Do Calvinist believe That The Children of Elected parents Will be Auto Saved?

[JesusFan]

Is the teaching taken from Bible where says that 1 beieving spouse sactifies the house, and children will be saved?

Is the belief than that IF Parents have been elected/chosen by God to be saved, than their children are assumed to be elected also?

So that can only assume saved parents have elected kids, while those Parents not saved will not have sanctifing power over them to save?

 

[StefanM]

Is the teaching taken from Bible where says that 1 beieving spouse sactifies the house, and children will be saved?

Is the belief than that IF Parents have been elected/chosen by God to be saved, than their children are assumed to be elected also?

So that can only assume saved parents have elected kids, while those Parents not saved will not have sanctifing power over them to save?

Generally, this is not interpreted as meaning that the children will be saved. The most common reformed position is that this passage refers to experience of the blessings of the covenant applying to members of the household. Much like in the OT, children of believing parents have a blessing due to their family's participation in the covenant that children of unbelieving parents do not experience.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Generally, this is not interpreted as meaning that the children will be saved. The most common reformed position is that this passage refers to experience of the blessings of the covenant applying to members of the household. Much like in the OT, children of believing parents have a blessing due to their family's participation in the covenant that children of unbelieving parents do not experience.

Can you point to any passage of scripture that substantiates it. I personally believe that it's not there, but I could be wrong.

 

[Iconoclast]

God many times in scripture works in households.....but it is not a flat out guarantee of salvation,
Christians marry christians with the idea of establishing a covenant home, the children being blessed by having believing parents indwelt by the Spirit,praying and instructing them about saving faith.

14Yet ye say, Wherefore? Because the LORD hath been witness between thee and the wife of thy youth, against whom thou hast dealt treacherously: yet is she thy companion, and the wife of thy covenant.

15And did not he make one? Yet had he the residue of the spirit. And wherefore one? That he might seek a godly seed. Therefore take heed to your spirit, and let none deal treacherously against the wife of his youth.

 

[Van]

Hi Jesusfan, I do not know how you come up with so many interesting topics. But it's great!

1 Corinthians 7:14 says, (NASB) "For the unbelieving husband is sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified through her believing husband, for otherwise you children are unclean, but now they are holy." I think the concept is holy matrimony, and if either spouse is a believer, then the marriage is holy, set apart and the children are holy, the product of a holy marriage, and are not bastards in the eyes of God. Yes we should marry believers, but if a person comes to faith after they are married, God blesses that marriage through the believing spouse.

This passage does not support the false doctrine that God arranges that any elect parent gives life to only elect children.

 

[StefanM]

Can you point to any passage of scripture that substantiates it. I personally believe that it's not there, but I could be wrong.

See the verse Van quoted.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Hi Jesusfan, I do not know how you come up with so many interesting topics. But it's great!

1 Corinthians 7:14 says, (NASB) "For the unbelieving husband is sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified through her believing husband, for otherwise you children are unclean, but now they are holy." I think the concept is holy matrimony, and if either spouse is a believer, then the marriage is holy, set apart and the children are holy, the product of a holy marriage, and are not bastards in the eyes of God. Yes we should marry believers, but if a person comes to faith after they are married, God blesses that marriage through the believing spouse.

This passage does not support the false doctrine that God arranges that any elect parent gives life to only elect children.

I agree with this & the only people Ive seen who think this way & make these claims are Hyper Calvinists who I deplore.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

There might be less threads if people actually read what the Reformed churches in history wrote. Did anyone read the Canons of Dort?

Article 17: The Salvation of the Infants of Believers

Since we must make judgments about God's will from his Word, which testifies that the children of believers are holy, not by nature but by virtue of the gracious covenant in which they together with their parents are included, godly parents ought not to doubt the election and salvation of their children whom God calls out of this life in infancy.

http://www.reformed.org/documents/i...w.reformed.org/documents/canons_of_dordt.html

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

There might be less threads if people actually read what the Reformed churches in history wrote. Did anyone read the Canons of Dort?



http://www.reformed.org/documents/i...w.reformed.org/documents/canons_of_dordt.html

No ....have you read "Institutes" Cover to cover?

That is why we need educated pastors....to clarify. Glad your going to school.

BTW....I was looking for scriptural proof text. Will dig deeper

NOTE: Article 17 has NO scriptural reference to support the claim.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

No ....have you read "Institutes" Cover to cover?

That is why we need educated pastors....to clarify. Glad your going to school.

BTW....I was looking for scriptural proof text. Will dig deeper

I meant my reply specifically for the OP and non-calvinists. I get a little tired of the questions that have been answered by confessions and councils.

I have looked into the subject of infant salvation. The reality is, we can draw inferences from Scripture, but there is nothing I can think of that comes right out and says all infants are elect. But we have solid reasons to believe so.

The best message I have seen so far on the subject, applying sound biblical teaching to the question, is from Spurgeon: http://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/0411.htm

Sorry if I offended you with my reply.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

I meant my reply specifically for the OP and non-calvinists. I get a little tired of the questions that have been answered by confessions and councils.

I have looked into the subject of infant salvation. The reality is, we can draw inferences from Scripture, but there is nothing I can think of that comes right out and says all infants are elect. But we have solid reasons to believe so.

The best message I have seen so far on the subject, applying sound biblical teaching to the question, is from Spurgeon: http://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/0411.htm

Sorry if I offended you with my reply.

Brother RB, no you did not offend me & I hope I wasnt being curt with you. I struggle with doctrine & interpretations all the time & as Martyn Lloyd-Jones, a very great man & theologian taught me is to filter everything through scripture....and then pray that the Holy Spirit enlightens you, so thats how I do it. Thats just me....I in turn apologize if I was being abrupt or curt. That wasnt my intent.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Brother RB, no you did not offend me & I hope I wasnt being curt with you. I struggle with doctrine & interpretations all the time & as Martyn Lloyd-Jones, a very great man & theologian taught me is to filter everything through scripture....and then pray that the Holy Spirit enlightens you, so thats how I do it. Thats just me....I in turn apologize if I was being abrupt or curt. That wasnt my intent.

No problems brother. If you learn anything on this in your Bible study, do let us know. I'd be interested in what the Lord may show you.

 

[Van]

Does 2 Samuel 12:23 support the salvation of babies who die when a week old? The argument put forth is since David said he would go to him. The assumption here is David was referring to Abraham's bosom, and not simply joining him in the grave. But Jacob said something similar, I will go down to Sheol in mourning for my Son. And scripture says if you do not believe in Him you are condemned already in unbelief. All babies are condemned already.

If we consider the actual foundation, it is conjecture without biblical support (1) Election of individual foreseen babies, (2) they are given faith irresistibly without hearing the gospel and (3)God is love and would not condemn the babies of the elect.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Does 2 Samuel 12:23 support the salvation of babies who die when a week old? The argument put forth is since David said he would go to him. The assumption here is David was referring to Abraham's bosom, and not simply joining him in the grave. But Jacob said something similar, I will go down to Sheol in mourning for my Son. And scripture says if you do not believe in Him you are condemned already in unbelief. All babies are condemned already.

If we consider the actual foundation, it is conjecture without biblical support (1) Election of individual foreseen babies, (2) they are given faith irresistibly without hearing the gospel and (3)God is love and would not condemn the babies of the elect.

Did you read through Spurgeon's sermon?

 

[JesusFan]

There might be less threads if people actually read what the Reformed churches in history wrote. Did anyone read the Canons of Dort?





http://www.reformed.org/documents/i...w.reformed.org/documents/canons_of_dordt.html

Interesting...

ANY references to Biblical texts to support this notion?
Does this mean babies are regenerated by God, than come to saving faith Years later?
Does this mean those kids from unsaved parents have little hope to get saved than?

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Interesting...

ANY references to Biblical texts to support this notion?
Does this mean babies are regenerated by God, than come to saving faith Years later?
Does this mean those kids from unsaved parents have little hope to get saved than?

What the Article from the Synod shows is what they believed. I think that it is important to know what historical calvinists believed on the matter so as not to misrepresent them, or to recognize if a calvinist today is saying something different.

No one asked if I agreed with the Synod, but I will answer yes, I do. But I am of the opinion the that all infants who die in infancy are elect.

If you really want a full treatment of the subject, please read Spurgeon's sermon on it.

 

[webdog]

There might be less threads if people actually read what the Reformed churches in history wrote. Did anyone read the Canons of Dort?



http://www.reformed.org/documents/i...w.reformed.org/documents/canons_of_dordt.html

What "gracious covenant" does not include salvation by grace through faith? According to this...election is salvation, not unto salvation what most calvinists vehemently claim.

This just goes to show historic calvinists were just as wrong as modern day calvinists

 

[ReformedBaptist]

What "gracious covenant" does not include salvation by grace through faith? According to this...election is salvation, not unto salvation what most calvinists vehemently claim.

This just goes to show historic calvinists were just as wrong as modern day calvinists

While I am not an expert on the Canons of Dort or the history of the Dutch Reformed churches, it would seem to me that they would be referring to the Covenant of Grace.

It is not the Calvinists that have the issue with regard to infant salvation, its the Arminian system, or the non-calvinist that appeals to innocence for the acceptance of the child.

If the Arminian holds that infants are saved by the Lord Jesus, then they have exhibited a salvation in the case of infants in a non-Arminian theology.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

What "gracious covenant" does not include salvation by grace through faith? According to this...election is salvation, not unto salvation what most calvinists vehemently claim.

This just goes to show historic calvinists were just as wrong as modern day calvinists

Seriously, never honestly read Dort.....my study was of 1689 & Westminster. They were more relevant though I dont subscribe to them....rather scripture & the HS are my guidelines.

 

[webdog]

The covenant of grace includes faith, and according to Scripture faith comes by hearing (understanding) and that from the Word of God which is something an infant is not capable of. Oh, I do realize there are some that maintain that an infant can have faith and will defer to John the Baptist leaping in Martha's womb as proof, but I don't buy that great leap in logic.

If anything, according to Augustine every infant would perish as they are dead in their sin (not sure which transgression of God's law they could have committed, but that's another topic).

If we take the false prsupposition of "original guilt" out of the equation, an infant would be found not guilty in the same manner a spiritually dead person who commits their life to Christ would.