All Have Sinned Part 2

[Tom Butler]

In the other thread, now closed I had asked webdog to point out the inconsistencies between my position on the fate of infants and my Calvinism.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Butler
Maybe you can point out the inconsistency, which I don't see.

My Calvinist buddies will have a field day, I'm sure. But any view which says infants do not go to heaven when they die won't fly with me.

Web answered
I'm sure you are aware of how TULIP is defined, right? The "T" is self explanatory. Since all reprobates were at one point infants, that kills the "L". The "U" falls with the fact if an infant is not created a sinner, only those who are found to be not guilty are in essence elected, meaning there must be a reason for this.

I define the T, Total Depravity, as one being as bad off as he can be, not as bad as he can be. Don't see a problem here.

The L, Limited (Particular) Atonement, is just that. To say the L falls requires an assumption that is not warranted. It assumes that the infant, born with a sinful nature, but not yet having sinned, is not elect and will eventually sin, and reach the point where he is so hardened he cannot be saved. The unwarranted assumption is that he will reach that point, which negates the entire proposition regarding his death as an infant.

An infant who dies cannot ever reach the point of reprobation.

Web, I'm sorry but I don't understand your point about the U--Unconditional Election. Some clarification will help. All I can say that election is not based on guilt or innocence. We'd all fail that test.

 

[webdog]

I define the T, Total Depravity, as one being as bad off as he can be, not as bad as he can be. Don't see a problem here.

How is someone created not guilty as bad off as can be compared to the view one is created a sinner?

The L, Limited (Particular) Atonement, is just that. To say the L falls requires an assumption that is not warranted. It assumes that the infant, born with a sinful nature, but not yet having sinned, is not elect and will eventually sin, and reach the point where he is so hardened he cannot be saved. The unwarranted assumption is that he will reach that point, which negates the entire proposition regarding his death as an infant.

If every infant is "elect", all reprobates at one point were infants. Where does that logically take us?

An infant who dies cannot ever reach the point of reprobation.

Aren't both the elect and reprobate chosen before the foundation of the world? If all infants are elect, and it's due to them not being guilty of sin or having reached "reprobate status", that in itself refutes the "U". Additionally, the elect are defined as believers...elect unto salvation, and you even stated they cannot have faith.

 

[jbh28]

If every infant is "elect", all reprobates at one point were infants. Where does that logically take us?

Not all infants are elect. If they were, they everyone would be elect and we know that isn't the case.

Aren't both the elect and reprobate chosen before the foundation of the world?

Yes

If all infants are elect,

there're not

and it's due to them not being guilty of sin or having reached "reprobate status", that in itself refutes the "U". Additionally, the elect are defined as believers...elect unto salvation, and you even stated they cannot have faith.

Not all infants are elect.

 

[Cypress]

Jbh,
Are all infants that die elect in your opinion?

 

[Tom Butler]

How is someone created not guilty as bad off as can be compared to the view one is created a sinner?

Because they have a sinful nature, and if they live long enough, they will sin.

If every infant is "elect", all reprobates at one point were infants. Where does that logically take us?

It would take us to universalism, which neither of us believes.
So, not all infants are elect. In the previous post, Cypress asked if all infants who die are elect. If I believe they are safe, then the consistent answer is yes. I believe that they are with the Savior. Just as David believed about his dead infant son.

Aren't both the elect and reprobate chosen before the foundation of the world? If all infants are elect, and it's due to them not being guilty of sin or having reached "reprobate status", that in itself refutes the "U". Additionally, the elect are defined as believers...elect unto salvation, and you even stated they cannot have faith.

I don't buy your premise that their election is because they are not guilty of sin. I don't know why God elects anybody, except that it is his good pleasure and gets glory for himself. I will say this: even infants, because of their sinful nature, must be objects of God's grace to enter heaven. And I believe that it is consistent with my view that the Holy Spirit regenerates sovereignly those whom He will. (Remember Jesus likened this to the wind, which blows where it wants to).

The Calvinist view, of course, is that regeneration precedes faith. The elect dead infant is the object of God's grace, is regenerated, and safe in the arms of the Savior. And, it is perfectly consistent with the U.

Web, refresh my memory. The earlier thread had more than 300 posts, and I can't remember all of yours, and I'm not inclined to re-read them. Do you believe infants who die go to heaven?

If you say yes, isn't that inconsistent with the human faith response for salvation required by your soteriology?

If no, aren't you siding with some of my Calvinist brethren?

 

[jbh28]

Jbh,
Are all infants that die elect in your opinion?

yes. I believe God has chosen to save all the babies/infants.

 

[Tom Butler]

Let me add one other comment. Although I do not believe that an infant is born sinning, I do think that he is born with Adam's sin imputed to him. In that sense, the infant is not innocent.

 

[Luke2427]

In the other thread, now closed I had asked webdog to point out the inconsistencies between my position on the fate of infants and my Calvinism.
I define the T, Total Depravity, as one being as bad off as he can be, not as bad as he can be. Don't see a problem here.

The L, Limited (Particular) Atonement, is just that. To say the L falls requires an assumption that is not warranted. It assumes that the infant, born with a sinful nature, but not yet having sinned, is not elect and will eventually sin, and reach the point where he is so hardened he cannot be saved. The unwarranted assumption is that he will reach that point, which negates the entire proposition regarding his death as an infant.

An infant who dies cannot ever reach the point of reprobation.

Web, I'm sorry but I don't understand your point about the U--Unconditional Election. Some clarification will help. All I can say that election is not based on guilt or innocence. We'd all fail that test.

Tom, I think the problem you might be having here is thinking the Arminian position gives babies a better shot at heaven.

It does not.

ONLY the DoG consistently held gives babies a shot at heaven. God does not need their choice to save them. God does not need their faith to save them. He can, and I think he does, elect them all without their participation- the same way he saves EVERYONE.

The Arminian viewpoint says salvation is synergistic- babies do not stand a chance.

The Pelagian, webdog and Willis' position, viewpoint gets all babies into heaven but it does so via heresy- teaching that men are not born sinners.

You are leaning towards the Pelagian viewpoint on this one particular matter, in my view.

 

[mets65]

Let me add one other comment. Although I do not believe that an infant is born sinning, I do think that he is born with Adam's sin imputed to him. In that sense, the infant is not innocent.

All men are sinful by nature, there is no sin age.

 

[Tom Butler]

Tom, I think the problem you might be having here is thinking the Arminian position gives babies a better shot at heaven.

It does not.

ONLY the DoG consistently held gives babies a shot at heaven. God does not need their choice to save them. God does not need their faith to save them. He can, and I think he does, elect them all without their participation- the same way he saves EVERYONE.

The Arminian viewpoint says salvation is synergistic- babies do not stand a chance.

The Pelagian, webdog and Willis' position, viewpoint gets all babies into heaven but it does so via heresy- teaching that men are not born sinners.

You are leaning towards the Pelagian viewpoint on this one particular matter, in my view.

If you'll read my post #5, I think your mind will be eased regarding my Pelagian leanings. I further clarify in post #7

 

[Tom Butler]

All men are sinful by nature, there is no sin age.

No, all men possess a sinful nature. But they are not sinners until they sin.

Definitions and terminology are important here.

Example; innocent and not guilty are not the same.

 

[mets65]

Please tell me why those definitions are important. Those definitions don't determine my salvation. We are all sinners and we are born into sin. Regardless of how you define it doesn't make it less true.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

How is someone created not guilty as bad off as can be compared to the view one is created a sinner?
If every infant is "elect", all reprobates at one point were infants. Where does that logically take us?
Aren't both the elect and reprobate chosen before the foundation of the world? If all infants are elect, and it's due to them not being guilty of sin or having reached "reprobate status", that in itself refutes the "U". Additionally, the elect are defined as believers...elect unto salvation, and you even stated they cannot have faith.

Thats why the best they can tell you is that they dont know where each individual child is. I personally went through this with 1 OPC Elder, 2 OPC Pastors, 2 PCA Pastors & 1 Reformed Pastor....all at once I might add. Again they cant say the demeanor of each child that dies because they do not know if the child was elect or non elect. There is speculation, there is hope, there are theologians who feel there is doctrine that bypasses it leading to a universalism approach, there are confessional stances that dispute it but the plain fact is that Reformed Theology cannot provide any assurance that your own child is in heaven or in hell.

Now I can tell you that my own fight was never with the Reformed faith but with the Contra Calvinist that looked back at my past sinful life & made a decision that my sins put my child in hell, but that was an argument with a bunch of heretics who distorted Doctrine to make themselves feel superior & saved. I have just recently reunited with one of these pastors who has recanted & asked for forgiveness. Religion is a living & breathing thing involving human beings with both ego's & frailties....I factor that in. God knows, I'm a sinner & I make mistakes so why wouldn't I forgive this man? My own rage at the time probably caused them to question me. All & All, my lord did bless me shortly after with a beautiful young man who is now 19 & happy & healthy & pursuing a career as a European Car Mechanic specializing in German automobiles. Praise God for that blessing.

 

[Luke2427]

Thats why the best they can tell you is that they dont know where each individual child is. I personally went through this with 1 OPC Elder, 2 OPC Pastors, 2 PCA Pastors & 1 Reformed Pastor....all at once I might add. Again they cant say the demeanor of each child that dies because they do not know if the child was elect or non elect. There is speculation, there is hope, there are theologians who feel there is doctrine that bypasses it leading to a universalism approach, there are confessional stances that dispute it but the plain fact is that Reformed Theology cannot provide any assurance that your own child is in heaven or in hell.

Now I can tell you that my own fight was never with the Reformed faith but with the Contra Calvinist that looked back at my past sinful life & made a decision that my sins put my child in hell, but that was an argument with a bunch of heretics who distorted Doctrine to make themselves feel superior & saved. I have just recently reunited with one of these pastors who has recanted & asked for forgiveness. Religion is a living & breathing thing involving human beings with both ego's & frailties....I factor that in. God knows, I'm a sinner & I make mistakes so why wouldn't I forgive this man? My own rage at the time probably caused them to question me. All & All, my lord did bless me shortly after with a beautiful young man who is now 19 & happy & healthy & pursuing a career as a European Car Mechanic specializing in German automobiles. Praise God for that blessing.

And yet, the Reformed faith is the only one that gives ANY hope without turning to heresy that denies the orthodox doctrine of original sin.

The Reformed faith teaches God does not require participation in order to be able to save ANYONE. Monergism is the only REAL hope for babies who die.

I believe God has elected all babies who die.

John MacArthur preaches a pretty good sermon on this. Here is the link to the manuscript.

Here is part 2.

 

[mets65]

Thats why the best they can tell you is that they dont know where each individual child is. I personally went through this with 1 OPC Elder, 2 OPC Pastors, 2 PCA Pastors & 1 Reformed Pastor....all at once I might add. Again they cant say the demeanor of each child that dies because they do not know if the child was elect or non elect. There is speculation, there is hope, there are theologians who feel there is doctrine that bypasses it leading to a universalism approach, there are confessional stances that dispute it but the plain fact is that Reformed Theology cannot provide any assurance that your own child is in heaven or in hell.

Now I can tell you that my own fight was never with the Reformed faith but with the Contra Calvinist that looked back at my past sinful life & made a decision that my sins put my child in hell, but that was an argument with a bunch of heretics who distorted Doctrine to make themselves feel superior & saved. I have just recently reunited with one of these pastors who has recanted & asked for forgiveness. Religion is a living & breathing thing involving human beings with both ego's & frailties....I factor that in. God knows, I'm a sinner & I make mistakes so why wouldn't I forgive this man? My own rage at the time probably caused them to question me. All & All, my lord did bless me shortly after with a beautiful young man who is now 19 & happy & healthy & pursuing a career as a European Car Mechanic specializing in German automobiles. Praise God for that blessing.

Congratulations EWF, Sounds like you have a wonderful son.

 

[webdog]

Because they have a sinful nature, and if they live long enough, they will sin.

So the one created not guilty (non "T") is more depraved than the one created guilty (the "T")?

So, not all infants are elect. In the previous post, Cypress asked if all infants who die are elect. If I believe they are safe, then the consistent answer is yes. I believe that they are with the Savior. Just as David believed about his dead infant son.

But wasn't it your original statement that all infants are not guilty of sin, and that is why they are saved? It seems you are now backtracking on that and stating they are saved because they are of the "elect".

Doesn't Scripture state the elect are made up of believers? You admitted an infant cannot believe, correct? How can an infant be "elect" given Scripture defining who they are?

I don't buy your premise that their election is because they are not guilty of sin. I don't know why God elects anybody, except that it is his good pleasure and gets glory for himself.

Does God elect those that are guilty, then? Does Scripture state the elect are made up of believers?

I will say this: even infants, because of their sinful nature, must be objects of God's grace to enter heaven. And I believe that it is consistent with my view that the Holy Spirit regenerates sovereignly those whom He will. (Remember Jesus likened this to the wind, which blows where it wants to).

Based on what you write here, regeneration = salvation? An infant can be regenerated, not have faith, and enter Heaven? You don't see the inconsistency in that?

The Calvinist view, of course, is that regeneration precedes faith. The elect dead infant is the object of God's grace, is regenerated, and safe in the arms of the Savior. And, it is perfectly consistent with the U.

Again, one can be regenerated...not have faith...and enter Heaven? Where is Scripture backing this view?

Web, refresh my memory. The earlier thread had more than 300 posts, and I can't remember all of yours, and I'm not inclined to re-read them. Do you believe infants who die go to heaven?

I do. The guilty go to everlasting punishment, those not guilty to be with the Lord.

If you say yes, isn't that inconsistent with the human faith response for salvation required by your soteriology?

Not at all based on my above response. Sinners need faith in Christ. Like you I don't believe an infant is a sinner even though they are under the curse.

If no, aren't you siding with some of my Calvinist brethren?

N/A

 

[DHK]

Please tell me why those definitions are important. Those definitions don't determine my salvation. We are all sinners and we are born into sin. Regardless of how you define it doesn't make it less true.

In fact they do determine your salvation.
Definitions are very important.
For example, what is the definition of sin, and of a sinner?
My father, a Roman Catholic, does not consider himself a sinner, but a righteous person. He is blind to his need of the gospel. He is not a sinner he says (and therefore does not need salvation). If you take his definition of sin and sinner you also will not be saved. Definitions are very important.

 

[Tom Butler]

Like you I don't believe an infant is a sinner even though they are under the curse.

Good, we agree. I'm sure I have been less than precise in stating my position. Am I correct that you are more interested in attacking the reasoning which got me there than the conclusion I drew?

I gather that you hold that Calvinists can't state with certainty that infants go to heaven. I contend that only Calvinists can hold that infants who die go to heaven.

It appears to me that though you are a non-Cal, you reached your conclusion through the same reasoning as I do.

 

[webdog]

Good, we agree. I'm sure I have been less than precise in stating my position. Am I correct that you are more interested in attacking the reasoning which got me there than the conclusion I drew?

I gather that you hold that Calvinists can't state with certainty that infants go to heaven. I contend that only Calvinists can hold that infants who die go to heaven.

It appears to me that though you are a non-Cal, you reached your conclusion through the same reasoning as I do.

Please, don't feel I'm attacking your conclusion. All along I have agreed with your conclusion, but from the beginning I have maintained with your soteriology that this conclusion is inconsistent, and that is what I am trying to show. I appreciate that fact you have thought this aspect through and not taken the "company line" of your calvinist brothers. Now just continue thinking through the rest and how they do not go together

 

[Tom Butler]

Please, don't feel I'm attacking your conclusion. All along I have agreed with your conclusion, but from the beginning I have maintained with your soteriology that this conclusion is inconsistent, and that is what I am trying to show. I appreciate that fact you have thought this aspect through and not taken the "company line" of your calvinist brothers. Now just continue thinking through the rest and how they do not go together

I didn't think you were attacking my conclusion, but how I got there, and so you were. That's fine. You've forced me to do more thinking than my brain can handle, and better than that, you drove me to the scriptures.

Not all of my Calvinist brothers may see it the way I do. But John McArthur does. I read the sermons by him posted in links by Luke 2427, and as I read it, I said, yep, that's what I believe.

I'm not concerned about whether my Calvinism is consistent with Calvinists. My concern, (and yours is, too) that that what I believe is consistent with scripture.