Infants in Heaven

[kyredneck]

I believe that when Scripture talks about the sins of the fathers being visited on future generations it is not related to spiritual life but to our natural or human existence. For example here in South Carolina the children of Governor Sanford are certainly suffering because of their fathers sins. In North Carolina the children of Edwards are certainly suffering because of the sins of their father. If he winds up in prison it could affect more than one generation.

.....visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; Ex 20:5

I believe a good example of what is meant by this is what came upon the the children of Israel for the sins of their fathers because of the evil that they did to their brother Joseph, in that they betrayed him and sold him into bondage (Joseph is a fascinating type of Christ):

And he said unto Abram, Know of a surety that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs, and shall serve them; and they shall afflict them four hundred years; Gen 15:13

And God spake on this wise, That his seed should sojourn in a strange land; and that they should bring them into bondage, and entreat them evil four hundred years. Acts 7:6

It was exactly the fourth generation that came up out of Eygpt.

 

[webdog]

Agreed. The following may be helpful to understand Paul's statement in Romans 7:9

9. For I was alive without the law once—“In the days of my ignorance, when, in this sense, a stranger to the law, I deemed myself a righteous man, and, as such, entitled to life at the hand of God.”
but when the commandment came—forbidding all irregular desire; for the apostle sees in this the spirit of the whole law.
sin revived—“came to life”; in its malignity and strength it unexpectedly revealed itself, as if sprung from the dead.
and I died—“saw myself, in the eye of a law never kept and not to be kept, a dead man.”
Jamieson, Robert ; Fausset, A. R. ; Fausset, A. R. ; Brown, David ; Brown, David: A Commentary, Critical and Explanatory, on the Old and New Testaments.

Gee, using the commentary of someone who holds to a like position as proof text. Who would have thought it...

 

[Aaron]

*sigh* Can you not comprehend the most simple and straightforward commentaries? Lux's citation is diametrically opposed to the things you've asserted.

 

[webdog]

*sigh* Can you not comprehend the most simple and straightforward commentaries? Lux's citation is diametrically opposed to the things you've asserted.

*sigh* Can you not comprehend the most simple and straightforward writing of Paul? Lux's citation is diametrically opposed to the things Paul has asserted.

 

[Aaron]

UNCONDITIONAL ELECTION

Calvinists, of course, hold that the doctrine of original sin applies to infants as well as to adults. Like all other sons of Adam, infants are truly culpable because of race sin and might be justly punished for it. Their "salvation" is real. It is possible only through the grace of Christ and is as truly unmerited as is that of adults. Instead of minimizing the demerit and punishment due to them for original sin, Calvinism magnifies the mercy of God in their salvation. Their salvation means something, for it is the deliverance of guilty souls from eternal woe. And it is costly, for it was paid for by the suffering of Christ on the cross. Those who take the other view of original sin, namely, that it is not properly sin and does not deserve eternal punishment, make the evil from which infants are "saved" to be very small, and consequently the love and gratitude which they owe to God to be small also.

This is nothing like what Mohler said.

 

[Marcia]

Tell you what...you answer mine first...

What question?
The view you express is a non-Christian view, Webdog. I have never met a Christian that believes babies do not need redemption except here on the BB or who interprets Rom 7 the way you do. I have studied Rom 7 and discussed it many times.

Before I was saved, I did not recognize sin. Does this mean I was spiritually alive and didn't need redemption? Of course not! Not knowing what sin was and not knowing the "law" does not mean I did not need redemption. But this is what you say Rom. 7 is saying.

I just heard a sermon today on Rom. 7. Paul "died" because the law stirred up his sin that was already there - he was a sinner already but the Law is what revealed it because the Law reflects God's righteousness. The law is a mirror that shows us our sin. So when Paul sees what a sinner he is, he is in death, because the law brings death since no one can be saved by the law. But thanks be to God, he is saved because of Jesus Christ. This is the point of Rom. 7.

What you seem to be saying is that we are all born spiritually alive, not needing regeneration, and we only die when we know the law. That is your interpretation of Rom. 7, which is totally off. However, this contradicts the Bible telling us in several places, that "no one is righteous." So we know that is not what Rom 7 is saying.

 

[webdog]

What question?
The view you express is a non-Christian view, Webdog. I have never met a Christian that believes babies do not need redemption except here on the BB or who interprets Rom 7 the way you do. I have studied Rom 7 and discussed it many times.

Before I was saved, I did not recognize sin. Does this mean I was spiritually alive and didn't need redemption? Of course not! Not knowing what sin was and not knowing the "law" does not mean I did not need redemption. But this is what you say Rom. 7 is saying.

I just heard a sermon today on Rom. 7. Paul "died" because the law stirred up his sin that was already there - he was a sinner already but the Law is what revealed it because the Law reflects God's righteousness. The law is a mirror that shows us our sin. So when Paul sees what a sinner he is, he is in death, because the law brings death since no one can be saved by the law. But thanks be to God, he is saved because of Jesus Christ. This is the point of Rom. 7.

What you seem to be saying is that we are all born spiritually alive, not needing regeneration, and we only die when we know the law. That is your interpretation of Rom. 7, which is totally off. However, this contradicts the Bible telling us in several places, that "no one is righteous." So we know that is not what Rom 7 is saying.

I asked you the same question twice, I'm not going to ask it again. I'm sorry, but there is quite a few others who hold to the view that babies are not sinners. It's not being completely honest to say I'm the only person who believes that, Paul and Jesus just to name a couple (John 9:41 Jesus said, "If you were blind, you would not be guilty of sin; but now that you claim you can see, your guilt remains.)

 

[OldRegular]

Originally Posted by OldRegular [ from posts #236-238]
UNCONDITIONAL ELECTION [excerpted from The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination, by Loraine Boettner]

"Calvinists, of course, hold that the doctrine of original sin applies to infants as well as to adults. Like all other sons of Adam, infants are truly culpable because of race sin and might be justly punished for it. Their "salvation" is real. It is possible only through the grace of Christ and is as truly unmerited as is that of adults. Instead of minimizing the demerit and punishment due to them for original sin, Calvinism magnifies the mercy of God in their salvation. Their salvation means something, for it is the deliverance of guilty souls from eternal woe. And it is costly, for it was paid for by the suffering of Christ on the cross. Those who take the other view of original sin, namely, that it is not properly sin and does not deserve eternal punishment, make the evil from which infants are "saved" to be very small, and consequently the love and gratitude which they owe to God to be small also."

Response by Aaron
This is nothing like what Mohler said.

Originally Posted by OldRegular from Article By Dr. Albert Mohler [post #34]

"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."

Aaron
I said in post #236

The following article [next 2 posts] presents a Presbyterian view of the Salvation of infants. I recognize that Baptists are not Presbyterians but if it is true it is valid for Baptists. It certainly appears to be consistent with the article by Mohler.

If you cannot see that the article by Mohler is consistent with the excerpt from Boettner then you are letting your bias overcome your reason, or your ability to read, whichever!

 

[Aaron]

Mohler went on to say:

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.

Which is quite the opposite of

Calvinists, of course, hold that the doctrine of original sin applies to infants as well as to adults. Like all other sons of Adam, infants are truly culpable because of race sin and might be justly punished for it.

 

[OldRegular]

Mohler also says:

"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."

The full statement from Boettner ia as follows:

"Calvinists, of course, hold that the doctrine of original sin applies to infants as well as to adults. Like all other sons of Adam, infants are truly culpable because of race sin and might be justly punished for it. Their "salvation" is real. It is possible only through the grace of Christ and is as truly unmerited as is that of adults. Instead of minimizing the demerit and punishment due to them for original sin, Calvinism magnifies the mercy of God in their salvation."

 

[Marcia]

I asked you the same question twice, I'm not going to ask it again. I'm sorry, but there is quite a few others who hold to the view that babies are not sinners. It's not being completely honest to say I'm the only person who believes that, Paul and Jesus just to name a couple (John 9:41 Jesus said, "If you were blind, you would not be guilty of sin; but now that you claim you can see, your guilt remains.)

I do not think that you are not interpreting John 9:41 in context of the passage, the book, or the NT. Do you really think Jesus is saying that ignorance of sin means one does not need redemption? I have no other choice but to think you mean this, and that you believe people are born good, not needing redemption.

This view that people are born good is Pelagian:

...Pelagianism teaches that man's nature is basically good. Thus it denies original sin, the doctrine that we have inherited a sinful nature from Adam. He said that Adam only hurt himself when he fell and all of his descendents were not affected by Adam's sin. Pelagius taught that a person is born with the same purity and moral abilities as Adam was when he was first made by God. He taught that people can choose God by the exercise of their free will and rational thought. God's grace, then, is merely an aid to help individuals come to Him.



Pelagianism fails to understand man's nature and weakness. We are by nature sinners (Eph. 2:3; Psalm 51:5). We all have sinned because sin entered the world through Adam: "Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned" (Rom. 5:12, NIV). Furthermore, Romans 3:10-12 says, “There is none righteous, not even one; 11 There is none who understands, There is none who seeks for God; 12 All have turned aside, together they have become useless; There is none who does good, There is not even one.” Therefore, we are unable to do God's will (Rom. 6:16; 7:14). We were affected by the fall of Adam, contrary to what Pelagius taught.

http://www.carm.org/apologetics/heresies/pelagianism

 

[webdog]

I do not think that you are not interpreting John 9:41 in context of the passage, the book, or the NT. Do you really think Jesus is saying that ignorance of sin means one does not need redemption? I have no other choice but to think you mean this, and that you believe people are born good, not needing redemption.

This view that people are born good is Pelagian:


http://www.carm.org/apologetics/heresies/pelagianism

I know what a pelagian is. http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1443270&postcount=28

You are the one who is saying Jesus is speaking of ignorance. He is not, and the text is just as plain as the text in Romans 7. It's amazing what happens when you let a doctrine interpret Bible...

 

[Marcia]

You are the one who is saying Jesus is speaking of ignorance. He is not, and the text is just as plain as the text in Romans 7. It's amazing what happens when you let a doctrine interpret Bible...

If the text is so plain, why is it that I do not learn this at my church, seminary, or in any of the Bible studies I've done? I have read Romans 7 so many times, I could treat everyone on the BB to dinner if I had a dollar for every time.

So I guess the statement that "no one is righteous" is not from God?

I am therefore assuming you believe everyone is born good and spiritually regenerated.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I believe that we are made in God's image therefore can act accordingly at times though we are corrupted by sin from conception.

Psalm 51:5
5 Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me

 

[Aaron]

Mohler also says:

"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."

"Infants have done no evil and will not be judged. They, therefore merit the "grace" (which is no longer grace) of removing original sin.

It's another gospel.

The full statement from Boettner ia as follows:

"Calvinists, of course, hold that the doctrine of original sin applies to infants as well as to adults. Like all other sons of Adam, infants are truly culpable because of race sin and might be justly punished for it. Their "salvation" is real. It is possible only through the grace of Christ and is as truly unmerited as is that of adults. Instead of minimizing the demerit and punishment due to them for original sin, Calvinism magnifies the mercy of God in their salvation."

Which is the direct opposite of what Mohler said.

Mohler said infants are not due any punishment.

Boettner says they are.

Can you not see that?

I agree with Boettner, though he has a long way to go before he has proven that all infants are elect. I don't believe the infants who died in the flood found grace in the eyes of the Lord.

 

[jcjordan]

I hate not agreeing with Mohler. I really do highly respect the man. I just think that too many people think to much with their hearts on this issue rather than their head. I don't just don't think he's thought of the consequences of his statements. In Wayne Grudem's Systematic Theology, he handles this subject in his chapter on sin (chapter 23 I think), I he is the one I think has the most balanced biblical view. I just think Mohler's view gives him a lot of problems with the doctrine of imputation.

 

[OldRegular]

"Infants have done no evil and will not be judged. They, therefore merit the "grace" (which is no longer grace) of removing original sin.

It's another gospel.Which is the direct opposite of what Mohler said.

Mohler said infants are not due any punishment.

Boettner says they are.

Can you not see that?

I agree with Boettner, though he has a long way to go before he has proven that all infants are elect. I don't believe the infants who died in the flood found grace in the eyes of the Lord.

Believe what you wish. The fact is that Mohler and Boettner arrive at the same end point. Those who die in infancy are saved by the Grace of God. Can you not see that??????

By the way the statement: "Infants have done no evil and will not be judged. They, therefore merit the "grace" (which is no longer grace) of removing original sin." IS YOUR'S not Mohler's. It is BLATANTLY FALSE to STATE that Mohler claims that infants merit grace.

 

[BigBossman]

I believe that when an infant dies, they go to Heaven to be with the Lord.

 

[OldRegular]

I believe that when an infant dies, they go to Heaven to be with the Lord.

So do I! So do I!

 

[Aaron]

I believe that the elect includes all, born and unborn, who have received grace through faith.