Babies are righteous?

[bound]

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.

My apologies. Perhaps I assumed too much in your argument. Again pardon me. :tonofbricks:

 

[Andy T.]

There are other kinds of Baptists than just "Southern Baptists". And even Southern Baptists (I was one at one time) are permitted to have some disagreement with the Baptist Faith & Message, are they not?

I probably disagree with the statement, although we could probably quibble as to when a person is "capable of moral action."

 

[Andy T.]

My apologies. Perhaps I assumed too much in your argument. Again pardon me. :tonofbricks:

Forgiven. No problem.

 

[bound]

There are other kinds of Baptist than just "Southern Baptists". And even Southern Baptists (I was one at one time) are permitted to have some disagreement with the Baptist Faith & Message, are they not?

Absolutely. No argument there. As Baptists, I personally believe, we hold to a 'personal salvation Doctrine' which means that individuals can and do have an inalienable right to approach God on their own terms and by their own means "within reason of course".

But with that said, I chaff at the level of Calvinist Systematic Theology which has made headway within the ranks of those who profess to be Baptists. I remember, back in the day, simple pieties and reading the Good Book on one's own and coming to one's own conclusions, with the help of the Holy Ghost, without the need for systematic argumentation and apologetics. Those days appear to be gone and replaced with professional systematic apologetics. I'm not sure that is a good thing for simple Baptists who lived their faith in pious living.

I probably would disagree with the statement, although we could probably quibble as to when a person is "capable of moral action."

Well, we properly disagree then and yes 'copability' is the realm of God (hearts) and we mere morals simply don't have privy to such things. Frankly I believe that to be a good thing because it keeps our noses our of other peoples business.

 

[webdog]

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.

False accusation. You really have the nerve to call out Bound on his alleged false accusation. You are out of line...

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.

Another false accusation. Never once attributed the salvation of infants to humanism or any materialistic "philosophy"...nothing but the grace of God. Back your claims, or retract them. It's getting quite old. Me thinks when you are backed into a corner, you attack to divert attention away from the issue at hand.

 

[Andy T.]

False accusation. You really have the nerve to call out Bound on his alleged false accusation. You are out of line...

Webdog, I said it "seems" that you want to put Reformed doctrines in the worst possible light. Honestly, that is how it appears to me. You and I have been going at it on these issues for over a year on this board, and I quite often get that impression from you. Maybe it is the medium we are using, I don't know? So I really can't retract something that is apparent to me - that you often try to put Reformed doctrine in the worst possible light.

Another false accusation. Never once attributed the salvation of infants to humanism or any materialistic "philosophy"...nothing but the grace of God. Back your claims, or retract them. It's getting quite old. Me thinks when you are backed into a corner, you attack to divert attention away from the issue at hand.

We have a misunderstanding here. When I referred to humanisitic and materialistic philosophy, I was referring specifically to this:

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.

That line of thinking, frankly, is based on materialistic assumptions and not on what God can do in the heart and mind of a person, including infants; including John the Baptist when he was -3 months old.

Lastly, I have not been backed into a corner. I have answered every objection raised the best I can.

 

[Andy T.]

But with that said, I chaff at the level of Calvinist Systematic Theology which has made headway within the ranks of those who profess to be Baptists. I remember, back in the day, simple pieties and reading the Good Book on one's own and coming to one's own conclusions, with the help of the Holy Ghost, without the need for systematic argumentation and apologetics. Those days appear to be gone and replaced with professional systematic apologetics. I'm not sure that is a good thing for simple Baptists who lived their faith in pious living.

I would argue that the two are not mutually exclusive. Case in point: The Puritans. Hopefully, our theology informs our pious living. I think we also need to realize that God gifts the Church with teachers, so we should never think we can do this alone. It's not 'me and the Bible'. It is 'we and the Bible.' There should be no lone ranger Christians out there divorced from the Body.

Also, I am not a professional systematic theologian. If that is what we are doing here, then I sure would like to get paid! Maybe a nickel per post? :laugh:

 

[Brother Bob]

They have never got past the scripture of "the soul that sinneth, shall die".

When they say that it is born dead, then how can it die?

Seems to me if that if you believe it is born dead spiritually, then you could tell us how it dies again when its already dead.

 

[bound]

I would argue that the two are not mutually exclusive. Case in point: The Puritans. Hopefully, our theology informs our pious living. I think we also need to realize that God gifts the Church with teachers, so we should never think we can do this alone. It's not 'me and the Bible'. It is 'we and the Bible.' There should be no lone ranger Christians out there divorced from the Body.

That might be true but I have to tell you that I have a firm belief that on the Last Day I'm not going to find 'you' or 'any other' standing next to me when I give account before the Judgement Seat. I will stand alone.

Also, I am not a professional systematic theologian. If that is what we are doing here, then I sure would like to get paid! Maybe a nickel per post? :laugh:

I think you know what I mean. People are gravitating to the larger traditions that spent more of their time framing a systematic theology, for the sake of apologetics, and less time looking at the pious examples of a godly lifestyle. It's prevasive over many of these religious forums for dogmatics to overshadow example.

 

[Andy T.]

That might be true but I have to tell you that I have a firm belief that on the Last Day I'm not going to find 'you' or 'any other' standing next to me when I give account before the Judgement Seat. I will stand alone.

I agree, too. There is a balance in all this, but I wanted to emphasize that God does not want us to go it alone down here. We are to be deeply involved in the church, Christ's Body, which is part of our righteous living.

 

[bound]

I agree, too. There is a balance in all this, but I wanted to emphasize that God does not want us to go it alone down here. We are to be deeply involved in the church, Christ's Body, which is part of our righteous living.

We are in agreement but there were a lot of homesteaders in the early days of America who didn't have that luxury and the father was the Pastor of the household. It was Him, the Holy Ghost and the Good Book and I don't doubt their salvation who walked with the Lord in obediance but I understand what you are saying.

 

[skypair]

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.

Huh?? Please explain that if you can. I'm willing to accept a GOOD explanation. Are you?

skypair

 

[skypair]

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 whole thing fails because Isaac only came under the TEMPORAL covenant. There was NO spiritual salvation in that.

skypair

 

[skypair]

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.

No "change of mind." He has NEVER condemned the innocent.

skypair

 

[skypair]

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.

Actually, it is presumptuous to believe the CAN have faith. Are you kidding???

I hope I NEVER doubt your childrens' professions. It is a beautiful thing for children to choose as early as they are capable!! :applause: I believed at 16 and only wish I had done so earlier -- but my parents weren't believers and so I wasn't really "sanctified" in the sense that the Bible says.

But I will say this -- I had no idea how much of me God wanted at the time. You're gonna go through that, I'm sure. Just love them back to that day when they received Jesus, bro!

skypair

 

[skypair]

But with that said, I chaff at the level of Calvinist Systematic Theology which has made headway within the ranks of those who profess to be Baptists. I remember, back in the day, simple pieties and reading the Good Book on one's own and coming to one's own conclusions, with the help of the Holy Ghost, without the need for systematic argumentation and apologetics. Those days appear to be gone and replaced with professional systematic apologetics. I'm not sure that is a good thing for simple Baptists who lived their faith in pious living.

bound -- you just made a "fan" of me! :applause:

skypair

 

[skypair]

That line of thinking, frankly, is based on materialistic assumptions and not on what God can do in the heart and mind of a person, including infants; including John the Baptist when he was -3 months old.

No, your theology is based on "mysticism," Andy. That is the ONLY way you could explain an infant having faith.

skypair

 

[ituttut]

We are talking about innocence here, that infants are innocent and have no knowledge of sin. Scripture says "the soul that sinneth, shall die".
Righteous would be someone who does righteous acts. Infants do nothing, have no knowledge between good and evil.

ituttut: I beg to differ, for reformedbeliever address' righteousness not found in infants, and in my answer I agreed with His "it seems as if He found not righteousness in the young children and babies".

Itututt:Am I misreading you? You remark and intimate that we make ourselves righteous? We are only made righteous in Him, and not before, otherwise it is Our Works that Save Us, and Not His.

I don't wish to argue with you Brother Bob, so it will help if you will tell me why you posted me. I addressed reformedbeliever as to righteousness, and that is the question to be answered. I was answering the question "Babies are righteous?". Now you tell me that I must delve into "innocence" because that is what you are struggling with. I see others are trying to help you in this matter.

Brother Bob: Righteous would be someone who does righteous acts. Infants do nothing, have no knowledge between good and evil.

Ituttut: Am I misreading you? You remark and intimate that we make ourselves righteous? We are only made righteous in Him, and not before, otherwise it is Our Works that Save Us, and Not His.

BB: Deuteronomy, chapter 1
39: Moreover your little ones, which ye said should be a prey, and your children, which in that day had no knowledge between good and evil, they shall go in thither, and unto them will I give it, and they shall possess it.

ituttut:And that's a promise He will keep.

BB: If you are going to address me, then please address my posts.

I answered all, but you never extended the courtesy of letting us know if you are of "works", mistyped, misspoke. We all do things unintentionally on occasion.

 

[Andy T.]

No, your theology is based on "mysticism," Andy. That is the ONLY way you could explain an infant having faith.

Well, I can't necessarily argue with you on this, because I can see where one could make that charge. There is no clear Scriptural support on all sides (there are more than two sides) of this issue, so any doctrine we come up with will have some sense of "mystery" attached to it. And [some] mysticism isn't necessarily antithetical to Christianity, only when it is taken to the extreme where the mystic says that God is essentially unknowable through the propositional revelation of Scripture. But if I have to choose between having some mystical thinking in my doctrine vs. having materialistic thinking in my doctrine, I will take the former every time.

 

[Andy T.]

But with that said, I chaff at the level of Calvinist Systematic Theology which has made headway within the ranks of those who profess to be Baptists. I remember, back in the day, simple pieties and reading the Good Book on one's own and coming to one's own conclusions, with the help of the Holy Ghost, without the need for systematic argumentation and apologetics. Those days appear to be gone and replaced with professional systematic apologetics. I'm not sure that is a good thing for simple Baptists who lived their faith in pious living.

One more comment on the above - it should be pointed out that Calvinists are not the only ones who do 'systematic theology'. All brands of Christianity do systematic theology. In fact, every Christian does systematic theology to one degree or another. We all have a certain system of explaining and interpreting Scripture. Some systems are more developed and detailed than others, but everyone has a system of some kind. No one just reads the words of Scripture and stops. Everyone has a way of filtering the Scriptures into their beliefs and actions (and good systems will emphasize both doctrine and practice).