Tom Butler
New Member
I would speculate that it is Limited Atonement. However, most non-Cals have trouble with Irresistible Grace. It messes up their view of free will.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
N-C's Really Agree With Much of Calvinism
- Thread starter Rippon
- Start date
- Status
Jeremiah 19:5
5 and have built the high places of Baal to burn their sons in the fire as burnt offerings to Baal, a thing which I never commanded or spoke of, nor did it ever enter My mind;
Free will exists but God is sovereign over all things according to His will.
Both Calvinism and Arminianism are very one sided. I lean towards a more Arminian point of view, but am not absolute in it because neither fully explain everything. Nor will I use either one to "filter" the Bible. There are instances of mans free will and Gods sovereign control.
Calvinism tends to have to back pedal too much and Arminianism lacks explanation often.
If you want to make a Calvinist squirm, ask them what happens to the soul of an infant when they die. But I think there is a whole thread on this somewhere.
5 and have built the high places of Baal to burn their sons in the fire as burnt offerings to Baal, a thing which I never commanded or spoke of, nor did it ever enter My mind;
Free will exists but God is sovereign over all things according to His will.
Both Calvinism and Arminianism are very one sided. I lean towards a more Arminian point of view, but am not absolute in it because neither fully explain everything. Nor will I use either one to "filter" the Bible. There are instances of mans free will and Gods sovereign control.
Calvinism tends to have to back pedal too much and Arminianism lacks explanation often.
If you want to make a Calvinist squirm, ask them what happens to the soul of an infant when they die. But I think there is a whole thread on this somewhere.
Last edited by a moderator:
Tom Butler
New Member
Some squirm, some don't. We Calvinists are all over the lot on this question.
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
The Salvation of the 'Little Ones': Do Infants who Die Go to Heaven?
by R. Albert Mohler, Jr. and Daniel L. Akin
The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary
The death of an infant or young child is profoundly heartbreaking – perhaps the greatest grief a parent is called to bear. For Christian parents, there is the sure knowledge that our sovereign and merciful God is in control, but there is also a pressing question: Is our baby in heaven?
This is a natural and unavoidable question, calling for our most careful and faithful biblical study and theological reflection. The unspeakable anguish of a parent’s heart demands our honest and humble searching of the Scriptures.
Some are quick to answer this question out of sentimentality. Of course infants go to heaven, they argue, for how could God refuse a precious little one? The Universalist has a quick answer, for he believes that everyone will go to heaven. Some persons may simply suggest that elect infants go to heaven, while the non-elect do not, and must suffer endless punishment. Each of these easy answers is unsatisfactory.
Mere sentimentalism ignores the Bible’s teaching which bears on the issue. We have no right to establish doctrine on the basis of what we hope may be true. We must draw our answers from what the Bible reveals to be true.
Universalism is an unbiblical heresy. The Bible clearly teaches that we are born in sin and that God will not tolerate sinners. God has made one absolute and definitive provision for our salvation through the substitutionary atonement accomplished by Jesus Christ our Lord. Salvation comes to those who believe on. His name and confess him as Savior. The Bible teaches a dual destiny for the human race. The redeemed – those who are in Christ – will be raised to eternal life with the Father in Heaven. Those who have not believed in Christ and confessed Him as Lord will suffer eternal punishment in the fires of Hell. Universalism is a dangerous and unbiblical teaching. It offers a false promise and denies the Gospel.
The Bible reveals that we are born marked by original sin, and thus we cannot claim that infants are born in a state of innocence. Any biblical answer to the question of infant salvation must start from the understanding that infants are born with a sin nature.
The shifting of the focus to election actually avoids answering the question. We must do better, and look more closely at the issues at stake.
Throughout the centuries, the church has offered several different answers to this question. In the early church, Ambrose believed that baptized infants went to heaven, while unbaptized infants did not, though they received immunity from the pains of hell. His first error was believing in infant baptism, and thus in baptismal regeneration. Baptism does not save, and it is reserved for believers – not for infants. His second error was his indulgence in speculation. Scripture does not teach such a half-way position which denies infants admission to heaven, but saves them from the peril of hell. Augustine, the great theologian of the fourth century, basically agreed with Ambrose, and shared his understanding of infant baptism.
Others have taught that infants will have an opportunity to come to Christ after death. This position was held by Gregory of Nyssa, and is growing among many contemporary theologians, who claim that all, regardless of age, will have a post-mortem opportunity to confess Christ as Savior. The problem with this position is that Scripture teaches no such post-mortem opportunity. It is a figment of a theologian’s imagination, and must be rejected.
Those who divide infants into the elect and non-elect seek to affirm the clear and undeniable doctrine of divine election. The Bible teaches that God elects persons to salvation from eternity, and that our salvation is all of grace. At first glance, this position appears impregnable in relation to the issue of infant salvation – a simple statement of the obvious. A second glance, however, reveals a significant evasion. What if all who die in infancy are among the elect? Do we have a biblical basis for believing that all persons who die in infancy are among the elect?
We believe that Scripture does indeed teach that all persons who die in infancy are among the elect. This must not be based only in our hope that it is true, but in a careful reading of the Bible. We start with the biblical affirmations we have noted already. First, the Bible reveals that we are "brought forth in iniquity,"(1) and thus bear the stain of original sin from the moment of our conception. Thus, we face squarely the sin problem. Second, we acknowledge that God is absolutely sovereign in salvation. We do not deserve salvation, and can do nothing to earn our salvation, and thus it is all of grace. Further we understand that our salvation is established by God’s election of sinners to salvation through Christ. Third, we affirm that Scripture teaches that Jesus Christ is the sole and sufficient Savior, and that salvation comes only on the basis of His blood atonement. Fourth, we affirm that the Bible teaches a dual eternal destiny – the redeemed to Heaven, the unredeemed to Hell.
Continued below:
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
Continued:
The Salvation of the 'Little Ones': Do Infants who Die Go to Heaven?
by R. Albert Mohler, Jr. and Daniel L. Akin
The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary
What, then is our basis for claiming that all those who die in infancy are among the elect? First, the Bible teaches that we are to be judged on the basis of our deeds committed "in the body."(2) That is, we will face the judgment seat of Christ and be judged, not on the basis of original sin, but for our sins committed during our own lifetimes. Each will answer "according to what he has done,"(3) and not for the sin of Adam. The imputation of Adam’s sin and guilt explains our inability to respond to God without regeneration, but the Bible does not teach that we will answer for Adam’s sin. We will answer for our own. But what about infants? Have those who die in infancy committed such sins in the body? We believe not.
One biblical text is particularly helpful at this point. After the children of Israel rebelled against God in the wilderness, God sentenced that generation to die in the wilderness after forty years of wandering. "Not one of these men, this evil generation, shall see the good land which I swore to give your fathers."(4) But this was not all. God specifically exempted young children and infants from this sentence, and even explained why He did so: "Moreover, your little ones who you said would become prey, and your sons, who this day have no knowledge of good and evil, shall enter there, and I will give it to them and they shall possess it."(5)The key issue here is that God specifically exempted from the judgment those who "have no knowledge of good or evil" because of their age. These "little ones" would inherit the Promised Land, and would not be judged on the basis of their fathers’ sins.
We believe that this passage bears directly on the issue of infant salvation, and that the accomplished work of Christ has removed the stain of original sin from those who die in infancy. Knowing neither good nor evil, these young children are incapable of committing sins in the body – are not yet moral agents – and die secure in the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ.
John Newton, the great minister who wrote the hymn Amazing Grace was certain of this truth. He wrote to close friends who had lost a young child:"I hope you are both well reconciled to the death of your child. I cannot be sorry for the death of infants. How many storms do they escape! Nor can I doubt, in my private judgment, that they are included in the election of grace."(6) The great Princeton theologians Charles Hodge and B. B. Warfield held the same position.
One of the most eloquent and powerful expressions of this understanding of infant salvation came from the heart of Charles Spurgeon. Preaching to his own congregation, Spurgeon consoled grieving parents: "Now, let every mother and father here present know assuredly that it is well with the child, if God hath taken it away from you in its infant days."(7)Spurgeon turned this conviction into an evangelistic call. "Many of you are parents who have children in heaven. Is it not a desirable thing that you should go there, too? He continued: "Mother, unconverted mother, from the battlements of heaven your child beckons you to Paradise. Father, ungodly, impenitent father, the little eyes that once looked joyously on you, look down upon you now, and the lips which scarcely learned to call you father, ere they were sealed by the silence of death, may be heard as with a still small voice, saying to you this morning, ‘Father, must we be forever divided by the great gulf which no man can pass?’ Doth not nature itself put a sort of longing in your soul that you may be bound in the bundle of life with your own children?"
Jesus instructed his disciples that they should "Permit the children to come to Me; do not hinder them; for the Kingdom of God belongs to such as these."(8) We believe that our Lord graciously and freely received all those who die in infancy – not on the basis of their innocence or worthiness – but by his grace, made theirs through the atonement He purchased on the cross.
When we look into the grave of one of these little ones, we do not place our hope and trust in the false promises of an unbiblical theology, in the instability of sentimentalism, in the cold analysis of human logic, nor in the cowardly refuge of ambiguity.
We place our faith in Christ, and trust Him to be faithful to his Word. We claim the promises of the Scriptures and the assurance of the grace of our Lord. We know that heaven will be filled with those who never grew to maturity on earth, but in heaven will greet us completed in Christ. Let us resolve by grace to meet them there.
Endnotes:
Psalm 51:5. All biblical citations are from the New American Standard Bible .
2 Corinthians 5:10
Ibid.
Deuteronomy 1:35
Deuteronomy 1:39
John Newton, "Letter IX," The Works of John Newton (London, 1820), p. 182.
Charles H. Spurgeon, "Infant Salvation" A sermon preached September 29, 1861. Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit (London, 1861), p. 505.
Mark 10:14
R. Albert Mohler, Jr. is President and Professor of Christian Theology.
Daniel L. Akin is Vice President for Academic Administration, Dean of the School of Theology, and Associate Professor of Christian Theology.
© R. Albert Mohler, Jr. - All Rights Reserved
The Salvation of the 'Little Ones': Do Infants who Die Go to Heaven?
by R. Albert Mohler, Jr. and Daniel L. Akin
The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary
What, then is our basis for claiming that all those who die in infancy are among the elect? First, the Bible teaches that we are to be judged on the basis of our deeds committed "in the body."(2) That is, we will face the judgment seat of Christ and be judged, not on the basis of original sin, but for our sins committed during our own lifetimes. Each will answer "according to what he has done,"(3) and not for the sin of Adam. The imputation of Adam’s sin and guilt explains our inability to respond to God without regeneration, but the Bible does not teach that we will answer for Adam’s sin. We will answer for our own. But what about infants? Have those who die in infancy committed such sins in the body? We believe not.
One biblical text is particularly helpful at this point. After the children of Israel rebelled against God in the wilderness, God sentenced that generation to die in the wilderness after forty years of wandering. "Not one of these men, this evil generation, shall see the good land which I swore to give your fathers."(4) But this was not all. God specifically exempted young children and infants from this sentence, and even explained why He did so: "Moreover, your little ones who you said would become prey, and your sons, who this day have no knowledge of good and evil, shall enter there, and I will give it to them and they shall possess it."(5)The key issue here is that God specifically exempted from the judgment those who "have no knowledge of good or evil" because of their age. These "little ones" would inherit the Promised Land, and would not be judged on the basis of their fathers’ sins.
We believe that this passage bears directly on the issue of infant salvation, and that the accomplished work of Christ has removed the stain of original sin from those who die in infancy. Knowing neither good nor evil, these young children are incapable of committing sins in the body – are not yet moral agents – and die secure in the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ.
John Newton, the great minister who wrote the hymn Amazing Grace was certain of this truth. He wrote to close friends who had lost a young child:"I hope you are both well reconciled to the death of your child. I cannot be sorry for the death of infants. How many storms do they escape! Nor can I doubt, in my private judgment, that they are included in the election of grace."(6) The great Princeton theologians Charles Hodge and B. B. Warfield held the same position.
One of the most eloquent and powerful expressions of this understanding of infant salvation came from the heart of Charles Spurgeon. Preaching to his own congregation, Spurgeon consoled grieving parents: "Now, let every mother and father here present know assuredly that it is well with the child, if God hath taken it away from you in its infant days."(7)Spurgeon turned this conviction into an evangelistic call. "Many of you are parents who have children in heaven. Is it not a desirable thing that you should go there, too? He continued: "Mother, unconverted mother, from the battlements of heaven your child beckons you to Paradise. Father, ungodly, impenitent father, the little eyes that once looked joyously on you, look down upon you now, and the lips which scarcely learned to call you father, ere they were sealed by the silence of death, may be heard as with a still small voice, saying to you this morning, ‘Father, must we be forever divided by the great gulf which no man can pass?’ Doth not nature itself put a sort of longing in your soul that you may be bound in the bundle of life with your own children?"
Jesus instructed his disciples that they should "Permit the children to come to Me; do not hinder them; for the Kingdom of God belongs to such as these."(8) We believe that our Lord graciously and freely received all those who die in infancy – not on the basis of their innocence or worthiness – but by his grace, made theirs through the atonement He purchased on the cross.
When we look into the grave of one of these little ones, we do not place our hope and trust in the false promises of an unbiblical theology, in the instability of sentimentalism, in the cold analysis of human logic, nor in the cowardly refuge of ambiguity.
We place our faith in Christ, and trust Him to be faithful to his Word. We claim the promises of the Scriptures and the assurance of the grace of our Lord. We know that heaven will be filled with those who never grew to maturity on earth, but in heaven will greet us completed in Christ. Let us resolve by grace to meet them there.
Endnotes:
Psalm 51:5. All biblical citations are from the New American Standard Bible .
2 Corinthians 5:10
Ibid.
Deuteronomy 1:35
Deuteronomy 1:39
John Newton, "Letter IX," The Works of John Newton (London, 1820), p. 182.
Charles H. Spurgeon, "Infant Salvation" A sermon preached September 29, 1861. Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit (London, 1861), p. 505.
Mark 10:14
R. Albert Mohler, Jr. is President and Professor of Christian Theology.
Daniel L. Akin is Vice President for Academic Administration, Dean of the School of Theology, and Associate Professor of Christian Theology.
© R. Albert Mohler, Jr. - All Rights Reserved
I take the "I don't know" position on this myself.
Some calvinists believe that all are saved, some believe that some are saved and some believe that none are.
I lean toward the "some" are saved but the bible has so little to say about it I am just not sure.
I do believe the calvinist view is the one that gives the most hope, other than the pelagian view which is clearly false.
As to so-called free will, that is fully covered under the doctrine we label the permissive will of God, and demonstrated fully in the book of Jonah.
On infants, some churches practice infant baptism to remove original sin. Hence, the Church of England emphasized the need to baptize the infant within the first nine days of birth. Some reformed churches believe the same, whilst others believe it is a covenant promise to raise that child in the ways of the Lord.
David spoke of knowing that his child wouldbe in heaven. The truth is, we don't know and anything we offer is mere speculation. The scriptures are silent on this matter.
We do know that all the elect will be saved, and that remains God's prerogative. If someone offers concrete evidence otherwise, I suggest that concrete is gravely cracked, and offers little hope.
Cheers,
Jim
On infants, some churches practice infant baptism to remove original sin. Hence, the Church of England emphasized the need to baptize the infant within the first nine days of birth. Some reformed churches believe the same, whilst others believe it is a covenant promise to raise that child in the ways of the Lord.
David spoke of knowing that his child wouldbe in heaven. The truth is, we don't know and anything we offer is mere speculation. The scriptures are silent on this matter.
We do know that all the elect will be saved, and that remains God's prerogative. If someone offers concrete evidence otherwise, I suggest that concrete is gravely cracked, and offers little hope.
Cheers,
Jim
As far as infant death goes, the Bible is pretty well silent but for one hint having to do with David. I think the best article I have seen on it happened to come from a Calvinist, none other that John MacArthur.
Deuteronomy 1:39
39'Moreover, your little ones who you said would become a prey, and your sons, who this day have no knowledge of good or evil, shall enter there, and I will give it to them and they shall possess it.
While in the wilderness the LORD did not punish the children along with the parents who sinned. But let them eventually enter the promised land because they didn't know any better.
Then became enraged at the Israelite's for sacrificing their children to Molech calling it the ""slaughter of the innocents". The Lord is a God of justice and and God of reason telling Isaiah "Come, let us reason together". I have faith that His decision will always be for the best.
Deuteronomy 1:39
39'Moreover, your little ones who you said would become a prey, and your sons, who this day have no knowledge of good or evil, shall enter there, and I will give it to them and they shall possess it.
While in the wilderness the LORD did not punish the children along with the parents who sinned. But let them eventually enter the promised land because they didn't know any better.
Then became enraged at the Israelite's for sacrificing their children to Molech calling it the ""slaughter of the innocents". The Lord is a God of justice and and God of reason telling Isaiah "Come, let us reason together". I have faith that His decision will always be for the best.
The "slaughter of the innocents" also puts a crimp into Augustinian Original Sin as well.
Since Scripture is full of instances where God's grace has been resisted, Irresistible Grace (or the lack thereof) doesn't affect free will at all.saturneptune
New Member
Instead of carry around your handy dandy man written books, why don't you depend on Scripture to defend your positions?
You just cannot help yourself. You always put Calvin up on a pedestal, don't you? Even to the degree of saying "those who disagree with most of his postions is not a Christian." How about just once using the Bible as a standard instead of John Calvin? If it was not for the constraining rules of Baptist Board, you would be calling everyone either a heretic, lost, or an unbeliever.
As has been pointed out before, you do the doctrines of sovereignty and grace no favors.
Tom Butler
New Member
With regard to infants, I share Dr. Mohler's view expressed in posts 145-6.
You show your ignorance of my posts.
No, I don't. But you waste your declining energy to demean him. There are a number of threads in which I haven't even mentioned him -- then you strenously try to slander him.
Well, if you would be a bit more honest about this-- you would end up agreeing with me. That booklet of Calvin's on the Christian life is saturated with scriptural injunctions. If a real Christian of non-Calvinistic convictions would actually read all of it -- they could not possibly disagree with even 10% of the contents.
And Tom Butler is your friend?!
You plainly are just here to cause a stir. look through my threads (even ones you have participated in) and see if I use the Bible as my standard or not. You love casting slurs.
And you my small-minded one,are cruising for a brusing. I harbor no such notions. You are one sick puppy with issues galore. You have issues which have nothing to do with me. as you once said regarding to yourself -- you're a loose cannon.
saturneptune
New Member
As usual, you are very good at calling names and very short on substance. As long as posters like you call or imply 4 pointers, 3 pointers or whatever degree towards being an Arminian they are, heretics or lost because they do not agree with you, then you will be made aware of it. Personally, I could care less what names you call me. I care lots about the damage you do to the character of other posters.
You called yourself a loose cannon. (BTW, you did not say this or other things to me in a PM. You said these things freely in public posts.)You have freely tossed ad homs in my direction every chance you get. You say untrue things at every opportunity.
Why don't you actually read my posts before saying something so assine?
Why do insist on popping up on my threads and saying absolutely nothing of substance on the subject-at-hand? You say completely untrue things to try to stir things up.
Please read my posts before you say the things you typically do.
There you go again saying false things about me. There is not one scintilla of truth in what you said -- and you know it, yet insist on repeating your mantra.
Did you bother to read my posts on this thread? The point of this thread is that non-Calvinists actually agree with much Calvinistic doctrine. Is that being divisive?! I started off with the Westminster Confession of Faith. Most of its contents are in agreement with what a true Christian of a non-Calvinistic perspective would endorse.
I then mentioned that booklet by Calvin on the Christian life. If people would actually read before making wild accusations (are you listening SN?) there would actually be a degree of harmony between calvinists and non-Calvinists.
If you could care less means you have the capacity to care more thus negating your real message.
You are a false accuser -- and that's a fact. Engage in truth-telling for a change.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Status