Do Calvinist believe That The Children of Elected parents Will be Auto Saved?

[webdog]

By biblical doctrine I mean its the teaching of the Bible. I understand you disagree that it is the teaching of the Bible.

...because it is. Do you not forget that baptismal regeneration is also a part of this...yet most reject this? Why? Because it is not a truth gleaned from Scripture along with Augustine's other teaching.

as tiresome as the Pelagian tag may be to some, it rerferences a system of belief that is rightly pertinant to the discussion. Since you reject the doctrine of orginal sin, I have no idea what concept you hold...since you seem by your offense to reject the beliefs of Pelagius. What then? (and no, I am not going to review all your posts. either state your belief, or not). If I recall, you have not either created or layed your name to any confession of your faith.

We've interacted enough on this board where you should know what I believe without having to paste another man's statement as proof. Your problem with the pelagian accusation is to define it as anything other than agreeing with Augustine. Pelagius taught humans are born innocent, morally neutral. I do not believe that at all as all men are born under the curse, and without God's grace, being left to themselves would perish. That's hardly pelagianism.

There was no ad hom in my reply. I am not trying to discredit your argument by attacking your character. I think the views you hold are not biblical doctrines. My point stands then, by your admission, that the view is consistent. I grant that you think the doctrines are false...who wouldn't...you have admitted to your rejection of them.

I took your statement to mean I didn't understand the doctrine of original sin. You do realize your doctrine is built on a handful of verses which use figurative language, right? The majority of Scripture teaches that if we transgress God's law, we are guilty. It starts right in Genesis with Adam and Eve If you don't view that as "biblical", your theology has clouded your judgement.

It should be granted also that those who believe doctrines to be biblical, should then believe them to be from the Bible. Therefore, I will not refer to it as Augustinian as though it sprung from Augustine. The same is true of John Calvin. Calvinism is just a name that has come into to use, but I care little for the appalation. What you call Calvinism, and by consequence of the label I have used the term, I call the Gospel of the grace of God.

...yet you have no problem branding me with the pelagian tag

 

[webdog]

Your reasoning renders the perspecuity of Scripture meaningless. You would have us all to speak in terms, "Well, I believe the Bible teaches.." such that nothing is taught absolutely.

When it regards such passages using poetic language from the Psalms... "Well, I believe the Bible teaches..." is absolutely in order.

What we have, in fact, is "Thus saith the Lord..." And I am rather content when it comes to the doctrines of grace to give the same admonishment the Apostle Paul does, "Who are you O man, to reply against God..."

Surely, then, there is such a passage teaching we are guilty in Adam. I won't hold my breath.

It is not the one who proclaims the absolutes of Holy Scripture that has the issue of pride. But rather, the one who is made himself and enemy of God's doctrine has the issue.

An enemy of God's doctrine is an unbeliever. Are you questioning my standing with the Lord?

 

[Aaron]

It's fiction to believe an infant can meet this requirement.

It's fiction to believe an adult can meet the requirement by nature.

Faith is an act of the spirit, not the carnal mind. And not an act of the spirit of man, but of the spirit which is given us . . . the spirit of power, and of love, and of a sound mind.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

...because it is. Do you not forget that baptismal regeneration is also a part of this...yet most reject this? Why? Because it is not a truth gleaned from Scripture along with Augustine's other teaching.
We've interacted enough on this board where you should know what I believe without having to paste another man's statement as proof. Your problem with the pelagian accusation is to define it as anything other than agreeing with Augustine. Pelagius taught humans are born innocent, morally neutral. I do not believe that at all as all men are born under the curse, and without God's grace, being left to themselves would perish. That's hardly pelagianism.
I took your statement to mean I didn't understand the doctrine of original sin. You do realize your doctrine is built on a handful of verses which use figurative language, right? The majority of Scripture teaches that if we transgress God's law, we are guilty. It starts right in Genesis with Adam and Eve If you don't view that as "biblical", your theology has clouded your judgement.
...yet you have no problem branding me with the pelagian tag

I have no idea how to brand you at all. If you wrote down in a statement a confession of your belief, I, and the rest would be able to know what it is you believe and why.

I am familiar with Biblical Hermeneutics. In fact, I am working through 700 pages of it right now, and am, in fact, covering figures of speech. I do believe that the proper biblical hermeneutic is the grammitco-historical approach. So, if you want to start a thread and show how whatever doctrine I hold that you think is wrong and violates sound biblical heremeneutical principles and exegesis, I would welcome the discussion. It would give me an opportunity to practice the principles I am learning.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

When it regards such passages using poetic language from the Psalms... "Well, I believe the Bible teaches..." is absolutely in order.
Surely, then, there is such a passage teaching we are guilty in Adam. I won't hold my breath.
An enemy of God's doctrine is an unbeliever. Are you questioning my standing with the Lord?

The various tropes of Scripture do not undermine the perspecuity of Scripture.

Of course there is Scripture teaching we are guilty in Adam. But I hardly think those passages haven't been shared with you before. You have already rejected that interpretation, and I would assume, put forth another.

I am not questioning your salvation on the BB, as that is against their rules.

 

[percho]

With Christ. It's baffling to think you believe David was in Hell if you mean any place other than his body being in the grave.

I believe exactly what Acts 2 says. If the word of God had ended with Psalm 16
one could easily say David was speaking of himself, but it did not and the Word was made flesh.
In Acts 2:30,31 does Peter say that David as a prophet was speaking of Jesus Christ in Psalm 16 rather than himself?
Does he say in verse 31 that the soul of Jesus was raised from hell. (Hades) No qualifier just Hades?
Does he say also in verse 31 that the flesh of Jesus did not see corruption?
Now if it was Jesus the Christ that was raised from Hades and his flesh that did not see corruption instead of David, then where would that leave the soul of David and did his flesh see corruption?

But now he is dead, wherefore should I fast? can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me.

Where ever the soul of David was fifty days after the resurrection of Jesus was I would venture to say his infant son was there also.

This is said of Jesus, and not only is he the first but presently he is the only one: It is said twice KJV the firstborn from the dead; Col.1:18 and NKJV the firstborn from the dead, Rev. 1:5 And when we are born from the dead as he was, see 1 Cor 15:49 And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly. Then this will be said of Jesus, For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate [to be] conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among manybrethren.
Rom.8:29

Maybe David and his son, not Jesus will be born again then also.