Infant Salvation

[webdog]

However, as Boettner rightly pointed out, Calvinists "have entertained a charitable hope that since these infants have never committed any actual sin themselves, their inherited sin would be pardoned and they would be saved on wholly evangelical principles."

There is a problem with this. God is just, and ALL sin goes punished. He doesn't pardon some on "wholly evangelical principles" (whatever that means). At least he got the part right that they have not commited any actual sin themselves. Where he got it wrong is inherited sin. We are responsible for our sin, and our sin alone. The fallacy that I hear repeated throughout many churches in America is "we aren't sinners because we sin...we sin because we are sinners". That is the most ridiculous statement many intlligent men make. Substitute any sin for "sinner" and it's plain foolishness. "I'm not a drunkard because I drink too much...I drink too much because I'm a drunkard", or "I'm not an adulterer because I cheated on my wife...I cheated on my wife because I"m an adulterer".

I just finished reading a passage in Ezekiel 18:4 that pertains to this discussion..."...the person who sins is the one who will die".

The infant goes to Heaven because God judges based on sin WE commit, not Adam. It is appointed unto man ONCE to die...and then the judgement.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

You have no right whatsoever to say who can post here and who can not.
As far as you refuting on the other forum. All you did was not like the message, so "kill the messenger. Why be afraid of others history, if you are so sure of yours. Again, you choose a Presbyterian preacher for your information, but try to kill the whole History of the Catholic encyclopedia, which is a history of one of its own, St. Augustine.

Careful brother Bob, I did not say you could not post. I asked you to stay on the topic of this thread and not divert its subject as you did in the other thread. I also asked for your good Christian spirit which you affirmed in another post.

Are you suggesting that I want to kill you? Please. Place your stock in the Roman Catholic Encyclopedia if you will. I do not. Now, I have indulged your bunny trail long enough and wish to get back on subject. Please cooperate in that regard. I have also indulged to the point of quoting extensively from Phillip Shaff's History of the Christian Church on this subject.

 

[Brother Bob]

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

So now, you have to retract some of your refuting and accept part of what I posted. Well, it came from the same source as the rest.

Apology or not?

Are you suggesting that I want to kill you? Please. Place your stock in the Roman Catholic Encyclopedia if you will. I do not. Now, I have indulged your bunny trail long enough and wish to get back on subject. Please cooperate in that regard. I have also indulged to the point of quoting extensively from Phillip Shaff's History of the Christian Church on this subject.
__________________

What you really mean is that you had to eat crow and admit what I posted was true. IMO

You just quoted what I quoted from it.

Are you suggesting that I want to kill you? Please. Place your stock in the Roman Catholic Encyclopedia if you will. I do not.

You have been refuted and had to admit to your mistake by posting Phillip Schaff's History of the Christian Church regarding Augstine's opinion on infant damnation is illuminating.


Which was what I posted in the first place. You also need to go to the other forum and admit you made a mistake.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

So now, you have to retract some of your refuting and accept part of what I posted. Well, it came from the same source as the rest.

Apology or not?

Certainly, if it makes you happy. I rejected, if you re-read, the Roman Catholic Encyclopedia. I did not realize the second part of excerpted from Phillip Schaff's history, which I find informative. I also allowed this divergence for honesty. The excerpt you quoted is not enough. Everyone needs to read the entire section to get the full opinion of Shaff on the matter, as well as the footnotes.

You have attempted to throw contempt on Calvinist theolgy through the discussion of infant salvation. You have failed. Augustine's belief in infant damnation (which I stated before I didn't know what he thought about it, but now I do) had anything to do with his teaching on predestination. Shaff rightly poitns out his belief on infant damnation, apparantly was his belief, had to do with the doctrine of necessity of baptism for salvation.

Do you see that brother Bob or are you going to insist that its calvinist principles that drive a belief in infant damnation?

 

[Brother Bob]

You have attempted to throw contempt on Calvinist theolgy through the discussion of infant salvation. You have failed. Augustine's belief in infant damnation (which I stated before I didn't know what he thought about it, but now I do) had anything to do with his teaching on predestination. Shaff rightly poitns out his belief on infant damnation, apparantly was his belief, had to do with the doctrine of necessity of baptism for salvation.

Do you see that brother Bob or are you going to insist that its calvinist principles that drive a belief in infant damnation?__________________

The emphasis was made a long time before Bro Bob came along. You had to back up, on part of what I posted, when all I posted came from same source.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

So now, you have to retract some of your refuting and accept part of what I posted. Well, it came from the same source as the rest.

Apology or not?




What you really mean is that you had to eat crow and admit what I posted was true. IMO


You just quoted what I quoted from it.

I think your getting confused. I reject the ROman Catholic Encyclopedias. I do, however, appreciate Phillip Shaff's history. In its entirety, and not the excerpt alone you quoted, along with its footnotes, it very useful.

You have been refuted and had to admit to your mistake by posting Phillip Schaff's History of the Christian Church has been used and the reference regarding Augstine's opinion on infant damnation is illuminating.

The second part of which you quoted I did not know the source. I do now. As stated before, I did not know (or really particularly care) what Augustine believed on the matter. I asked for primary proof, which still hasn't been provided, but this secondary source is sufficient for me. I suppose Augustine did believe in infant damnation, not because of "calvinist" principles, but because of his beliefs about infant baptism.


Which was what I posted in the first place. Now if you were as Christian as you claim I am not, or seem to suggest not Christian enough, IMO. why don't you acknowledge you made a mistake, or is that beyond you. You also need to go to the other forum and admit you made a mistake.

**sigh, must we really start this again Bob?

 

[ReformedBaptist]

The emphasis was made a long time before Bro Bob came along. You had to back up, on part of what I posted, when all I posted came from same source.

Is that an answer? If so, it doesn't make sense to me. Do you see that Augustines apparant belief in infant damnation had to do with, according to Schaff, his belief regarding infant baptism and not predestination. It was Calvin that brought ideas AWAY from infant damnation.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

All right all, I will get back to topic and post soon what I previously said I would post. I will no longer be responding to Brother Bob who insists on hijacking my thread. :BangHead:

 

[Brother Bob]

Nope, I will leave you now.

When I made a mistake, I apologized. Something inside of me causes me too.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

The way in which I believe infants to be saved.

Spurgeon noted in his sermon that some suppose the reason for infant salvation is that the infant in innocent. I do not believe such a thing because the Scripture does not teach it. The Scripture teaches in 1 Corinthians 15:22 that "For as in Adam all die..." All of Adam's posterity was represented by him when he sinned, and all fell in Adam. When Adam fell, he fell for all the human race.

On this point Spurgeon said,

There was no exception made at all in the covenant of works made with Adam as to infants dying; and inasmuch as they were included in Adam, though they have not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, they have original guilt. They are "born in sin and steepen in iniquity; in sin do their mothers conceive them;" so saith David of himself, and (by inference) of the whole human race.

And he is quite right. And less we cry foul or unfair to the biblical doctrine of the imputation of Adam's guilt to all his posterity, let us remember that we also have another Head, Jesus Christ the righteous, whose obedience and righteousness is imputed to His posterity. "For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive."

Therefore, if any infant be saved, it is not because of natural innocence in them. One of the most obvious evidences of the imputation of original guilt is the fact that an infant may die. The Scirpture says, "The wages of sin is death." On account of whose sin does the infant suffer the wage of sin? Is it there own? We cannot suppose that. No, it must be orignial guilt.

More in the next post...

 

[ReformedBaptist]

There is a problem with this. God is just, and ALL sin goes punished. He doesn't pardon some on "wholly evangelical principles" (whatever that means). At least he got the part right that they have not commited any actual sin themselves. Where he got it wrong is inherited sin. We are responsible for our sin, and our sin alone. The fallacy that I hear repeated throughout many churches in America is "we aren't sinners because we sin...we sin because we are sinners". That is the most ridiculous statement many intlligent men make. Substitute any sin for "sinner" and it's plain foolishness. "I'm not a drunkard because I drink too much...I drink too much because I'm a drunkard", or "I'm not an adulterer because I cheated on my wife...I cheated on my wife because I"m an adulterer".

I just finished reading a passage in Ezekiel 18:4 that pertains to this discussion..."...the person who sins is the one who will die".

The infant goes to Heaven because God judges based on sin WE commit, not Adam. It is appointed unto man ONCE to die...and then the judgement.

I touched very briefly on this subject. In theology what I am describing is called federal headship.

 

[webdog]

And he is quite right. And less we cry foul or unfair to the biblical doctrine of the imputation of Adam's guilt to all his posterity, let us remember that we also have another Head, Jesus Christ the righteous, whose obedience and righteousness is imputed to His posterity. "For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive."

This says nothing of original sin. It is appointed unto ALL men once to die (in Adam). In Christ, all are made alive (spiritually). Using this verse to support Augustinian original sin would naturally lead to universalism.

Therefore, if any infant be saved, it is not because of natural innocence in them. One of the most obvious evidences of the imputation of original guilt is the fact that an infant may die. The Scirpture says, "The wages of sin is death." On account of whose sin does the infant suffer the wage of sin?

Correct...infants are not "innocent". They are "not guilty". If they were truly innocent, they wouldn't fall under the curse. "The wages of sin is death" is speaking about spiritual death, as the rest of the verse qualifies "...BUT the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord". In Adam all die physically...but those who die spiritually die due to their own sin. Since sin is the transgression of Law, without knowledge of Law, they are not innocent...but found not guilty.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

With original guilt being established by Scripture, that in Adam all die, even those who had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's sin, we must go on to ask, then how is an infant saved?

In the exact same manner as an adult and under no other Gospel but the Gospel of Christ. Infants enter heaven the same way we do, through Jesus Christ. None here will likely believe an infant can be saved through baptism, and we (reformed Baptists) affirm no such thing.

What I believe is that the infant is saved because it is elect. This is the selfsame reason anyone, infant or adult, is saved. As it is written,

"Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ: According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved."

Sometimes Romans 8:29-30 is referred to as the golden chain of redemption, "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 many brethren. Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified."

Certainly it is not a stetch of Scripture truth to include infants in the foreknowledge (fore-love) and foreordination of God. Our Lord Jesus, slain from the foundation of the world, purchased with His own blood elect sons and daughters of both infants and adults.

And we would not dare to say that the infant is saved apart from regeneration. Christ our Lord has said, "Ye must be born again." And so must they. The infant is elect for no reason other than what the Scripture declares, "according to the good pleasure of His will." And is called in death, justified, and glorified by the operation of God no different than we are. On this point Spurgeon said,

No doubt, in some mysterious manner the Spirit of God regenerates the infant soul, and it enters into glory made meet to be a partaker of the inheritance of the saints in light. That this is possible is proved from Scripture instances. John the Baptist was filled with the Holy Ghost from his mother's would. We read of Jeremiah also, that the same had occurred to him; and of Samuel we find that while yet a babe the Lord called him. We believe, therefore, that even before the intellect can work, God, who worketh not by the will of man, nor by blood, but by the mysterious agency of his Holy Spirit, creates the infant soul a new creature in Christ Jesus, and then it enters into the "rest which remaineth for the people of God." By election, by redemption, by regeneration, the child enters into glory, by the selfsame door by which every believer in Christ Jesus hopes to enter, and in no other way.

Amen and Amen.

 

[webdog]

What I believe is that the infant is saved because it is elect. This is the selfsame reason anyone, infant or adult, is saved.

You have single handedly eliminated faith as a requirement for salvation, then. Infants do not possess the ability to have faith, as faith comes by understanding, and that from the Word of God. This is hyper calvinism, and the only logical conclusion one who holds to Augustinian original sin must come to. I'll take Scripture at face value, that we are saved by Grace...THROUGH FAITH.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

This says nothing of original sin. It is appointed unto ALL men once to die (in Adam). In Christ, all are made alive (spiritually). Using this verse to support Augustinian original sin would naturally lead to universalism.

Correct...infants are not "innocent". They are "not guilty". If they were truly innocent, they wouldn't fall under the curse. "The wages of sin is death" is speaking about spiritual death, as the rest of the verse qualifies "...BUT the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord". In Adam all die physically...but those who die spiritually die due to their own sin. Since sin is the transgression of Law, without knowledge of Law, they are not innocent...but found not guilty.

To begin to dig into the doctrine of original sin would be to take this thread in a different direction. It is certainly a worthy topic, but the use of the doctrine was in an explaination of infant salvation. Perhaps after I finish the discussion of infant salvation we can talk about orginal sin.

 

[TCGreek]

With original guilt being established by Scripture, that in Adam all die, even those who had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's sin, we must go on to ask, then how is an infant saved?

In the exact same manner as an adult and under no other Gospel but the Gospel of Christ. Infants enter heaven the same way we do, through Jesus Christ. None here will likely believe an infant can be saved through baptism, and we (reformed Baptists) affirm no such thing.

What I believe is that the infant is saved because it is elect. This is the selfsame reason anyone, infant or adult, is saved. As it is written,

"Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ: According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved."

Sometimes Romans 8:29-30 is referred to as the golden chain of redemption, "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 many brethren. Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified."

Certainly it is not a stetch of Scripture truth to include infants in the foreknowledge (fore-love) and foreordination of God. Our Lord Jesus, slain from the foundation of the world, purchased with His own blood elect sons and daughters of both infants and adults.

And we would not dare to say that the infant is saved apart from regeneration. Christ our Lord has said, "Ye must be born again." And so must they. The infant is elect for no reason other than what the Scripture declares, "according to the good pleasure of His will." And is called in death, justified, and glorified by the operation of God no different than we are. On this point Spurgeon said,

Amen and Amen.

1. I admire your well-reasoned responses.

2. Commenting on Romans 5:12-19, Dr. Millard Erickson, professor of Theology at Baylor university, makes this observation:

"We all were involved in Adam's sin, and thus receive both the corrupted nature that as his after the fall, and the guilt and condemnation that attach to his sin. With this matter of guilt, however, just as with the imputation of Christ's righteousness, there must be some conscious and voluntary decision on our part. Until this is the case, there is only a conditional imputation of guilt. Thus, there is no condemnation until one reaches the age of responsibility. If a child dies before becoming capable of making genuine moral decisions, the contingent imputation of Adamic sin does not become actual, and the child will experience the same type of future existence with the Lord as will those who have reached the age of moral responsibility and had their sins forgiven as a result of accepting the offer of salvation based upon Christ's atoning death." (Christian Theology, p.656).

3. Augustine was in error and so were many of the Church Fathers. They were fallible men.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

You have single handedly eliminated faith as a requirement for salvation, then. Infants do not possess the ability to have faith, as faith comes by understanding, and that from the Word of God. This is hyper calvinism, and the only logical conclusion one who holds to Augustinian original sin must come to. I'll take Scripture at face value, that we are saved by Grace...THROUGH FAITH.

I will take your response as a passionate reply to what you believe. I simply disagree with your conclusion brother in what I have "single handedly" done.

 

[webdog]

To begin to dig into the doctrine of original sin would be to take this thread in a different direction. It is certainly a worthy topic, but the use of the doctrine was in an explaination of infant salvation. Perhaps after I finish the discussion of infant salvation we get talk about orginal sin.

Can they really be separated?

 

[TCGreek]

You have single handedly eliminated faith as a requirement for salvation, then. Infants do not possess the ability to have faith, as faith comes by understanding, and that from the Word of God. This is hyper calvinism, and the only logical conclusion one who holds to Augustinian original sin must come to. I'll take Scripture at face value, that we are saved by Grace...THROUGH FAITH.

Then what about the infants? Where do they spend eternity? The burden of proof is on you, my brother.

 

[webdog]

I will take your response as a passionate reply to what you believe. I simply disagree with your conclusion brother in what I have "single handedly" done.

I don't mind disagreement. I can't see how one portion of humanity can be saved by grace through faith...and Scripture tells us this is the only mean for the spiritually dead to attain salvation...and God gives a free pass to another group of humanity, overlooking sin and the need on the sinners part to repent. This would make God less good, for accepting sin apart from repentance...meaning He would cease to be God.