Do you have a problem with Calvinism?

One thing to remember, a soul is a soul, and a soul may be theoretically reprobate regardless of age or disposition.

Having said this, we cannot ascertain of certainty, by any scripture, the destiny of infants, infirm or those without mental capacity to receive faith knowlegably. We base our understanding rather on the revealed nature of God, and hence believe that all infant children, infirm and mentally challenged to fall under the umbrella of faith imbued by the Holy Spirit.

This concept accomodates both Arminian and Calvinist, and does not interrupt either theological thought.

This is the thought that struck me some 52 years ago when, as a young minister, I was faced with the death of a young couple's infant child. They asked me directly if their child would be in heaven. I could not answer the question immediately, but did so in short order. My mind has not changed in all these years.

Cheers,

Jim

 

Differing with Jim and many, and for the record, I think the Bible does indeed speak a number of times about the destiny of infants. Matthew 18 and Romans 7:7-11 come immediately to mind. The children have sin natures but cannot yet be held accountable for what they do. Without the law, sin is dead and cannot separate the infant from God. The sin nature itself is covered by the sacrifice of Jesus as the sacrifice for unknown sins.

And over and over again, Jesus told us to become as little children, that their angels always see the face of the Father in heaven, and that we should in no way stop any one of them from going to Jesus or cause one to sin. In other words, little ones certainly can sin, but it would be one of us that is the cause apart from a sin nature they are no way responsible for and therefore cannot be held accountable for.

I am just as accountable for the freckles on my face. They are just there and were bequeathed by my genetic heritage. Our sin natures are bequeathed to us and there is nothing we can do about that. To hold someone accountable for something they cannot do anything about is bizarre and a travesty of everything God has revealed to us about the concepts of justice and mercy.

It is when a person knows the law that sin, in Paul's words' springs to life and the person dies spiritually -- is separated from God. He says that so clearly, and also emphasizes the role of knowledge of the law in Romans 2.

We all, as Christians, count on God to cover our unknown sins via Christ's sacrifice. Who honestly would think to deny a baby the same thing we ourselves count on from Him?

Yes, I know all the Calvinists disagree, and pretty vehemently, too! But for the sake of anyone new to this reading here, I wanted to present how the Bible puts it. Please read Matthew 19 and Romans -- all of it! But when you get to 7:7-11, pay close attention to what Paul is saying.

Thank you.

 

Preach, once people are at least past their turbulent teens, they start to understand the law. It has nothing to do with conversion. It has to do with maturity and the understanding of right and wrong for the sake of right and wrong that cannot be stopped by anyone keeping anyone else in intentional ignorance.

Paul is not talking about his conversion. He is talking about a time when he was alive in the Lord before he knew the law. This is directly relevant to this thread because it directly implies that babies are not spiritually dead, as they do not yet know the law, sin nature or not.

Paul says that when the law came, sin itself sprang to life -- he sinned deliberately and knowingly because he wanted to sin (Gen. 8:21). At this point of chosen, active rebellion against God, he was separated from God, or died spiritually.

The entire idea of a REnewed spirit, means it was new at one point and then sullied or damaged. You cannot use renew otherwise.

Look at what Paul wrote Titus (3:3-7)
At one time we too were foolish, disobedient, deceived and enslaved by all kinds of passions and pleasures. We lived in malice and envy, being hated and hating one another. But when the kindness and love of God our Savior appeared, he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, whom he poured out on us generaously through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that, having been justified by his grace, we might become heirs having the hope of eternal life.

Or the famous Psalm 51:10:
Create in me a clean heart, O God, and renew a right spirit within me.

This is a prayer for salvation. The entire Psalm is a salvation plea! The clean heart must be created -- bara -- brand new, not simply rearranged from the old one.

And the spirit must be renewed. Once it was right and new. But no longer. Now it must be REnewed.

That is Paul's point in Romans 7, too.

All of which is saying, again, that the babies are quite safe with the Lord. Their spirits are still new. They may have sin natures, but their spirits are not yet damaged.

 

These are the types of comments that are both prejudicial and offensive. It is not as if the calvinist position (or positions is probably more accurate) is not supported by the Bible. It is simply that you are persuaded that the Bible means something different with respect to this topic. However, in other places, I pointed out some serious flaws with your interpretation particularly of Rom 7:7-11. If you are right, we are all in big trouble ...

 

Helen simply has a different understanding of how the sin nature is handled in soteriology from us Calvinists.

I believe her view to be erroneous, but let's all try to be courteous in how we state our opposition to others' viewpoints. We recently had a terrible episode of "spiritually mud wrestling" in the Calvinism/Arminianism Forum, which we have providentially put behind us. Let's not go down the same "spiritual mud wrestling" path here.

None of us has all of our theological ducks in their correct Biblical rows. After all, we are still in the flesh and are still struggling with our inherited sin nature.

Ken

[ November 14, 2002, 03:49 PM: Message edited by: Ken Hamilton ]

 

I will clarify what I meant:

We are still in the flesh and our bodies have not been renewed yet.

I believe that Romans 7 is Paul talking about his current state as a believer and his continuing struggles in the flesh that all of us believers continue to have while on this earth.

Ken

[ November 14, 2002, 04:16 PM: Message edited by: Ken Hamilton ]

 

Congratulations. I am happy for you.

I wish I was in the same position as you are.

Ken

 

Then why do we sin??

 

Romans 7 is for another thread....

To all non-Calvinists, please follow Ransom's excellent advice.

Yes, Scott Bushey DID disagree with Dr. Mohler's statements about infants, but SO DID I and I still believe that infants are elect.

I think you all need to read R. C. Sproul a bit more before you start accusing him of the thing(s) you are. At worst he believes that only the infants of believers are elect.

 

What was the original question?

This is actually the Psalm written by David after he was confronted by Nathan regarding his sin with Bathsheba.

 

And the original question was.....

Respectfully, yes, but a better question might be, "have you ever known a Calvinist who didn't have a single problem with Calvinism?" I'm afraid I don't believe 100% of anything but the Bible. Therefore, I just wear the tag of "Christian" instead of Calvinist Christian, or Arminianist Christian, et al. Why do folks chose to summarize their beliefs with another name?

 

Isn't the mind the determining factor of one's nature?

Ken