# a challenge to you Calvinists!



## panta dokimazete (Feb 10, 2005)

Please read below...



> Originally Posted by jdlongmire
> Who is to say all infants are not elect?





> why, errr, Calvinism does. Remember that predestination necessarily results in double predestination, which necessariliy results in the fact that at the least SOME babies are not elect and will go to Hell.
> 
> Any claim that babies, as a whole, are elect has three problems as I see it.
> 
> ...



...anybody interested in helping with a debate defending the Doctrines of Grace on an Atheist board?

I can even formalize it in their Debates Area, if can count on some help...time is a major concern for me, but I have had inquiries as a result of debating this issue there.

The crux of the issue is Double Predestination.

[Edited on 2-11-2005 by jdlongmire]

[Edited on 2-11-2005 by jdlongmire]


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Feb 10, 2005)

Does this guy know you're posting his arguments here?


----------



## panta dokimazete (Feb 10, 2005)

He wouldn't care...would he be allowed in here?


----------



## panta dokimazete (Feb 10, 2005)

BTW: It is not my intention to deceive. Just thought it might give a chance to "flex" your apology muscles a bit. 

I believe you mentioned in a thread that you did not have much experience debating atheists.

This atheist was once a Calvinist...

The formal debate idea would probably not work, he and I do not have a tremendous amount of time, anyway. Might be worth the effort to join and engage, though...

My former Pastor did and has grown quite a bit from the experience...who know whose eyes may be opened?

My former pastor's Formal debate there:

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=2083128#post2083128

[Edited on 2-11-2005 by jdlongmire]


----------



## fredtgreco (Feb 11, 2005)

JD,

I don't have time to go into great details here (my bed is calling and I have an early day), but there is a fundamental flaw in your opponent's argument that you need to get at:

he seems to think that if one claims that infants are elect it must follow that all men are saved.

He says:



> Remember that predestination necessarily results in double predestination, which necessariliy results in the fact that at the least SOME babies are not elect and will go to Hell



This is demonstrably and logically false. If God is in control of all things (a major premise of election), then certainly it is at least possible - in fact likely - that God is in control of who dies. So his argument is blown away by one statement: if God is in charge of election, He must know who is elect. Therefore, He elects all those whom He determines will die in infancy. Those that do not die in infancy, and hence can be reprobate, He allows to live. That simple.

Your opponent wants to assume that God is in charge of the eternal destinies of men, and can't control their temporal destinies. His entire argument hinges on that, for it all relies on the fact that ALL babies (without exception) must be elect for the babies who die in infancy to be elect. Take that away from him - which is VERY easy - and all the rest is moot.

I hope that helps. Feel free to quote me, steal my argument, etc. I don't have time to debate any of this with him (and wouldn't make the time) but if you want to, go ahead if it helps.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Feb 11, 2005)

I still don't grasp this concept at all.. Maybe I'm just not seeing the basic premise.

How can all infants that die be elect? What's the primary basis for this?


----------



## Larry Hughes (Feb 11, 2005)

Gabriel,

I think I might be able to help, though I don't want to mistranslate what Fred said, and if I have just smack me, correct me, and apologize in advance:

God is in control of all things which is a major part of election. God is also in control of who dies when and where, and has set all men's time and boundaries in time and space. If God is in charge of election (from eternity), He must know who is elect. Thus, He elects all those whom He determines will die in infancy (by placing according to His sovereign good pleasure together both A partial group of elect into 100% of the category of infants that will die before childhood/adulthood). In other words He controls both flawlessly and as He pleases. Those that do not die in infancy are those who can be reprobate or elect, that is those of us He allows to live for extended time in time and space. 

The atheist guys premise "...relies on the fact (as this atheist guy sees it) that ALL babies (both those that die before adulthood and those who acheive some measure of adulthood) MUST be elect (in order for it to be true that) ...the babies who (actually) die in infancy (can) to be elect."

Larry


----------



## alwaysreforming (Feb 11, 2005)

JD,
I could be way off here, but this guys strikes me as someone who is just hoping to be overcome with reasons to believe. It seems he has gotten into an intellectual difficulty that prevents him from believing without feeling like a hypocrite or a mindless nimbo. I think Fred has given a well-reasoned response to help this guy overcome at least this one specific hurdle and in light of that, I wouldn't stop preaching to Gospel to him. Sure he might have a difficulty here and there, but if he is going to insist that EVERY single mystery of God is laid bare before him before he is going to believe, well, then he's NEVER even gonna get close.

What I would present before him after all is said and done is this challenge: "Take your best argument, whatever it is that you are MOST convinced of and ask yourself this question: "When I die, and if there is a God and I should stand before Him, is there ANY possible way that my argument will prove false in light of God's infinite wisdom?"
If there IS a way, the remotest possibility that my "truth" may be shown to be error, then I have gambled my whole life and all of eternity away in order to cling to my own intellectual rock, which in the end was found to have no foundation at all."

The reason I say this is because there have been many things that I thought were true, things I was 100% absolutely, positively, beyond a shadow of a doubt utterly CONVINCED of, that were later found to not be true. (Just take for instance the magician who makes something disappear before your very eyes. And in most people's minds, there's no greater "proof" than seeing it yourself!) In light of that, there is NO WAY I'm going to place my faith and trust in my own reason apart from the revelation of Scripture. The human mind was created to be SUBJECT to God's revelation, not ruler and judge OVER it.

Sorry for this longwinded two cents, but I just had a strong impression that this guy secretly longs for conversion, and not to cling to his atheism. But as I said initially, I could be WAY off here.


----------



## tdowns (Feb 11, 2005)

*Right on!*

"This is demonstrably and logically false. If God is in control of all things (a major premise of election), then certainly it is at least possible - in fact likely - that God is in control of who dies. So his argument is blown away by one statement: if God is in charge of election, He must know who is elect. Therefore, He elects all those whom He determines will die in infancy. Those that do not die in infancy, and hence can be reprobate, He allows to live. That simple.

Your opponent wants to assume that God is in charge of the eternal destinies of men, and can't control their temporal destinies. " 


I love this, this is what nobody seems to get who has a problem with Calvinism, etc. God is in charge of everything, where we are born, when we die, I love the way you explained it, thanks.

TD

[Edited on 12-2-2005 by tdowns007]


----------



## panta dokimazete (Feb 12, 2005)

Thanks, guys, ya'll are great!

This is from him. It is on a public board, so no worries...:



> my story
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> ...


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Feb 12, 2005)

Where's the Scriptural premise for believing that infants who die in infancy are elect?


----------



## jatkins_1 (Feb 12, 2005)

Can somone show me some scripture that states that
" if God is in charge of election, He must know who is elect. Therefore, He elects all those whom He determines will die in infancy. Those that do not die in infancy, and hence can be reprobate, He allows to live." 
Maybe I am missing it, but I have read nothing in scripture that says that because God knows or is in control of when people die, that he must elect all that die in infancy.


----------



## fredtgreco (Feb 12, 2005)

> _Originally posted by jatkins_1_
> Can somone show me some scripture that states that
> " if God is in charge of election, He must know who is elect. Therefore, He elects all those whom He determines will die in infancy. Those that do not die in infancy, and hence can be reprobate, He allows to live."
> Maybe I am missing it, but I have read nothing in scripture that says that because God knows or is in control of when people die, that he must elect all that die in infancy.



That was not the point of the argument. The atheist was not objecting to whether or not God elects all infants who die; he was saying that God cannot elect ANY infants, because to do so would require that he elect EVERY infant, and hence since not all men are saved, that this cannot be so -- therefore God elects NO infants.

My point was that this was fallacious of the first order. The issue of the election of those who die in infancy is a red herring.


----------



## Larry Hughes (Feb 12, 2005)

Nothing says He MUST (which is by the way loading the question), but scripture does give us a very crystal clear picture that God is merciful to those who do not deserve it. Even if we agreed, and we do not in the least apparently, that Scripture leaves it 50/50 - then I will err on the side of grace and mercy the same which I received for this is the view of God that I can see and live - namely Jesus Christ.

This is why professionism is inherently arminian and man centered for it sets forth conditions upon unconditional grace (which by the way is a redundant term). Does one really think for one second that one’s profession, and/or knowledge of doctrine - ability to grasp it, express it, or otherwise , even of grace, one’s repentance, one’s faith itself, one’s anything is the ground of one’s justification? Or that one has moved oneself in the least toward it? If so then one has missed the Gospel altogether and has nothing more than an intellectual grasp of the doctrine.

Luke 18:17, "Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child shall in no wise enter therein."

John M. rightly comments on this verse in that it states that we have absolutely nothing to do with our own salvation and hence election if we are so - no more than does an infant child or mentally incapacitated person who can articulate nothing or even apprehend nothing. JM has quite a treatise on the election of dying infants.

Or if you like:

B.B. Warfield, "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. If only a single infant dying in irresponsible infancy be saved, the whole Arminian principle is traversed. If all infants dying such are saved, not only the majority of the saved, but doubtless the majority of the human race hitherto, have entered into life by a non-Arminian pathway.''

Or if you like:

Infant Salvation
September 29th, 1861
by
C. H. SPURGEON
(1834-1892)

"Is it well with the child? And she answered, It is well"—2 Kings 4:26.

The subject of this morning's discourse will be "Infant Salvation." It may not possibly be interesting to all present, but I do not remember to have preached upon this subject to this congregation, and I am anxious moreover that the printed series should contain sermons upon the whole range of theology. I think there is no one point which ought to be left out in our ministry, even though it may only yield comfort to a class. Perhaps the larger proportion of this audience have at some time or other had to shed the briny tear over the child's little coffin;—it may be that through this subject consolation may be afforded to them. This good Shunammite was asked by Gehazi, whether it was well with herself. She was mourning over a lost chid, and yet she said, "It is well;" she felt that the trial would surely be blessed. "Is it well with thy husband?" He was old and stricken in years, and was ripening for death, yet she said, "Yes, it is well." Then came the question about her child, it was dead at home, and the enquiry would renew her griefs, "Is it well with the child?" Yet she said, "It is well," perhaps so answering because she had a faith that soon it should be restored to her, and that its temporary absence was well; or I think rather because she was persuaded that whatever might have become of its spirit, it was safe in the keeping of God, happy beneath the shadow of his wings. Therefore, not fearing that it was lost, having no suspicion whatever that it was cast away from the place of bliss—for that suspicion would have quite prevented her giving such answer—she said "Yes, the child is dead, but 'it is well.'"

Now, let every mother and father here present know assuredly that it is well with the child, if God hath taken it away from you in its infant days. You never heard its declaration of faith—it was not capable of such a thing—it was not baptized into the Lord Jesus Christ, not buried with him in baptism; it was not capable of giving that "answer of a good conscience towards God;" nevertheless, you may rest assured that it is well with the child, well in a higher and a better sense than it is well with yourselves; well without limitation, well without exception, well infinitely, "well" eternally. Perhaps you will say, "What reasons have we for believing that it is well with the child?" Before I enter upon that I would make one observation. 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. In Calvin's advice to Omit, he interprets the second commandment "shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me," as referring to generations, and hence he seems to teach that infants who have had pious ancestors, no matter how remotely, dying as infants are saved. This would certainly take in the whole race. As for modern Calvinists, 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.

First, then, this morning, I shall endeavor to explain the way in which we believed infants are saved; secondly, give reasons for do believing; and then, thirdly, seek to bring out a practical use of the subject.

I. First of all, THE WAY IN WHICH WE BELIEVE INFANTS TO BE SAVED.

Some ground the idea of the eternal blessedness of the infant upon its innocence. We do no such thing; we believe that the infant fell in the first Adam, "for in Adam all died." All Adam's posterity, whether infant or adult, were represented by him—he stood for them all, and when he fell, he fell for them all. There was no exception made at all in the covenant of works made with Adam as to infants dying; and inasmuch as they were included in Adam, though they have not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, they have original guilt. They are "born in sin and steepen in iniquity; in sin do their mothers conceive them;" so saith David of himself, and (by inference) of the whole human race. If they be saved, we believe it is not because of any natural innocence. They enter heaven by the very same way that we do; they are receives in the name of Christ. "Other foundation can no man lay than that which is laid," and I do not think nor dream that there is a different foundation for the infant than that which is laid for the adult. And equally is it far from our minds to believe that infants go to heaven through baptism—not to say, in the first place, that we believe infant sprinkling to be a human and carnal invention, an addition to the Word of God, and therefore wicked and injurious. When we reflect that it is rendered into some thing worse than superstition by being accompanied with falsehood, when children are taught that in their baptism they are made the children of God, and inheritors of the kingdom of heaven, which is as base a lie as ever was forged in hell, or uttered beneath the copes of heaven, our spirit sinks at the fearful errors which have crept into the Church, through the one little door of infant sprinkling. No; children are not saved because they are baptized, for if so, the Puseyite is quite right in refusing to bury our little children if they die unbaptized. Yes, the barbarian is quite right in driving the parent, as he does to this day, from the church yard of his own national Church, and telling him that his child may rot above-ground, and that it shall not be buried except it be at the dead of night, because the superstitious drops have never fallen on its brow. He is right enough if that baptism made the child a Christian, and if that child could not be saved without it. But a thing so revolting to feeling, is at once to be eschewed by Christian men. The child is saved, if snatched away by death as we are, on another ground than that of rites and ceremonies, and the will of man.

On what ground, then, do we believe the child to be saved? We believe it to be as lost on the rest of mankind, and as truly condemned by the sentence which said, "In the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." It is saved because it is elect. In the compass of election, in the Lamb's Book of Life, we believe there shall be found written millions of souls who are only shown on earth, and then stretch their wings for heaven. They are saved, too, because they were redeemed by the precious blood of Jesus Christ. He who shed his blood for all his people, bought them with the same price with which he redeemed their parents, and therefore are they saved because Christ was sponsor for them, and suffered in their room and stead. They are saved, again not without regeneration, for, "except a man"—the text does not mean an adult man but a person, a being of the human race—"except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." No doubt, in some mysterious manner the Spirit of God regenerates the infant soul, and it enters into glory made meet to be a partaker of the inheritance of the saints in light. That this is possible is proved from Scripture instances. John the Baptist was filled with the Holy Ghost from his mother's would. We read of Jeremiah also, that the same had occurred to him; and of Samuel we find that while yet a babe the Lord called him. We believe, therefore, that even before the intellect can work, God, who worketh not by the will of man, nor by blood, but by the mysterious agency of his Holy Spirit, creates the infant soul a new creature in Christ Jesus, and then it enters into the "rest which remaineth for the people of God." By election, by redemption, by regeneration, the child enters into glory, by the selfsame door by which every believer in Christ Jesus hopes to enter, and in no other way. If we could not suppose that children could be saved in the same way as adults, if it would be necessary to suppose that God's justice must be infringe, or that his plan of salvation must be altered to suit their cases, then we should be in doubt; but we can see that with the same appliances, by the same plan, on precisely the same grounds, and through the same agencies, the infant soul can behold the Savior a face in glory everlasting, and therefore we are at ease upon the matter.

II. This brings me now to note THE REASONS WHY WE THUS THINK INFANTS ARE SAVED.

First, we ground our conviction very much upon the goodness of the nature of God. We say that the opposite doctrine that some infants perish and are lost, is altogether repugnant to the idea which we have of Him whose name is love. If we had a God, whose name was Moloch, if God were an arbitrary tyrant, without benevolence or grace, we could suppose some infants being cast into hell; but our God, who heareth the young ravens when they cry, certainly will find no delight in the shrieks and cries of infants cast away from his presence. We read of him that he is so tender, that he careth for oxen, that he would not have the mouth of the ox muzzled, that treadeth out the corn. Nay, he careth for the bird upon the nest, and would not have the mother bird killed while sitting upon its nest with its little ones. He made ordinances and commands even for irrational creatures. He finds food for the most loathsome animal, nor does he neglect the worm any more than the angel, and shall we believe with such universal goodness as this, that he would cast away the infant soul I say it would he clear contrary to all that we have ever read or ever believed of Him, that our faith would stagger before a revelation which should display a fact so singularly exceptional to the tenor of his other deeds. We have learned humbly to submit our judgments to his will, and we dare not criticise or accuse the Lord of All; we believe him to be just, let him do as he may, and? Therefore, whatever he might reveal we would accept; but he never has, and I think he never will require of us so desperate a stretch of faith as to see goodness in the eternal misery of an infinite cast into hell. You remember when Jonah—petulant, quick-tempered Jonah—would have Nineveh perish God gave it as the reason why Nineveh should not be destroyed, that there were in it more than six score thousand infants,—persons, he said, who knew not their light hand tram their left. If he spared Nineveh that their mortal life might be spared, think you that their immortal souls shall be needlessly cast away! I only put it to your own reason. It is not a case where we need much argument. Would your God cast away an infant? If yours could, I am happy to say he is not the God that I adore.

Again, we think it would be inconsistent utterly with the known character of our Lord Jesus Christ. When his disciples put away the little children whom their anxious mothers brought to him, Jesus said, "Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not for of such is the kingdom of heaven," by which he taught, as John Newton very properly says, that such as these made up a very great part of the kingdom of heaven. And when we consider that upon the best statistics it is calculated that more than one third of the human race die in infancy, and probably if we take into calculation those districts where infanticide prevails, as in heathen countries, such as China and the like, perhaps one half of the population of the world die before they reach adult years,—the saying of the Savior derives great force indeed," Of such is the kingdom of heaven." If some remind me that the kingdom of heaven means the dispensation of grace on earth, I answer, yes, it does, and it means the same dispensation in heaven too, for while part of the kingdom of heaven is on earth in the Church, since the Church is always one, that other part of the Church which is above is also the kingdom of heaven. We know this text is constantly used as a proof of baptism, but in the first place, Christ did not baptize them, for "Jesus Christ baptized not;" in the second place, his disciples did not baptize them, for they withstood their coming, and would have driven them away. Then if Jesus did not, and his disciple did not, who did,' It has no more to do with baptism than with circumcision. There is not the slightest allusion to baptism in the text, or in the context; and I can prove the circumcision of infants from it with quite as fair logic as others attempt to prove infant baptism. However, it does prove this, that infants compose a great part of the family of Christ, and that Jesus Christ is known to have had a love and amiableness towards the little ones. When they shouted in the temple, "Hosanna!" did he rebuke them? No; but rejoiced in their boyish shouts. "Out of the mouths of babes and sucklings hath God ordained strength," and does not that text seem to say that in heaven there shall be "perfect praise" rendered to God by multitudes of cherubs who were here on earth—your little ones fondled in your bosom—and then suddenly snatched away to heaven. I could not believe it of Jesus, that he would say to little children, "Depart, ye accursed, into everlasting fire in hell!" I cannot conceive it possible of him as the loving and tender one, that when he shall sit to judge all nations, he should put the little ones on the left hand, and should banish them for ever from his presence. Could he address them, and say to them, "I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat; I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink, sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not? "How could they do it? And if the main reason of damnation lie in sins of omission like there which it was not possible for them to commit, for want of power to perform the duty how, then, shall he condemn and cast them away?

Furthermore, we think that the ways of grace, if we consider them, render it highly improbable, not to say impossible, that an infant soul should be destroyed. What saith Scripture? "Where sin abounded, grace did much more abound." Such a thing as that could not be sail of an infant cast away. We know that God is so abundantly gracious that such expressions as the "unsearchable riches of Christ," "God who is rich in mercy," "A God full of compassion," "The exceeding riches of his grace," and the like are truly applicable without exaggeration or hyperbole. We know that he is good to all, and his tender mercies are over all his works, and that in grace he is able to do "exceeding abundantly above what we can ask or even think." The grace of God has sought out in the world the greatest sinners. It has not passed by the vilest of the vile. He who called himself the chief of sinners was a partaker of the love of Christ. All manner of sin and of blasphemy have been forgiven unto man. He has been able to save unto the uttermost them that come unto God by Christ, and dons it seem consistent with such grace as this that it should pass by the myriads upon myriads of little ones, who wear the image of the earthy Adam, and never stamp upon them the image of the heavenly? I cannot conceive such a thing. He that has tasted and felt, and handled the grace of God, will, I think, shrink instinctively from any other doctrine than this, that infants dying such, are most assuredly saved.

Once again one of the strongest inferential arguments is to be found in the fact that Scripture positively states that the number of saved souls at the last will be very great. In the Revelation we read of a number that no man can number. The Psalmist speaks of them as numerous as dew drops from the womb of the morning. Many passages give to Abraham, as the father of the faithful, a seed as many as the stars of heaven, or as the sand on the sea shore. Christ is to see of the travail of his soul and be satisfied; surely it is not a little that will satisfy him. The virtue of the precious redemption involves a great host who were redeemed. All Scripture seems to tenon that heaven will not be a narrow world, that its population will not be like a handful gleaned out of a vintage, but that Christ shall be glorified by ten thousand times ten thousand, whom he hath redeemed with his blood. Now where are they to come from? How small a part of the map could be called Christian! Look at it. Out of that part which could be called Christian, how small a portion of them would bear the name of believer! How few could be said to have even a nominal attachment to the Church of Christ? Out of this, how many are hypocrites, and know not the truth! I do not see it possible, unless indeed the millennium age should soon come, and then far exceed a thousand years, I do not see how it is possible that so vast a number should enter heaven, unless it be on the supposition that infant souls constitute the great majority. It is a sweet belief to my own mind that there will be more saved than lost, for in all things Christ is to have the pre-eminence, and why not in this? It was the thought of a great divine that perhaps at the last the number of the lost would not bear a greater proportion to the number of the saved, than do the number of criminals in gaols to those who are abroad in a properly-conducted state. I hope it may be found to be so. At any rate, it is not my business to be asking, "Lord, are there few that shall be saved?" The gate is strait, but the Lord knows how to bring thousands through it without making it any wider, and we ought not to seek to shut any out by seeking to make it narrower. Oh! I do know that Christ will have the victory, and that as he is followed by streaming hosts, the black prince of hell will never be able to count so many followers in his dreary train as Christ in his resplendent triumph. And if so we must have the children saved; yea, brethren, if not so, we must have them, because we feel anyhow they must be numbered with the blessed, and dwell with Christ hereafter.

Now for one or two incidental matters which occur in Scripture, which seem to throw a little light also on the subject. You have not forgotten the case of David. His child by Bathsheba was to die as a punishment for the father's offense. David prayed, and fasted, and vexed his soul; at last they tell him the child is dead. He fasted no more, but he said, "I shall go to him, he shall not return to me." Now, where did David expect to go to? Why, to heaven surely. Then his child must bays been there, for he said, "I shall go to him." I do not hear him say the same of Absalom. He did not stand over his corpse, and say, "I shall go to him;" he had no hope for that rebellious son. Over this child it was not—"O my son! would to God I had died for thee!" No, he could let this babe go with perfect confidence, for he said, "I shall go to him." "I know," he might have said, "that He hath made with me an everlasting covenant, ordered in all things and sure, and when I walk through the valley of the shadow of death I shall fear no evil, for he is with me, I shall go to my child, and in heaven we shall be re-united with each other." You remember, his, those instances which I have already quoted, where children are said to have been sanctified from the comb. It casts this light upon the subject, it shows it not to be impossible that a child should be a partaker of grace while yet a babe. Then you have the passage, "Out of the mouths of babes and sucklings he hath perfected praise." The coming out of Egypt was a type of the redemption of the chosen seed, and you know that in that case the little ones were to go forth, nay, not even a hoof was to be left behind. Why not children in the greater deliverance to join in the song of Moses and of the Lamb? And there is a passage in Ezekiel, for where we have but little, we must pick up even the crumbs, and do as our Master did—gather up the fragments that nothing be lost—there is a passage in Ezekiel, sixteenth chapter, twenty-first verse, where God is censuring his people for having given up their little infants to Moloch, having caused them to pass through the fire, and he says of these little ones, "Thou hast slain lay children, and delivered them to cause them to pass through the fire," so, then, they were God's children those little ones who died in the red-hot arms of Moloch while babes, God calls "my children." We may, therefore, believe concerning all those who have fallen asleep in these early days of life, that Jesus said of them, "These are my children," and that he now to-day, while he leads his sheep unto loving fountains of water, does not forget still to carry out his own injunction, "Feed my lambs." Yea, to-day even he carrieth "the lambs in his bosom," and even before the eternal throne he is not ashamed to say, "Behold I and the children whom thou hast given me." There is another passage in Scripture which I think may be used. In the first chapter of Deuteronomy these ball been a threatening pronounced upon the children of Israel in the wilderness, that, with the exception of Caleb and Joshua, they should never see the promised land; nevertheless, it is added. "Your little ones, which ye said should be a prey and your children, which in that day had no knowledge between good and evil, they shall go in thither, and unto them will I give it, and they shall possess it." To you, fathers and mothers who fear not God, who live and die unbelieving, I would say, your unbelief cannot shut your children out of heaven and I bless God for that. While you cannot lay hold on that text which says "The promise is unto us and our children, even to as many as the Lord our God shall call," yet inasmuch as the sin of the generation in the wilderness did not shut the next generation out of Canaan but they did surely enter in, so the sin of unbelieving parents shall not necessarily be the ruin of their children, but they shall still, through God's sovereign grace and his overflowing mercy, be made partakers of the rest which he hath reserved for his people. Understand that this morning I have not made a distinction between the children of godly and ungodly parents. If they die in infancy, I do not mind who is father nor who their mother, they are saved; I do not even endorse the theory of a good Presbyterian minister who supposes that the children of godly parents will have a better place in heaven than those who happen to be sprung from ungodly ones. I do not believe in any such thing. I am not certain that there are any degrees in heaven at an; and even if there were, I am not clear that even that would prove our children to have any higher rights than others. All of them without exception, from whosoever loins they may have sprung, will, we believe, not by baptism, not by their parents' faith, but simply as we are all saved through the election of God, through the precious blood "Christ, through the regenerating influence of the Holy Spirit, attain to glory and Immortality, and wear the image of the heavenly as they have worn the image of the earthy.

III. I now come to make a PRACTICAL USE OF THE DOCTRINE.

First, let it be a comfort to bereaved parents. You say it is a heavy cross that you have to carry. Remember, it is easier to carry a dead cross than a living one. To have a living cross is indeed a tribulation,—to have a child who is rebellious in his childhood, vicious in his youth, debauched in his manhood! Ah, would God that he had died from the birth; would God that he had never seen the light! Many a father's heirs have been brought with sorrow to the grave through his living childre, but I think never through his dead babes, certainly not if he were a Christian, and were able to take the comfort of the apostle's words—"We sorrow not as they that are without hope." So you would have your child live? Ah, if you could have drawn aside the veil of destiny, and have seen to what he might have lived! Would you have had him live to ripen for the gallows? Would you have him live to curse his father's God? Would you have him live to make your home wretched to make you wet your pillow with tears, and send you to your daily work with your hands upon your loins because of sorrow? Such might have been the case; it is not so now, for your little one sings before the throne of God. Do you know from what sorrows your little one has escaped? You have had enough yourself. It was born of woman, it would have been of few days and full of trouble as you are. It has escaped those sorrows, do you lament that? Remember, too your own sins, and the deep sorrow of repentance. Had that child lived, it would have been a sinner, and it must have known the bitterness of conviction of sin. It has escaped that; it rejoices now in the glory of God. Then would you have it back again? Bereaved parents, could you for a moment see your own offspring above, I think you would very speedily wipe away your team. There among the sweet voices which sing the perpetual carol may be heard the voice of your own child—an angel now, and you the mother of a songster before the throne of God. You might not have murmured had you received the promise that your child should have been elevated to the peerage, it has been elevated higher than that—to the peerage of heaven. It has received the dignity of the immortals, it is robed in better than royal garments it is more rich and more blessed than it could have been if all the crowns of earth could have been put upon its head. Wherefore, then would you complain? An old poet has penned a verse well fitted for an infant's epitaph;—


"Short was my life, the longer is my rest,
God takes those soonest whom he loveth best,
Who's born today, and dies tomorrow,
Loses some hours of joy, but months of sorrow.
Other diseases often come to grieve us,
Death restrikes but once, and that stroke doth relieve us."

Your child has had that one stroke and has been relieved from all these pains, and you may say of it, this much we know, he is supremely blessed, has escaped from sin, and care, and woe, and with the Savior rests. "Happy the babe," says Hervey, "who,

Privileged by faith, a shorter labor and a lighter weight,
Received but yesterday the gift of breath,
Ordered tomorrow to return to death."

While another says, looking upward to the skies,

"O blest exchange, O envied lot,
Without a conflict crowned,
Stranger to pain, in pleasure bless'd
And without fame, renowned."

So is it. It is well to fight and will, but to will as fairly without the fight! It is well to sing the song of triumph after we have passed the Red Sea with all its terrors, but to sing the song without the sea is glorious still! I do not know that I would prefer the lot of a child in heaven myself. I think it is nobler to have borne the storm, and to have struggled against the wind and the rain. I think it will be a subject of congratulation through eternity, for you and me, that we did not come so easy a way to heaven, for it is only a pin's prick after all, this mortal life; then there is exceeding great glory hereafter. But yet I think we may still thank God for those little ones that they have been spared our sins, and spared our infirmities, and spared our pains and are entered into the rest above. Thus saith the Lord unto thee, O Rachel, if thou weepest for thy children, and refuseth to be comforted because they are not: "Restrain thy voice from weeping, and thine eyes from tears, for thy work shall be rewarded with the Lord, and they shall come again from the land of the enemy."

The next and perhaps more useful and profitable inference to be drawn from the text is this: many of you are parents who have children in heaven. Is it not a desirable thing that you should go there, too? And yet have I not in these galleries and in this area some, perhaps many, who have no hope hereafter? In fact, you have left that which is beyond the grave to be thought of another day, you have given all your time and thoughts to the short, brief, and unsatisfactory pursuits of mortal life. Mother unconverted mother, from the battlements of heaven your child beckons you to Paradise. Father, ungodly, impenitent father, the little eyes that one—looked joyously on you, look down upon you now, and the lips which had scarcely learned to call you father, ere they were sealed by the silence of death, may be heard as with a still small voice, saying to you this morning, "Father, must we be for ever divided by the great gulf which no man can pass? "Doth not nature itself put a kind of longing in your soul that you may be bound in the bundle of life with your own children? Then stop and think. As you are at present, you cannot hope for that; for your way is sinful, you have forgotten Christ, you have not repented of sin, you have loved the wages of iniquity I pray thee go to thy chamber this morning and think of thyself as being driven from thy little ones, banished for ever from the presence of God, cast "where their worm dieth not and where their fire is not quenched." If thou wilt think of these matters, perhaps the heart will begin to move, and the eyes may begin to flow, and then may the Holy Spirit put before thine eyes the cross of the Savior the holy child Jesus! And remember, if thou wilt turn thine eye to him thou shalt live: if thou believest on him with all thy heart thou shalt be with him where He is,—with all those whom the Father gave him who have gone before Thou needest not to be shut out. Wilt thou sign thine own doom, and write thine own death warrant? Neglect not this great salvation but may the grace of God work with thee to make thee seek, for thou shalt find—to make thee knock, for the door shall be opened—to make thee ask, for he that asketh shall receive! O might I take you by the hand—perhaps you have come from a newly-made grave, or left the child at home dead, and God has made me a messenger to you this morning; O might I take you by the hand and say, "We cannot bring him back again, the spirit is gone beyond recall, but you may follow!" Behold the ladder of light before you! The first step upon it is repentance, out of thyself the next step is faith, into, Christ, and when thou art there, thou art fairly and safely on thy way, and ere long thou shalt be received at heaven's gates by those very little ones who have gone before, that they may come to welcome thee when thou shouldest land upon the eternal chores.

Yet another lesson of instruction, and I will not detain you much longer. What shall we say to parent who have living children? We have spoken of those that are dead, what shall we say of the living? I think I might say, reserve your tears, bereaved parents, for the children that live. You may go to the little grave, you may look upon it and say, "This my child is saved; it resteth for ever beyond all fear of harm." You may come back to those who are sitting round your table, and you can look from one to the other and say, "These my children, many of them are unsaved." Out of God, out of Christ, some of them are just ripening into manhood and into womanhood, and you can plainly see that their heart is like every natural heart, desperately wicked. There is subject for weeping for you. I pray you never cease to weep for them until they have ceased to sin, never cease to hope for them until they have ceased to live; never cease to pray for them until you yourself cease to breathe. Carry them before God in the arms of faith, and do not be desponding because they are not what you want them to be. They will be won yet if you have but faith in God. Do not think that it is hopeless. He that saved you can save them. Take them one by one constantly to God's mercy-seat and wrestle with Him, and say, "I will not let thee go except thou bless me." The promise is unto you and to your child, even to as many as the Lord your God shall call. Pray, strive, wrestle, and it shall yet be your happy lot to see your household saved. This was the word which the apostle gave to the gaoler, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved and thy house." We have had many proofs of it, for in this pool under here I have baptised not only the father and the mother, but in many cases all the children too, who one after another have been brought by grace even to put their trust in Jesus. It should be the longing of every parent's heart to see all his offspring Christ's, and all that have sprung from his loins numbered in the host of those who shall sing around the throne of God. We may pray in faith, for we have a promise about it; we may pray in faith, for we have many precedents in Scripture, the God of Abraham is the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob, but for this good thing he will be inquired of by the House of Israel to do it for them. Inquire of Him, plead with Him, go before Him with the power of faith and earnestness, and He will surely hear you.

One word to all the congregation. A little child was saying the other day—and children will sometimes say strange things—"Papa, I cannot go back again." When he was asked what he meant, he explained that he was here, he had begun his life, and it seemed such a thought to him that he could not cease to be,—he could not go back again. You and I may say the same; here we are; we have grown up, we cannot go back again to that childhood in which we once were; we have therefore no door of escape there. Good John Bunyan used to wish that he had died when he was a child. Then again, he hoped he might be descended from some Jew, for he had a notion that the Hebrews might be saved. That door God has closed. Every door is closed to you and me except the one that is just in front of us, and that has the mark of the cross upon it. There is the golden knocker of prayer: do we choose to turn aside from that to find another,—a gate of ceremonies, or of blood, or of birth? We shall never enter that way. There is that knocker! By faith, great God, I will lift it now. "I, the chief of sinners am, have mercy upon me! "Jesus stands there. "Come in," saith he, "thou blessed of the Lord; wherefore standest thou without?" He receives me to his arms, washes, clothes, glorifies me, when I come to him. Am I such a fool that I do not knock? Yes, such I am by nature—then what a fool! O Spirit of God! make me wise to know my danger and my refuge! And now, sinner, in the name of him that liveth and was lead, and is alive for evermore, lay hold upon that knocker, lift it, give it a blow, and let your prayer be, ere thou leanest this sanctuary, "God be merciful to me a sinner!" May the Lord hear and bless, for his name's sake! 


Blessings,

Larry


----------



## jatkins_1 (Feb 12, 2005)

I was not concerned with the argument of the athiest. I am concerned with your statment: "by one statement: if God is in charge of election, He must know who is elect. Therefore, He elects all those whom He determines will die in infancy. Those that do not die in infancy, and hence can be reprobate, He allows to live. That simple."

If I am misunderstanding what you said, please let me know. But it seems to me that believe that because God is the one who elects and he knows his elect, that he elects all those who he has determined are going to die in infancy. And that those who do not die in infancy, and are ellegible to be reprobates are allowed to live.
I am asking your scriptureal evidence for this. If this is not what you believe than I apologize for misunderstanding you.


----------



## fredtgreco (Feb 12, 2005)

> _Originally posted by jatkins_1_
> I was not concerned with the argument of the athiest. I am concerned with your statment: "by one statement: if God is in charge of election, He must know who is elect. Therefore, He elects all those whom He determines will die in infancy. Those that do not die in infancy, and hence can be reprobate, He allows to live. That simple."
> 
> If I am misunderstanding what you said, please let me know. But it seems to me that believe that because God is the one who elects and he knows his elect, that he elects all those who he has determined are going to die in infancy. And that those who do not die in infancy, and are ellegible to be reprobates are allowed to live.
> I am asking your scriptureal evidence for this. If this is not what you believe than I apologize for misunderstanding you.



You needed to be concerned with the argument of the atheist because that was the entire context of my comment. I believe that such a matter - whether every infant that dies is elect - is beyond our ability to know. I am comfortable (surprise, surprise!) standing with the Confession:



> WCF 10.3 Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated, and saved by Christ, through the Spirit, (Luke 18:15–16, Acts 2:38–39, John 3:3,5, 1 John 5:12, Rom. 8:9) who worketh when, and where, and how He pleaseth: (John 3:8) so also are all other elect persons who are uncapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word. (1 John 5:12, Acts 4:12)


----------



## SolaScriptura (Feb 12, 2005)

> _Originally posted by jatkins_1_
> I was not concerned with the argument of the athiest. I am concerned with your statment: "by one statement: if God is in charge of election, He must know who is elect. Therefore, He elects all those whom He determines will die in infancy. Those that do not die in infancy, and hence can be reprobate, He allows to live. That simple."
> 
> If I am misunderstanding what you said, please let me know. But it seems to me that believe that because God is the one who elects and he knows his elect, that he elects all those who he has determined are going to die in infancy. And that those who do not die in infancy, and are ellegible to be reprobates are allowed to live.
> I am asking your scriptureal evidence for this. If this is not what you believe than I apologize for misunderstanding you.



Jacob, this is the position of just about every SBTS faculty member I've asked. The two that have actually publically stated this position are Al Mohler (he used to have something posted online, but see the most recent edition of the school newspaper... he readdresses this issue in the light of the tremendous devestation caused by the tsunami) and Ron Nash, who actually published a book articulating this view (it's in the faculty section of the bookstore).

Of course, in the end it may or may not be correct, but this view isn't really that unusual.

[Edited on 13-2-2005 by SolaScriptura]


----------



## jatkins_1 (Feb 12, 2005)

I realize that this view is not unusual. And because Al Mohler and some faculty hold this view is not reason for me to hold it as well. It is however reason to consider it as these men are wise. After consideration I disagree with them. I see no scripture to say that all infants who die are elect. All I can see from scripture is that we are born into sin, the wages of sin is death, and God has the power to elect who he wills. 
To state that God elects all infants is a stretch. It would be wonderful if this was so, and it may be, but we can not say that it is an absolute truth of the bible.

Fredtgreco: "I believe that such a matter - whether every infant that dies is elect - is beyond our ability to know. I am comfortable (surprise, surprise!) standing with the Confession:"
This is the answer, sort of, that I was looking for. However I obviouslt still disagree. There is no proof text in this issue therfor we are left to make conclusions based on our convictions.


----------



## jatkins_1 (Feb 12, 2005)

"...so also are all other elect persons who are uncapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word." 
Does this mean also that those who never hear the word, who obviously cant be called by it, and thus are automatically elect. Or does it mean that they are uncapable of being called simply because they can not comprehend it, for example a mentally handicapped person.?

Just a question.


----------



## fredtgreco (Feb 12, 2005)

It means that those who are incapable of being called by the Word, are, if called, called directly by the Spirit. It does not mean that all mentally handicapped are _necessarily_ elect.


----------



## jatkins_1 (Feb 12, 2005)

I assume this is from John 3. 
So does it say that if there is a man who never hears the word, therefore he can not be outwardly called, that he can be called by the spirit and thus elect, or saved without the hearing of the word?


----------



## panta dokimazete (Feb 12, 2005)

Larry, thank you for the Spurgeon!


----------



## Larry Hughes (Feb 13, 2005)

JD your very welcome, quite uplifting as most of his sermons are.

Jacob,



> All I can see from scripture is that we are born into sin, the wages of sin is death, and God has the power to elect who he wills.



What is stated here is that God can elect dying infants if He wills, "and God has the power to elect who He wills". Who He wills would includes the category of dying infants lest you remove that category and deny what you've said. There is nothing contrary to holding to that position. 



> To state that God elects all infants is a stretch. It would be wonderful if this was so, and it may be, but we can not say that it is an absolute truth of the bible.



Why is it a stretch as you just previously stated "and God has the power to elect who He wills"? To restate it using your own words from both ideas: "It is a stretch that God has the power to elect dying infants who/who He wills." It would equally be quite a stretch to say with absoluteness without an explicit sentence from scripture that He does not since it is not explicitly stated so either. Is it an absolute from our reading of Scripture? Not if your looking for the very words that spell it out, I would concede that point. But we glean a lot of doctrine from good inferences.

We might concede equally that it is not 'spelled out' either way as wooden literalist would like to have for their simple thinking. However, I would take it a step further as it fundamentally goes to one's view of God via Christ and ultimately one's faith. If one's view of God is truly through Christ who is the merciful revelation of God, that should color one's view of God in such areas as these. Those whose personal view is still for themselves in some measure as God being an angry judge to them - one must ascend to Christ as a whole savior for themselves. For such, one could see why their primary view of God colors all other such views of Him.

This is why Spurgeon said the following:

"First, we ground our conviction very much upon the goodness of the nature of God (only the one in Christ can see this, others must necessarily see a holy angry judge - ldh). We say that the opposite doctrine that some infants perish and are lost, is altogether repugnant to the idea which we have of Him whose name is love. (again only the one seeing Christ and thereby God as mercy CAN do this - ldh) If we had a God, whose name was Moloch, if God were an arbitrary tyrant, without benevolence or grace, we could suppose some infants being cast into hell; but our God, who heareth the young ravens when they cry, certainly will find no delight in the shrieks and cries of infants cast away from his presence."

This is no small issue when one considers all the vast numbers of infants which die from conception through infancy. In 1999 alone there were over 4,300,000 recorded infant deaths. This number could easily be doubled or tripled since most infant deaths around the world go unrecorded, miscarriages are not recorded, deaths from 'embryos' via in vetro methods the 'extra' which are thrown away go unrecorded, certain 'birth control methods' autoabort go unrecorded, unrecorded abortions, etc... The numbers per year in reality if it were possible to take a consensus would be staggering. From this it is EASY to see the tremendous number of SOULS sparked and snuffed out before life 'on earth' even really began. And indeed these ARE souls and not just soul-less organics as pagan evolutionist would proffer.

If a member from every tribe and tongue will be represented in heaven, then how do you suppose this will happen since it is manifestly obvious and a matter of recorded history that some tribes and tongues have become extinct without ANY news of the Good News? They are long gond and dead. Though He is pleased to use us in this work, do you suppose that God relies purely on us fallible men alone?

Blessings,

Larry


----------



## just_grace (Feb 13, 2005)

It is the lack of knowledge and trust in God that such questions arise.

Jesus said to "abide" never has a Scripture been so ignored by Christians as by us.... Why, I think we are all so big headed...

Lord, please come to us and make us true disciples of yourself, Blessed Lord.

Amen.


----------



## jatkins_1 (Feb 13, 2005)

> To state that God elects all infants is a stretch. It would be wonderful if this was so, and it may be, but we can not say that it is an absolute truth of the bible.



"Why is it a stretch as you just previously stated "and God has the power to elect who He wills"? To restate it using your own words from both ideas: "It is a stretch that God has the power to elect dying infants who/who He wills." 

I worded that phrase wrong, I apologize. I meant to say It is a stretch to prove from scripture that God elects all who die in infacny. 


"We might concede equally that it is not 'spelled out' either way as wooden literalist would like to have for their simple thinking. However, I would take it a step further as it fundamentally goes to one's view of God via Christ and ultimately one's faith. If one's view of God is truly through Christ who is the merciful revelation of God, that should color one's view of God in such areas as these. Those whose personal view is still for themselves in some measure as God being an angry judge to them - one must ascend to Christ as a whole savior for themselves. For such, one could see why their primary view of God colors all other such views of Him.

I do ascend to Christ as whole savior for myself. But I alsos recognize that all humans are born into sin, and that sin is enought o condemn them to hell, without the intervention of God. God is just in sending sinners to hell for their sins, including infants (if he so chooses). Salvation does not rely in the slightest on the elect. Their response to God is only possible because they have been born with a new heart, they can not reject Christ. 

This is no small issue when one considers all the vast numbers of infants which die from conception through infancy. 

I realize that it is not a small isuue, but there are quite a few adults who die every day as well without hearing the gospel. Are they in the same state as these infants? NO, they go to hell.

If a member from every tribe and tongue will be represented in heaven, then how do you suppose this will happen since it is manifestly obvious and a matter of recorded history that some tribes and tongues have become extinct without ANY news of the Good News? They are long gond and dead. Though He is pleased to use us in this work, do you suppose that God relies purely on us fallible men alone?

Please show me what scripture you are using to say that a member of every tribe will be represented in heaven. I am not familiar with it.

"It is the lack of knowledge and trust in God that such questions arise."

I dont see you line of logic hear. I trust completely in my savior and lord. This from a pastoral standpoint is a very inportant question. How are you going to respond when a member comes to you and askes what happens to infants, and then they ask for you to show them in scripture. You cant. There is no scripture that god elects all infants. You can speculate by looking at the nature of God. But not make any concrete statement. All you can say to that member is, in short, God is in control of who is elect and who is reprobate.
Grace and Peace


----------



## Larry Hughes (Feb 13, 2005)

Jacob,



> ...meant to say It is a stretch to prove from scripture that God elects all who die in infancy.



Doesn't change it a bit, it is no more a stretch and actually far less a stretch than to attempt to prove that they are not from Scripture for far more Scripture leads us to believe upon the mercy of Christ for infants than not. Plus, it is not logical to argue from "what is not" to prove "what is". God's mercy is His highest glory that is Christ.



> God is just in sending sinners to hell for their sins, including infants (if he so chooses).



Actually, all stand condemned federally under Adam, individual sin arises from the already fallen nature. Thus, stated the way you've stated infants that would die would have no actual sins and it would be (as you've stated) unjust. You have to realize that infants before a certain age are incapable of sinning actually but lie like all federally under Adam. How does a four month old conception sin? 

Likewise all are saved federally under Christ, thus no works at all are necessary! Christ paid for all sin of all who are His and gives all His righteousness to the same. Many "evangelicals" today miss that and form a back door to Rome.



> Salvation does not rely in the slightest on the elect.



This one is very confusing for salvation does rely upon God's election to...



> Please show me what scripture you are using to say that a member of every tribe will be represented in heaven. I am not familiar with it.



Some Scriptures from Gen - Rev:

Genesis 12:3 And I will bless them that bless you, and curse him that curses you: and in you shall all families of the earth be blessed.

Genesis 22:18, “In your seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed, because you have obeyed My voice.”

Genesis 26:4, “I will multiply your descendants as the stars of heaven, and will give your descendants all these lands; and by your descendants all the nations of the earth shall be blessed;”

Genesis 28:14, “Your descendants will also be like the dust of the earth, and you will spread out to the west and to the east and to the north and to the south; and in you and in your descendants shall all the families of the earth be blessed.”

Galatians 3:8, “The Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, "ALL THE NATIONS WILL BE BLESSED IN YOU.”

Revelation 5:9, “And they sang a new song, saying, "Worthy are You to take the book and to break its seals; for <<<You were slain, and purchased for God with Your blood men from every tribe and tongue and people and nation.>>>”

Revelation 7:9, “After these things I looked, and behold, <<<a great multitude which no one could count, from every nation and all tribes and peoples and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed in white robes, and palm branches were in their hands;>>>”

Seems quite clear.



> This from a pastoral standpoint is a very inportant question. How are you going to respond when a member comes to you and askes what happens to infants, and then they ask for you to show them in scripture. You cant. There is no scripture that god elects all infants.



See above.



> You can speculate by looking at the nature of God. But not make any concrete statement. All you can say to that member is, in short, God is in control of who is elect and who is reprobate.



You are creating a false dilemma for God's election and it is elecltion that ONLY allows for the very thing you are denying. Only an armenian man centered false religion lays conditions upon salvation such that it leans the other way.

And for mercies sake do not go into the ministry if this would be your answer to a Christian family who has lost an infant or miscarried, these icy words would drive men to hate God and see Him as an unmerciful tyrannt pushing them into dispair and despondancy and not toward faith at all. It is as if you are saying, "Hath God really said," casting dispersion upon His goodness. Christ came to reveal His immeasurable mercy in line with His justice and not divorced either way. 

If you will be a Gospel minister your end goal and yes your end joy should be to drive men and women to faith not by terror but by mercy for God gave His Son. You need to really learn the Law and Gospel or else get out before you harm someone.


lh

[Edited on 2-14-2005 by Larry Hughes]


----------



## satz (Feb 13, 2005)

> _Originally posted by just_grace_
> It is the lack of knowledge and trust in God that such questions arise.
> 
> Jesus said to "abide" never has a Scripture been so ignored by Christians as by us.... Why, I think we are all so big headed...
> ...



David i am not sure i understand you...could you elaborate?


----------



## panta dokimazete (Feb 13, 2005)

lh said:


> And for mercies sake do not go into the ministry if this would be your answer to a Christian family who has lost an infant or miscarried, these icy words would drive men to hate God and see Him as an unmerciful tyrannt pushing them into dispair and despondancy and not toward faith at all. It is as if you are saying, "Hath God really said," casting dispersion upon His goodness. Christ came to reveal His immeasurable mercy in line with His justice and not divorced either way.
> 
> If you will be a Gospel minister your end goal and yes your end joy should be to drive men and women to faith not by terror but by mercy for God gave His Son. You need to really learn the Law and Gospel or else get out before you harm someone.



Yes! for mercy's sake, understand the Doctrines of Grace before you pastor a church or speak such a word to grieving parents!

I, in my ignorance and pride, caused great trouble in a church I attended and unfortunately the elders of the church did not council/discipline me.

Praise God for sending wise council and resources to temper this misunderstanding/misreperesentation!

-JD


----------



## jatkins_1 (Feb 15, 2005)

A four month old does need to have a conception of sin to stand condemned of it. They are born into. "For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God" Not all, but those who can not comprehend sin or the gospel. All have sinned and the wages of sin is death.

If all infants who die are elect, then why dont we just kill all our children in their infancy to ensure that they are going to be in heaven. I realize that this is an outrageous argument, but it does follow that line of logic.

In much though and discussion here is the conclusion that I have come to.

All people are born into sin. That sin is enough to condemn them to hell for rebeling against god, before they ever commit an actual transgression. 

The power to elect lays only in the hands of God, as he as predestined before the foundations of time who is elect and who he passed over. 

God may elect all infants and he may only elect some. Scripture does not clearly state which is the case. 

Looking at the character of God and his mercy, and other verses that speak of Gods grace. I think that scripture leans toward the side of grace in the question of an infant. 

But I can not say with confidence and in good concience that God certainly elects all infants. And I could not in good concience tell a grieving parent that their child is in Heaven. I am not to make judgment on such a thing.


----------



## fredtgreco (Feb 15, 2005)

> _Originally posted by jatkins_1_
> If all infants who die are elect, then why dont we just kill all our children in their infancy to ensure that they are going to be in heaven. I realize that this is an outrageous argument, but it does follow that line of logic.



Actually logic doesn't really matter. Paul answers this succinctly and quickly:

And why not say, "Let us do evil that good may come"?--as we are slanderously reported and as some affirm that we say. Their condemnation is just. (Romans 3:8)


----------



## Larry Hughes (Feb 15, 2005)

Jacob,



> Looking at the character of God and his mercy, and other verses that speak of Gods grace. I think that scripture leans toward the side of grace in the question of an infant.
> 
> But I can not say with confidence and in good concience that God certainly elects all infants. And I could not in good concience tell a grieving parent that their child is in Heaven. I am not to make judgment on such a thing.



Don't you see that these two together are inconsistant. What else do you have to look at except God's character which He has revealed in His word? How do you know God's character is holy and just? By His word, yet you know His character. How do you know God is gracious and merciful - Christ alone! Yet, again via the Word revealed.

For Christ is, "...the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God." & "For 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." (2Cor Vs. 4 & 6)

You see Christ reveals the mercy and truth of God. This is what you have to set both your confidence and conscience upon and those whom you would advise. Otherwise one abscures Christ when He is needed the most!

Furthermore, you are going down the hyper-calvinistic path whether your aware of it or not. How? Because you are peering too much into Divine election rather than faith. Though it is a fact of Scripture, this door is closed to you and all men. We are not to seek out election but trust in Christ by faith. The whole of Scripture is toward faith in Christ alone, not faith in election per se. It is faith you must view and at that faith in Christ alone. Thus, your answer to such a couple must be via faith and since that faith necessarily must be fixed upon Christ Who is the merciful revelation of God your answer must follow that. Anything else is absolutely worthless. Not election first. Election allows for non-conditional salvation but it is faith that hopes (expects) in the mercy of God in the believer. The direction is that those of faith in Christ alone are the elect, the direction is not that those who know their election infallibly are of the faith. For then what need there be of faith in Christ alone?

At the end of the day neither you nor me know our election infallibly whereby we may rest in it - rather we believe and trust upon Christ alone Whom we may rest upon infallibly.

Thus, why would you point a couple in a direction away from Christ and faith, and away from that which you yourself must rely?

If you answer to such a couple, "I don't know" pretending to be pious toward election, then all you have done is engendered doubt and unbelief and actually cast dispersion upon the character of Christ. Which is the exact opposite of a gospel ministers call. If one does this one has foresaken their call.

Also, be careful that you are not worshipping the text of the Bible rather than the One Whom the text speaks of.

Blessings,

Larry


----------



## jatkins_1 (Feb 17, 2005)

Larry,

My resonse to a couple in this situation would be as folows. " Our God is a god of mercy who has given us faith to believe in his son. It is in this mercy and grace that our faith rests, and in faith alone in Christ we must cling." 
I will not tell that parent right out that their child is in heaven. I do not know that. I may have faith in Christ that he has mercy and a soverign will, and nothing more. I simply do not understand how you could tell a grieving parent that there child is in heaven. If we are no sure infalibly of our own election, that how can we be sure of someone elses? I would in this situation point someone to the love and mercy of Christ, and nothing more.


----------



## Larry Hughes (Feb 17, 2005)

Jacob,



> If we are no sure infalibly of our own election, that how can we be sure of someone elses?



I'd study some more. Because your still confusing the direction.



> I simply do not understand how you could tell a grieving parent that there child is in heaven.



This is how: 

"And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation <<<of His nature>>>," (Hebrews 1:3). Now you know why Spurgeon spoke of His nature BECAUSE the scriptures do and Christ is that revelation.

You are simply refusing to rely upon the revelation of His nature, the very thing you must if you are looking to Christ - not election

I would say easily, something like, "My conscience is compelled by Scriptures revelation of Christ as mercy and grace for which His precious blood purchased - that your child is in the Kingdom of heaven. Now as for yourselves, this is a great mourning and pain in this life, but be comforted, rest and trust in Christ inspite of and indeed because of this trial."



ldh

[Edited on 2-17-2005 by Larry Hughes]


----------



## jatkins_1 (Feb 18, 2005)

Heb 1.3 does not shed light on anything but the nature of Christ, which is(partially) mercy and judgment on sinful human beings. Christ has mercy on whom he chooses.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Feb 18, 2005)

> *Christ has mercy on whom he chooses.*



You are correct.

*15 Now they were bringing even infants to him that he might touch them. And when the disciples saw it, they rebuked them. 16 But 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.*


----------



## Larry Hughes (Feb 18, 2005)

Very well said Gabriel! 

Jacob,

Your contradicting yourself all over the place.

Your previously said,


> " Our God is a God of mercy who has given us faith to believe in his son. It is in this mercy and grace that our faith rests, and in faith alone in Christ we must cling."



Then you just said,


> “Heb 1.3 does not shed light on anything but the nature of Christ, which is (partially) mercy and judgment on sinful human beings. Christ has mercy on whom he chooses.”



Do your recall Matthew 9:13, “But go and learn what this means: 'I DESIRE COMPASSION, AND NOT SACRIFICE,' for I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners.”?

The only person pretending to limit Christ’s mercy for fear of appealing to it is yourself by setting up election against faith.

Furthermore, your language is far too loose. You need to be careful what people hear you say. We all err a lot here but you need to tighten up a bit:



> but the nature of Christ, which is (partially) mercy and judgment on sinful human beings



Christ’s sacrifice at the cross was the Father’s judgment on sinful human beings IN Christ HIMSELF AS THEIR SIN BEARER, IN THEIR STEAD, SO THAT WE WILL NOT HAVE TO RECEIVE THE JUSTICE WE DESERVE. Furthermore, we receive HIS RIGHTEOUSNESS. If one preaches Christ just as you have said - then you are preaching Christ just like Rome did pre-reformation and you‘d be better off to study Roman Catholicism for though it is apostate it is at least formulated more orderly. Like I said before your confusing Law and Gospel, you need to get that distinction in your mind so that you can more clearly communicate both.

Maybe this will help. I’ll give you an example that is far too common in our day in some form or another at the end of a service. I‘ll put the hearers thinking to each afterward. I’m being brief for purpose of argument:

1. Preacher states first: All are sinners and fall short of the glory of God and are justly condemned under God‘s wrath.

2. Preacher then states second: But Christ has died on the cross to pay for all our sins, this is free grace and mercy given to us and pays our debt in full.

3. Preacher then states: Have you come (meaning walk forward physically and not looking with the eyes of faith to the gift) to Christ and given all your heart to Him?

Then usually an irrelevant and disconnected song is played.

What did the hearer actually hear? The Law and the Gospel clearly or confused so as to nullify both? Put yourself in the pew after you formulate your message and see what you would hear yourself saying.

Hearer to Item #1 hears clear Law and condemnation and is shaken.

Hearer to Item #2 hears clear Gospel and free mercy and sees a glimmer of hope and is shortly gladdened, at least for a few seconds until item #3 appears.

Hearer to Item #3 hears massive confusion and sees that this “gospel” costs something. Namely walking forward and giving all of his/her heart to in essence purchase the so called free grace. He/she panics, “I’m lost and hopeless, I’m a sinner, I want this free grace, I need this free grace. But I must walk and give not some but all my heart to get it. How do I know I’ve given all my heart, how do I know I‘ve given it, how do I know I‘ve given it rightly, how do I know I‘ve walked rightly with a right mindset, etc…”

Thus, this preacher, very common today, has forsaken his calling and has NOT preached the Gospel at all though he babbles the words very sloppily.

Regarding Hebrews 1:

I’ve added some helps that help me as well because sometimes we can get lost in the pronouns, its very easy to do and I do it all the time myself. Plus, I failed to quote the whole verse, that was my error:

Hebrews 1: 1-3, “God, after He (God) spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, in these last days has spoken to us in His (God‘s) Son, whom He (God) appointed heir (Christ) of all things, through whom (Christ) also He (God) made the world. And He (Christ) is the radiance of His (God‘s) glory (fame/majesty) and the exact representation (Christ) of His (God‘s) nature…”

AND recall already posted, For Christ is, "...the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who (Christ) is the image of God." & "For 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." (2Cor Vs. 4 & 6)

OR John 1:18, “No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He (Christ) has explained Him (God).”

OR Phillippians 2:6, “who, although He (Christ) existed in the form of God,

OR Colossians 1:15, “He (Christ) is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.”

Jacob, you are incorrect in your last statement for you are disconnecting Christ from the Godhead somehow in your thinking. You are simply not making the connection yet. You will, I know you will.

Blessings,

Larry


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Feb 18, 2005)

I'm not sure about all that, Larry. I think Jake is just being cautious before he makes any dogmatic statements about something he isn't 100% sure about in Scripture.


----------



## Larry Hughes (Feb 18, 2005)

Gabriel,

I don't wrong any man for being cautious about making statements that one is not 100% about. Nothing wrong with that at all.

But, what one communicates about such things needs to be handled with great care to the flock. You cannot on one hand say we cannot appeal to the nature of God, then on the other hand appeal to it. That's a contradiction.

Likewise, if you communicate to the mourning parent in essence "trust in Christ" (which is to say trust and have faith) then turn around a say "but your child who died in/at/pre birth may or may not be in heaven" (which is to say doubt and be anxious), one is manifestly contradicting one's self and one's communication. Election is the vehicle by which such can occur, but one cannot appeal to it to know what faith alone has been charged with. That is where faith comes in.

Calvin said that ministers are ministers of assurance more than anything. That is the under current of all of Paul's writings, even at the troubled churches. Feeding the flock. We are not speaking of recalcitrant rebels here.

The point of pointing out that we cannot know our own election first is not that the believer is not elect, but rather that it has been appointed that we rest entirely IN THIS LIFE upon Christ alone. That is the point of the Sola. We do not look at election and then say, "I'm elect therefore I rest." No, we look to Christ's work/life/cross/resurrection and say, "Christ is my righteousness, therefore I rest". Those resting in such a way are the elect. Again, it goes to one's view of Christ.

The other wrong thing to view, which is what is going on here, is to equate the category of those without actual sin commital yet under the federal fallenness of Adam (babies from conception forward who die), with the category of those who live to some age and actually commit real sins as a result of their fallen nature under the federal headship of Adam. 

At the end of the day I would always say look to the Scriptures. We apparently have an irreconcilable difference between us here. On this issue we have no common ground. I recognize that and that's ok between us. I don't want to push my belief and affirmation on this issue onto someone. Even if I whole heartedly disagree from Scripture and you would affirm the same from your side and should. One should be convinced by Scripture.

Blessings,

Larry

[Edited on 2-18-2005 by Larry Hughes]


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Feb 18, 2005)

> You cannot on one hand say we cannot appeal to the nature of God, then on the other hand appeal to it. That's a contradiction.



You misunderstand, Larry. I think what he is saying (and I make this claim because we live in the same house  ) is that knowing God's nature is not enough to make dogmatic claims about specific situations, such as infant death/election.


----------



## jatkins_1 (Feb 18, 2005)

That is exaclt my point.


----------



## Larry Hughes (Feb 19, 2005)

Gab,

I understood clearly. I simply without reservation disagree in this case. Again, it goes to the view of faith. Not even John Gill, who had hyper-c. tendancies took this position.

One of the signatures of HC is an unhealthy view & emphasis on that which is shut - election. I view this as such & would not attend under such teachings in the least. It's quite simple. Like I said on this issue we are at 
irreconciable odds & cannot agree.

Even if I give 50/50 on this, which scripture does not, I'm compelled by Christ's revealed mercy & grace to answer the position I've set forth based on the Word of God, & nothing less will move me. & you must say the same.

Thanks anyway.

blessings,

lh


----------



## Larry Hughes (Feb 20, 2005)

Gabriel,

John Gill, "There may be the principle of faith implanted, where there is not the opportunity of showing it by a series of good works, or a course of godly living, as in elect infants dying in infancy, and in those who are converted in their last moments" (Commentary on James—Page 789).

John Calvin not only did NOT doubt it but found that such an idea was reprehensible and he indeed at length called it blasphemy.

“I do not doubt that the infants whom the Lord gathers together from this life are regenerated by a secret operation of the Holy Spirit;” (Amsterdam edition of Calvin’s works, 8:522). 

“I everywhere teach that no one can be justly condemned and perish except on account of actual sin; and 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;” (Institutes, Book 4, p.335). 

Blessings Always,

Larry

[Edited on 2-21-2005 by Larry Hughes]


----------

