Babies are righteous?

Hello skypair.

Bless you.

john.

 

Bob.

JN 3:3 In reply Jesus declared, "I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again. " 4 "How can a man be born when he is old?" Nicodemus asked. "Surely he cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb to be born!" 5 Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. 6 Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. 7 You should not be surprised at my saying, `You must be born again.' 8 The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit."

*****​

By predestination we mean the eternal decree of God, by which he determined with himself whatever he wished to happen with regard to every man. All are not created on equal terms, but some are preordained to eternal life, others to eternal damnation; and, accordingly, as each has been created for one or other of these ends, we say that he has been predestinated to life or to death. (John Calvin Institutes of the Christian Religion Book 3 chapter 21:5.)

john.

 

If you don't, in essense, exempt children from damnation due to Original Sin as articulated by Augustine then you need a means of including them in the New Covenant don't you?

You seem smugly 'happy' that your theology damns children....

His entire argument for Original Sin is predicated on the necessity of Infant Baptism which he elaborates from Cyprian's necessity for Infant Baptism. If both are wrong then why are we considering them correct with their assertion that Original Sin damns children?

 

Hardly one to play the martyr, brother

 

Where have I said that children are damned? How can I be smugly happy about something I never said in the first place? It seems to me that you are being unnecessarily contentious. I personally believe that babies and children who die are regenerated by God and covered by the blood of Christ. They do not get in by innocence. They get in by grace.

Well, I don't base my view of Original Sin on Augustine's argumentation. I base it on Scripture. I believe Scripture teaches that Adam's sin (and guilt) is imputed to all of us - that we all sinned in Adam. Rom. 3:23, 5:12. No one can boast and say that they would have lived perfectly in the Garden forever had God placed them there instead of Adam.

 

Calvin asks, "why, in Abraham's case does the sacrament follow faith, but in Isaac, his son, does it precede all understanding?"(Inst.4, 16, 24). Calvin answers by suggesting that it is because Abraham as a grown man was a stranger to the covenant, while his son had a "hereditary right" to the promise(Inst.4, 16, 24). Calvin asks "if the children of believers are partakers of the covenant without the help of understanding, there is no reason why they should be barred from the sign merely because they cannot swear to the provisions of the covenant"(Inst.4, 16, 24).
http://www.reformedtheology.ca/baptism.html

john.

 

The second quote nullifies the first. If guilt is inherited, the only means of salvation is by grace through faith. If not, you have some other way of salvation not outlined in Scripture. Unless you believe like some on here that infants can understand the Gospel and respond in faith, the only conclusion is the damnation of all infants.
I agree with your first statement, btw. God's grace is the fact He deems infants not guilty (not innocent).

 

Bless you webdog.

john.

 

Same to you

 

webdog.

It was God that declared all men guilty in the first place why should He change His mind? PS 51:5 Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.

john.

 

Are you now deemed not gulity? Your interpretation of that passage is not the only one, as has been pointed out to you in the past...
Psa 51:5 Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.

 

I believe it is a miracle (as all salvation is) - God regenerates them by grace and they have faith. Since God knows what infants will die before they can articulate knowledge, so he gives them the capacity to have faith. It is presumptuous to think that infants or even small children cannot have faith. I realize you think that faith is only an adult thing, since you earlier questioned my children's professions of faith at the ages of 4 and 5. Certainly when they are 40 years old, they will be able to articulate that faith much better as they have grown in knowledge, but their faith at 40 will be no less real than it was at 4.

 

Only this cannot be backed by Scripture, as other calvinists like Pastor Larry even admit. The rest of your post (and beliefs on this matter) hinges on this fact...regeneration precedes faith. I wouldn't put all of my eggs in that basket, else you need to find a new solution as to how infants go to Heaven, or accept they all burn in Hell.

Really? Why don't they have faith that when you put them to bed, it's for their best? Why don't they have faith, that the hot stove is really hot as you say? Why doesn't God regenerate their minds to basic day to day matters that require faith? An infant / toddler does not have the ability to process this information, let alone the plan of salvation, or the fact that when they are bad, they are breaking an almighty God's statutes and law.

 

Well, I think any doctrine of AofA or the salvation of infants has very little clear Scriptural support, but I think there are some Scriptures that lend support to those dying in infancy being saved. And when you take those few passages that appear to lend support to this, and you intepret many more clear passages on the doctrine of sin, etc. then you can develop, in good faith, a doctrine that accounts for both Original Sin and the salvation of those dying in infancy. But I agree that neither side has absolute clear Scriptural support for doctrines in this area of AofA, which is why I would call it a "non-essential".

Frankly, your views expressed here are more aligned with secular humanistic and materialistic philosophy than they are with the nature of Almighty God and his special creation of man.

 

You are aware that 'Grace' is merely 'God's Favor'... and yet Peter saids: "In truth I perceive that God shows no partiality". Are you now saying that because they are children God is going to exercise partiality?

Well, my guess is that you base it on an exegesis which follows the long standing opinion that such is the proper way of interpreting said Scripture. Words don't interpret themselves, even divinely inspired ones but this isn't a debate over 'total depravity' which I'd guess we both could agree it is over such a state damning 'innocent' children whom haven't exercised any copable actions which merit damnation. Yes an argument can be made that suggests that man without God's Grace is damned but I would posit that God's inpartiality might suggest that every child is borne 'will' manifest error (sin) due to their wounded nature but that each also has the capacity of redemption and that early death does not preclude salvation for the very reason that personal sin has not insured their rejection of Christ's Salvific Death on the Cross.

I'm not sure 'guilt' is imputed until said time that one commits a copable act of rebellion toward God (i.e. Age of Accountability). BTW, children don't boast about not being Accountable and once they do, my guess is they've become Accountable and such an argument is moot. At that time, I'm guessing they need to accept Christ as their Lord and Saviour.

Anyone else want to weigh in on this opinion?

 

I'll comment on your latest edit. I could easily replace "regeneration" with "effectual call" (as Pastor Larry would have). Regeneration (in the technical sense) preceding faith is not the hinge. It is the work of God (no matter what you call it) that is the hinge.

Methinks that you want me to think that babies must burn in hell, because you seem to enjoy putting Reformed doctrines on sin and salvation in the worst possible light. It often makes me wonder how you can be a member at a church where the pastor holds to Calvinism. (That is the case, right? Correct me if I'm wrong here, but I thought remember you sharing that at one point.)

 

Psa 51:5 Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.

I do not know what you mean but if you are saying that David's mum was a sinner then I guess you are right. "Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? Not one," says the Book of Job, (Job 14: 4.)
What are you saying webdog? Tell me. JOB 14:5 Man's days are determined; you have decreed the number of his months and have set limits he cannot exceed.
The death of a child does not take God by surprise.

Regeneration precedes faith and in the case of believers children regeneration precedes birth. Luke 1:44 As soon as the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy.

john.

 

Bound, I have no beef with you on this doctrine. I know we disagree, as many do on this less-than-clear issue. My beef was that you implied (a) that I am not Baptist unless I hold to a certain doctrine of AofA, and (b) that belief in Original Sin necessitates belief in Infant Baptism. Since you have backed off from those assertions, then I'm done discussing it.

Edited: Oh yes, and I didn't particularly enjoy your accusation that I was 'smugly happy' to see babies burn in hell when I never said I believed that in the first place.

 

That was not my point and If I gave that impression then pardon me. I am simply articulating what is expressed in the Southern Baptist Convention Faith & Message concerning Man...

Through the temptation of Satan man transgressed the command of God, and fell from his original innocence whereby his posterity inherit a nature and an environment inclined toward sin. Therefore, as soon as they are capable of moral action, they become transgressors and are under condemnation. Only the grace of God can bring man into His holy fellowship and enable man to fulfill the creative purpose of God.

Nothing more. BTW, what are your thoughts on this statement? Do you agree or disagree?

Thanks for the conciliatory comments.