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

Fifty days after the resurrection of Jesus Christ the firstborn of the dead, Peter told at least three thousand plus people that the prophet and king David was at that time both dead and buried and his sepulchre is with us unto this day. After establishing exactly where David is he makes the point that being David is still dead and buried that is his soul is in hell (Hades) he,
David was prophesying of Jesus Christ that his soul was not left in hell (Hades) neither his flesh did see corruption why because the soul of Jesus had been raised from hell (Hades) and neither did his body see corruption.

Where do you think the infant son of David was on that day?

 

Lorraine Boettner also touched on the subject in his book, "Reformed Doctrine of Predestination."

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/boettner/predest.iv.iii.xi.html

 

With Christ. It's baffling to think you believe David was in Hell if you mean any place other than his body being in the grave.

 

Your conclusion with regard to original sin is correct. Therefore, the Calvinist system is fine with regard to infant salvation. Please read Boettner and Spurgeon on this.

 

I've read both. I do not buy into the special dispensation of salvation for infants, in fact I believe it to be in great error, as it frustrates the very clear requirement for salvation. Salvation for those dead in their sins and trespasses is by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. Remove faith from the equation and there is no salvation.

 

Boettner reasons:

 

I think Boettner's reasoning is sound. Spurgeon and Boettner are reasoning that an infant is saved as we...rooted and grounded in the eternal decree of God, manifest in time by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone.

The question is raised as to how an infant has faith. Since our faith is not of ourselves, but the gift of God, then why can they not also be quickened by His Spirit while dead in their trespasses and sins, and so made alive, believe on Him whom they see?

 

Boettner starts with the false presupposition that Augustinian original sin is truth, and based on that perceived "truth", Arminianism has problems. I would agree with that...if Augustinian original sin were truth, which I don't believe it is.

 

That begs the question as it also assumes the "elect" are given this nebulous gift of saving faith. It's not the trait of faith that saves..it's the object of our faith that saves.

We know what is required of a human to have faith. It's fiction to believe an infant can meet this requirement.

 

Original sin is a biblical doctrine. And I would expect someone such as Boettner to reject the notions of Pelagianism.

But the point is made. Should you understand the doctine of orginal sin to be as it is, a biblical doctrine, then you would find the Calvinist view consistent.

 

We have no need to amend our doctrines to conform to our ideas. The Scriptures teach, as so many have shown, the doctrines which you reject. And what we are showing here is that they are consistent with the question of infant salvation.

 

If by biblical doctrine you mean it is contrived from the Bible, I agree. If by biblical doctrine you mean absolute truth, I disagree Augustine's position is truth.

The pelagianism tag is quite tiresome. One can share a point with an opposing doctrine without being an adherent. Case in point, you agree with Roman catholics on Augustine's position. I have yet to call you a Roman Catholic.

We were doing so well without the ad hominem, but oh well. Has it occurred to you that I do understand the doctrine of original sin as defined by Augustine, but merely reject it?
I do find the calvinist view consistent. The view is quite consistent at building doctrine on false presuppositions.

 

...to the above bolded: yet that is what the entire doctrine is built on, "ideas".

News flash: I agree with Scripture. I reject YOUR understanding of what Scripture teaches. Monumental difference. The only thing more tiresome than the pelgaian accusation is the "if you disagree with me, you disagree with the Bible (or God)" reasoning quite common here. Statements like this stem from pride and thinking we have it all figured out in a nice packaged theology with a pretty bow on top.

 

By biblical doctrine I mean its the teaching of the Bible. I understand you disagree that it is the teaching of the Bible.

As tiresome as the Pelagian tag may be to some, it rerferences a system of belief that is rightly pertinant to the discussion. Since you reject the doctrine of orginal sin, I have no idea what concept you hold...since you seem by your offense to reject the beliefs of Pelagius. What then? (and no, I am not going to review all your posts. either state your belief, or not). If I recall, you have not either created or layed your name to any confession of your faith.

There was no ad hom in my reply. I am not trying to discredit your argument by attacking your character. I think the views you hold are not biblical doctrines. My point stands then, by your admission, that the view is consistent. I grant that you think the doctrines are false...who wouldn't...you have admitted to your rejection of them.

It should be granted also that those who believe doctrines to be biblical, should then believe them to be from the Bible. Therefore, I will not refer to it as Augustinian as though it sprung from Augustine. The same is true of John Calvin. Calvinism is just a name that has come into to use, but I care little for the appalation. What you call Calvinism, and by consequence of the label I have used the term, I call the Gospel of the grace of God.

 

The answer is "He has". Scripture teaches that we are dead (spiritually) in OUR trespasses and sins...not Adam's. We die (physically) in Adam due to the curse and stain of sin on all creation (Animals die, are they sinners?), but we are branded sinners due to OUR sin.

 

Your reasoning renders the perspecuity of Scripture meaningless. You would have us all to speak in terms, "Well, I believe the Bible teaches.." such that nothing is taught absolutely.

What we have, in fact, is "Thus saith the Lord..." And I am rather content when it comes to the doctrines of grace to give the same admonishment the Apostle Paul does, "Who are you O man, to reply against God..."

It is not the one who proclaims the absolutes of Holy Scripture that has the issue of pride. But rather, the one who is made himself and enemy of God's doctrine has the issue.

 

I add my hearty "Amen" to this.