Featured Infants in hell

What is the difference between an infant possessing sins he is not conscious of and a Totally Depraved** adult who is equally sin unconscious?


**Total Depravity means the adult lacks any capacity to acknowledge their sinfulness let alone trust in Christ for deliverance from it. Yet the adult is fully responsible for their sin and they suffer eternally for it apart from faith

 

Could you offer your own concise definition of the same as opposed to rejecting mine? Then and only then is there validity in your claim that mine is wrong.

Just a general statement. You will back it up or clarify with scriptures if required to

 

What's the difference between ordaining and allowing?

Specifically, does God allow what He does not Will or Ordained?

 

It was part of the OP; back your choice with scriptures or at least pretend to

 

It matters not whether you quote Piper,MacArthur,Sproul,Van Dyke or even Calvin himself; you will always fall short of understanding their special brand of esoteric theories.

The more I interact with this posturing, the more I'm convinced it's a lame excuse to walk away from the illogical implications of their theological conundrum

 

Time to look at history
John Calvin, Institutes Book 3, Chapter 23,Paragraph 7

Commonly called horribile decretum


I again ask how it is that the fall of Adam involves so many nations with their infant children in eternal death without remedy unless that it so seemed meet to God? Here the most loquacious tongues must be dumb. The decree, I admit, is, dreadful; and yet it is impossible to deny that God foreknew what the end of man was to be before he made him, and foreknew, because he had so ordained by his decree.
https://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/institutes.v.xxiv.html

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.creeds.net/dordt/mp1.htm

Apparently, they only bothered themselves with children (and of course infants) of believers. This restrictive take on the issue suggests infants of unbelievers are necessarily reprobated.

Westminster Confession

CHAPTER X.
Of Effectual Calling.
III. Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit, who worketh when, and where, and how he pleaseth. So also are all other elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.
http://www.reformed.org/documents/i....org/documents/westminster_conf_of_faith.html

Now this is closer to @TCassidy's position that dead infants are Elect, but there could be more than meets the eye.

Why call them Elect infants, instead of just infants? Is it that dying in infancy makes them Elect or the term distinguishes Elect infants from non-Elect infants?

The fact that the infants need regeneration and salvation by the Spirit means they were lost. It is not that death saves them from (future) corruption but rather Holy Spirit regenerating them just as He does to adults.

So God does some work(regeneration and salvation) on some infants, not all.

Conclusion
Infant Reprobabtion is not a subject that Reformers shied away from or ignored under the guise of 'mystery'

Classic Reformed Theology openly embraced Infant Reprobation because they believed their understanding of scripture demonstrated the same and also perhaps because it is the logical conclusion of their theological assumptions.

It remains to be seen whether those modern 'Reformed' believers who are busy rejecting it are aware of the implications to whatever else they cling to

 

Jonathan Edwards, The "Miscellanies," Entry Nos. a–z, aa–zz, 1–500

n. DAMNATION OF INFANTS.
One of these two things are certainly true, and self-evidently so: either that it is most just, exceeding just, that God should take the soul of a new-born infant and cast it into eternal torments, or else that those infants that are saved are not saved by the death of Christ. For none are saved by the death of Christ from damnation that have not deserved damnation
http://edwards.yale.edu/archive?pat...nZXRvYmplY3QucGw/Yy4xMjo0OjEud2plby41NjQ4NTI=

He believed in infant reprobation hence the careful distinction between Elect and non-Elect infants. The former are saved from damnation by Christ implying they are worthy of damnation to start with.

If you subscribe to Augustine's inherited corruption and guilt theories, as Calvin and his disciples did, this is the only inescapable logical conclusion.

 

I will state my position first, then ask for yours.

After this, I will be convinced you are no troll out to derail me, and I will try my best to back it with scriptures.


All infants dying in infancy are in heaven.

So Martin, what's your position?