Bladestunner316
Puritan Board Doctor
Thank You Dan. I agree.
Blade
Blade
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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?).Originally posted by jdlongmire
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Originally posted by Larry Hughes
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. 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?
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."
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.
SOME - probably MOST - of the children of the Flood, etc are not Elect.
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.
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.
I can't know my fate? What is faith?
Originally posted by jdlongmire
The good thing is - God will send someone that understands Love, Grace and Mercy to open their eyes to His salvation through Christ.
Originally posted by doulosChristou
Originally posted by Scott Bushey
The reformed position is that there are some elect infants and there are some reprobate.
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.
Originally posted by Scott Bushey
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
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."
1Co 1:18 For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.
1Co 1:19 For it is written, "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart."
1Co 1:20 Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?
1Co 1:21 For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe.
1Co 1:22 For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom,
1Co 1:23 but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles,
1Co 1:24 but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.
1Co 1:25 For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
1Co 2:1 And I, when I came to you, brothers, did not come proclaiming to you the testimony of God with lofty speech or wisdom.
1Co 2:2 For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified.
1Co 2:3 And I was with you in weakness and in fear and much trembling,
1Co 2:4 and my speech and my message were not in plausible words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power,
1Co 2:5 that your faith might not rest in the wisdom of men but in the power of God.
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.
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.
Originally posted by Scott Bushey
Please define election for me?
Originally posted by Scott Bushey
"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
Originally posted by Scott Bushey
"There are babies a span long in hell." John Calvin
Originally posted by Scott Bushey
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
Originally posted by Peter
John, the wind bloweth where it listeth. The Spirit can give the new birth to whom ever it pleases. Just because an infant cannot audibly profess its faith does not mean it does not possess it. Also your view of orginial sin is almost Pelagian.
Originally posted by Peter
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.
"Another interesting thing that occurs numerous times in the Old Testament, is that children are referred to, and those children who die, as well, are referred to as "innocent," and the Hebrew word that is used for "innocent" is used numerous times in the Old Testament, refer to "not being guilty"--literally, "being taken to court and found 'not guilty.'" In fact, you remember, that it refers to the babies that were passed through the fire to Moloch [false god] as the "innocents", so I believe that God, prior to the "Age of Accountability" treats them as "innocent." It doesn't mean that they are no fallen; doesn't mean that they are not sinful--it does mean that God mercifully treats them as "innocent" in spite of that, and He has to exercise grace to do that, just as He exercises grace to save those who believe."
Originally posted by Scott Bushey
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.
Originally posted by Scott Bushey
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?
Originally posted by johnrsorrell
Let me re-quote my MacArthur post:
"Another interesting thing that occurs numerous times in the Old Testament, is that children are referred to, and those children who die, as well, are referred to as "innocent," and the Hebrew word that is used for "innocent" is used numerous times in the Old Testament, refer to "not being guilty"--literally, "being taken to court and found 'not guilty.'" In fact, you remember, that it refers to the babies that were passed through the fire to Moloch [false god] as the "innocents", so I believe that God, prior to the "Age of Accountability" treats them as "innocent." It doesn't mean that they are no fallen; doesn't mean that they are not sinful--it does mean that God mercifully treats them as "innocent" in spite of that, and He has to exercise grace to do that, just as He exercises grace to save those who believe."
How do you answer this?
Originally posted by Peter
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.