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

[percho]

Does 2 Samuel 12:23 support the salvation of babies who die when a week old? The argument put forth is since David said he would go to him. The assumption here is David was referring to Abraham's bosom, and not simply joining him in the grave. But Jacob said something similar, I will go down to Sheol in mourning for my Son. And scripture says if you do not believe in Him you are condemned already in unbelief. All babies are condemned already.

If we consider the actual foundation, it is conjecture without biblical support (1) Election of individual foreseen babies, (2) they are given faith irresistibly without hearing the gospel and (3)God is love and would not condemn the babies of the elect.

Fifty days after the resurrection of Jesus Christ the firstborn of the dead, Peter told at least three thousand plus people that the prophet and king David was at that time both dead and buried and his sepulchre is with us unto this day. After establishing exactly where David is he makes the point that being David is still dead and buried that is his soul is in hell (Hades) he,
David was prophesying of Jesus Christ that his soul was not left in hell (Hades) neither his flesh did see corruption why because the soul of Jesus had been raised from hell (Hades) and neither did his body see corruption.

Where do you think the infant son of David was on that day?

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Lorraine Boettner also touched on the subject in his book, "Reformed Doctrine of Predestination."

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/boettner/predest.iv.iii.xi.html

 

[webdog]

Fifty days after the resurrection of Jesus Christ the firstborn of the dead, Peter told at least three thousand plus people that the prophet and king David was at that time both dead and buried and his sepulchre is with us unto this day. After establishing exactly where David is he makes the point that being David is still dead and buried that is his soul is in hell (Hades) he,
David was prophesying of Jesus Christ that his soul was not left in hell (Hades) neither his flesh did see corruption why because the soul of Jesus had been raised from hell (Hades) and neither did his body see corruption.

Where do you think the infant son of David was on that day?

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.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

The covenant of grace includes faith, and according to Scripture faith comes by hearing (understanding) and that from the Word of God which is something an infant is not capable of. Oh, I do realize there are some that maintain that an infant can have faith and will defer to John the Baptist leaping in Martha's womb as proof, but I don't buy that great leap in logic.

If anything, according to Augustine every infant would perish as they are dead in their sin (not sure which transgression of God's law they could have committed, but that's another topic).

If we take the false prsupposition of "original guilt" out of the equation, an infant would be found not guilty in the same manner a spiritually dead person who commits their life to Christ would.

Your conclusion with regard to original sin is correct. Therefore, the Calvinist system is fine with regard to infant salvation. Please read Boettner and Spurgeon on this.

 

[webdog]

Your conclusion with regard to original sin is correct. Therefore, the Calvinist system is fine with regard to infant salvation. Please read Boettner and Spurgeon on this.

I've read both. I do not buy into the special dispensation of salvation for infants, in fact I believe it to be in great error, as it frustrates the very clear requirement for salvation. Salvation for those dead in their sins and trespasses is by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. Remove faith from the equation and there is no salvation.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Boettner reasons:

The doctrine of infant salvation finds a logical place in the Calvinistic system; for the redemption of the soul is thus infallibly determined irrespective of any faith , repentance or good works, whether actual or foreseen. It does not, however, find a logical place in Arminianism or any other system. Furthermore, it would seem that a system such as Arminianism, which suspends salvation on a personal act of rational choice, would logically demand that those dying in infancy must either be given another period of probation after death, in order that their destiny may be fixed, or that they must be annihilated.

 

[JesusFan]

What "gracious covenant" does not include salvation by grace through faith? According to this...election is salvation, not unto salvation what most calvinists vehemently claim.

This just goes to show historic calvinists were just as wrong as modern day calvinists

Think that Calvinist Theology though has various "shades" within it...
Just as "Free Will" Theology has varying views in it...

I can appreciate the tension between reformed/Free Will question, as being a "bapticostalist" I tend to get "hit" from both sides...

Believe in TULIP, but just 4 points and believe in pre trib/pre mill so get attacked there by reformed
believe in spiritual gifts today, get attacked there
believe in election/eternal security free will hits there

BIG thing is to realise in ALL these areas, is "inhouse" debate, and agree to reason together in godly way...
Might NEVER agree with your doctrine, but can still learn from each other!

 

[ReformedBaptist]

I've read both. I do not buy into the special dispensation of salvation for infants, in fact I believe it to be in great error, as it frustrates the very clear requirement for salvation. Salvation for those dead in their sins and trespasses is by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. Remove faith from the equation and there is no salvation.

I think Boettner's reasoning is sound. Spurgeon and Boettner are reasoning that an infant is saved as we...rooted and grounded in the eternal decree of God, manifest in time by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone.

The question is raised as to how an infant has faith. Since our faith is not of ourselves, but the gift of God, then why can they not also be quickened by His Spirit while dead in their trespasses and sins, and so made alive, believe on Him whom they see?

For according to the Arminians, even the evangelical Arminians, God in His grace has merely provided men with an opportunity for salvation. It does not appear, however, that a mere opportunity for salvation can be of any avail for those dying in infancy."

 

[webdog]

Boettner starts with the false presupposition that Augustinian original sin is truth, and based on that perceived "truth", Arminianism has problems. I would agree with that...if Augustinian original sin were truth, which I don't believe it is.

 

[webdog]

I think Boettner's reasoning is sound. Spurgeon and Boettner are reasoning that an infant is saved as we...rooted and grounded in the eternal decree of God, manifest in time by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone.

The question is raised as to how an infant has faith. Since our faith is not of ourselves, but the gift of God, then why can they not also be quickened by His Spirit while dead in their trespasses and sins, and so made alive, believe on Him whom they see?

That begs the question as it also assumes the "elect" are given this nebulous gift of saving faith. It's not the trait of faith that saves..it's the object of our faith that saves.

We know what is required of a human to have faith. It's fiction to believe an infant can meet this requirement.

 

[JesusFan]

The covenant of grace includes faith, and according to Scripture faith comes by hearing (understanding) and that from the Word of God which is something an infant is not capable of. Oh, I do realize there are some that maintain that an infant can have faith and will defer to John the Baptist leaping in Martha's womb as proof, but I don't buy that great leap in logic.

All that can prove though is that God CAN elect even from Womb some to do his specific will, but not said to be "normative" to this question of infantsand salavtion...

If anything, according to Augustine every infant would perish as they are dead in their sin (not sure which transgression of God's law they could have committed, but that's another topic).

If we take the false prsupposition of "original guilt" out of the equation, an infant would be found not guilty in the same manner a spiritually dead person who commits their life to Christ would.

Believe that ALL of us are represented "In Adam" as He stands in before God as "Head" of Human Race...
So all of us born into sin, corrupted from birth etc... BUT

God has so foreordained that thru the provsion of the Cross of Christ, His atonment is sufficent to be able "cover" the sins/tresgressions of those unable to come to "saving faith"...

So in this viewpoint...

Those like mentally retarded from birth/infants/younger children etc are all covered by the blood sacrifice of jesus Christ, so that God has made a provsion for them , a "special election" if you will

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Boettner starts with the false presupposition that Augustinian original sin is truth, and based on that perceived "truth", Arminianism has problems. I would agree with that...if Augustinian original sin were truth, which I don't believe it is.

Original sin is a biblical doctrine. And I would expect someone such as Boettner to reject the notions of Pelagianism.

But the point is made. Should you understand the doctine of orginal sin to be as it is, a biblical doctrine, then you would find the Calvinist view consistent.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

That begs the question as it also assumes the "elect" are given this nebulous gift of saving faith. It's not the trait of faith that saves..it's the object of our faith that saves.

We know what is required of a human to have faith. It's fiction to believe an infant can meet this requirement.

We have no need to amend our doctrines to conform to our ideas. The Scriptures teach, as so many have shown, the doctrines which you reject. And what we are showing here is that they are consistent with the question of infant salvation.

 

[webdog]

Original sin is a biblical doctrine. And I would expect someone such as Boettner to reject the notions of Pelagianism.

If by biblical doctrine you mean it is contrived from the Bible, I agree. If by biblical doctrine you mean absolute truth, I disagree Augustine's position is truth.

The pelagianism tag is quite tiresome. One can share a point with an opposing doctrine without being an adherent. Case in point, you agree with Roman catholics on Augustine's position. I have yet to call you a Roman Catholic.

But the point is made. Should you understand the doctine of orginal sin to be as it is, a biblical doctrine, then you would find the Calvinist view consistent.

We were doing so well without the ad hominem, but oh well. Has it occurred to you that I do understand the doctrine of original sin as defined by Augustine, but merely reject it?
I do find the calvinist view consistent. The view is quite consistent at building doctrine on false presuppositions.

 

[webdog]

We have no need to amend our doctrines to conform to our ideas. The Scriptures teach, as so many have shown, the doctrines which you reject. And what we are showing here is that they are consistent with the question of infant salvation.

...to the above bolded: yet that is what the entire doctrine is built on, "ideas".

News flash: I agree with Scripture. I reject YOUR understanding of what Scripture teaches. Monumental difference. The only thing more tiresome than the pelgaian accusation is the "if you disagree with me, you disagree with the Bible (or God)" reasoning quite common here. Statements like this stem from pride and thinking we have it all figured out in a nice packaged theology with a pretty bow on top.

 

[JesusFan]

I've read both. I do not buy into the special dispensation of salvation for infants, in fact I believe it to be in great error, as it frustrates the very clear requirement for salvation. Salvation for those dead in their sins and trespasses is by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. Remove faith from the equation and there is no salvation.

The question than is IF God can extend grace towards those unable to "believe and be saved"...

This could be answered by "yes" by His election of those such as Infants/mentally retarded etc those unable to come to the lord by own devices... he would be graciously extending benefits of the Cross to those helpless in sins...
Yes" from Free Will side could be addressed by stating thatthrough prevelient Grace being extended by God, by making "provsions" and extend spiritual blessings to this class of people, could become saved

 

[ReformedBaptist]

If by biblical doctrine you mean it is contrived from the Bible, I agree. If by biblical doctrine you mean absolute truth, I disagree Augustine's position is truth.

The pelagianism tag is quite tiresome. One can share a point with an opposing doctrine without being an adherent. Case in point, you agree with Roman catholics on Augustine's position. I have yet to call you a Roman Catholic.
We were doing so well without the ad hominem, but oh well. Has it occurred to you that I do understand the doctrine of original sin as defined by Augustine, but merely reject it?
I do find the calvinist view consistent. The view is quite consistent at building doctrine on false presuppositions.

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

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.

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.

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.

 

[webdog]

The question than is IF God can extend grace towards those unable to "believe and be saved"...

This could be answered by "yes" by His election of those such as Infants/mentally retarded etc those unable to come to the lord by own devices... he would be graciously extending benefits of the Cross to those helpless in sins...
Yes" from Free Will side could be addressed by stating thatthrough prevelient Grace being extended by God, by making "provsions" and extend spiritual blessings to this class of people, could become saved

The answer is "He has". Scripture teaches that we are dead (spiritually) in OUR trespasses and sins...not Adam's. We die (physically) in Adam due to the curse and stain of sin on all creation (Animals die, are they sinners?), but we are branded sinners due to OUR sin.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

...to the above bolded: yet that is what the entire doctrine is built on, "ideas".

News flash: I agree with Scripture. I reject YOUR understanding of what Scripture teaches. Monumental difference. The only thing more tiresome than the pelgaian accusation is the "if you disagree with me, you disagree with the Bible (or God)" reasoning quite common here. Statements like this stem from pride and thinking we have it all figured out in a nice packaged theology with a pretty bow on top.

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.

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..."

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.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

We believe that we have now shown that the doctrine of election is in every point Scriptural and a plain dictate of common sense. Those who oppose this doctrine do so because they neither understand nor consider the majesty and holiness of God, nor the corruption and guilt of their own nature. They forget that they stand before their Maker not as those who may justly claim His mercy, but as condemned criminals who deserve only punishment. Furthermore, they want to be independent to work out their own scheme of salvation rather than to accept God's plan which is by grace. This doctrine of election will not harmonize with any covenant of works, nor with a mongrel covenant of works and grace; but it is the only possible outcome of a covenant of pure grace.

I add my hearty "Amen" to this.