# Does 2 Samuel prove infants can go to heaven?



## Moireach (Feb 3, 2011)

I'm not interested in opening up this topic as a whole. Please, do not argue the whole topic.
Only the following verses,

" He answered, “While the child was still alive, I fasted and wept. I thought, ‘Who knows? The LORD may be gracious to me and let the child live.’ 23 But now that he is dead, why should I go on fasting? Can I bring him back again? I will go to him, but he will not return to me.”"

I'm asking does this verse ALONE prove that infants do/can go to heaven?
My thoughts at first were, just because David said this it doesn't mean what he said was true. The passage only tells us David said it. It wasn't Nathan the Prophet with divine revelation from God who said it, it was David.

However I was told I was wrong, and am totally open to correction.


----------



## JML (Feb 3, 2011)

I don't know the answer to your question but the two views of these verses that I have heard are:

1. That the infant was in Heaven.
2. That "I will go to him" meant death. That David would join his child in the grave.

My confession says this in 10.3 and I believe it to be true:

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 )


----------



## Moireach (Feb 3, 2011)

Thanks John, I did actually google it and I found out about that 2nd point you mentioned.


----------



## he beholds (Feb 3, 2011)

I think David was right or he'd have been corrected. The Bible records him saying it, and it seems to be in part to teach us. 
Whether it meant death or heaven, I don't know. Though of course infants that are elect will go to heaven.


----------



## saintandsinner77 (Feb 3, 2011)

Where does the Scripture speak of non elect infants who die in infancy (Esau being passed over doesn't count since he grew up and committed actual sin)?


----------



## Skyler (Feb 3, 2011)

saintandsinner77 said:


> Where does the Scripture speak of non elect infants who die in infancy (Esau being passed over doesn't count since he grew up and committed actual sin)?



Same place it talks about all the other non elect people who die, I would assume.


----------



## saintandsinner77 (Feb 3, 2011)

Skyler said:


> saintandsinner77 said:
> 
> 
> > Where does the Scripture speak of non elect infants who die in infancy (Esau being passed over doesn't count since he grew up and committed actual sin)?
> ...


 
Which is where? What I am asking is that as Reformed people, we say that there are elect infants...and by implication that there are some non-elect infants. Where does the Bible speak of any infants going to hell?


----------



## AThornquist (Feb 3, 2011)

It can go either way, depending on who is arguing the position. It's much too little to be dogmatic about.


----------



## Grillsy (Feb 3, 2011)

saintandsinner77 said:


> Skyler said:
> 
> 
> > saintandsinner77 said:
> ...


 
We can infer from the Flood and the Canaanite children. Also, let us not forget, the guilt of original sin.


----------



## Skyler (Feb 3, 2011)

saintandsinner77 said:


> Skyler said:
> 
> 
> > saintandsinner77 said:
> ...


 
When it speaks generally of non-elect persons going to hell, I see no reason to exclude a particular group of non-elect persons on the basis that Scripture does not specifically include them. We don't ask where Scripture speaks of non-elect rock stars dying and going to hell.


----------



## au5t1n (Feb 3, 2011)

For whatever my opinion's worth, I think David was referring to death and the grave, not heaven. I would support the doctrine that infants can be regenerated from other verses.


----------



## MW (Feb 3, 2011)

saintandsinner77 said:


> Which is where? What I am asking is that as Reformed people, we say that there are elect infants...and by implication that there are some non-elect infants. Where does the Bible speak of any infants going to hell?


 
I'm not sure that "hell" is the appropriate point of emphasis. That sounds more fundamentalist than Reformed. It is more the case that we leave those outside the visible church to the judgment of God. Concerning the election of infants, Romans 9 is as clear as day that God has His electing purpose amongst infants; it is before the children, Jacob and Esau, have done anything good or bad that the one is loved and the other is hated.

Concerning the OP, two options have been presented -- heaven or death. In the Psalms those who go down to the grave are never described in terms of life and hope, e.g., Psalm 30:9. Conversely, the hope of the Psalmist is, after death, in seeing the face of God, e.g., Psalm 17:15. Given the living and hopeful nature of David's expression it is appropriate to understand it as referring to heaven.


----------



## Moireach (Feb 4, 2011)

Everyone, I made it crystal clear this thread was not for discussing the topic as a whole!
Only this verse!
I know some of you did answer the thread. Thanks Jessica, that is what was said to me, I wasn't sure though. Does anybody else have more to add to what Jessica said? Do people agree with that?


----------



## Andres (Feb 4, 2011)

David, first, calm down a bit. You're thread will be okay. Second, to answer your question:


Moireach said:


> I'm asking does this verse ALONE prove that infants do/can go to heaven?


 I would say, no, that verse ALONE is not sufficient proof that infants go to heaven. As pointed out, the verse could be describing David going to the grave. I would also add that even if the verse is referencing heaven, I would assume David's son to be elect, as he would be a covenant child. Then the reason the child went to heaven would have to do with the fact he was one of God's elect, not simply because he was an infant.


----------



## brianeschen (Feb 4, 2011)

How would David be comforted with the thought that he would die and go to the grave just like his little baby did? Would it not be more natural to read it as Rev. Winzer described?


armourbearer said:


> Given the living and hopeful nature of David's expression it is appropriate to understand it as referring to heaven.


----------



## bill (Feb 4, 2011)

I don't know. I believe David is referring to death. David is fasting and praying, but once he gets word that his child had died he cleans himself up and moves on. I believe David was comforted in the fact that Gods will was done. We know scripture also says that "But how are they to call on him in whom they have not heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, "How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!" But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, "Lord, who has believed what he has heard from us?" So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ." Romans 10:14-17 (ESV)

That is my opinion, but refer to my first comment


----------



## au5t1n (Feb 4, 2011)

brianeschen said:


> How would David be comforted with the thought that he would die and go to the grave just like his little baby did? Would it not be more natural to read it as Rev. Winzer described?
> 
> 
> armourbearer said:
> ...


 
Where does it say David was comforted? He says that there is no longer a point in fasting because he cannot bring the child back.


----------



## Moireach (Feb 5, 2011)

Hypothetically, if David does mean heaven, does that make what he says true? 
Is it wrong to say it doesn't have to be true just because David said it to his servants?


----------



## proregno (Feb 5, 2011)

1. The immediate context, v.24a ('comforted'), shows that content of v.23b ('I shall go to him') is the 'comfort' of v.24. 

2. David lived from the Promise (as did all OT saints, John 8:56; Acts 26:6), the Promise that because Christ will be raised from the dead (Ps.16:10b; see Acts 2:25-28), and therefore his 'only comfort and live and death' was Ps.16:8-10a: "8 I have set the LORD_ always _before me: because he is at my right hand, I shall not be moved. 9 Therefore my heart is glad, and my glory rejoiceth: _my flesh _also shall rest in hope. 10 For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell".

3. Therefore, David's comfort and hope, with which he also comforted Bathsheba (v.24), were not 'death/hell', but Christ and eternal life/heaven, where he will be united with his son, because of the Covenant of Grace (Gen.17:7).


----------



## JML (Feb 5, 2011)

proregno said:


> 1. The immediate context, v.24a ('comforted'), shows that content of v.23b ('I shall go to him') is the 'comfort' of v.24.
> 
> 2. David lived from the Promise (as did all OT saints, John 8:56; Acts 26:6), the Promise that because Christ will be raised from the dead (Ps.16:10b; see Acts 2:25-28), and therefore his 'only comfort and live and death' was Ps.16:8-10a: "8 I have set the LORD always before me: because he is at my right hand, I shall not be moved. 9 Therefore my heart is glad, and my glory rejoiceth: my flesh also shall rest in hope. 10 For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell".
> 
> 3. Therefore, David's comfort and hope, with which he also comforted Bathsheba (v.24), were not 'death/hell', but Christ and eternal life/heaven, where he will be united with his son, because of the Covenant of Grace (Gen.17:7).



You may be right. However, I think this is a stretch. The text just doesn't say and I don't think we can come to an absolute conclusion on it. Someone who has lost an unconverted loved one can be comforted as well. See Bill's comment above.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Feb 5, 2011)

How is it a "stretch"? You say "*the* text doesn't say that," by which you seem to mean the single verse doesn't contain a whole theology of the afterlife, or an epitome of the afterlife.

However, proregno's post contains not only references to the verse in question, and the context, but also *five* other Scripture references, one of which directly quotes David expressing his hope, and another quoting a NT figure referencing David's hope.

The issue isn't "what could this verse possibly mean to _anyone_ who reads it?" but "what should we expect a faithful man like David to believe?" Christians have promises, and they are expected to hope in promises. Unbelievers have no promises. David, like believing parents today of dead infants, have nothing more to cling to than the promises of God--and they are encouraged to hold on to them, and believe in them. "I will be God to your children."

Believers have MORE to hope in than "God will do what is right and good... whatever that is!" There just seems to be a perverse determination to forbid David an expression here of hope in what God has given to Israel. It is only after we hope in God's mercy, that we acknowledge the "but"--but if God has another hidden, unstated purpose, we will not murmur or repine.

"I will go to him," is a pretty terse statement. David's theology of the afterlife (as expounded by Christ) is that God is the God of the living, not of the dead. Rather than claiming for David a skeptical, bleak, or (at best) brave-face-resigned-to-the-will-of-God attitude, its obvious to me that his language is properly interpreted only in the light of his covenant faith.


----------



## au5t1n (Feb 5, 2011)

proregno said:


> 1. The immediate context, v.24a ('comforted'), shows that content of v.23b ('I shall go to him') is the 'comfort' of v.24.
> 
> 2. David lived from the Promise (as did all OT saints, John 8:56; Acts 26:6), the Promise that because Christ will be raised from the dead (Ps.16:10b; see Acts 2:25-28), and therefore his 'only comfort and live and death' was Ps.16:8-10a: "8 I have set the LORD_ always _before me: because he is at my right hand, I shall not be moved. 9 Therefore my heart is glad, and my glory rejoiceth: _my flesh _also shall rest in hope. 10 For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell".
> 
> 3. Therefore, David's comfort and hope, with which he also comforted Bathsheba (v.24), were not 'death/hell', but Christ and eternal life/heaven, where he will be united with his son, because of the Covenant of Grace (Gen.17:7).


 
Thanks for answering my question. You have made me reconsider. Thanks to Rev. Buchanan as well.


----------



## saintandsinner77 (Feb 5, 2011)

So then, if the babies of Canaanites who die in infancy go to hell, but babies of Christians do not go to hell, then isn't the inference that salvation is in part due to spiritual heritage? If the children are not punished for the sins of the parents, why should ipso facto, the Canaanite babies who die in infancy go to hell? You'll say, because of original sin. Fine. Then what of the original sin of babies who die of Christian parents? You say it is removed when they die, when God regenerates them. So then, God regenerates the babies of Christians who die in infancy, but doesn't do so for babies of unbelievers. So, what I see as election of infants who die in infancy is due to the spiritual condition of their parents. And all this time, I thought election wasn't based on anything that someone does, good, or bad, in order that God's election might stand (Romans 9). But, if all the Canaanite babies who die, burn in hell, I guess it does have to do with their bad parents- if only they had been born to faithful Jewish parents in the OT, they would be in heaven.


----------



## brianeschen (Feb 5, 2011)

Walter,

It is different than what you are presenting. Christian parents are taught to believe their babies who die in infancy are saved because of the promises of God, not because of something good about the parent or the baby. Non Christian parents do not have that hope because the promises of God do not apply to them nor to their children.


----------



## saintandsinner77 (Feb 6, 2011)

brianeschen said:


> Walter,
> 
> It is different than what you are presenting. Christian parents are taught to believe their babies who die in infancy are saved because of the promises of God, not because of something good about the parent or the baby. Non Christian parents do not have that hope because the promises of God do not apply to them nor to their children.


 
That's my point- the promise is if and only if you are a Christian parent who has a baby who dies in infancy, you have the promise. So then, how can we simultaneously turn around and say, "well the baby's election had nothing to do with the fact that the baby had a Christian parent," when the promise is attached to the fact that it is only for Christian parents.

(Ezekiel 18:20) - "The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father’s iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son’s iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself."

(Deuteronomy 24:16) - "Fathers shall not be put to death for their sons, nor shall sons be put to death for their fathers; everyone shall be put to death for his own sin.

Our Lord said, "Even so it is not the will of your Father, who is in heaven, that one of these little ones should perish" (Matt. 18:14). How do we know that all of the parents of these little ones were regenerate? For all we know, the parents of these little ones could have had simply temporal faith or miraculous faith, but not saving faith in Jesus.


----------



## Skyler (Feb 6, 2011)

@Walter: Read Matthew 18:6. The "little ones" Jesus is talking about are the ones who believe in Him.


----------



## au5t1n (Feb 6, 2011)

saintandsinner77 said:


> So then, if the babies of Canaanites who die in infancy go to hell, but babies of Christians do not go to hell, then isn't the inference that salvation is in part due to spiritual heritage? If the children are not punished for the sins of the parents, why should ipso facto, the Canaanite babies who die in infancy go to hell? You'll say, because of original sin. Fine. Then what of the original sin of babies who die of Christian parents? You say it is removed when they die, when God regenerates them. So then, God regenerates the babies of Christians who die in infancy, but doesn't do so for babies of unbelievers. So, what I see as election of infants who die in infancy is due to the spiritual condition of their parents. And all this time, I thought election wasn't based on anything that someone does, good, or bad, in order that God's election might stand (Romans 9). But, if all the Canaanite babies who die, burn in hell, I guess it does have to do with their bad parents- if only they had been born to faithful Jewish parents in the OT, they would be in heaven.


 
Let's apply the same logic to children who grow up and die as adults. A far, far greater percentage of children of Christians become (remain) believers than children of unbelievers. According to your logic, this would contradict Scriptures that say election is not based on anything in the person.


----------



## MW (Feb 6, 2011)

saintandsinner77 said:


> (Ezekiel 18:20) - "The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father’s iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son’s iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself."
> 
> (Deuteronomy 24:16) - "Fathers shall not be put to death for their sons, nor shall sons be put to death for their fathers; everyone shall be put to death for his own sin.


 
If these verses are taken out of their covenantal context, they do not teach the universal salvation of infants dying in infancy, but their universal damnation. I fail to see how any good can come of this. Why are we not allowed to rest assured in the everlasting purpose of grace?


----------



## Skyler (Feb 6, 2011)

austinww said:


> A far, far greater percentage of children of Christians become (remain) believers than children of unbelievers.



I've often wondered about that. Can you provide your source for that statistic, please?


----------



## saintandsinner77 (Feb 6, 2011)

austinww said:


> saintandsinner77 said:
> 
> 
> > So then, if the babies of Canaanites who die in infancy go to hell, but babies of Christians do not go to hell, then isn't the inference that salvation is in part due to spiritual heritage? If the children are not punished for the sins of the parents, why should ipso facto, the Canaanite babies who die in infancy go to hell? You'll say, because of original sin. Fine. Then what of the original sin of babies who die of Christian parents? You say it is removed when they die, when God regenerates them. So then, God regenerates the babies of Christians who die in infancy, but doesn't do so for babies of unbelievers. So, what I see as election of infants who die in infancy is due to the spiritual condition of their parents. And all this time, I thought election wasn't based on anything that someone does, good, or bad, in order that God's election might stand (Romans 9). But, if all the Canaanite babies who die, burn in hell, I guess it does have to do with their bad parents- if only they had been born to faithful Jewish parents in the OT, they would be in heaven.
> ...


 
Is that why 70-80% of evangelical children drop out of church when they go to college?

---------- Post added at 07:36 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:32 PM ----------




armourbearer said:


> saintandsinner77 said:
> 
> 
> > (Ezekiel 18:20) - "The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father’s iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son’s iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself."
> ...


 
Actually, it's the opposite- babies don't go to hell because their parents were not in the covenantal community. Revelation speaks of the judgment of the world and that each are judging according to their works- what works will non-elect infants be judged for (I am not referring to original sin, but actual sins)? It is the everlasting purpose of grace that would teach us God is a merciful God who does not send babies who die in infancy into the lake of fire.


----------



## MW (Feb 6, 2011)

saintandsinner77 said:


> Actually, it's the opposite- babies don't go to hell because their parents were not in the covenantal community. Revelation speaks of the judgment of the world and that each are judging according to their works- what works will non-elect infants be judged for (I am not referring to original sin, but actual sins)? It is the everlasting purpose of grace that would teach us God is a merciful God who does not send babies who die in infancy into the lake of fire.


 
One cannot possibly understand the doctrine of original sin if he speaks in this manner. David traces his actual sin back to the fountain of his original sin (Ps 51) in order to show God's justice in judging, that is, because there is absolutely no good thing to which he can appeal to mitigate his sin. The apostle Paul considers guilt, condemnation, and death as the natural consequences of Adam's headship of the human race (Rom. 5). If "the soul that sins shall die" is an absolute statement which admits of no qualification then all infants who die in infancy are damned without any hope. Please reconsider your position. It is pernicious.

Concerning divine mercy, the apostle Paul shows very clearly that the hope of eternal life is not grounded in the richness of God's merciful nature alone, but in that merciful nature expressing itself through an everlasting love for His elect people, Ephesians 2:1-7, and especially verse 4. Arminians argue that God's merciful nature implies that He has a purpose of grace for all without discrimination. Calvinists know of no such "nature-God."


----------



## au5t1n (Feb 6, 2011)

saintandsinner77 said:


> Is that why 70-80% of evangelical children drop out of church when they go to college?



Are you under the impression this is the expected Biblical norm? The reason for the apostasy rate is because at least 70-80% of Christian parents do not read their children the Bible, pray with them, or catechize them; and they throw them in front of every form of worldly influence imaginable. The Bible teaches parents to "bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord" (Eph. 6:4).


----------



## saintandsinner77 (Feb 6, 2011)

austinww said:


> saintandsinner77 said:
> 
> 
> > Is that why 70-80% of evangelical children drop out of church when they go to college?
> ...



You were speaking in present tense terms, not 2000 year ago norms, so I addressed your present tense statement. Also, where are your statistics for the first century of children remaining faithful? What of the apostates in the Evangelical and Reformed community whose parents prayed with them, catechized them and sheltered them from all worldliness? What about the super-strict sheltered homeschooling families I know of whose children do not attend church nor care for things of God? All the parents' fault? And what of the Christian children who attended public school who still remain Christians?


----------



## au5t1n (Feb 6, 2011)

saintandsinner77 said:


> austinww said:
> 
> 
> > saintandsinner77 said:
> ...


 
The apostasy rate among public-schooled Christian children after high school is somewhere in the range of 70-93%, depending on the study. For homeschooled Christian children, it is more in the vicinity of 6%. However, I was not just thinking of public education, but also the hours and hours of junk television and movies. This is all a bit beside the main point, though:

Are you seriously saying you do not think the Bible generally expects Christians to raise Christians? Let me make sure I am not misunderstanding you. You are really saying that Christians should expect the same percentage of unbelieving children as unbelievers, regardless of how they raise them?


----------



## saintandsinner77 (Feb 6, 2011)

austinww said:


> saintandsinner77 said:
> 
> 
> > austinww said:
> ...


 
Where did you get your apostasy statistics from? Can I have the link to the website?

How would you ever draw the conclusion from the last couple posts that I don't believe Christians should raise their children in the ways of God? What I think is that you are giving incomplete explanations to why people fall away. Blaming TV is an incomplete explanation and can be seen as somewhat simplistic. 

The real reason is lack of regeneration- pure and simple- you can be a catechism-memorizing, homeschooling, go to church 4 times a week unconverted person who falls away at 19 years old, or you can be a public-school going, allowed to watch a movie here and there, allowed to play on sports teams and socialize with unbelievers and be regenerate and continue with Christ till your old and gray. Children need to be raised in a godly environment yes of course, but they also need to be taught the need for a new birth. If the children are truly converted, I am not worried about them falling away, because as a Calvinist, I believe in the preservation of the saints. What's more worrisome to me, which I have observed, is children who outwardly dot all their i's and cross their t's, but who have not experienced the new birth. 

I don't determine what Christian parents should expect. According to Christ, 1/4 of the seed sown actually falls on good ground. Now, I'm not gonna say, expect only 1 child out of 4 to be converted. At the same time, I am not a federal visionist or baptismal regenerationist who just assumes that all children baptized, who are in the covenant community and memorize their catechisms and "behave," are necessarily regenerate. 

Raise children in prayer and much exposure to the Word of the living God, and be a good example and leave the results to Him, Who determines our destinies, trusting in the promises.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Feb 6, 2011)

Actually,
The parable of the soils/seed/sower isn't about percentages, and so making it into such a witness is a misuse of the text.

And besides that, the 1/4 percentage is simply wrong in the story itself. The "soil-types" are not evenly distributed over the available sown-ground. Plus there are *3* "unfruitful" results descriptions, and *3* (count them) fruitful results descriptions. Which presents a more balanced "results" outlook. Not that parity is what the story is about.


Walter,
Does God expect us to employ "the due use of ordinary means" in the course of our life of faith? Are we, or are we not, then obligated to believe that those divinely appointed means will "ordinarily" produce the results that God's Word testifies should attend their employment?

It sounds like you object to a kind of "plug-and-play" mentality, a "robotic" formulaic approach to passing on the faith, divorced from a well-rounded, means-of-grace centered piety in home and church. Fine, that's not what's being pointed to here.

But for the parents that believe in God's promises, as they are attached to their due use of ordinary means, they have a "right" to expect the outcomes that God unites to those means by way of promise. It's not an absolute right. We always must admit that God may still choose to deviate from his ordinary providence, for his own wise and holy ends.

But I can't tell the difference between the position you seem to be defending/advocating, and (after all we have done in faith) the view of our children that its still a crapshoot from our standpoint, guessing whether we'll see our children in heaven. What? Don't we have "reasonable" expectations (not absolute guarantees) that God's promises mean what they sound like?


----------



## proregno (Feb 7, 2011)

Canons of Dordt 1:17 - "Since we are to judge of the will of God from His Word, which testifies that the children of believers are holy, not by nature, but in virtue of the covenant of grace, in which they together with the parents are comprehended, godly parents ought not to doubt the election and salvation of their children whom it pleases God to call out of this life in their infancy (Gen 17:7; Acts 2:39; 1Co 7:14)."

The reason for the parents comfort (their child dying in infancy being saved and savely in our Father's hand through Christ's work alone, John 10:28, see HC q/a 1), is not 'nature' (being born in a christian family/having christian parents) or 'the work of man' (baptizing the infant/christian education), but the sovereign 'election' of God that is revealed in history through the 'covenant of grace' (Rom.9:6 etc).

John 1:12-13 "But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God."


----------



## Moireach (Feb 7, 2011)

Not that the argument as a whole isn't interesting, but can I have more opinions on this verse, does David saying it make it true?
Earlier it was suggested he had a good understanding of the covenant etc so it would.
But is it wrong for me to say just because he said it, it isn't necessarily true? Because it's just a conversation? He may have been comforting himself.
And though he had now repented, he was just on the back of more than 9 months of backsliding.


----------



## Skyler (Feb 7, 2011)

It is true that not every quotation of someone in the Bible is necessarily true or morally good.

However, there must be valid exegetical reasons to conclude one way or the other.


----------



## Romans 8 Verse 28 (Feb 7, 2011)

armourbearer said:


> Concerning the OP, two options have been presented -- heaven or death. In the Psalms those who go down to the grave are never described in terms of life and hope, e.g., Psalm 30:9. Conversely, the hope of the Psalmist is, after death, in seeing the face of God, e.g., Psalm 17:15. Given the living and hopeful nature of David's expression it is appropriate to understand it as referring to heaven.


 
Well said, Pastor Winzer sir! 

---------- Post added at 04:59 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:54 PM ----------




proregno said:


> Canons of Dordt 1:17 - "Since we are to judge of the will of God from His Word, which testifies that the children of believers are holy, not by nature, but in virtue of the covenant of grace, in which they together with the parents are comprehended, godly parents ought not to doubt the election and salvation of their children whom it pleases God to call out of this life in their infancy (Gen 17:7; Acts 2:39; 1Co 7:14)."
> 
> The reason for the parents comfort (their child dying in infancy being saved and savely in our Father's hand through Christ's work alone, John 10:28, see HC q/a 1), is not 'nature' (being born in a christian family/having christian parents) or 'the work of man' (baptizing the infant/christian education), but the sovereign 'election' of God that is revealed in history through the 'covenant of grace' (Rom.9:6 etc).
> 
> John 1:12-13 "But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God."


 
Exactly! 

---------- Post added at 05:05 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:59 PM ----------




Moireach said:


> Not that the argument as a whole isn't interesting, but can I have more opinions on this verse, does David saying it make it true?



I made a post regarding this verse that you may find helpful in this thread: 

http://www.puritanboard.com/f17/bible-verse-most-taken-out-context-54285/#post701156

Also, I'd suggest the following post on the topic of babies dying in infancy:

http://www.puritanboard.com/f48/arminians-infant-salvation-52490/#post678054


----------

