Infant Salvation

[ReformedBaptist]

What I believe of course matters to me, but is it the truth according to the word of God, that really matters. I believe Jesus when He picked up a small child and said such IS, not going to be, but IS the Kingdom. I accept that and its good enough for me. I find where others struggle with the scripture and apply the scriptures to mankind to cover infants, and I have not yet read a scripture where Jesus spoke to infants, and I sense in their statements they do not want to say infants will go to hell for it would not go over very will with the readers, so they say, God's love covers them. James you know me well, and if I believed that infants went to hell, I would say it out loud.

BBob,

In case in this several hundreth post the idea was lost, I believe babies go to heaven too. So do most Calvinists.

 

[Jarthur001]

In case in this several hundreth post the idea was lost, I believe babies go to heaven too. So do most Calvinists.

And I believe this............

Well, my heart believes they go to heaven. But I cannot find unequivocal support for it.

The passage in Deuteronomy 1.39 and Isaiah 7.16 acknowledge that children "have no knowledge of good and evil" and do not have the maturity to "know to refuse evil and choose the good." What does this mean? If we use these verses to support our view we must use all the Bible to support it.

"Moreover your little ones and your children, who you say will be victims, who today have no knowledge of good and evil, they shall go in there; to them I will give it, and they shall possess it." (Deu 1.39)

For before the Child shall know to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land that you dread will be forsaken by both her kings. (Isa 7.16)

What is a "child?"

By inference from Numbers 14, a "child" is a person who is aged 19 or younger. Only those 19 or younger would be looked over for their sins. Can you say this too is the case of salvation? If not, then you must not use the age thing.

If you have had child, as I have, when the child was slapped on the hand, for doing wrong, and he goes to do it again and BUT at that very moment he looks at you as he remembers the slap on the hand, right then you know he understands that if he DOES do the wrong, he will get slapped on the hand again. Does this mean he knows good and bad? If so...this happens in most all cases to a child before they can even talk.

Does it take knowing good and bad to be a sinner? Or must you TRAIN a child 1st, before they have a choice. In other words....

A child does not know it is wrong to throw toys across the room. A child must be trained in order to know this is wrong. If they do not obey mom or dad this is a sin. Must the child be trained by another human as to what right and wrong is, before they are sinners?

How about the child that has a bad mother and father that does not train them? Does the child now have to the age of school to understand good and bad? Is it up to other humans to teach the child, and once they KNOW good and bad...they are now sinners?

Or does it just take the understanding of bad? They training above is mostly about not being bad. But what about being good? If it takes the understanding of good as well as bad, being that God is all that is good, would not the child need to know God as well, in order to know good and bad?

Do you not see how complicated this gets?

Now if it does not take the understanding of both God and bad, and if God just saves all babies because of his goodness, then this is just pure election. I can live with that answer.

Even if it is part of the babies that are chosen, I can see Gods election in that...and also Bible support.

If all go to hell because they did not believe...then if you place the needs of salvation up on the child, that is one must believe, this too would have Bible support.


So which is it?


I don't know.


The Bible is not clear on this. This is why you do not see much in the good creeds of our faith. They are silent, because God's Word is silent on this.

 

[Brother Bob]

You are an honest man James.

 

[Amy.G]

Good post, James.

I think it all comes back to trusting the goodness and mercy of God. We know He will do right.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Good post, James.

I think it all comes back to trusting the goodness and mercy of God. We know He will do right.

Amen. :thumbs:

 

[Brother Bob]

Rippon

Many folks would also object to the doctrine that heathen peoples go to Hell . "How could a loving God send them to Hell ? They never had the opportunity to hear the Gospel . Surely the Lord would have mercy upon them ." But , to be true to the Word of God you would be forced to conclude that those who never hear or read the Gospel die in thei sins . Hell is their appointed destiny .

So, being able to read is a requirement to be able to go to heaven Rippon?
I think this is a terrible statement Rippon. That would mean all the children of those nations would go to hell, plus all the children of our nation, for our infants can't read either. They might da da, but thats about it. You should worry more about you and your house. There is a spirit in man which giveth him understanding. I heard a preaching brother call them heathens in his sermon. It ran all over me. Something happened to that so called brother of which I will not say, for we don't know who reads the BB. They did not have all the sickness until we took it too them. They do not have XXX movies to lust after. I know the scripture speaks of heathen, but who are they?
I always think about the scripture of:

Rom 14:4Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand.

What does this mean?

Gal 1:8But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

What does this scripture mean Rippon, do you know?

Col 1:23If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and [be] not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, [and] which was preached to every creature which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister;

I will be honest with you, if there are heatherns, (which they may be better off than we, at least they do not have all the wiles of satan to contend with, Maybe we are the heatherns. There was a time, I think all Gentile nations were heathens.I suspect we are still considered heathens by Muslims and even maybe by the Jews, but silently. I remember being a small boy when we first got electricity, everyone helped everyone elses, neighbor truly did love neighbor in those days. If someone was in need, they all came to help, If someone was burn out, everyone pitched in to help that family survive. Just maybe they know more than we think we can educate them in.) But back to being honest, I really do not know what they know for sure.
When we get to Heaven and that will be by the Grace of God, we didn't do it, they may be the ones who greet us, what do you think?

Oh, but by the Grace of God, go I!

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Rippon

So, being able to read is a requirement to be able to go to heaven Rippon?
I think this is a terrible statement Rippon. That would mean all the children of those nations would go to hell, plus all the children of our nation, for our infants can't read either. They might da da, but thats about it. You should worry more about you and your house. There is a spirit in man which giveth him understanding. I heard a preaching brother call them heathens in his sermon. It ran all over me. Something happened to that so called brother of which I will not say, for we don't know who reads the BB. They did not have all the sickness until we took it too them. They do not have XXX movies to lust after. I know the scripture speaks of heathen, but who are they?
I always think about the scripture of:

Rom 14:4Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand.

What does this mean?

Gal 1:8But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

What does this scripture mean Rippon, do you know?

Col 1:23If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and [be] not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, [and] which was preached to every creature which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister;

I will be honest with you, if there are heatherns, (which they may be better off than we, at least they do not have all the wiles of satan to contend with, Maybe we are the heatherns. There was a time, I think all Gentile nations were heathens.I suspect we are still considered heathens by Muslims and even maybe by the Jews, but silently. I remember being a small boy when we first got electricity, everyone helped everyone elses, neighbor truly did love neighbor in those days. If someone was in need, they all came to help, If someone was burn out, everyone pitched in to help that family survive. Just maybe they know more than we think we can educate them in.) But back to being honest, I really do not know what they know for sure.
When we get to Heaven and that will be by the Grace of God, we didn't do it, they may be the ones who greet us, what do you think?

Oh, but by the Grace of God, go I!

I'm confused. lol

 

[Brother Bob]

I'm confused. lol

Kidding.........

 

[Rippon]

BB , your post was full of gobbledygook . You are woefully uninformed , if I am to take you seriously . If you were joking , it's in bad taste for such a serious matter .

Facts : 1) The heathen arre more plentiful then you suspect !
2) If you are a Christian you can not be a heathen !
3) Heathens will certainly not greet believers in Heaven !

No , being able to read is not a requirement for Heaven Mr. Master of Rabbit Trails . The heathen will die in their sin without hearing or reading of the Gospel -- they will have no contact with it .

Of course there are pagans in our land . They may have heard or read of the Gospel -- but the ones who have delivered the Word to them are like the smell of death to their auditors ( 2 Cor. 2:5 ) .

I'm not quite sure why you made reference to the Scriptures you did . They had nothing to do with the subject-at-hand . However , I will say a passage bears repeating so -- pay attention to Galatians 1:9 .

Regarding your "quotes" . You have not refuted me twice . You have not once given me any of the phraselogies which you have paraded around ever so often . It seems you have backed-off and acknowledged that Calvin did not utter what you previously claimed he did . But you have yet to concede that your urn is bone dry when it comes to citing sources for any of your additional phony quotes . Truth is good for the soul BB . Come clean .

 

[Brother Bob]

Regarding your "quotes" . You have not refuted me twice . You have not once given me any of the phraselogies which you have paraded around ever so often . It seems you have backed-off and acknowledged that Calvin did not utter what you previously claimed he did . But you have yet to concede that your urn is bone dry when it comes to citing sources for any of your additional phony quotes . Truth is good for the soul BB . Come clean .

I acknowledged twice, now this makes 3 times that I could not find a good source against Calvin. I can find articles that say he said it but with no references, so I posted such on here twice before.
I see you failed to mention St. Augustine this time so you must of backed off of him, but I failed to see where you posted such, so your I guess you have given up on that one. I don't feel like no off the wall comment about an "urn".

This is as clean as it gets my man. I will use about Augustine in the future, I don't know for sure about Calvin as of yet, being he made statements about the "elect's" children being saved.

I will always keep an eye open for you though and thanks for starting my day off on such a note.

BBob,

 

[Rippon]

If you continue to come up dry in nailing-down the sources of your striking phraselogies -- there is a rather good possibility that the "quotes" are suspect Bob . Are you interested in truth or perpetuating error ?

 

[Brother Bob]

If you continue to come up dry in nailing-down the sources of your striking phraselogies -- there is a rather good possibility that the "quotes" are suspect Bob . Are you interested in truth or perpetuating error ?

You are whistleing through your hat. It sounds like a threat of banning to me. For what, I give backup for all my doctrine and posts. I acknowledged 3 times on Calvin. I have answered you enough. You are not going to batter me over and over. You will not accept my acknowledgements of Calvin, but continue to batter over and over and over and over. You need to cool it.
You are the only one I hear crying over Calvin.

Others accepted this and this shows I did give where the info came from. You are the only one who keeps battering over and over.

Post #17


HISTORY of the CHRISTIAN CHURCH*
CHAPTER XIV.
CALVIN’S THEOLOGY.
§ 111. Calvin’s Commentaries
But Calvin did not go so far. On the contrary, he intimates very clearly that there are reprobate or non-elect children as well as reprobate adults. He says that "some infants," having been previously regenerated by the Holy Spirit, "are certainly saved," but he nowhere says that all infants are saved.837 In his comments on Rom. 5:17, he confines salvation to the infants of pious (elect) parents, but leaves the fate of the rest more than doubtful.838 Arguing with Catholic advocates of free-will, who yet admitted the damnation of unbaptized infants, he asks them to explain in any other way but by the mysterious will of God, the terrible fact "that the fall of Adam, independent of any remedy, should involve so many nations with their infant children in eternal death. Their tongues so loquacious on every other point must here be struck dumb."839

837 Inst. Bk. IV. ch. XVI. 17: "Infantes, qui servandi sint—ut certe ex ea aetate omnino aliqui servantur—antea a Domino regenerari minime obscurum est." This was the doctrine of the Westminster divines, and is expressed in the Westminster Confession, ch. X. 3: "Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit, who worketh when, and where, and how he pleaseth." Although this passage admits of a liberal construction, yet the natural sense, as interpreted by the private opinions of the framers of the Confession, makes it almost certain that the existence and damnation of non-elect infants is implied. The Presbyterian Revisionists, therefore, wishing to avoid this logical implication, propose to strike out elect, or to substitute all for it (as the Cumberland Presbyterians have done in their Confession). The change will be acted upon by the General Assembly in May, 1892.
http://www.ccel.org/s/schaff/history/8_ch14.htm#_edn60


Quote:

839 "Tot gentes una cum liberis eorum infantibus." Inst. III. ch. XXIII. § 7. To this should be added the challenge to Castellio: "Put forth now thy virulence against God, who hurls innocent babes even from their mothers’ breast into eternal death." Calvin here argues e concessis. The passage has been often distorted. We give it in Latin with the connection (Opera, IX. 289): "Negas Deo licere nisi propter facinus damnare quenquam mortalium. Tolluntur e vita innumeri adhuc infantes. Exsere nunc tuam virulentiam contra Deum, qui innoxios foetus a matrum uberibus avulsos in aeternam mortem praecipitat. Hanc blasphemiam, ubi palam detecta est, quisquis non detestabitur, mihi pro sua libidine maledicat." In the same way he challenges Castellio (fol. 289), to explain the admitted fact, that God allows innocent infants to be devoured by tigers or lions or bears or wolves ("qui fit ut Deus parvulos infantes a tigribus vel ursis vel leonibus vel lupis laniari vorarique sineat"). The attempt of Dr. Shields of Princeton to prove that Calvin believed in the salvation of all infants, is an entire failure ("The Presbyt. and Ref. Review " for October, 1890).

Post #247 My 3rd acknowledgement. You are just trying to get me banned . I have acknowledged all I can. Do not get me wrong for there are plenty of articles saying Calvin said "there will be babies in hell no bigger than the span of your hand", that is a fact, but I can't find reputable references so I acknowledged. If that is not enough for you. I can't help you.

I already acknowledged that I could not produce where Calvin used the exact words I quoted. I can produce many internet postings about Calvin believing infants in hell, but was not able to find a notible reference so I did not use them. Some of he words Calvin used, he seem to want it both ways. Now Augustine is another story, he did believe in infants being lost and going to hell. Whether he quoted the exact words I used, I do not know. Likewise there are many posting on the internet on St Augustine, but his own acknowledge that Augustine believed in infants being lost.

Now, Calvin, I probably will not use again, but Augustine, I will use if I find it necessary for I have enough proof on him to back up the fact, that he believed in infants being lost and not going to heaven.

Calvin did make one quote where he only included the "elect"s children being saved, but later he added later all children. So, he was a little wishy washy.

Since this thread started there have been several on here that have lefted the impression that infants are lost if they die that way. I knew there were many who did believe it but did not think they would come forward with it. I am glad they did. If you believe something and not man enough to stand up for it, then you should not get into the debate.

You seem to not even accept the proof on St Augustine, but that up to you. IMO Augustine believe babies in hell, and Calvin followed the doctrine of Augustine closely, I have no proof however he believed in babies in hell. That is not to say, I have not heard it quoted many times and also on the internet in many different postings.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

"You are whistleing through your hat."

Now brother Bob, you were correct in your estimation that I am in my 30's. You must share the meaning of this ancient statement....what exactly does it mean to whistle through one's hat.

:laugh:

 

[Brother Bob]

"You are whistleing through your hat."

Now brother Bob, you were correct in your estimation that I am in my 30's. You must share the meaning of this ancient statement....what exactly does it mean to whistle through one's hat.

:laugh:

Blowing air....... I think Rippon is trying to get me to say something so he can ban me. IMO

ReformedBaptist:

I will allow this one divergence for the sake of honesty.

Phillip Schaff's History of the Christian Church has been used and the reference regarding Augstine's opinion on infant damnation is illuminating.

Shaff wrote, "St. Augustin expressly assigns all unbaptized children dying in infancy to eternal damnation, because of original sin inherited from Adam’s transgression. It is true, he mitigates their punishment and reduces it to a negative state of privation of bliss, as distinct from positive suffering.834 "

This is the 834 reference:

 

[Rippon]

You waste a lot of Keystrokes BB

Rippon : "It seems you have backed-off and acknowledged that Calvin did not utter what you previously claimed he did ." ( post #269 )

It's funny that when you concede things to me you call them refutations .:laugh:

I am still interested in truth-telling from you BB . Produce the phraselogies from Augustine or any other Calvinist to substantiate your mythological "quotes" . If you can't do so then tell the folks reading here and the millions watching at home that you are in error . No tickie -- no washie .

 

[Brother Bob]

Rippon; if you are a moderator, I have no way of knowing such, for its not on your avatar as the moderators have. As far as I know, you are just like me another poster, of whom I am very tired of. What I have posted on Calvin and Augustine, is not something I made up, but came from a google search. From what I have read about Augustine, he indeed did believe babies in hell, what I have read about calvin, he could go either way, its hard to tell. I have given a Phillip Schaff History account on Augustine which is accepted by most as being legit, except of course YOu! IMO
Everything I have posted I felt to be the truth, IMO and I was told a long time ago, as long as I give something as MO, it was legal.
If you are not a moderator, then you should quit playing like one, or did you sleep in the Holiday Inn last night.

Calvin has plenty against him besides babies in hell, he didn't seem to be a very Christ like person to me. IMO

You have been told all you are going to be told. The next thing I will do is post all of the articles giving the location of such where many say Calvin did say there would be babies in hell not bigger than the span of your hand. Also, I posted on Augustine and Sir, that is all you are going to get. Who do you think you are anyway. I made my acknowledgements and if you don't like them, then whistle dixie.

You are a constant nag, you never let up, well you can go on forever, but as far as I am concerned you got it fellow. I will be ignoring your next post on this subject.


Others accepted this and this shows I did give where the info came from. You are the only one who keeps battering over and over.

Post #17


HISTORY of the CHRISTIAN CHURCH*
CHAPTER XIV.
CALVIN’S THEOLOGY.
§ 111. Calvin’s Commentaries
But Calvin did not go so far. On the contrary, he intimates very clearly that there are reprobate or non-elect children as well as reprobate adults. He says that "some infants," having been previously regenerated by the Holy Spirit, "are certainly saved," but he nowhere says that all infants are saved.837 In his comments on Rom. 5:17, he confines salvation to the infants of pious (elect) parents, but leaves the fate of the rest more than doubtful.838 Arguing with Catholic advocates of free-will, who yet admitted the damnation of unbaptized infants, he asks them to explain in any other way but by the mysterious will of God, the terrible fact "that the fall of Adam, independent of any remedy, should involve so many nations with their infant children in eternal death. Their tongues so loquacious on every other point must here be struck dumb."839

837 Inst. Bk. IV. ch. XVI. 17: "Infantes, qui servandi sint—ut certe ex ea aetate omnino aliqui servantur—antea a Domino regenerari minime obscurum est." This was the doctrine of the Westminster divines, and is expressed in the Westminster Confession, ch. X. 3: "Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit, who worketh when, and where, and how he pleaseth." Although this passage admits of a liberal construction, yet the natural sense, as interpreted by the private opinions of the framers of the Confession, makes it almost certain that the existence and damnation of non-elect infants is implied. The Presbyterian Revisionists, therefore, wishing to avoid this logical implication, propose to strike out elect, or to substitute all for it (as the Cumberland Presbyterians have done in their Confession). The change will be acted upon by the General Assembly in May, 1892.
http://www.ccel.org/s/schaff/history/8_ch14.htm#_edn60


Quote:

839 "Tot gentes una cum liberis eorum infantibus." Inst. III. ch. XXIII. § 7. To this should be added the challenge to Castellio: "Put forth now thy virulence against God, who hurls innocent babes even from their mothers’ breast into eternal death." Calvin here argues e concessis. The passage has been often distorted. We give it in Latin with the connection (Opera, IX. 289): "Negas Deo licere nisi propter facinus damnare quenquam mortalium. Tolluntur e vita innumeri adhuc infantes. Exsere nunc tuam virulentiam contra Deum, qui innoxios foetus a matrum uberibus avulsos in aeternam mortem praecipitat. Hanc blasphemiam, ubi palam detecta est, quisquis non detestabitur, mihi pro sua libidine maledicat." In the same way he challenges Castellio (fol. 289), to explain the admitted fact, that God allows innocent infants to be devoured by tigers or lions or bears or wolves ("qui fit ut Deus parvulos infantes a tigribus vel ursis vel leonibus vel lupis laniari vorarique sineat"). The attempt of Dr. Shields of Princeton to prove that Calvin believed in the salvation of all infants, is an entire failure ("The Presbyt. and Ref. Review " for October, 1890).

Post #247 My 3rd acknowledgement. You are just trying to get me banned . I have acknowledged all I can. Do not get me wrong for there are plenty of articles saying Calvin said "there will be babies in hell no bigger than the span of your hand", that is a fact, but I can't find reputable references so I acknowledged. If that is not enough for you. I can't help you.

I already acknowledged that I could not produce where Calvin used the exact words I quoted. I can produce many internet postings about Calvin believing infants in hell, but was not able to find a notible reference so I did not use them. Some of he words Calvin used, he seem to want it both ways. Now Augustine is another story, he did believe in infants being lost and going to hell. Whether he quoted the exact words I used, I do not know. Likewise there are many posting on the internet on St Augustine, but his own acknowledge that Augustine believed in infants being lost.

Now, Calvin, I probably will not use again, but Augustine, I will use if I find it necessary for I have enough proof on him to back up the fact, that he believed in infants being lost and not going to heaven.

Calvin did make one quote where he only included the "elect"s children being saved, but later he added later all children. So, he was a little wishy washy.

Since this thread started there have been several on here that have lefted the impression that infants are lost if they die that way. I knew there were many who did believe it but did not think they would come forward with it. I am glad they did. If you believe something and not man enough to stand up for it, then you should not get into the debate. IMO

You seem to not even accept the proof on St Augustine, but that up to you. IMO Augustine believe babies in hell, and Calvin followed the doctrine of Augustine closely, I have no proof however he believed in babies in hell. That is not to say, I have not heard it quoted many times and also on the internet in many different postings. IMO
BBob,

 

[Rippon]

You waste words BB . Produce the phraseologies or give up . It's really that simple . I could not be any plainer .

 

[Brother Bob]

.....................

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Removed by author.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Removed by author.