Bladestunner316
Puritan Board Doctor
Thank You Dan. I agree.
Blade
Blade
Piper/Desiring God believe that all infants........
- Thread starter Scott Bushey
- Start date
- Status
This is where you and I disagree. What you give in one hand (the need for election) you take away from the other (why do they need election if they have not violated any moral/spiritual law?).
If all infants are saved then, I agree with Charles Hodge and other Reformed writers, that it is on account of Christ's imputed righteousness and not because they are innocent.
Larry Hughes
Puritan Board Sophomore
Scott,
First let´s quickly dispense with something that it is not the absents of the sign but the despising of it (I believe BB Warfield made that observation) that condemns. The problem is when you pull those scriptures out you are tearing them away from Christ. For Christ said "œYou search the Scriptures and think that by them you have life, but it are these that continuously bear witness to Me." And he also demanded of the Pharisees to understand this, "œthat I desire not sacrifice but mercy." They had no clue what He meant for they had turned the things that point to Him, including the Scriptures and the signs into things "˜they do´ or seek out so they can "œdo" to garner God´s favor.
None of my appeal was emotion based, but rather as I´ve said about a million times on this board, the cross of Christ. I cannot know, nor can you, the fate of ourselves OR the children thus born and died in infancy apart from Christ ALONE. And add to that all the aborted children from conception onward either by natural loss or by man´s murderous hands in the 20th and 21st centuries.
That is a simple FACT not emotions! You, nor I, nor any man can peer into eternity and determine this in ANY naked way. You, nor I, cannot go up to, right now, a book, called the Lamb´s book of life, turn to a page look in the B´s or the H´s and say, "œAhhh, there it is my name, yep, I"˜m in, I"˜m elect." FACT, not emotion. Neither you nor I can look and examine our lives and find faultless fruit that cannot be faked by the best pagan´s whereby you or I can say, "œYep, I´ve done enough to assure myself of election." If so give me the measure, quantity and quality, I´m a scientist I deal in magnitude and nature not emotions, so give them to me that I might measure them. None of us can and those that think they can are those deceived the most. And that is FACT, not emotion. Many, many IN covenant are apostate in the end, and that is FACT not emotion. They had the promises, the Law and so forth so what gives?
Because at the end of the day the REAL question underlying the surface of infants is how can I know? And we can only know by looking to Christ. And while looking at Christ I see an immeasurable mercy given, not a universalism for many deny Christ. But a shear mercy and grace and that´s all I have at the end of the day"¦that IS the sum total of all Theology worth speaking of when its all added up. And so what about dying infants? I must look at that same cross that I must objectively believe and truly and boldly hope in - that´s the only way I can answer the question. For I cannot answer it any other way.
If you are not looking at Scripture through the Cross, then you´ve missed everything no matter how much one can quote from memory. Christ is the Scriptures, remove Him and you have absolutely nothing. Christ is the full revelation of God:
Colossians 2:9-10, "œFor in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form,
and in Him you have been made complete, and He is the head over all rule and authority"
1 Corinthians 2:8, "œthe wisdom which none of the rulers of this age has understood; for if they had understood it they would not have crucified the Lord of glory"
2 Corinthians 4:4, "œin whose case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving so that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God."
2 Corinthians 6:4, "œFor God, who said, " Light shall shine out of darkness," is the One who has shone in our hearts to give the Light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ."
John 1:18, "œNo one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him."
Colossians 1:15, "œHe is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation."
Since I can only know God this way without garnering His wrath, thus I must assess dying infants. And that is not sheer emotions but FACT.
And it is not more glorifying to have some infants go to hell, as we can easily see from these verses that God the Son´s holy blood on the cross is the apple of His eye, His grand glory all in all. Thus, if God so chooses to glorify His Son all the more and Himself to save ALL infants that died, then He has truly glorified Himself.
And yes there is no Scripture that says God saves us due to our mental acumen. You talk about dispensationalist inability to draw an inference but needing an explicit Scripture! NO, no man is saved by his mental ability or lack there of. And that's the point of both infants and the mentally incapable. But there is a Scripture that certainly says, "œbut God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to shame the things which are strong." Thus, saving them thus is not saying God saves them on the basis of their mental handicap, but on the basis that HE might glorify HIMSELF FOR HIS IMMEASURABLE GRACE AND MERCY.
I´d rather over assess His mercy concerning infants dying than under assesses it any day based upon Christ.
And the inanity of the "œuniversalist" claim on all infants lies in this: infants can not deny Christ, yet adults can and do. Thus, it is one thing to say a universalist is one who says even those (adults) who deny Christ as Christ are saved. And quite another to say a universalist is one who says infants with the inability to deny Christ are saved. If that is not obvious then I can help no further.
L
[Edited on 11-21-2005 by Larry Hughes]
First let´s quickly dispense with something that it is not the absents of the sign but the despising of it (I believe BB Warfield made that observation) that condemns. The problem is when you pull those scriptures out you are tearing them away from Christ. For Christ said "œYou search the Scriptures and think that by them you have life, but it are these that continuously bear witness to Me." And he also demanded of the Pharisees to understand this, "œthat I desire not sacrifice but mercy." They had no clue what He meant for they had turned the things that point to Him, including the Scriptures and the signs into things "˜they do´ or seek out so they can "œdo" to garner God´s favor.
None of my appeal was emotion based, but rather as I´ve said about a million times on this board, the cross of Christ. I cannot know, nor can you, the fate of ourselves OR the children thus born and died in infancy apart from Christ ALONE. And add to that all the aborted children from conception onward either by natural loss or by man´s murderous hands in the 20th and 21st centuries.
That is a simple FACT not emotions! You, nor I, nor any man can peer into eternity and determine this in ANY naked way. You, nor I, cannot go up to, right now, a book, called the Lamb´s book of life, turn to a page look in the B´s or the H´s and say, "œAhhh, there it is my name, yep, I"˜m in, I"˜m elect." FACT, not emotion. Neither you nor I can look and examine our lives and find faultless fruit that cannot be faked by the best pagan´s whereby you or I can say, "œYep, I´ve done enough to assure myself of election." If so give me the measure, quantity and quality, I´m a scientist I deal in magnitude and nature not emotions, so give them to me that I might measure them. None of us can and those that think they can are those deceived the most. And that is FACT, not emotion. Many, many IN covenant are apostate in the end, and that is FACT not emotion. They had the promises, the Law and so forth so what gives?
Because at the end of the day the REAL question underlying the surface of infants is how can I know? And we can only know by looking to Christ. And while looking at Christ I see an immeasurable mercy given, not a universalism for many deny Christ. But a shear mercy and grace and that´s all I have at the end of the day"¦that IS the sum total of all Theology worth speaking of when its all added up. And so what about dying infants? I must look at that same cross that I must objectively believe and truly and boldly hope in - that´s the only way I can answer the question. For I cannot answer it any other way.
If you are not looking at Scripture through the Cross, then you´ve missed everything no matter how much one can quote from memory. Christ is the Scriptures, remove Him and you have absolutely nothing. Christ is the full revelation of God:
Colossians 2:9-10, "œFor in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form,
and in Him you have been made complete, and He is the head over all rule and authority"
1 Corinthians 2:8, "œthe wisdom which none of the rulers of this age has understood; for if they had understood it they would not have crucified the Lord of glory"
2 Corinthians 4:4, "œin whose case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving so that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God."
2 Corinthians 6:4, "œFor God, who said, " Light shall shine out of darkness," is the One who has shone in our hearts to give the Light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ."
John 1:18, "œNo one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him."
Colossians 1:15, "œHe is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation."
Since I can only know God this way without garnering His wrath, thus I must assess dying infants. And that is not sheer emotions but FACT.
And it is not more glorifying to have some infants go to hell, as we can easily see from these verses that God the Son´s holy blood on the cross is the apple of His eye, His grand glory all in all. Thus, if God so chooses to glorify His Son all the more and Himself to save ALL infants that died, then He has truly glorified Himself.
And yes there is no Scripture that says God saves us due to our mental acumen. You talk about dispensationalist inability to draw an inference but needing an explicit Scripture! NO, no man is saved by his mental ability or lack there of. And that's the point of both infants and the mentally incapable. But there is a Scripture that certainly says, "œbut God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to shame the things which are strong." Thus, saving them thus is not saying God saves them on the basis of their mental handicap, but on the basis that HE might glorify HIMSELF FOR HIS IMMEASURABLE GRACE AND MERCY.
I´d rather over assess His mercy concerning infants dying than under assesses it any day based upon Christ.
And the inanity of the "œuniversalist" claim on all infants lies in this: infants can not deny Christ, yet adults can and do. Thus, it is one thing to say a universalist is one who says even those (adults) who deny Christ as Christ are saved. And quite another to say a universalist is one who says infants with the inability to deny Christ are saved. If that is not obvious then I can help no further.
L
[Edited on 11-21-2005 by Larry Hughes]
C. Matthew McMahon
Christian Preacher
***BIG SIGH***
I don´t think anyone is trying to take a harsh position over another. I think what they are seemingly trying to do is be as biblical as possible and not turn God into the cosmic grandfather most think He is. 13% of everything Christ said was concerning judgment. That means if the Son of God were to come down from heaven, and teach people 6 things (adding up to 100%) they needed to know about God, one of those 6 things is Judgment and hell. Another percentage, equally in favor of being on the most that Christ taught, is the concept of law and justice. Certainly we would not want to dismiss John 3:17 at the expense of John 3:16. Instead, we look for a full biblical theology to demonstrate His character. And as we know, most of the teaching of the Bible concerning God revolves around a sinner´s relationship with that which is holy. Love is not mentioned of God as nearly as much as He has revealed Himself as holy. Sinner must take great pains to discern their relationship between that which is not holy (them) and that which is infinite holy "“ God.
After Christ and the apostles, one of the greatest "œpreachers" that ever lived was Edwards. Edwards said that the BEST way to preach is through eschatological preaching, or scare theology. Demonstrating the sinner´s plight, and the condemnation awaiting them, and appealing to their self-interest, is what makes Edward´s sermons not only cool, calm and collected, but intensely "œintense.". It would be a mistake to say that he only preached this way "“ but it would be a greater mistake to say he did not preach this way often.
This is blatant nonsense, and indefensible biblically. Its Pelagian. The moment the cells form a human being in the womb, they are at instant enmity against God for violating the moral Law IN ADAM. They are held guilty, defiled and abominable as they partook of the forbidden fruit in the loins of the father. As a result, they are judged for everything upon judgment that Adam transgressed as if they ate the fruit themselves. To say otherwise is to become Pelagian. Are you really saying what it seems you are saying
Think through this "“
If the most important thing in life is to be saved, and if infants die because they are simply not aware of the moral law, as you say, and have not violated it, as you say, and that they go to heaven if they are elect, as you say, then it would behoove you to stand on the street corner with a sign saying that every child should aborted. Why? Not because it is absurd, but because the lesser evil of murder is better than the greater evil of allowing them all to go to hell when we could stop it with a surgeon´s knife. It would be better to abort them, kill them early, and have them go to heaven, than to allow them the chance of never coming to Christ later on.
But this is ABSURD because they are morally held responsible for Adam´s sin (Psalm 51:5) at the moment of conception. Thus, abortion is a quick step to judgment for every human being aborted. It is not only murder, but it seals the fate of MOST children dying in judgment and without Christ if they are not elected.
I´m not sure which bible you are reading here. The nature of ANY sin is unbelief. To deny this is to miss how you own sin operates!!
"œOur first parents, being seduced by the subtlety and temptation of Satan, sinned, in eating the forbidden fruit." Westminster Confession of Faith Chapter VI - Of the Fall of Man, of Sin, and of the Punishment Thereof
2 Corinthians 11:3 But I fear, lest somehow, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, so your minds may be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.
What is deception but unbelief? Adam´s desire to be like God was through deception. He did not believe what God had said, and instead believed the serpent. He broke the Law. How could one conclude that it was not unbelief? Adam did not do what Abraham did do - Romans 4:20 He did not waver at the promise of God through unbelief, but was strengthened in faith, giving glory to God.
VI. Every sin, both original and actual, being a transgression of the righteous law of God, and contrary thereunto,[13] doth, in its own nature, bring guilt upon the sinner,[14] whereby he is bound over to the wrath of God,[15] and curse of the law,[16] and so made subject to death,[17] with all miseries spiritual,[18] temporal,[19] and eternal.[20]
13. I John 3:4
14. Rom. 2:15; 3:9, 19
15. Eph. 2:3
16. Gal. 3:10
17. Rom. 6:23
18. Eph. 4:18
19. Rom. 8:20; Lam. 3:39
20. Matt. 25:41; II Thess. 1:9
I don´t think anyone is trying to take a harsh position over another. I think what they are seemingly trying to do is be as biblical as possible and not turn God into the cosmic grandfather most think He is. 13% of everything Christ said was concerning judgment. That means if the Son of God were to come down from heaven, and teach people 6 things (adding up to 100%) they needed to know about God, one of those 6 things is Judgment and hell. Another percentage, equally in favor of being on the most that Christ taught, is the concept of law and justice. Certainly we would not want to dismiss John 3:17 at the expense of John 3:16. Instead, we look for a full biblical theology to demonstrate His character. And as we know, most of the teaching of the Bible concerning God revolves around a sinner´s relationship with that which is holy. Love is not mentioned of God as nearly as much as He has revealed Himself as holy. Sinner must take great pains to discern their relationship between that which is not holy (them) and that which is infinite holy "“ God.
After Christ and the apostles, one of the greatest "œpreachers" that ever lived was Edwards. Edwards said that the BEST way to preach is through eschatological preaching, or scare theology. Demonstrating the sinner´s plight, and the condemnation awaiting them, and appealing to their self-interest, is what makes Edward´s sermons not only cool, calm and collected, but intensely "œintense.". It would be a mistake to say that he only preached this way "“ but it would be a greater mistake to say he did not preach this way often.
This is blatant nonsense, and indefensible biblically. Its Pelagian. The moment the cells form a human being in the womb, they are at instant enmity against God for violating the moral Law IN ADAM. They are held guilty, defiled and abominable as they partook of the forbidden fruit in the loins of the father. As a result, they are judged for everything upon judgment that Adam transgressed as if they ate the fruit themselves. To say otherwise is to become Pelagian. Are you really saying what it seems you are saying
Think through this "“
If the most important thing in life is to be saved, and if infants die because they are simply not aware of the moral law, as you say, and have not violated it, as you say, and that they go to heaven if they are elect, as you say, then it would behoove you to stand on the street corner with a sign saying that every child should aborted. Why? Not because it is absurd, but because the lesser evil of murder is better than the greater evil of allowing them all to go to hell when we could stop it with a surgeon´s knife. It would be better to abort them, kill them early, and have them go to heaven, than to allow them the chance of never coming to Christ later on.
But this is ABSURD because they are morally held responsible for Adam´s sin (Psalm 51:5) at the moment of conception. Thus, abortion is a quick step to judgment for every human being aborted. It is not only murder, but it seals the fate of MOST children dying in judgment and without Christ if they are not elected.
I´m not sure which bible you are reading here. The nature of ANY sin is unbelief. To deny this is to miss how you own sin operates!!
"œOur first parents, being seduced by the subtlety and temptation of Satan, sinned, in eating the forbidden fruit." Westminster Confession of Faith Chapter VI - Of the Fall of Man, of Sin, and of the Punishment Thereof
2 Corinthians 11:3 But I fear, lest somehow, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, so your minds may be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.
What is deception but unbelief? Adam´s desire to be like God was through deception. He did not believe what God had said, and instead believed the serpent. He broke the Law. How could one conclude that it was not unbelief? Adam did not do what Abraham did do - Romans 4:20 He did not waver at the promise of God through unbelief, but was strengthened in faith, giving glory to God.
VI. Every sin, both original and actual, being a transgression of the righteous law of God, and contrary thereunto,[13] doth, in its own nature, bring guilt upon the sinner,[14] whereby he is bound over to the wrath of God,[15] and curse of the law,[16] and so made subject to death,[17] with all miseries spiritual,[18] temporal,[19] and eternal.[20]
13. I John 3:4
14. Rom. 2:15; 3:9, 19
15. Eph. 2:3
16. Gal. 3:10
17. Rom. 6:23
18. Eph. 4:18
19. Rom. 8:20; Lam. 3:39
20. Matt. 25:41; II Thess. 1:9
Scott Bushey
Puritanboard Commissioner
Larry,
The above makes it sound as if God is more merciful than judgemental. This of course is impossible. If that was the case, more people would be saved than perish, and we both know that the road to Heaven is narrow and few are they that find it. Tearing them away from Christ? I believe Christ talked twice as much about hell than he did heaven!
Well then we are on the same page. If this is true, both of us want to be as sound biblically as we can be, hence the rationale of my position. Is my position more biblically based? Is there any proof, outside of your personal feelings or some erring commentary that supports God saving all infants dying in infancy? Even the confessions don't agree with this!
I can't know my fate? What is faith?
Heb 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
1Jo 5:13 These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.
2Pe 1:10 Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall:
2Co 13:5 Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?
Larry, I disagree! The bible tells us that we can know. Sorry, buit I believe the bible.
I agree. I have no assurance if I believe the above. The above is nothing but Arminianism. The bible exhorts us to make our election SURE! Hebrews writes:
Heb 3:12 Take care, brothers, lest there be in any of you an evil, unbelieving heart, leading you to fall away from the living God.
Larry,
Do you Love Jesus; is he a tender saviour to you? Do you believe? Have you received, accepted, repented? Does Gods spirit bear withness with yours? Do you love the brethren? Christs bride? Do you treat your wife like Christ loves His church? If you have these characteristics, not works, why doubt? These fruits are assurance.
Lets stick with what we know: All have sinned and God punishes sin; period! Some infants (according to the bible and the confessions) are elect; not all, some!
Larry,
If Christ is merciful to all infants based upon His mercy, whom else can we extend this grace to? Looking to Christ means looking to His scriptures. There is no scripture supporting this type of thinking. In fact, as JD has now agreed to the idea that:
Does God grade upon a curve? Or the season? Or the time of day?
Again, what you mean to say is you want to look to truth. Christ said He is truth! The truth is, the scriptures clearly define that all have sinned and that there is a doctrine called election. That doctrine is excluding. It does not include all of the nation Israel. Based upon some people, one would think that this group would be the most fitting for a all-inclusive elective assignment, but no. God does not even deal with His nation in this manner, yet, some people here want to do that with the infant populus.
Larry,
I look at scripture through my glasses! Christ gives me spiritual eyes to see truth; that amounts to being born again.
Joh 3:3 Jesus answered him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God."
Your statement above sounds charismatic.
Joh 3:3 Jesus answered him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God."
You have just broken the second command,ment; you have made God into your own image.
Gods word clearly states:
Rom 9:20 But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, "Why have you made me like this?"
Rom 9:21 Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honored use and another for dishonorable use?
Rom 9:22 What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction,
Rom 9:23 in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory--
This is true to a degree. The man whom is saved will have the faculties to understand whom God is and what His scriptures teach about the kingdom of God. A man whom does not know about Christs justifying propitiation, is not, will not ever be saved in that condition.
I agree. The elect infant and imbecile God goes to.........
The above only supports the elective decree.
God does this as well by creating the reprobate for distruction.
Rom 9:22 What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction,
Rom 9:23 in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory--
I'll attempt to be as biblically accurate as I can and God allows rather than 'over assess'.
The infant denies Christ by the stain of Adam's sin.
Universalism, in this regard is based upon the idea that God saves a certain group of peoples. Would it not be universalisticto say God will save all of Israel?
[Edited on 11-21-2005 by Scott Bushey]
Larry Hughes
Puritan Board Sophomore
Scott, I think you misunderstood me, LOOKING at Christ alone IS faith & thus alone we know our destiny. I think we just spoke pat each other on this one. Because what you said, above quoted, IS the entire thrust of what I said. In other words "looking" (which is metaphoric for faith/trus) to Christ alone IS the solid Rock upon which I/we can know. "Looking" otherwise apart from faith leads to NOT knowing. So, I really think we are on the same page here.
Point #2 it is one thing to be "biblcally accurate, have a high view of Scripture, & have Christ as Christ as the center of all Scripture. Hence Christ saying, "you search the Scriptures...etc..." The Pharisees certainly had an unsurpassed supreme view of Scripture & an accuracy unsurpassed to today - yet they missed Christ as Christ & thus everything.
And about breaking the 2cd commandment. I think not since I'm holding as my highest view Christ & His mercy and if I have in my ignorance...Christ is STILL MY unshakable righteousness.
As to the fruits of faith, yes of course those are present in my life, but I do not put stock in them nor glory in them & they are of course tainted still, mixed with my sin - thus my cry is Christ alone. And to Him do I point people NOT my life.
As to this argument, I suppose we will have to agree to disagree completely until glory - For Christ AS Christ is my understanding. God's justice was CLEAREST at the cross.
The last word for my part is yours brother,
Larry
doulosChristou
Puritan Board Freshman
Scott,
I said:
You replied:
Okay, I see the problem. You are ignoring the context. The subject of the Confession in Chapter X is Effectual Calling. It is dealing with the way people are saved not the number of such persons. The word "elect" correctly implies the need of redemption for infants but it is not a necessary inference that some are not elect. While infants cannot be called by the word and Spirit in the ordinary way, they can still be saved because of the electing love of the Father, the atonement of Christ and regeneration by the Spirit. That is the point. So your inference is unwarranted. More than that, your assertion that your personal inference is the Reformed position is utterly unwarranted. As far as I know, it is completely novel. All of the commentaries on the Confession take Section III of Chapter X in its proper context. Representative is A. A. Hodge's A Commentary on the The Westminster Confession of Faith, in which he comments on this section:
The outward call of God's Word, and all the "means of grace" provided in the present dispensation, of course presuppose intelligence upon the part of those who receive them. The will of God, also, is revealed only as far as it concerns those capable of understanding and profiting by the revelation. His purposes with respect to either persons or classes not thus addressed are not explicitly revealed. If infants and others not capable of being called by the gospel are to be saved, they must be regenerated and sanctified immediately by God without the use of means. If God could create Adam holy without means, and if he can new-create believers in righteousness and true holiness by the use of means which a large part of men use without profit, he can certainly make infants and others regenerate without means. Indeed, the natural depravity of infants lies before moral action, in the judicial deprivation of the Holy Ghost. The evil is rectified at that stage, therefore, by the gracious restoration of the soul to its moral relation to the Spirit of God. The phrase "elect infants" is precise and fit for its purpose. It is not intended to suggest that there are any infants not elect, but simply to point out the facts -- (1.) That all infants are born under righteous condemnation; and (2.) That no infant has any claim in itself to salvation; and hence (3.) The salvation of each infant, precisely as the salvation of every adult, must have its absolute ground in the sovereign election of God. This would be just as true if all adults were elected, as it is now that only some adults are elected. It is, therefore, just as true, although we have good reason to believe that all infants are elected. The Confession adheres in this place accurately to the facts revealed. It is certainly revealed that none, either adult or infant, is saved except on the ground of a sovereign election; that is, all salvation for the human race is pure grace. It is not positively revealed that all infants are elect, but we are left, for many reasons, to indulge a highly probable hope that such is the fact. The Confession affirms what is certainly revealed, and leaves that which revelation has not decided to remain, without the suggestion of a positive opinion upon one side or the other.
http://www.mbrem.com/confessions/wcf10.htm
There actually is no such a thing as the Reformed position on this issue. Within the Reformed faith, you will find two positions:
(1) All infants dying in infancy are elect.
(2) It is murky and mysterious and we just don't know enough to say.
But the position you avow, that there are certainly infants in hell, is not in the least bit Reformed.
Affectionately yours in Christ,
dC
I said:
You replied:
Okay, I see the problem. You are ignoring the context. The subject of the Confession in Chapter X is Effectual Calling. It is dealing with the way people are saved not the number of such persons. The word "elect" correctly implies the need of redemption for infants but it is not a necessary inference that some are not elect. While infants cannot be called by the word and Spirit in the ordinary way, they can still be saved because of the electing love of the Father, the atonement of Christ and regeneration by the Spirit. That is the point. So your inference is unwarranted. More than that, your assertion that your personal inference is the Reformed position is utterly unwarranted. As far as I know, it is completely novel. All of the commentaries on the Confession take Section III of Chapter X in its proper context. Representative is A. A. Hodge's A Commentary on the The Westminster Confession of Faith, in which he comments on this section:
The outward call of God's Word, and all the "means of grace" provided in the present dispensation, of course presuppose intelligence upon the part of those who receive them. The will of God, also, is revealed only as far as it concerns those capable of understanding and profiting by the revelation. His purposes with respect to either persons or classes not thus addressed are not explicitly revealed. If infants and others not capable of being called by the gospel are to be saved, they must be regenerated and sanctified immediately by God without the use of means. If God could create Adam holy without means, and if he can new-create believers in righteousness and true holiness by the use of means which a large part of men use without profit, he can certainly make infants and others regenerate without means. Indeed, the natural depravity of infants lies before moral action, in the judicial deprivation of the Holy Ghost. The evil is rectified at that stage, therefore, by the gracious restoration of the soul to its moral relation to the Spirit of God. The phrase "elect infants" is precise and fit for its purpose. It is not intended to suggest that there are any infants not elect, but simply to point out the facts -- (1.) That all infants are born under righteous condemnation; and (2.) That no infant has any claim in itself to salvation; and hence (3.) The salvation of each infant, precisely as the salvation of every adult, must have its absolute ground in the sovereign election of God. This would be just as true if all adults were elected, as it is now that only some adults are elected. It is, therefore, just as true, although we have good reason to believe that all infants are elected. The Confession adheres in this place accurately to the facts revealed. It is certainly revealed that none, either adult or infant, is saved except on the ground of a sovereign election; that is, all salvation for the human race is pure grace. It is not positively revealed that all infants are elect, but we are left, for many reasons, to indulge a highly probable hope that such is the fact. The Confession affirms what is certainly revealed, and leaves that which revelation has not decided to remain, without the suggestion of a positive opinion upon one side or the other.
http://www.mbrem.com/confessions/wcf10.htm
There actually is no such a thing as the Reformed position on this issue. Within the Reformed faith, you will find two positions:
(1) All infants dying in infancy are elect.
(2) It is murky and mysterious and we just don't know enough to say.
But the position you avow, that there are certainly infants in hell, is not in the least bit Reformed.
Affectionately yours in Christ,
dC
Scott Bushey
Puritanboard Commissioner
Ignoring? Thats challenging.
I never said it was a tool of numeration.
The doctrine of election itself excludes, or at least dilineates the regenerate and reprobate.
I believe you are missing the point.
It is? Is everyone elect? No! When the apostle uses the term elect, he is not talking of the whole world. In the same way, when the confession speaks of it, it as well excludes those that are not elect.
Obviously Phillip Way understands it as such as well as Spurgeon. Spurgeon redefined the confession to remove the excluding term "elect':
[Edited on 11-21-2005 by Scott Bushey]
doulosChristou
Puritan Board Freshman
Sorry, Spurgeon did not make the same false inference as yourself. He simply ammended the confession to rule out Reformed position #2 and to make explicit Reformed position #1. The WCF and LBCF1689 prudently allow for both. Who, besides you, has inferred from the WCF with certitude that there are infants in hell? Are you the first to come up with that interpretation of Chapter X? Who else says so?
Scott Bushey
Puritanboard Commissioner
Please define election for me?
doulosChristou
Puritan Board Freshman
By dodging my question with a question (leading to a semantic defense of your doctrine), are you admitting that you stand alone, that it is not the Reformed position after all, that the confession that God certainly reprobates a number of infants who die in infancy is a novel position?
If not, then who else says so? Who else interprets chapter X of the WCF in the way you do? After all, if it is the Reformed position as you claim, there must be an impressive number of Reformed giants who likewise confess the certainty of reprobate infants dying in infancy.
Scott Bushey
Puritanboard Commissioner
"Reprobate infants are vipers of vengeance, which Jehovah will hold over hell in the tongs of his wrath until they turn and spit venom in his face....God holds sinners in his hands over the mouth of hell as so many spiders over the fire, and he is dreadfully provoked; and he not only hates them, but holds them in utmost contempt, and will trample them beneath his feet with inexpressible fierceness; he will crush their blood out, and will make it fly so that it will sprinkle his garments and stain all his raiment."”Jonathan Edwards (1703-1758), American theologian, sermon, The Eternity of Hell's Torments."
"There are babies a span long in hell." John Calvin
Do you as well believe that the children that died in the flood are in Heaven? The egyptian children, Muslim, devil worshippers?
Again I ask, please define election in light of your premise.
I as well stand firm with the penners of the WCF; when they use the term 'elect', they are excluding the reprobate from the equation.
[Edited on 11-21-2005 by Scott Bushey]
"There are babies a span long in hell." John Calvin
Do you as well believe that the children that died in the flood are in Heaven? The egyptian children, Muslim, devil worshippers?
Again I ask, please define election in light of your premise.
I as well stand firm with the penners of the WCF; when they use the term 'elect', they are excluding the reprobate from the equation.
[Edited on 11-21-2005 by Scott Bushey]
doulosChristou
Puritan Board Freshman
Scott,
These are things anti-Calvinists invented and propogated on the Web to slander and misrepresent true Calvinists. Edwards never said "Reprobate infants are vipers of vengeance, which Jehovah will hold over hell in the tongs of his wrath until they turn and spit venom in his face."
And I am surpised you were hoodwinked to believe he did. Here is the text of his sermon he Eternity of Hell's Torments:http://www.biblebb.com/files/edwards/eternity.htm
Try searching the volumes of actual Reformed books at your disposal from your shelves to see if your doctrine is actually the Reformed position, rather than "google" for it.
Scott,
I'm not touching this debate with a 10 ft. poll, but am reading along.
I found Edward's sermon here:
http://www.jonathanedwards.com/sermons/Warnings/Eternity.htm
I did a search of the sermon and could not find your quote. Please advise if there is a different location wherein I can find the quote.
Second,
Please advise the source of the Calvin quote.
Thanks.
I'm not touching this debate with a 10 ft. poll, but am reading along.
I found Edward's sermon here:
http://www.jonathanedwards.com/sermons/Warnings/Eternity.htm
I did a search of the sermon and could not find your quote. Please advise if there is a different location wherein I can find the quote.
Second,
Please advise the source of the Calvin quote.
Thanks.
tcalbrecht
Puritan Board Junior
I'm curious, where did Calvin say that?
Scott Bushey
Puritanboard Commissioner
OK,
I'll admit I was 'hoodwinked'. I don't have the sources. However, I still hold to what I have said. As far as reputable sources. I will lay claim to my interpretation of the WCF. as well as seek Matt for sources as I know he agree's with me.
At least you got a good laugh! See, thats twice this week I admitted I was wrong.
Greg,
Strill waiting for your answers:
Do you as well believe that the children that died in the flood are in Heaven? The egyptian children, Muslim, devil worshippers?
Again I ask, please define election in light of your premise.
I as well stand firm with the penners of the WCF; when they use the term 'elect', they are excluding the reprobate from the equation.
[Edited on 11-21-2005 by Scott Bushey]
I'll admit I was 'hoodwinked'. I don't have the sources. However, I still hold to what I have said. As far as reputable sources. I will lay claim to my interpretation of the WCF. as well as seek Matt for sources as I know he agree's with me.
At least you got a good laugh! See, thats twice this week I admitted I was wrong.
Greg,
Strill waiting for your answers:
Do you as well believe that the children that died in the flood are in Heaven? The egyptian children, Muslim, devil worshippers?
Again I ask, please define election in light of your premise.
I as well stand firm with the penners of the WCF; when they use the term 'elect', they are excluding the reprobate from the equation.
[Edited on 11-21-2005 by Scott Bushey]
johnrsorrell
Puritan Board Freshman
Where does regeneration, the new birth fit into this scenario? How can an infant act out in faith through repentance, proceeded by regeneration? I may have missed this in this polemic thread.
I would assume that all on this board would agree with the fact that God's saving grace comes through regeneration, repentance, confession and so on. So, based on this fact, NO child could ever be saved from Hell as they are incapable of this.
I think the age of accountability weighs heavily here. The Scriptures never uses this term but it is inferred heavily if not explicitly. See where all those under the age of 20, I believe, were not held accountable for the sins of their fathers and allowed entrance into the Promised Land.
Also, I disagree with whoever posted that original sin is enough to impute eternal punishment. Original sin does not necessitate that all have sinned, but that all will sin because of the broken relationship with God through Adam's disobedience.
[Edited on 11-21-2005 by johnrsorrell]
I would assume that all on this board would agree with the fact that God's saving grace comes through regeneration, repentance, confession and so on. So, based on this fact, NO child could ever be saved from Hell as they are incapable of this.
I think the age of accountability weighs heavily here. The Scriptures never uses this term but it is inferred heavily if not explicitly. See where all those under the age of 20, I believe, were not held accountable for the sins of their fathers and allowed entrance into the Promised Land.
Also, I disagree with whoever posted that original sin is enough to impute eternal punishment. Original sin does not necessitate that all have sinned, but that all will sin because of the broken relationship with God through Adam's disobedience.
[Edited on 11-21-2005 by johnrsorrell]
Scott Bushey
Puritanboard Commissioner
John,
All elect infants are saved in the same manner as we are. God goes to them and saves them by His word, regenerates, converts etc.
III. Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated, and saved by Christ, through the Spirit,[12] who worketh when, and where, and how he pleaseth:[13] so also are all other elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.[14]
12. Gen. 17:7; Luke 1:15; 18:15-16; Acts 2:39; John 3:3, 5; I John 5:12
13. John 3:8
14. John 16:7-8; I John 5:12; Acts 4:12
All elect infants are saved in the same manner as we are. God goes to them and saves them by His word, regenerates, converts etc.
III. Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated, and saved by Christ, through the Spirit,[12] who worketh when, and where, and how he pleaseth:[13] so also are all other elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.[14]
12. Gen. 17:7; Luke 1:15; 18:15-16; Acts 2:39; John 3:3, 5; I John 5:12
13. John 3:8
14. John 16:7-8; I John 5:12; Acts 4:12
Two contrary views holding to the salvation of all infants are being advanced on the thread:
1.) Age of accountability - All infants are saved because they are incapable seeing God's revelation and/or unable to discern good from evil. This is plainly against the Bible. Ro 5 teaches that sin was imputed to all through the sin of Adam regardless of their choice or ability to choose. Besides, Ro 2 teaches that the things of God are revealed plainly to everyone without exception.
Psa 22:9,10 says that some newborn and pre-born babies love God and are holy to him. Though this is eminently of Christ it is a psalm of David.
Psa 58:3,4 says that babies are estranged from the womb and commit actual transgressions from birth.
2.) That God regenerates all infants dying in infancy. This view is false because there is nothing in the bible to even suggest it. It is a purely contrived notion. All our conceptions of God and religion must be from scripture. The bible may say that the children of believers are covenantally holy but not those of athiests, mohammedans, jews, and other infidels.
1.) Age of accountability - All infants are saved because they are incapable seeing God's revelation and/or unable to discern good from evil. This is plainly against the Bible. Ro 5 teaches that sin was imputed to all through the sin of Adam regardless of their choice or ability to choose. Besides, Ro 2 teaches that the things of God are revealed plainly to everyone without exception.
Psa 22:9,10 says that some newborn and pre-born babies love God and are holy to him. Though this is eminently of Christ it is a psalm of David.
Psa 58:3,4 says that babies are estranged from the womb and commit actual transgressions from birth.
2.) That God regenerates all infants dying in infancy. This view is false because there is nothing in the bible to even suggest it. It is a purely contrived notion. All our conceptions of God and religion must be from scripture. The bible may say that the children of believers are covenantally holy but not those of athiests, mohammedans, jews, and other infidels.
johnrsorrell
Puritan Board Freshman
I assume then that this is the point where my alignment with Lordship Salvation would come into play and I would disagree, to an extent, with this point of the confession.
johnrsorrell
Puritan Board Freshman
WOW, that was harsh. How is it "almost Pelagian"? I am not denying that all WILL sin and have received the curse OF sin from Adam. I am asserting my belief that original sin is different than actual sin.
johnrsorrell
Puritan Board Freshman
Let me re-quote my MacArthur post:
How do you answer this?
doulosChristou
Puritan Board Freshman
Good form, Scott. Now, while you are in a frame to take back things you have asserted rashly, perhaps you'd be willing to take back the statement that yours is the Reformed position by at least admitting that you are no longer sure what the Reformed position is, since you need to check with Matt as to whether any Reformed theologians actually believe what you assert.
Again, from the Reformed position, there are two answers to the fate of the infants who died in the flood, etc. The first (Calvin, Newton, A. A. Hodge, Charles Hodge, Warfield, Boettner, etc.) would say that these infants are definitely in heaven. The second group (Gill & Berkhof, for example) would say that we do not have enough Scriptural evidence to say for certain. Personally, I lean toward the second group, though I sympathize with Calvin's view.
As I understand it Pelagius' view of OS was that Adam's posterity sinned by imitating his sin. If I read you correctly, your view is that the OS caused the corruption of the will to be imputed but not the guilt of Adam's sin. If this is incorrect I apologize, if not it is a very serious departure from orthodoxy.
johnrsorrell
Puritan Board Freshman
No, no, no...I agree with what you said. However, how to you define "guilt?"
- Status
