Baptists, Infants and Hell

Status
Not open for further replies.

tellville

Puritan Board Junior
This is an issue that I have been pondering. BJ sums it up the best in the "Bad Credo Arguments" thread.

BJ said:
What I find interesting about this Baptist argument, which is the one I hear most often, is it forces the Baptist to exclude infants from the New Covenant. In which case, if they died in infancy, they would be in hell.

Of course, most Baptist dont believe that. I fact I don't know one that does. My closest Baptist friends believe God elects all infants. While others, like me when I was Baptist, believe you can't really know whether or not the are saved. However, neither option is open for Baptist who maintain the above syllogism for their case. I must confess, it was exhuasting being a Baptist.

Now, it seems to me, a consistent Baptist would acknowledge that Babies dying in infancy go to Hell, including the children of believers. I (currently) don't see any Biblical evidence that seems to suggest otherwise (God does have the freedom to save some infants and not others, but where does the Bible even bring that up?) Personally, I have no problems with infants going to Hell as I believe the Biblical doctrine of Total Depravity and children are just as much under the wrath of God as I am, whether the children are mine or someone else's.

Now I can imagine this sounds horrifyingly to a Padeobapitist. I don't really understand why because they would have no problems believing that an unbelieving family's child is going to Hell. Thus really, the only response I can imagine a Padeo giving to this post is either an emotional one (mainly at the horror that someone would suggest their dead child, or potentially dead child could be in Hell) or one that tries to prove the Padeo position, neither of which I am really interested in. Thus, if you're a Padeo, please only respond within the Baptist hermeneutic.

I also know this sounds horrifying to many Baptists, especially those of the Arminian persuasion.

Which finally leads me to my question: Does the Baptist doctrine of Baptism necessitate the idea that babies who die in infancy go to Hell?

And actually, now that I think about it, here is a question specifically aimed at Padeo's: Does your Padeo worldview state that all children of believers who die in infancy are guaranteed heaven? Or do you also subscribe to the usual Reform Baptist response that God is free to elect some and reprobate others?

I know this is probably a super touchy subject, so I apologize if the way I have stated the question (or maybe just asking the question period!) is offensive in any way.
 
This is an issue that I have been pondering. BJ sums it up the best in the "Bad Credo Arguments" thread.



Now, it seems to me, a consistent Baptist would acknowledge that Babies dying in infancy go to Hell, including the children of believers. I (currently) don't see any Biblical evidence that seems to suggest otherwise (God does have the freedom to save some infants and not others, but where does the Bible even bring that up?) Personally, I have no problems with infants going to Hell as I believe the Biblical doctrine of Total Depravity and children are just as much under the wrath of God as I am, whether the children are mine or someone else's.

Now I can imagine this sounds horrifyingly to a Padeobapitist. I don't really understand why because they would have no problems believing that an unbelieving family's child is going to Hell. Thus really, the only response I can imagine a Padeo giving to this post is either an emotional one (mainly at the horror that someone would suggest their dead child, or potentially dead child could be in Hell) or one that tries to prove the Padeo position, neither of which I am really interested in. Thus, if you're a Padeo, please only respond within the Baptist hermeneutic.

I also know this sounds horrifying to many Baptists, especially those of the Arminian persuasion.

Which finally leads me to my question: Does the Baptist doctrine of Baptism necessitate the idea that babies who die in infancy go to Hell?

And actually, now that I think about it, here is a question specifically aimed at Padeo's: Does your Padeo worldview state that all children of believers who die in infancy are guaranteed heaven? Or do you also subscribe to the usual Reform Baptist response that God is free to elect some and reprobate others?

I know this is probably a super touchy subject, so I apologize if the way I have stated the question (or maybe just asking the question period!) is offensive in any way.

What Scripture has not revealed we cannot know, but God is both just and merciful. If children dying in infancy are saved then infanticide (or abortion) can be justified. Such reasoning would also lead to the conclusion that salvation can be lost.
Children are born in sin and stand in need of redemption. A reverent agnosticism would not go amiss. We may rest assured that infants, too, are included amongst the elect for whom Christ died.
From a pastoral position, Christian parents may draw comfort from the fact that God knows, even if we do not. He does no wrong. David drew comfort from God's dealing with him (see 2.Samuel 12:23). How much more may we as Christian parents - in humble faith.
 
Last edited:
What I find interesting about this Baptist argument, which is the one I hear most often, is it forces the Baptist to exclude infants from the New Covenant. In which case, if they died in infancy, they would be in hell.

You know, I think it depends on what you mean by ‘new covenant’. There is only one covenant that matters with regards to getting into heaven, and people do not go in and out of that covenant. Its beneficiaries were already chosen from the foundation of the world, and the primary actions needed for its fulfillment are between God and Christ, not God and men (Heb 9:12,14). Entrance into this covenant is not gained by baptism in any way shape or form. There are external administrations of this covenant such as the nations of Israel in the OT or church membership today, and baptism can have a part of play in those things.

Which finally leads me to my question: Does the Baptist doctrine of Baptism necessitate the idea that babies who die in infancy go to Hell?

I do not think Baptist doctrine has anything to do with the salvation of infants honestly. I know some paedobaptists will think I am on thin ice here, but I think this dilemma regarding infant salvation and baptism is tied up with the idea that baptism somehow saves. I do not believe baptism saves any more than good works do . Baptism is something the Lord has given for us to show our obedience to him and answer him with a conscience made good by the gospel. I believe Mark 16:16 is a verse of evidence.

Mark 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

He who believes the gospel and submits to the foolish looking (to a natural man) ordinance of baptism is giving evidence that he is saved (elect and regenerate) and will be saved in the last day of judgment. The one who doesn’t believe the gospel gives evidence of being an unregenerate who will face the wrath of God on the last day.

An infant who was not baptized in no more ‘unlikely’ to be saved than the thief on the cross. They never had the proper opportunity to be baptized and so God will not hold the fact that they were not against them any more than he will hold the fact that they never loved the brethen against them.
 
Does the Baptist doctrine of Baptism necessitate the idea that babies who die in infancy go to Hell?

I attended a evening chapel at The Master's College where Dr. MacArthur opened the floor to questions. One of my classmates stood and asked about the state of her daughter, who had died in infancy. Dr. M. assured her that all infants go to heaven.

As a Reformed baptist, I would disagree. We do not know, nor can we know what the Lord determines for those who die in infancy. While I would hope that these children spend eternity in the presence of the Lord, I know that they may just as easliy receive the same reward that the unreached people receive upon death...
 
Which finally leads me to my question: Does the Baptist doctrine of Baptism necessitate the idea that babies who die in infancy go to Hell?

Some baptists' doctrine does. Others do not.

The thread you reference shows baptists who say "Infants cannot have faith" or some such, and are not in the new covenant.

You are correct, those boptists have no way to account for the salvation of any infant, biblically.

Every 5-point baptist I've known acknowledges the possibility of infant regeneration/conversion....and they will either believe God saves all infants (rare) or that he saves some (more common, in my experience). I'm with the latter.
 
Last edited:
Which finally leads me to my question: Does the Baptist doctrine of Baptism necessitate the idea that babies who die in infancy go to Hell?

Premise 1. Baptism is for believers only.
Premise 2. Infants are not believers.
Conclusion 3. Therefore infants cannot be baptized.

Yes! It does. Unless you can reformulize the argument I was criticising.


However, you could try to argue that infants have faith (Believe) they just cant "profess yet." The problem is most Baptist I know say cognitive abilities are a precondition to saving faith, and until they can speak a language there is no evidence they can belief the Gospel. That said, assume God can regenerate them in the womb, or during their infancy. Seems reasonable, right? Wrong! This is an argument from silence.;) Baptist assume this. Which is ironic because of the criticism offered by Baptist against the so-called Paedo Baptist argument from silence.


Does your Padeo worldview state that all children of believers who die in infancy are guaranteed heaven?


Well, mine is simple. No. God is just and I am fine with that. I lose no sleep at night with saying I don't know.

Or do you also subscribe to the usual Reform Baptist response that God is free to elect some and reprobate others?

This is an arbitrary view given the above argument. I know some RB subscribe to this view; However, again, the Baptist view is to loaded with conditions to conclude such a belief as acceptable, In my humble opinion.
 
However, you could try to argue that infants have faith (Believe) they just cant "profess yet." The problem is most Baptist I know say cognitive abilities are a precondition to saving faith, and until they can speak a language there is no evidence they can belief the Gospel. That said, assume God can regenerate them in the womb, or during their infancy. Seems reasonable, right? Wrong! This is an argument from silence. Baptist assume this. Which is ironic because of the criticism offered by Baptist against the so-called Paedo Baptist argument from silence.

*I don't say cognitive abilities are a precondition to saving faith.

*My argument for the existence of regeneration among infants is not an argument from silence - it is logical deduction, and entirely valid. More on that later.

*I do not rebuke paedo's for an argument from silence on this issue, usually. Because most paedo's do not argue from silence. They argue deductively with, I believe, false deduction - but they do not usually argue from silence.

So, I am consistent in my dealings with arguments from silence - I do not label paedo arguments such, nor do I argue that way myself on infant regeneration.

The deduction, which in my experience is the same for RB's and most reformed paedo's on infant salvation, goes like this:

P1: Only conversion secures salvation.
P2: At least some infants are saved.

C: Those infants who are saved were converted
 
Last edited:
And actually, now that I think about it, here is a question specifically aimed at Padeo's: Does your Padeo worldview state that all children of believers who die in infancy are guaranteed heaven? Or do you also subscribe to the usual Reform Baptist response that God is free to elect some and reprobate others?

The Canons of Dort teaches that children of believers who die in infancy go to heaven.

Article 17: The Salvation of the Infants of Believers

Since we must make judgments about God's will from his Word, which testifies that the children of believers are holy, not by nature but by virtue of the gracious covenant in which they together with their parents are included, godly parents ought not to doubt the election and salvation of their children whom God calls out of this life in infancy.

I would love to hear someone defend this. It seems to draw a correlation between the members of the covenant and the elect as if covenant membership means that you are among the elect. It has all sorts of ramifications in the areas of presumptive election/regeneration and perseverance of the saints.
 
Another thought, is conversion necessary for an infant to go to heaven? Or is regeneration sufficient?
 
Where do infants (babies) go when they die?

I did this awhile back, meaning to flesh it out some more - net effect: all infants are Elect.

Deuteronomy 1:39 (English Standard Version)

39And as for your little ones, who you said would become a prey, and your children, who today have no knowledge of good or evil, they shall go in there. And to them I will give it, and they shall possess it

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

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

Infants and others who do not have the capability/capacity to comprehend the knowledge of good and evil - that is, become self aware of moral truth and act to uphold it or break it - are elect.

One becomes accountable for their sin when they become self aware to good and evil.
 
I did this awhile back, meaning to flesh it out some more - net effect: all infants are Elect.

Deuteronomy 1:39 (English Standard Version)

39And as for your little ones, who you said would become a prey, and your children, who today have no knowledge of good or evil, they shall go in there. And to them I will give it, and they shall possess it

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

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

Infants and others who do not have the capability/capacity to comprehend the knowledge of good and evil - that is, become self aware of moral truth and act to uphold it or break it - are elect.

One becomes accountable for their sin when they become self aware to good and evil.


This is what I believed as a reformed baptist.
 
Infants and others who do not have the capability/capacity to comprehend the knowledge of good and evil - that is, become self aware of moral truth and act to uphold it or break it - are elect.

One becomes accountable for their sin when they become self aware to good and evil.

Yet infants are also imputed with Adam's original sin just as must as any of us (Ps. 51:5, 58:3). That is one reason I would call myself essentially agnostic on the question of infant salvation - likewise, the WCF is silent on it as well. It speaks of "elect infants" dying in infancy as being regenerated and saved, but it makes no statement on whether or not all infants are elect, or even whether all believers' children dying in infancy are elect or not.

Dort, however, does go further than Westminster, by implication at the very least. Even it, however, does not imply universal infant salvation, but only that of believers' children. So while some Reformed people may of course have a conviction or even an argument for universal infant salvation, they should at least be hesitant in pushing it on other believers with too much dogmatic insistence, since the confessions (and thus the Reformed churches as a whole) are silent on the matter.
 
Last edited:
The Canons of Dort teaches that children of believers who die in infancy go to heaven.
Article 17: The Salvation of the Infants of Believers

Since we must make judgments about God's will from his Word, which testifies that the children of believers are holy, not by nature but by virtue of the gracious covenant in which they together with their parents are included, godly parents ought not to doubt the election and salvation of their children whom God calls out of this life in infancy.

I would love to hear someone defend this. It seems to draw a correlation between the members of the covenant and the elect as if covenant membership means that you are among the elect. It has all sorts of ramifications in the areas of presumptive election/regeneration and perseverance of the saints.

What would you like me to defend?

1. The notion that "...children of believers are holy, not by nature but by virtue of the gracious covenant which they together with their parents are included...."

OR

2. The notion that a Covenant member's election and salvation ought not to be doubted if they die?

The first part I assume you understand is what we regularly debate.

Is the second part really debatable once one admits that children are in the Covenant? Before you answer that question let me put it to you this way: do you know, for certain, that everyone in your Church is elect? Do you know that Pastor Gene is elect?

Now, suppose Gene dies. Let me say this to you:

Since we must make judgments about God's will from his Word, which testifies that believers are holy, not by nature but by virtue of the gracious covenant in which they are included, other believers ought not to doubt the election and salvation of Pastor Gene Cook whom God called out of this life in adulthood.
 
2. The notion that a Covenant member's election and salvation ought not to be doubted if they die?

The first part I assume you understand is what we regularly debate.

Is the second part really debatable once one admits that children are in the Covenant? Before you answer that question let me put it to you this way: do you know, for certain, that everyone in your Church is elect? Do you know that Pastor Gene is elect?

Now, suppose Gene dies. Let me say this to you:

Since we must make judgments about God's will from his Word, which testifies that believers are holy, not by nature but by virtue of the gracious covenant in which they are included, other believers ought not to doubt the election and salvation of Pastor Gene Cook whom God called out of this life in adulthood.

That makes sense, Rich. In other words, would you understand the second part to simply be affirming presumptive election, rather than declaring the absolute, universal salvation of the children of believers dying in infancy?
 
That makes sense, Rich. In other words, would you understand the second part to simply be affirming presumptive election, rather than declaring the absolute, universal salvation of the children of believers dying in infancy?

I'm not enough of a scholar of the Canons of Dordt to say that this was their full intent when writing this. I'm only pointing out the wisdom in what the Canons declare - they refuse to speculate beyond what the Word of God counsels us.

My main point is demonstrating a consistency here: we're not commanded to speculate on the things hidden. Who is/isn't elect belongs to God and Him alone. Nevertheless, we are commanded, in some ways to expect the best of all we are in Covenant with. To do otherwise would be to constantly look with suspicion upon everyone: old, young, wise, and simple. When a member of the Church dies and has done nothing to leave us to believe they are deniers of the faith ought we be somber and questioning: did this man truly believe? Was he truly elect? We simply do not live this way although we could if we were given to a sinful speculation all the time.

I don't see a difference with my children. They are in the Covenant and have done nothing to demonstrate to me they are deniers of the Gospel. May it never be.
 
infant salvation

Where Scripture is silent we ought to close our mouths. Let's be concerned about what has been revealed, not what has not been given for us to know, Deut.29:29.
 
That makes sense, Rich. In other words, would you understand the second part to simply be affirming presumptive election, rather than declaring the absolute, universal salvation of the children of believers dying in infancy?

I doubt it. Read the title of the article again. "The Salvation of the Infants of Believers."
 
Rich,

Are you saying that the Canons of Dort teaches that we ought not doubt or question the salvation of people within our church? What, then, becomes of church discipline? What of the Scripture imploring us to test yourselves to see whether we're in the faith? Is there something fundamentally wrong with doubting the salvation of someone in the visible church that the Canons of Dort needs to teach against it? Is it a sin to doubt the salvation of someone in the church?

I think this is an inconsistent reading, and that the only proper way to interpret it is to affirm that it teaches what is stated in the title of the article: "The Salvation of the Infants of Believers." It doesn't say "The Eternal Status of the Infants of Believers."
 
I think the OP is treating a symptom. The real problem is that the antipaedobaptist view denies any "administration" of the covenant to anyone. Once this covenant is "internalised" there is no such thing as a preached covenant, or baptism as a sign and seal of covenant blessings. Refer to the LBC revision of WCF. The new covenant is made to be nothing more than the inward call which is effected by the Spirit of God in the elect. As such I imagine it takes in elect infants and adults; so the conclusions being drawn from the antipaedobaptist position are illegitimate, because they presuppose a category of thought which is only true of paedobaptist thought, namely, that baptism is a part of the administration of the covenant of grace. That is the specific point on which antipaedobaptists should be called into question, especially because it is a serious departure from the reformed faith and inevitably leads to a separation of the means of grace from God's eternal purpose of grace -- which is why Baptist history has struggled with the tendency to move in a hyper-Calvinistic direction.

On the Caons of Dort, The Voice of our Fathers by Homer Hoeksema has an excellent analysis on 1:17, quoting from the various commissioners and providing what I consider to be a biblically-balanced conclusion; my only criticism being the exception he takes to the conditional covenant language of orthodox reformed theology.
 
Rich,

Are you saying that the Canons of Dort teaches that we ought not doubt or question the salvation of people within our church? What, then, becomes of church discipline? What of the Scripture imploring us to test yourselves to see whether we're in the faith? Is there something fundamentally wrong with doubting the salvation of someone in the visible church that the Canons of Dort needs to teach against it? Is it a sin to doubt the salvation of someone in the church?
Are you saying that Gene Cook is under Church Discipline? This is quite a revelation to me. Does he know this because he hasn't mentioned it on the Narrow Mind? He's the example I asked you about after all.

I think this is an inconsistent reading, and that the only proper way to interpret it is to affirm that it teaches what is stated in the title of the article: "The Salvation of the Infants of Believers." It doesn't say "The Eternal Status of the Infants of Believers."
What you think and what is actually the case are two different things. It is not an inconsistent reading unless you believe that we ought to doubt the election of those in the Church whose status we have no reason to question. It is a guard against sinful speculation.
 
Are you saying that Gene Cook is under Church Discipline? This is quite a revelation to me. Does he know this because he hasn't mentioned it on the Narrow Mind? He's the example I asked you about after all.

No, Gene is not under discipline, but Pastor Gene has implored us in his preaching to check our hearts and the fruits of our lives to make sure that we are in the Lord. He did so just a couple weeks ago, in fact. I am quite sure that Gene does the same thing. Are you saying that this is sinful speculation?

Your assertion assumes that we ought to assume that those who are in the visible covenant are elect and saved, and that it is sinful to doubt this. I don't know where you are getting this assertion. Do you have any scripture that says we ought to assume that people in the visible covenant are elect and saved, and that it is sinful to speculate otherwise? It isn't in any of the scripture proofs that the Canon of Dort uses.
 
No, Gene is not under discipline, but Pastor Gene has implored us in his preaching to check our hearts and the fruits of our lives to make sure that we are in the Lord. He did so just a couple weeks ago, in fact. I am quite sure that Gene does the same thing. Are you saying that this is sinful speculation?

Your assertion assumes that we ought to assume that those who are in the visible covenant are elect and saved, and that it is sinful to doubt this. I don't know where you are getting this assertion. Do you have any scripture that says we ought to assume that people in the visible covenant are elect and saved, and that it is sinful to speculate otherwise? It isn't in any of the scripture proofs that the Canon of Dort uses.

{sigh} I really wish you were a more careful reader sometimes. Please be pay attention.

Fine. Gene asks you to search your heart to see if you're in the Covenant. Have you searched Gene's? Is he a Christian or not? Is he elect? Is he saved?

More fundamentally, should you doubt Gene's election and salvation or not? That is the question.

We are never commanded to doubt the election or salvation of anybody we are in or once were in covenant with. We are commanded to put some out of the Church and remove them from visible fellowship but never because we know they are unsaved and non-elect.

Read the discipline passages again on how we are supposed to treat them and toward what end. Read them, without speculation, as to what man knows as opposed to what God knows.

Finally, to make this much clearer for you:

Saying we ought not doubt the election and salvation of others is not the same as saying that we know (with God's knowledge) they are elect and saved.
 
What Scripture has not revealed we cannot know, but God is both just and merciful. If children dying in infancy are saved then infanticide (or abortion) can be justified. Such reasoning would also lead to the conclusion that salvation can be lost.

Murder can never, ever be justified. Never.

(note: I know you don't believe this).

...We may rest assured that infants, too, are included amongst the elect for whom Christ died.
From a pastoral position, Christian parents may draw comfort from the fact that God knows, even if we do not. He does no wrong. David drew comfort from God's dealing with him (see 2.Samuel 12:23). How much more may we as Christian parents - in humble faith.

:agree:

...

Infants and others who do not have the capability/capacity to comprehend the knowledge of good and evil - that is, become self aware of moral truth and act to uphold it or break it - are elect.

One becomes accountable for their sin when they become self aware to good and evil.

All are accountable since Adam sinned. Adam's sin is their sin.

I think the OP is treating a symptom. The real problem is that the antipaedobaptist view denies any "administration" of the covenant to anyone. Once this covenant is "internalised" there is no such thing as a preached covenant, or baptism as a sign and seal of covenant blessings. Refer to the LBC revision of WCF. The new covenant is made to be nothing more than the inward call which is effected by the Spirit of God in the elect. As such I imagine it takes in elect infants and adults; so the conclusions being drawn from the antipaedobaptist position are illegitimate, because they presuppose a category of thought which is only true of paedobaptist thought, namely, that baptism is a part of the administration of the covenant of grace. That is the specific point on which antipaedobaptists should be called into question, especially because it is a serious departure from the reformed faith and inevitably leads to a separation of the means of grace from God's eternal purpose of grace -- which is why Baptist history has struggled with the tendency to move in a hyper-Calvinistic direction.

On the Caons of Dort, The Voice of our Fathers by Homer Hoeksema has an excellent analysis on 1:17, quoting from the various commissioners and providing what I consider to be a biblically-balanced conclusion; my only criticism being the exception he takes to the conditional covenant language of orthodox reformed theology.

:) :up:
 
Infants and others who do not have the capability/capacity to comprehend the knowledge of good and evil - that is, become self aware of moral truth and act to uphold it or break it - are elect.

One becomes accountable for their sin when they become self aware to good and evil.

It sounds like you're discounting the doctrine of original sin. Infants don't need to have the capacity to comprehend good and evil nor need they be aware of their own sin to be accountable to God and justly condemned to hell. They are born into that state because of Adam's transgression.

What you're saying and what the WCF says are two different things. Confessionally, we say that elect infants are saved but this is not to say that all infants are elect. However, from a purely scriptural standpoint, your quotation of Deuteronomy 1:39 is an interesting addition to the discussion. I'd be interested in hearing others' opinions concerning it.
 
I'm not enough of a scholar of the Canons of Dordt to say that this was their full intent when writing this. I'm only pointing out the wisdom in what the Canons declare - they refuse to speculate beyond what the Word of God counsels us.

My main point is demonstrating a consistency here: we're not commanded to speculate on the things hidden. Who is/isn't elect belongs to God and Him alone. Nevertheless, we are commanded, in some ways to expect the best of all we are in Covenant with. To do otherwise would be to constantly look with suspicion upon everyone: old, young, wise, and simple. When a member of the Church dies and has done nothing to leave us to believe they are deniers of the faith ought we be somber and questioning: did this man truly believe? Was he truly elect? We simply do not live this way although we could if we were given to a sinful speculation all the time.

I don't see a difference with my children. They are in the Covenant and have done nothing to demonstrate to me they are deniers of the Gospel. May it never be.

Well said. Your point demonstrates how Paul could encourage the church by telling them the recently deceased members were only sleeping for a time.
 
{sigh} I really wish you were a more careful reader sometimes. Please be pay attention.

Fine. Gene asks you to search your heart to see if you're in the Covenant. Have you searched Gene's? Is he a Christian or not? Is he elect? Is he saved?

I don't know for sure if he is elect or saved. Would it be sin to doubt his salvation? Where does it say that in the Bible?

More fundamentally, should you doubt Gene's election and salvation or not? That is the question.

Is it sin to doubt his salvation? Where does it say that in the bible?

We are never commanded to doubt the election or salvation of anybody we are in or once were in covenant with. We are commanded to put some out of the Church and remove them from visible fellowship but never because we know they are unsaved and non-elect.

And we are never commanded not to doubt the election or salvation of anybody we are in or once in covenant with. There is at least one person in my congregation whose salvation is doubtful in Gene's mind (as well as mine) who is not under discipline. Is it sin to doubt that person's salvation? If so, Gene is in sin. Where does it say that in the Bible?

Read the discipline passages again on how we are supposed to treat them and toward what end. Read them, without speculation, as to what man knows as opposed to what God knows.

Finally, to make this much clearer for you:

Saying we ought not doubt the election and salvation of others is not the same as saying that we know (with God's knowledge) they are elect and saved.

And you keep saying that it is sin to doubt someone's salvation in the visible covenant, and yet you have yet to support it with the Bible. And if it's not in the Bible, why is it in a confession of faith?

If the point the Canons of Dort was trying to make was that we ought not to doubt the salvation and election of people in covenant with us, it would have said so explicitly. But instead, it focuses on infants who die infancy. Why teach something about the sin of doubting people's salvation in a passage on infant salvation?

No, that article in the Canons of Dort is used to support infant salvation. Here is one example.

http://www.trinitycrc.org/CanonSermons/HeadIArticles17.html

Can anyone else find an exposition of this article of the Canons of Dort?
 
http://www.reformed.org/calvinism/index.html?mainframe=/calvinism/boettner/infants_boettner.html

Loraine Boettner on infant salvation, teaching that infant salvation is/was the predominant view.

Most Calvinistic theologians have held that those who die in infancy are saved. The Scriptures seem to teach plainly enough that the children of believers are saved; but they are silent or practically so in regard to those of the heathens. The Westminster Confession does not pass judgment on the children of heathens who die before coming to years of accountability. Where the Scriptures are silent, the Confession, too, preserves silence. Our outstanding theologians, however, mindful of the fact that God's "tender mercies are over all His works," and depending on His mercy widened as broadly as possible, have entertained a charitable hope that since these infants have never committed any actual sin themselves, their inherited sin would be pardoned and they would be saved on wholly evangelical principles.

Such, for instance, was the position held by Charles Hodge, W. G. T. Shedd, and B. B. Warfield.
 
"I was conceived in iniquity", "I will go to him"

These two verses from David sum up my understanding of a babe's destinty thus far.

I believe we are all deserving of hell from the womb as David confesses before God in his lamenting Psalm regarding his sin with Bathsheba [Psa 51:5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.]

Interestingly, the baby example I use for my argument for (at least) elect baby's salvation comes from the product of David and Bathsheba's illicit union [of all babies that deserve hell, David's the most, truly being conceived in iniquity and with David being so close to God and yet betraying Him so deeply].

The reason I think David completely expected to see his child in heaven and not simply the grave/Sheol was because he says, "I shall go to him" [2Sa 12:23 But now he is dead, wherefore should I fast? can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me.] David would have went to Abraham's bosom and the child would have went to the same place the rich man was sent in the parable Jesus spoke of who was evil to leprous Lazarus and David would not have gone to him (rather would have been eternally separated)

David's reaction was being sick to the point of death when Absolom revolted, rode a mule, hung on a tree "between heaven and earth" (cursed is everyone...) pierced in the heart, and died without child ("who can name his descendents?") I digressed into "anti-Christ" typology if anyone wants to take that up. Back to the point, where David's reaction is not peace as with the child but almost bottomless depression at his older son's outcome.

I agree that heathen babe's destinies are a question mark from Scripture, yet to the degree of their sin also the degree of their punishment. (I am not clear if there are different levels of agonies in hell but I would tend to think so based on rejected revelation a given person might have ["It will be better for Sodom and Gomorrah than for you on the day of judgment for if the signs..."]).

So, babe's of the elect enter the gates of heaven, heathen babe's destinies remain a mystery and Absalom was a prototypical anti-Christ (that was meant to spark discussion in general)
 
I don't know for sure if he is elect or saved. Would it be sin to doubt his salvation? Where does it say that in the Bible?
Don,

In all seriousness, is English your first language?

I have never stated that it is a sin to doubt a person's salvation and neither does Dordt. You miss the point completely in your haste. You really could learn some lessons from Elihu.

Try re-reading precisely what has been stated and then ask some questions. You're confused and the answers are as obvious as the nose on your face if you would only carefully read.
If the point the Canons of Dort was trying to make was that we ought not to doubt the salvation and election of people in covenant with us, it would have said so explicitly. But instead, it focuses on infants who die infancy. Why teach something about the sin of doubting people's salvation in a passage on infant salvation?
That is an assertion. Like WCF, Dordt does not go beyond the death of infants. You don't understand the other basic point I've been trying to make and you need to understand that before you can move on to understand a larger Pastoral issue. Again, this is not about sin in doubting other's salvation. It's about a form of hyper-Calvinism vs. real Reformed theology.

No, that article in the Canons of Dort is used to support infant salvation. Here is one example.

http://www.trinitycrc.org/CanonSermons/HeadIArticles17.html

Can anyone else find an exposition of this article of the Canons of Dort?
You even seem to misread the sermon as well. You're a young man Don. You really need to place yourself in the position of the learner because you're proving to be quite unteachable even in trying to understand a position that you might disagree with. You're so hasty, however, you don't take the time to learn the position before you offer strawman critiques of it.
 
http://www.reformed.org/calvinism/index.html?mainframe=/calvinism/boettner/infants_boettner.html
Loraine Boettner on infant salvation, teaching that infant salvation is/was the predominant view.

Most Calvinistic theologians have held that those who die in infancy are saved. The Scriptures seem to teach plainly enough that the children of believers are saved; but they are silent or practically so in regard to those of the heathens. The Westminster Confession does not pass judgment on the children of heathens who die before coming to years of accountability. Where the Scriptures are silent, the Confession, too, preserves silence. Our outstanding theologians, however, mindful of the fact that God's "tender mercies are over all His works," and depending on His mercy widened as broadly as possible, have entertained a charitable hope that since these infants have never committed any actual sin themselves, their inherited sin would be pardoned and they would be saved on wholly evangelical principles.

Such, for instance, was the position held by Charles Hodge, W. G. T. Shedd, and B. B. Warfield.
If you mean that the salvation of infants who die in infancy then your statement is factually correct. If you mean that this teaches a view of infants that "...all infants are elect and saved..." then you are, yet again, flat wrong.

He calls it "...a charitable hope..." above. That's a good way of putting it. I keep trying to point you to the obvious difference in a didactic statement. There is a difference between me telling you that you ought not doubt somebody's election and salvation as opposed to saying, dogmatically, all infants are elect and saved.

It is sinful to speculate where God has not spoken and to doubt a dead infant's election and salvation is pure speculation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top