Infant Salvation

[TCGreek]

This shows that we received the natural death from Adam. Maybe someone could point out where we receive the Spiritual death also from Adam?

Also notice, there was a group that had not sinned.

Rom 5:14Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

BBob,

1. Bob, a closer look at the verse will reveal that death come to those people, but their sin was not exactly like that of Adam, but they did sin.

2. Babies are not a viable option.

 

[Brother Bob]

TC;

1. Bob, a closer look at the verse will reveal that death come to those people, but their sin was not exactly like that of Adam, but they did sin.

Rom 5:13(For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

Rom 5:19For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous. (I see no "all" in there.)


If you will have it. I went back and looked. I find where many were made sinners by Adam's disobeidance and one group had were not.

 

[Helen]

Ok, the atonement and original sin needs to be covered. :laugh:

Just catching up. Was getting a LOT of produce from the yard into the freezer.

You mean there is any sin which is not covered by Christ's death?

 

[TCGreek]

TC;
Rom 5:13(For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

Rom 5:19For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous. (I see no "all" in there.)


If you will have it. I went back and looked. I find where many were made sinners by Adam's disobeidance and one group had were not.

Then you have only Adam sinning and no one else sinning, whether adults or babies, because sin was not imputed until the law was given at Sinai through Moses.

 

[Brother Bob]

Then you have only Adam sinning and no one else sinning, whether adults or babies, because sin was not imputed until the law was given at Sinai through Moses.

No, they had a law of the concieous which accused or excused them. I am not saying an infant is not born with a sin nature, but they have to be like Adam before its sin. Adam was a man, not an infant when God told him not to eat of the tree of good and evil.
We are born into this world capable of sinning when we know what sin is.
You think if Adam had of eaten of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, before God told him not to, it would of been sin?

 

[TCGreek]

We are born into this world capable of sinning when we know what sin is.

What do you mean by this statement? Are you saying that if we do not know what sin is, we're not capable of sinning?

 

[Mr.M]

Maybe someone has answered this, I haven't read the whole thread, but how is the atonement applied to an infant? It's not through faith as they can't have any.
I believe there is an age of accoutability, but that doesn't mean that sin hasn't been committed up until that point, just that a child is not held accountable to God until a certain age (of which only God can know, IMHO). Very young children disobey, even lie. My own son at the age of 2 shook his finger in my face one day and said "you don't tell ME what to do!". I am still flabbergasted when I think of it! :laugh: I am positive that God did not hold him accountable for that, but it certainly shows that there was a sinful nature popping out of him. At that age children are also very selfish....mine, mine, mine. Even hitting each other to get what they want. No doubt that sin is at work in them.
So, even if they aren't held accountable, they still need a Savior.
I'm not saying that infants aren't saved, but how is an infant saved?

I did post how an infant is saved on the first page of this thread and will repost it again for you and others.

The Advocacy of Christ is taught in 1 John 2. Christ is our Advocate. This is a very legal term here. An Advocate is one that of course speaks on another behalf. In the case of humanity, one must believe on Christ to have Him Advocate for him before God the Father, the Judge.

In the case of infants and those unable to exercise their volition, Christ never deviates from his role as Advocate and is automatically assigned as the Court Appointed Advocate for those that lack capacity for a such volition.

Some might say, well I don't see that here. I understand, this is called a doctrinal conclusion. One that takes serious the declaration of Christ's Advocacy and applies it in its legal context. And in the case of humanity, there is only one court, one Judge (God) and one Advocate that may speak for another and this Christ. Hence as in all courts, those who cannot represent themselves have the Divine Advocate represent them.

Okay intellectual bees and hornets, start buzzing your complaints.

 

[Brother Bob]

TC;
What do you mean by this statement? Are you saying that if we do not know what sin is, we're not capable of sinning?

What about the retarded? No, all are capable of sin, but where there is no law, sin is not imputed.

BBob,

Again, if Adam had of eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil before God told him not too, would it of been sin?

 

[Amy.G]

I did post how an infant is saved on the first page of this thread and will repost it again for you and others.

The Advocacy of Christ is taught in 1 John 2. Christ is our Advocate. This is a very legal term here. An Advocate is one that of course speaks on another behalf. In the case of humanity, one must believe on Christ to have Him Advocate for him before God the Father, the Judge.

In the case of infants and those unable to exercise their volition, Christ never deviates from his role as Advocate and is automatically assigned as the Court Appointed Advocate for those that lack capacity for a such volition.

Some might say, well I don't see that here. I understand, this is called a doctrinal conclusion. One that takes serious the declaration of Christ's Advocacy and applies it in its legal context. And in the case of humanity, there is only one court, one Judge (God) and one Advocate that may speak for another and this Christ. Hence as in all courts, those who cannot represent themselves have the Divine Advocate represent them.

Okay intellectual bees and hornets, start buzzing your complaints.

Yes, now I remember. My apologies. Thanks for reposting though.

 

[Amy.G]

Again, if Adam had of eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil before God told him not too, would it of been sin?

Ya'll are getting too deep for me! :laugh:

Just kidding.

(my southern accent slipped out there!)

 

[TCGreek]

What about the retarded? No, all are capable of sin, but where there is no law, sin is not imputed.

BBob,

Again, if Adam had of eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil before God told him not too, would it of been sin?

1. Bob, I think we are essentially in agreement about the sin-nature. We're all born with a sinful nature because of Adam's sin, babies too.

2. No, I do not believe Adam would have sinned and the tree would not be called the Tree of the Knowledge of good and evil.

 

[Brother Bob]

TC;
1. Bob, I think we are essentially in agreement about the sin-nature. We're all born with a sinful nature because of Adam's sin, babies too.

2. No, I do not believe Adam would have sinned and the tree would not be called the Tree of the Knowledge of good and evil.
__________________

Thats what I believe, don't know about the tree haven't a different name though. This pretty well explains about infants, you know it?

 

[TCGreek]

Thats what I believe, don't know about the tree haven't a different name though. This pretty well explains about infants, you know it?

What then would be the point of calling the tree the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil?

 

[Brother Bob]

TC;
Originally Posted by Brother Bob
Thats what I believe, don't know about the tree haven't a different name though. This pretty well explains about infants, you know it?

What then would be the point of calling the tree the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil?

I understand what you are saying, but the point of calling it good or evil is because without understanding in life, sin is not imputed, but when you come to understanding, then it is sin. So, what is sin for them that understand is not sin to them without understanding. We are really talking about something that did not happen............

 

[TCGreek]

I understand what you are saying, but the point of calling it good or evil is because without understanding in life, sin is not imputed, but when you come to understanding, then it is sin. So, what is sin for them that understand is not sin to them without understanding. We are really talking about something that did not happen............

Naming the tree cannot be separated from the command of God. Therefore, if there's no prohibition, then naming the tree the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil would be pointless.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Just catching up. Was getting a LOT of produce from the yard into the freezer.

You mean there is any sin which is not covered by Christ's death?

Hey Helen,

I meant those topics could use a separate thread for discussion. Apparantly there are some who may not think/agree that the doctrine of original sin is a biblical doctrine. That may be worth discussing. Also, there are certainly those who believe in universal atonement (or universal redemption) and the topic of the atonement, it power and extent, might be a good subject as well.

 

[Rippon]

MD , a lot more pages of posts have been added since you made some comments in your post #198 .

A couple here on the BB have indeed said that infants are born sinless . That view is against Scripture . If , as you have said , they are covered by the blood -- then , I maintain that they are in need of the Savior because they are sinners .

Mentally impaired folks and infants are among the "all have sinned" of Romans 3:23 . On a side note , it's interesting that even Calvinists have regarded the usage of the word "all" in this particular passage as referring to each and every person ever . But some from the non-Cal side of the aisle would like to mitigate the force of "all" here . They would like it to mean almost "all" with some exceptional waivers .

Bob , I have already expressed in the past that Scripture is not clear on the subject of infants going to hell or heaven . Aside from 2 Samuel 2:23 views expressed are in the realm of speculation . BTW , I do not think that much can be gleaned from that isolated verse to substantiate a doctrinal base . One verse does not a doctrine make .

I think we can not say for sure that no babies go to hell . We can not be certain that all babies go to heaven . I think some seem to think they are contending for orthodoxy on this matter when really sentiment reigns instead .

What I have been objecting to is the usage of inflammatory language in order to stir the pot . So far BB has not substantiated a single "quote" he periodically brings to the surface of his murky waters . No lie , no matter how often it is repeated is true . In a post from 6/26/06 he said that the following words were in a sermon by Calvin :" There are babies a span long in hell ..." Now that is unabashed nonsense from BB's keyboard . Calvin never said such a thing .Tell me the sermon title . Granted it's all over the internet and used by anti-Calvinists aplenty . But , a lie is still a lie . No documentation -- no proof . Just slandering to perpetuate their views is common .

No Calvinist or Augustine himself has said : The way to hell is paved with infant skulls .

No Calvinist has said : There will be babies in hell no longer than the span of my hand .

All such like-minded "quotes" are fabrications . The more they bandy about these unfound sayings the more I will challenge them to cease and desist -- put up , or shut up .

 

[Mr.M]

MD , a lot more pages of posts have been added since you made some comments in your post #198 .

A couple here on the BB have indeed said that infants are born sinless . That view is against Scripture . If , as you have said , they are covered by the blood -- then , I maintain that they are in need of the Savior because they are sinners .

Mentally impaired folks and infants are among the "all have sinned" of Romans 3:23 . On a side note , it's interesting that even Calvinists have regarded the usage of the word "all" in this particular passage as referring to each and every person ever . But some from the non-Cal side of the aisle would like to mitigate the force of "all" here . They would like it to mean almost "all" with some exceptional waivers .

Bob , I have already expressed in the past that Scripture is not clear on the subject of infants going to hell or heaven . Aside from 2 Samuel 2:23 views expressed are in the realm of speculation . BTW , I do not think that much can be gleaned from that isolated verse to substantiate a doctrinal base . One verse does not a doctrine make .

I think we can not say for sure that no babies go to hell . We can not be certain that all babies go to heaven . I think some seem to think they are contending for orthodoxy on this matter when really sentiment reigns instead .

What I have been objecting to is the usage of inflammatory language in order to stir the pot . So far BB has not substantiated a single "quote" he periodically brings to the surface of his murky waters . No lie , no matter how often it is repeated is true . In a post from 6/26/06 he said that the following words were in a sermon by Calvin :" There are babies a span long in hell ..." Now that is unabashed nonsense from BB's keyboard . Calvin never said such a thing .Tell me the sermon title . Granted it's all over the internet and used by anti-Calvinists aplenty . But , a lie is still a lie . No documentation -- no proof . Just slandering to perpetuate their views is common .

No Calvinist or Augustine himself has said : The way to hell is paved with infant skulls .

No Calvinist has said : There will be babies in hell no longer than the span of my hand .

All such like-minded "quotes" are fabrications . The more they bandy about these unfound sayings the more I will challenge them to cease and desist -- put up , or shut up .

While I myself am no Calvinist, I certainly concur with your thoughts. It is the work of the Evil One to accuse falsely, he is The Accuser. But apparently lying and doctrinal perversions are far less grievous than the honest discussion of race and human behavior here. It looks like that to which you are protesting and clearly present a solid case for is irrelevant to those who profess to be concerned about "inflammatory" language.

 

[Brother Bob]

Rippon and anyone else who jumped in.

A couple here on the BB have indeed said that infants are born sinless . That view is against Scripture . If , as you have said , they are covered by the blood -- then , I maintain that they are in need of the Savior because they are sinners .

They are in need of a Saviour because they have to die and need Jesus to be resurrected and took to Heaven.

While I do not uphold the Catholic, they themselves say one of their own, St Augustine taught infants in hell.

The absolute necessity of this sacrament is often insisted on by the Fathers of the Church, especially when they speak of infant baptism. Thus St. Irenæus (II, xxii): "Christ came to save all who are reborn through Him to God — infants, children, and youths" (infantes et parvulos et pueros). St. Augustine (III De Anima) says "If you wish to be a Catholic, do not believe, nor say, nor teach, that infants who die before baptism can obtain the remission of original sin." A still stronger passage from the same doctor (Ep. xxviii, Ad Hieron.) reads:"Whoever says that even infants are vivified in Christ when they depart this life without the participation of His Sacrament (Baptism), both opposes the Apostolic preaching and condemns the whole Church which hastens to baptize infants, because it unhesitatingly believes that otherwise they can not possibly be vivified in Christ," St. Ambrose (II De Abraham., c. xi) speaking of the necessity of baptism, says:" No one is excepted, not the infant, not the one hindered by any necessity."

But to use other History like the "Synod of Dort".

Article 17: The Salvation of the Infants of Believers







​

• • Since we must make judgments about God's will from his Word, which testifies that the children of believers are holy, not by nature but by virtue of the gracious covenant in which they together with their parents are included, godly parents ought not to doubt the election and salvation of their children whom God calls out of this life in infancy.
    
    They only included the children of the elect.
    
    If infants do go to hell, their bodies are buried, so I guess that is what they meant by the way to hell being paved with babies bones.

I also notice you lean towards them going to hell also. IMO

Mentally impaired folks and infants are among the "all have sinned" of Romans 3:23 . On a side note , it's interesting that even Calvinists have regarded the usage of the word "all" in this particular passage as referring to each and every person ever . But some from the non-Cal side of the aisle would like to mitigate the force of "all" here . They would like it to mean almost "all" with some exceptional waivers .

Bob , I have already expressed in the past that Scripture is not clear on the subject of infants going to hell or heaven . Aside from 2 Samuel 2:23 views expressed are in the realm of speculation . BTW , I do not think that much can be gleaned from that isolated verse to substantiate a doctrinal base . One verse does not a doctrine make .

So, you think your thoughts on the subject should be the final sayso. There are many many who disagree with you, and I am one.

You may not lean that way, but it sure seems like it to me. IMO

No Calvinist or Augustine himself has said : The way to hell is paved with infant skulls .

No Calvinist has said : There will be babies in hell no longer than the span of my hand .

All such like-minded "quotes" are fabrications . The more they bandy about these unfound sayings the more I will challenge them to cease and desist -- put up , or shut up .

I think those who spoke that way were talking about infants being lost and their bodies being buried as being the way to hell. IMO

While I myself am no Calvinist, I certainly concur with your thoughts. It is the work of the Evil One to accuse falsely, he is The Accuser. But apparently lying and doctrinal perversions are far less grievous than the honest discussion of race and human behavior here. It looks like that to which you are protesting and clearly present a solid case for is irrelevant to those who profess to be concerned about "inflammatory" language.

Sometimes the truth hurts when you uphold a Catholic and they themselves say that St. Augustine believe in infants going to hell. Also, it is a matter History that Calvin himself was raised a Catholic and held to many of the veiws of Augustine. So, maybe you need to get your facts right before stating such inflammatory statement. What is your purpose of jumping in here without giving any records of what you state.

Proved you wrong on St Augustine once, why should we start again?

 

[Brother Bob]

Mr M;

While I myself am no Calvinist, I certainly concur with your thoughts. It is the work of the Evil One to accuse falsely, he is The Accuser. But apparently lying and doctrinal perversions are far less grievous than the honest discussion of race and human behavior here. It looks like that to which you are protesting and clearly present a solid case for is irrelevant to those who profess to be concerned about "inflammatory" language

Seems you are condemning "inflammatory" language, while engaging in it your self. You have provided nothing to prove the statement are untrue ( I guess you are referring to me, if not then I apologize). You do something here that I do not do, when two brothers are having a discussion and accuations are made, I generally stay out of it, for that is just adding fuel to the flames.

Just for your own info:

Article 17: The Salvation of the Infants of Believers







​

• • Since we must make judgments about God's will from his Word, which testifies that the children of believers are holy, not by nature but by virtue of the gracious covenant in which they together with their parents are included, godly parents ought not to doubt the election and salvation of their children whom God calls out of this life in infancy.
    
    They only included the children of the elect.
    
    If infants do go to hell, their bodies are buried, so I guess that is what they meant by the way to hell being paved with babies bones.