Scott Bushey
Puritanboard Commissioner
In L 18:15, the Greek used is Brephos, in verse 16, it is paidion. The children that were brought, whether infant or young child, were covenant children. It was not Gentile children.
Piper/Desiring God believe that all infants........
- Thread starter Scott Bushey
- Start date
- Status
Scott Bushey
Puritanboard Commissioner
Are you reading my posts?
Scott Bushey
Puritanboard Commissioner
Paidion:
G3813
παιδιÌον
paidion
pahee-dee'-on
Neuter diminutive of G3816; a childling (of either sex), that is, (properly) an infant, or (by extension) a half grown boy or girl; figuratively an immature Christian: - (little, young) child, damsel.
G1025
βÏεÌφος
brephos
bref'-os
Of uncertain affinity; an infant (properly unborn) literally or figuratively: - babe, (young) child, infant.
Could Jesus touch a gentile?
G3813
παιδιÌον
paidion
pahee-dee'-on
Neuter diminutive of G3816; a childling (of either sex), that is, (properly) an infant, or (by extension) a half grown boy or girl; figuratively an immature Christian: - (little, young) child, damsel.
G1025
βÏεÌφος
brephos
bref'-os
Of uncertain affinity; an infant (properly unborn) literally or figuratively: - babe, (young) child, infant.
Could Jesus touch a gentile?
panta dokimazete
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Strong's Number: 3813 Browse Lexicon
Original Word Word Origin
paidivon from dimin. of (3816)
Transliterated Word TDNT Entry
Paidion 5:636,759
Phonetic Spelling Parts of Speech
pahee-dee'-on Noun Neuter
Definition
a young child, a little boy, a little girl
infants
children, little ones
an infant
of a (male) child just recently born
of a more advanced child; of a mature child;
metaph. children (like children) in intellect
This does not mean - or imply - that they were not infants or that they were circumcised.
[Edited on 11-20-2005 by jdlongmire]
Original Word Word Origin
paidivon from dimin. of (3816)
Transliterated Word TDNT Entry
Paidion 5:636,759
Phonetic Spelling Parts of Speech
pahee-dee'-on Noun Neuter
Definition
a young child, a little boy, a little girl
infants
children, little ones
an infant
of a (male) child just recently born
of a more advanced child; of a mature child;
metaph. children (like children) in intellect
This does not mean - or imply - that they were not infants or that they were circumcised.
[Edited on 11-20-2005 by jdlongmire]
Scott Bushey
Puritanboard Commissioner
So.........sinners=gentiles???? oh my.
Thank you for the dialog.
panta dokimazete
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
you are welcome - the term sinners can certainly be applied inclusively to Gentiles or the uncircumcised
[Edited on 11-20-2005 by jdlongmire]
[Edited on 11-20-2005 by jdlongmire]
Scott Bushey
Puritanboard Commissioner
panta dokimazete
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Galatians 2:15
15We ourselves are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners;
15We ourselves are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners;
doulosChristou
Puritan Board Freshman
Are you deducing this from inferences, Scott, or is there some Reformed confession or systematic theology positively asserting that there are some reprobate infants?
Calvin seems to suggest that any person asserting such a thing as fact was guilty of blasphemy: "to say that the countless mortals taken from life while yet infants are precipitated from their mothers' arms into eternal death is a blasphemy to be universally detested." The Princetonians agree with the magisterial reformer on this point. It appears Piper is agreeing as well. I know of several examples of Reformed folks who have said this is a dark and mysterious subject upon which we cannot know and I believe the WCF's statement is the safest one to make, but I am not aware of any who have gone so far as you to say that it is their position that there are some reprobate infants. Yet, you say above that this is the Reformed position. You then suggest the Egyptian infants are in hell. Am I misunderstanding you? If not, I'd like to know where you think this position is set forth as the Reformed position.
Scott Bushey
Puritanboard Commissioner
Lawrence,
I'm using Esword and BibleWorks5. Esword uses the Strongs definitions.
Doulos,
I am using the WCF and LBC; both assert that elect infants dying in infancy are saved via Christ; not all infants.
III. Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated, and saved by Christ, through the Spirit,[12] who worketh when, and where, and how hepleaseth:[13] so also are all other elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.[14]
12. Gen. 17:7; Luke 1:15; 18:15-16; Acts 2:39; John 3:3, 5; I John 5:12
13. John 3:8
14. John 16:7-8; I John 5:12; Acts 4:12
The assertion, taken to it's conclusion implies that if there are elect infants, there as well MUST be reprobate/non elect ones as well.
I disagree w/ Calvin on the point you cite; he is pushing the envelope.
He is much clearer below.
John Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion.
"...Original sin, then, may be defined a hereditary corruption and depravity of our nature, extending to all the parts of the soul, which first makes us obnoxious to the wrath of God, and then produces in us works which in Scripture are termed works of the flesh...The two things, therefore, are to be distinctly observed, viz., that being thus perverted and corrupted in all the parts of our nature, we are, merely on account of such corruption, deservedly condemned by God, to whom nothing is acceptable but righteousness, innocence, and purity...Hence Augustine, though he often terms it another´s sin (that he may more clearly show how it comes to us by descent), at the same time asserts that it is each individual´s own sin. And the Apostle most distinctly testifies, that "œdeath passed upon all men, for that all have sinned" (Romans 5:12); that is, are involved in original sin, and polluted by its stain. Hence, even infants bringing their condemnation with them from their mother´s womb, suffer not for another´s, but for their own defect. For although they have not yet produced the fruits of their own unrighteousness, they have the seed implanted in them. Nay, their whole nature is, as it were, a seed-bed of sin, and therefore cannot but be odious and abominable to God..." (2.1.8)
[Edited on 11-21-2005 by Scott Bushey]
I'm using Esword and BibleWorks5. Esword uses the Strongs definitions.
Doulos,
I am using the WCF and LBC; both assert that elect infants dying in infancy are saved via Christ; not all infants.
III. Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated, and saved by Christ, through the Spirit,[12] who worketh when, and where, and how hepleaseth:[13] so also are all other elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.[14]
12. Gen. 17:7; Luke 1:15; 18:15-16; Acts 2:39; John 3:3, 5; I John 5:12
13. John 3:8
14. John 16:7-8; I John 5:12; Acts 4:12
The assertion, taken to it's conclusion implies that if there are elect infants, there as well MUST be reprobate/non elect ones as well.
I disagree w/ Calvin on the point you cite; he is pushing the envelope.
He is much clearer below.
John Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion.
"...Original sin, then, may be defined a hereditary corruption and depravity of our nature, extending to all the parts of the soul, which first makes us obnoxious to the wrath of God, and then produces in us works which in Scripture are termed works of the flesh...The two things, therefore, are to be distinctly observed, viz., that being thus perverted and corrupted in all the parts of our nature, we are, merely on account of such corruption, deservedly condemned by God, to whom nothing is acceptable but righteousness, innocence, and purity...Hence Augustine, though he often terms it another´s sin (that he may more clearly show how it comes to us by descent), at the same time asserts that it is each individual´s own sin. And the Apostle most distinctly testifies, that "œdeath passed upon all men, for that all have sinned" (Romans 5:12); that is, are involved in original sin, and polluted by its stain. Hence, even infants bringing their condemnation with them from their mother´s womb, suffer not for another´s, but for their own defect. For although they have not yet produced the fruits of their own unrighteousness, they have the seed implanted in them. Nay, their whole nature is, as it were, a seed-bed of sin, and therefore cannot but be odious and abominable to God..." (2.1.8)
[Edited on 11-21-2005 by Scott Bushey]
the Second London Confession as amended by CH Spurgeon (the version our church adopted) says:
Infants dying in infancy are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit, Who works when, where, and how He pleases. So also are all elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.
I agree with Spurgeon's edit here and believe that the best book I have read on the topic is MacArthur's Safe in the Arms of God.
Otherwise, please excuse me as I have no desire whatsoever to enter this debate.
Phillip
Infants dying in infancy are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit, Who works when, where, and how He pleases. So also are all elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.
I agree with Spurgeon's edit here and believe that the best book I have read on the topic is MacArthur's Safe in the Arms of God.
Otherwise, please excuse me as I have no desire whatsoever to enter this debate.
Phillip
panta dokimazete
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Scott Bushey
Puritanboard Commissioner
Again,
this is speculation at best. What the scriptures do convey is that all ahev sinned and God punishes sin. The fact that it is Adamic, is irrelevent. The elective decree is limiting. No race or gender is above the doctrine, not even children.
As I have mentioned numerous times, one must then take this idea to it;s farthest conclusion: all muslim children, all the children in Noahs flood, the children of S & G, the native child who has never heard the gospel etc.
This is a form of universalism. The abortion premise is not absurd; one could guarantee more elections based upon this premise, and isn't ot better for someone to be in Heaven than hell? So lets abort children.
Scott Bushey
Puritanboard Commissioner
Originally posted by BaptistInCrisis
Phillip, you ARE as smart as you look!
The 1689 LBC states:
3. Elect infants dying in infancy are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit; who worketh when, and where, and how he pleases; so also are all elect persons, who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.
( John 3:3, 5, 6; John 3:8 )
Scot
Puritan Board Sophomore
I've read the arguements before from both sides and still cannot see scripturally were the Bible teaches that infants who die are "automatically in." I see were the Bible teaches about the elect and the non-elect. Nowhere do I see an "age of accountability" or anything of the sort.
In fact, when I first became a believer and was reading Boettner's "The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination", I thought his belief on all that die in infancy being elect was inconsistant. The book was great except for that chapter.
I can see the arminians believing this since they believe that you make the choice in order to become saved but I can't understand how those who hold to the doctrines of total depravity, God's sovereignty, etc. hold this belief.
I believe the scriptures teach that in faith comes by hearing the word of God. Is there another way that I'm missing here? Isn't this what the Bible states? If this is the case, how can infants be saved that have not been under the hearing of the word? If God elects an individual, he also makes sure that they're spiritual eyes and ears are opened to hear the word. There are many individuals who die without ever hearing the gospel. This obviously shows that they were not elect. These are infants, children and adults. Where in scripture does it speak of an exception to this rule?
In fact, when I first became a believer and was reading Boettner's "The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination", I thought his belief on all that die in infancy being elect was inconsistant. The book was great except for that chapter.
I can see the arminians believing this since they believe that you make the choice in order to become saved but I can't understand how those who hold to the doctrines of total depravity, God's sovereignty, etc. hold this belief.
I believe the scriptures teach that in faith comes by hearing the word of God. Is there another way that I'm missing here? Isn't this what the Bible states? If this is the case, how can infants be saved that have not been under the hearing of the word? If God elects an individual, he also makes sure that they're spiritual eyes and ears are opened to hear the word. There are many individuals who die without ever hearing the gospel. This obviously shows that they were not elect. These are infants, children and adults. Where in scripture does it speak of an exception to this rule?
Scott Bushey
Puritanboard Commissioner
Dan,
God assuredly saves some infants; the elect one's. God does, by His wise council, goes to these infants and administers His word as he see's fit; it is mysterious tio a degree. However to assume God elects all infants dying in infancy is extra biblical and universalist.
[Edited on 11-21-2005 by Scott Bushey]
I preferred Larry's quotes of major Reformed thinkers to MacArthur's reasoning though I do like much of MacArthur's stuff. All of the Reformed quotes insisted that infants must be elect as the basis of their salvation. MacArthur appeals to an age of accountability which weakens the notion of imputed guilt from Adam.
I've got a 1.5 year old girl who definitely shows she is a descendant from Adam like her daddy. I praise God to be in Covenant with Him and to have faith that He is the God of my daughter so I can pray together with her when she disobeys God regularly though her defiance of parental authority. I view parenting through the eyes of faith but her wanton refusal to comply with instruction is stunning at times. Our three year old is a bit more verbal about it but the younger is more appropriate to the discussion because most would view a 1.5 year old as not having achieved any sort of "accountability" for their defiance as if it's some sort of animal response and they are unaware of their defiance. A parent knows that his 1.5 year old girl understands it beyond some animal response especially after he restores her with loving discipline and prays with her to ask God to forgive her for her sins.
I've refused, since this thread began, to be dogmatic except to say that elect infants are saved and none other without defining the extent of that population. From my initial post, I have always found these discussions to be speculative and not terribly edifying. I don't fall hard on any side except to preserve the idea that even infants need to be covered by the blood of Christ to be saved.
[Edited on 11-21-2005 by SemperFideles]
I've got a 1.5 year old girl who definitely shows she is a descendant from Adam like her daddy. I praise God to be in Covenant with Him and to have faith that He is the God of my daughter so I can pray together with her when she disobeys God regularly though her defiance of parental authority. I view parenting through the eyes of faith but her wanton refusal to comply with instruction is stunning at times. Our three year old is a bit more verbal about it but the younger is more appropriate to the discussion because most would view a 1.5 year old as not having achieved any sort of "accountability" for their defiance as if it's some sort of animal response and they are unaware of their defiance. A parent knows that his 1.5 year old girl understands it beyond some animal response especially after he restores her with loving discipline and prays with her to ask God to forgive her for her sins.
I've refused, since this thread began, to be dogmatic except to say that elect infants are saved and none other without defining the extent of that population. From my initial post, I have always found these discussions to be speculative and not terribly edifying. I don't fall hard on any side except to preserve the idea that even infants need to be covered by the blood of Christ to be saved.
[Edited on 11-21-2005 by SemperFideles]
Scott Bushey
Puritanboard Commissioner
Rich,
I have children as well. I understand what you are saying. The argument is not based on the idea that God punishes infants but what Gods word supports. That is what flag I am planting. The topic in general is secondary.
I have children as well. I understand what you are saying. The argument is not based on the idea that God punishes infants but what Gods word supports. That is what flag I am planting. The topic in general is secondary.
C. Matthew McMahon
Christian Preacher
Rich - you are following Westminster's careful attention to this as int he statement above. That is why Westminster was SO careful not to place this passage:
"Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated, and saved by Christ, through the Spirit, who worketh when, and where, and how he pleaseth: so also are all other elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word."
- in the section entitled: The Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter X: Of Effectual Calling
AND NOT in the section: The Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter III: Of God's Eternal Decree
They are not making the same statement that you are not making. They are being careful.
It is true that many of the good Puritans believed ALL covenantal infants go to heaven. Some of them even believed ALL infants in general, from the flood, from Sodom, etc., were all saved. But most of the Puritans relied on arguing back from coveant to God's grace. In other words, presuming thier children were in covenant also presupposed God's gracious promises to them, and thus they argued they would be saved. Otherwise, its just a coin toss.
I would like to comment on this statement made by Piper:
"In other words, if a person lacks the natural capacity to see the revelation of God's will or God's glory then that person's sin would not remain-God would not bring the person into final judgment for not believing what he had no natural capacity to see."
This is utterly ludicrous according to the fallen condition of all in Adam. He is befuddling federal theology and representative theology in this way. Adam 1) had the natural capacity to see the revelation of God's will, 2) had the capacity to see God's glory, 3) was able to believe everything in relation to those things, and 4) transmitted either his belief of unbeleif to all his progeny. We know it was unbelief and the fall that now reigns in us. To say that people will not come into judgment for this is to deny a PIVITOL point in understanding Adam as our representative head.
[Edited on 11-21-2005 by webmaster]
panta dokimazete
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
***sigh***
Scott,
1. universalism is NOT what I am proposing - God discriminates - there is the Elect and the Reprobate - everyone will not be saved - I state this unequivocally - PLEASE quit casting that aspersion - it is insulting to me and a misuse of the term.
2. ALL children are not Elect - I propose that only infants that die in infancy and the mentally defective are Elect due to the fact that they do not become self-aware to the knowledge of good and evil and are incapable of violating the moral/spiritual law. Thus - to satisfy your need to confirm the condemnation of children to an Eternity of punishment - SOME - probably MOST - of the children of the Flood, etc are not Elect.
3. I am not stating that God MUST Elect them to be a Just and Loving God - I say that the nature of these folk and our understanding of the nature of God revealed in Christ leads me to this conclusion.
4. attempting reductio ad absurdum to this conclusion and proposing that this would justify abortion is foolish - God alone determines the disposition of His Creation - but the death of the unborn do serve a purpose to the Glory of God - they will be the voices of condemnation to the Reprobate and the chorus of all nations/races worshipping God at the Last judgment.
Addendum:
The nature of Adam's sin was not about his belief/unbelief - it was his desire to grasp equality with God - the very same sin of the Deceiver and the antithesis of the nature of Christ - the difference between the consequences of Adam's sin and the Evil One is that God has delayed His Just judgment of Adam and his progeny to glorify Himself and redeem His Elect through Jesus Christ.
The Elect are those that will blissfully embrace non posse peccatore and the absolute sovereignty of God Almighty for Eternity.
- pax -
[Edited on 11-21-2005 by jdlongmire]
[Edited on 11-21-2005 by jdlongmire]
Scott,
1. universalism is NOT what I am proposing - God discriminates - there is the Elect and the Reprobate - everyone will not be saved - I state this unequivocally - PLEASE quit casting that aspersion - it is insulting to me and a misuse of the term.
2. ALL children are not Elect - I propose that only infants that die in infancy and the mentally defective are Elect due to the fact that they do not become self-aware to the knowledge of good and evil and are incapable of violating the moral/spiritual law. Thus - to satisfy your need to confirm the condemnation of children to an Eternity of punishment - SOME - probably MOST - of the children of the Flood, etc are not Elect.
3. I am not stating that God MUST Elect them to be a Just and Loving God - I say that the nature of these folk and our understanding of the nature of God revealed in Christ leads me to this conclusion.
4. attempting reductio ad absurdum to this conclusion and proposing that this would justify abortion is foolish - God alone determines the disposition of His Creation - but the death of the unborn do serve a purpose to the Glory of God - they will be the voices of condemnation to the Reprobate and the chorus of all nations/races worshipping God at the Last judgment.
Addendum:
The nature of Adam's sin was not about his belief/unbelief - it was his desire to grasp equality with God - the very same sin of the Deceiver and the antithesis of the nature of Christ - the difference between the consequences of Adam's sin and the Evil One is that God has delayed His Just judgment of Adam and his progeny to glorify Himself and redeem His Elect through Jesus Christ.
The Elect are those that will blissfully embrace non posse peccatore and the absolute sovereignty of God Almighty for Eternity.
- pax -
[Edited on 11-21-2005 by jdlongmire]
[Edited on 11-21-2005 by jdlongmire]
Bladestunner316
Puritan Board Doctor
What's the difference between a mentaly handicapped person and a normal man? are they not blinded spiritually by sin? both incapable of redemption unless given it by God's grace?
blade
blade
panta dokimazete
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Yes, please take the harshest position possible - make sure to emphasize the judgment of God over His Mercy and become an ineffectual instrument of the revelation of Christ to the Elect.
The good thing is - God will send someone that understands Love, Grace and Mercy to open their eyes to His salvation through Christ.
Praise be unto Him that His will is not dependant upon us!
The good thing is - God will send someone that understands Love, Grace and Mercy to open their eyes to His salvation through Christ.
Praise be unto Him that His will is not dependant upon us!
Scot
Puritan Board Sophomore
Agreed. There is no difference spiritually. Our mental capacity has nothing to do with salvation (unless you take an arminian position that our decision is what saves us). I see no scripture that says God has elected all those who don't have the mental capacity to understand the gospel.
Bladestunner316
Puritan Board Doctor
JD says,
I'm confused why you would even suggest this? Did you not read where I said,
So show me where I was emphasizing God's judgment more so than his grace!
Honestly if you think that then you would be putting forward the opposite over emphasizing God's mercy over his justice(as opposed to judgment as you were saying).
I think we somehow let are emotions overshadow truth for the sake of satisfying our emotions. It's not that we should'nt have mercy on those who are in mental or physical need.
It's over manipulating Biblical with our emotions like the charismatics do. I'm not accusing you of being a charismatic just trying to make a point.
People suffer mental or physical affirmities for whatever purpose God has in store. But because they have such does not exscuse any man of his spiritual state before a Holy God.
We were all born sinners. Normal healthy children and those who were not born healthy. I pray that God in his mercy would take those whom he predestined to be born such a way to Heaven with him. But I cannot say that he will without going against Scripture.
I apologize if I somehow offened you in anyway. I by no mean's want to offend anyone who has had children born with such disabilities I have worked with kids who have mental handicaps.
In Christ,
Blade
I'm confused why you would even suggest this? Did you not read where I said,
So show me where I was emphasizing God's judgment more so than his grace!
Honestly if you think that then you would be putting forward the opposite over emphasizing God's mercy over his justice(as opposed to judgment as you were saying).
I think we somehow let are emotions overshadow truth for the sake of satisfying our emotions. It's not that we should'nt have mercy on those who are in mental or physical need.
It's over manipulating Biblical with our emotions like the charismatics do. I'm not accusing you of being a charismatic just trying to make a point.
People suffer mental or physical affirmities for whatever purpose God has in store. But because they have such does not exscuse any man of his spiritual state before a Holy God.
We were all born sinners. Normal healthy children and those who were not born healthy. I pray that God in his mercy would take those whom he predestined to be born such a way to Heaven with him. But I cannot say that he will without going against Scripture.
I apologize if I somehow offened you in anyway. I by no mean's want to offend anyone who has had children born with such disabilities I have worked with kids who have mental handicaps.
In Christ,
Blade
- Status
