fact that they do not become self-aware to the knowledge of good and evil and are incapable of violating the moral/spiritual law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is blatant nonsense, and indefensible biblically. Its Pelagian. The moment the cells form a human being in the womb, they are at instant enmity against God for violating the moral Law IN ADAM. They are held guilty, defiled and abominable as they partook of the forbidden fruit in the loins of the father. As a result, they are judged for everything upon judgment that Adam transgressed as if they ate the fruit themselves. To say otherwise is to become Pelagian. Are you really saying what it seems you are saying
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The infants are not Elect soley on this point - they are Elect soley by the Sovereign Grace of God not by any merit of their own - that, too me, is a given - the discriminator is the fact that they have no opportunity to develop the curse of Adam - the knowledge of Good and Evil - or to experience the fruit of that curse - rejecting God's sovereignty in favor of grasping for equality with God, thus they are positioned as beneficiaries of God's Grace and Mercy as they pass through the gateway of Death into Eternal Communion with Him.
> 
> My position is that the nature of the Elect is that God foreknew their potential to accept His sovereignty and mercifully predestined them to eternal communion with Him happily non posse peccatore.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. You might want to ammend your signature where you write you are "reformed to the core" to say you don't subscribe to unconditional election if that is your position regarding election.
> 
> [Edited on 11-22-2005 by SemperFideles]
Click to expand...




This is clearly an unbiblical position, and rejected completely and explicitly by the Confession:




> This effectual call is of God's free and special grace alone, not from anything at all foreseen in man;(1) who is altogether passive therein, until, being quickened and renewed by the Holy Spirit,(2) he is thereby enabled to answer this call, and to embrace the grace offered and conveyed in it. (WCF 10.20)




Also, by the way, it is "non posse peccare."

From your friendly neighborhood Latin police. _"Hey boy, you got a permit to parse them verbs?"_


----------



## Saiph

Mat 2:16 
Then Herod, when he saw that he had been tricked by the wise men, became furious, and he sent and killed all the male children in Bethlehem and in all that region who were two years old or under, according to the time that he had ascertained from the wise men. 



Who here would say that these infants were not martyrs for Christ ?



Mat 2:17-18
Then was fulfilled what was spoken by the prophet Jeremiah: 
"A voice was heard in Ramah, weeping and loud lamentation, Rachel weeping for her children; she refused to be comforted, because they are no more."


----------



## Bladestunner316

Saiph,
But isnt that one specific inccident now your not saying that all infant deaths are the death of a martyr?

blade


----------



## Saiph

I am just curious Nathan. God is fairly clear on orphans and widows. He does not like when they are ignored. I do not know what He decides regarding the election of misscarriages and abortions, but I tend to favor the side of mercy. I would not say He does elect all that die before a certain knowledge, but he certainly could. I do not think He is cruel if He does not either. His ways are mysterious. I prefer optimism in this area, and would definitely speak that way to someone who has lost a child.


----------



## Bladestunner316

I agree I've allready stated my position. I was'nt attacking you  Your the only one who like's blade runner here so we gota stick together 

blade


----------



## Mayflower

Is anyone familair with :

THE THEOLOGY OF INFANT SALVATION by R.A WEBB (SPRINKLE PUBLICATIONS) ????


----------



## panta dokimazete

> Also, by the way, it is "non posse peccare."
> 
> From your friendly neighborhood Latin police. "Hey boy, you got a permit to parse them verbs?"



peccare! Sorry and thanks - why no spell check for Latin???? 

(What I get for trying to formulate a response and get work done at the same time...)

-JD


----------



## panta dokimazete

> This is clearly an unbiblical position, and rejected completely and explicitly by the Confession



Which part? - I am confused:

1. All Infants inherit the curse of Adam and are therefore culpable and without individual merit

2. God is merciful and elects them for His own purpose for His own reason:

III. Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated, and saved by Christ, through the Spirit,[12] who works when, and where, and how He pleases:[13] so also are all other elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.[14]

I *speculate* that it could be that His Mercy is driving His Justice in that they have no *developed outright rebellious action* attributed by their own activities.

...and since this is my opinion, but the net effect coincides with the net effect reasoning of other - much more auspicious and learned Reformed thinkers than I, I am comfortable.

-JD

[Edited on 11-22-2005 by jdlongmire]


----------



## biblelighthouse

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> To be honest, I cannot understand how the reformers held to the position they did in light of the statement in the creeds. I cannot for the life of me, understand how they could use such a discriminating term as 'elect infants' and mean all infants.
> 
> Whatever the case, I am willing to learn.




Scott,

I agree with you that the term "elect infants" cannot mean "all infants". If some infants are specified as elect, then we should also assume that there are non-elect infants.

At the same time, I agree with everyone else on this board:
We cannot assume that God certainly sends some infants to hell. 

How can I hold both positions simultaneously, without contradicting myself? I believe the solution is easy:


Suppose there are two groups of infants:
1) elect infants
2) non-elect infants

Now suppose that God ordains every member of group #2 to NOT die in infancy. In other words, God ordains that every non-elect infant will grow up and demonstrate his/her own personal sin.

This suggestion does two positive things for us:

1) In this scenario, we can retain the full meaning of the word "elect", thus recognizing that there is also a "non-elect" group of infants.

2) We can still agree with the Reformers, and with the majority of modern reformed Christians, by holding to the belief that we *cannot* say for sure that God sends any infants to hell.


_It is *certain* that there are elect infants, and it is *certain* that there are non-elect infants._

The only real question is this: 
_Does God ordain any of the non-elect infants to die in infancy?_

And I don't know if we can answer that question from Scripture. It is a mystery.


----------



## gwine

> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> 
> I *speculate* that it could be that His Mercy is driving His Justice in that they have no *developed outright rebellious action* attributed by their own activities.
> 
> ...and since this is my opinion, but the net effect coincides with the net effect reasoning of other - much more auspicious and learned Reformed thinkers than I, I am comfortable.
> 
> -JD



But in order to say that it seems you are saying that God is judging them based on their behaviour, i.e. works. And if you do that then when do you decide that they are starting to develop *outright rebellious action*? 3 months? 6 months? 1 year?

Better to say, "We don't know", and leave it to the grace of God.


----------



## fredtgreco

> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> 
> 
> 
> This is clearly an unbiblical position, and rejected completely and explicitly by the Confession
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which part? - I am confused:
> 
> 1. All Infants inherit the curse of Adam and are therefore culpable and without individual merit
> 
> 2. God is merciful and elects them for His own purpose for His own reason:
> 
> III. Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated, and saved by Christ, through the Spirit,[12] who works when, and where, and how He pleases:[13] so also are all other elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.[14]
> 
> I *speculate* that it could be that His Mercy is driving His Justice in that they have no *developed outright rebellious action* attributed by their own activities.
> 
> ...and since this is my opinion, but the net effect coincides with the net effect reasoning of other - much more auspicious and learned Reformed thinkers than I, I am comfortable.
> 
> -JD
> 
> [Edited on 11-22-2005 by jdlongmire]
Click to expand...


JD,

I am specifically referring to this:



> My position is that the nature of the Elect is that God foreknew their potential to accept His sovereignty and mercifully predestined them to eternal communion with Him happily non posse peccatore.



Election is clearly not based on God's foreknowledge of man's free will. That is what your statement above says. You may very well not believe that, but if so, you should revise your communication on that.


----------



## Larry Hughes

Saiph,

Well said, I agree completely. Of what possible point could it be to speculate the negative - especially to even pagans who lost their child. It would drive them further to hate God as they already do OR fear Him only in terror producing a false convert of which many are within the church (fear of punishment is't conversion but further selfishness & deeper into sin).

L


----------



## Scott Bushey

> We cannot assume that God certainly sends some infants to hell.



On what grounds do we base God's bypassing the infant? His mercy? The fact that they do not have the faculties to know the difference between wrong and right? What?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

> _Originally posted by Larry Hughes_
> Saiph,
> 
> Well said, I agree completely. Of what possible point could it be to speculate the negative - especially to even pagans who lost their child. It would drive them further to hate God as they already do OR fear Him only in terror producing a false convert of which many are within the church (fear of punishment is't conversion but further selfishness & deeper into sin).
> 
> L


Right, and further:


> VIII. The doctrine of this high mystery of predestination *is to be handled with special prudence and care*, that men, attending the will of God revealed in His Word, and yielding obedience thereunto, may, from the certainty of their effectual vocation, be assured of their eternal election. So shall this doctrine afford matter of praise, reverence, and admiration of God; and of humility, diligence, and abundant consolation to all that sincerely obey the Gospel.


I've seen this subject of infant election brought up in Sunday School before. It only leads to unnecessary rancor over something we ought to leave to the mystery of God.

If someone claims that infants are innocent and go to heaven apart from Christ then we have a soteriological issue but when one begins a heated debate about which infants God elects then the debate becomes speculative and, frankly, non-Confessional per the above (provided one subscribes to the WCF).

[Edited on 11-23-2005 by SemperFideles]


----------



## Scott Bushey

Having said that Rich, I will end this discussion.

Thanks everyone for the vigourous exchanges.


----------

