Infant Salvation

[webdog]

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

"The soul that sins shall surely die". That's proof enough. An infant does not commit sin (transgresses God's Law). They are not guilty in God's eye. They are still under the curse of sin where they will die physically (all are appointed ONCE to die), and this is where I don't believe they are innocent, as if they were, they wouldn't fall under this curse...but they are still not guilty judicially.

 

[TCGreek]

"The soul that sins shall surely die".

That's proof enough. An infant does not commit sin (transgresses God's Law)

Then we're in substantial agreement at this point. We can agree. :thumbs:

 

[ReformedBaptist]

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.

I agree, and perhaps my explainations are not clear enough or I did not state positively enough what I am trying to communicate. I am in full agreement with Spurgeon on the subject who said,

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. If we could not suppose that children could be saved in the same way as adults, if it would be necessary to suppose that God's justice must be infringe, or that his plan of salvation must be altered to suit their cases, then we should be in doubt; but we can see that with the same appliances, by the same plan, on precisely the same grounds, and through the same agencies, the infant soul can behold the Savior a face in glory everlasting, and therefore we are at ease upon the matter.

And I would add to this brother, that no system of theology can permit the salvation of infant souls than the calvinst system. And there is nothing within the system that prevents us from believing infants who die are elect. This cannot be said of other systems. Within the eternal decree of Almighty God, and unconditional election, are we saved, accoding to His will and good pleasure, and not for any forseen faith or merit or action on the part of the individual is the well-spring of our election. But rather, it is the pleasure and and will of God that is the well-spring of our salvation determined before the world began.

The Arminian system, however, falls woefully short in this regard, hinging salvation upon the decision of man. This system then must contend for another reason for the salvation of infants until such a decision may be reached.

In regard to this question Dr. S. G. Craig has written:

"We take it that no doctrine of infant salvation is Christian that does not assume that infants are lost members of a lost race for whom there is no salvation apart from Christ. It must be obvious to all, therefore, that the doctrine that all dying in infancy are saved will not fit into the Roman Catholic or Anglo-Catholic system of thought with their teaching of baptismal regeneration; as clearly most of those who have died in infancy have not been baptized. It is obvious also that the Lutheran system of thought provides no place for the notion that all dying in infancy are saved because of the necessity it attaches to the means of grace, especially the Word and the Sacraments. If grace is only in the means of grace—in the case of infants in baptism—it seems clear that most of those who have died in infancy have not been the recipients of grace. Equally clear is it that the Arminian has no right to believe in the salvation of all dying in infancy; in fact, it is not so clear that he has any right to believe in the salvation of any dying in infancy. 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."

See Boettner's section on Infant Salvation as reference.

 

[TCGreek]

"The soul that sins shall surely die". That's proof enough. An infant does not commit sin (transgresses God's Law). They are not guilty in God's eye. They are still under the curse of sin where they will die physically (all are appointed ONCE to die), and this is where I don't believe they are innocent, as if they were, they wouldn't fall under this curse...but they are still not guilty judicially.

I notice that you went back and added to your comments. I don't know if I can agree with everything you have added.

 

[webdog]

Quote:
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. If we could not suppose that children could be saved in the same way as adults, if it would be necessary to suppose that God's justice must be infringe, or that his plan of salvation must be altered to suit their cases, then we should be in doubt; but we can see that with the same appliances, by the same plan, on precisely the same grounds, and through the same agencies, the infant soul can behold the Savior a face in glory everlasting, and therefore we are at ease upon the matter.

And I would add to this brother, that no system of theology can permit the salvation of infant souls than the calvinst system. And there is nothing within the system that prevents us from believing infants who die are elect. This cannot be said of other systems. Within the eternal decree of Almighty God, and unconditional election, are we saved, accoding to His will and good pleasure, and not for any forseen faith or merit or action on the part of the individual is the well-spring of our election. But rather, it is the pleasure and and will of God that is the well-spring of our salvation determined before the world began.

This is where we disagree. I believe calvinism does great injustice to infant salvation. I understand that Spurgeon believed those infants who died were "elect" and would have accepted Christ by faith at some point in their lives...but the truth of the matter is, God doesn't judge based on what we would do in the future in a parallel world, but what we DID do with His Son. An infant is not "elect" (this phrase is misused by calvinism...but that's another thread) based on God forseeing what would have become of their lives if they were to live to be 80.

 

[webdog]

I notice that you went back and added to your comments. I don't know if I can agree with everything you have added.

What part, all men are appointed once to die, infants are not innocent, or God finds them not guilty?

 

[moondg]

Why is everyone talking about what other people say?
I do not care what this preacher or that researchers said. I only care what God said in his word.
Small children and people that can not discern wrong from wright go to heaven when they die.
Because God is a just God.
Subject closed.

 

[Amy.G]

And I would add to this brother, that no system of theology can permit the salvation of infant souls than the calvinst system. And there is nothing within the system that prevents us from believing infants who die are elect. This cannot be said of other systems. Within the eternal decree of Almighty God, and unconditional election, are we saved, accoding to His will and good pleasure, and not for any forseen faith or merit or action on the part of the individual is the well-spring of our election. But rather, it is the pleasure and and will of God that is the well-spring of our salvation determined before the world began.
The Arminian system, however, falls woefully short in this regard, hinging salvation upon the decision of man. This system then must contend for another reason for the salvation of infants until such a decision may be reached.

But in order to say that all infants are the elect they must have all been elected based on the fact that they are unable to make a decision for God. Otherwise, they would fall in the same catagory as the rest of mankind and be chosen or not chosen.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

This is where we disagree. I believe calvinism does great injustice to infant salvation. I understand that Spurgeon believed those infants who died were "elect" and would have accepted Christ by faith at some point in their lives...but the truth of the matter is, God doesn't judge based on what we would do in the future in a parallel world, but what we DID do with His Son. An infant is not "elect" (this phrase is misused by calvinism...but that's another thread) based on God forseeing what would have become of their lives if they were to live to be 80.

Brother, I think you misunderstand me and Spurgeon. Spurgeon is not saying, nor am I, that the children are elect because they would believe. That is evangelical Arminianism. We do disagree that our salvation is hinged upon what we "do" with Jesus. Our salvation hinges upon the Sovereign will and pleasure of God alone, irrespective of the creature. It truly is by grace brother. You are quite right in saying that an infant is not elect based on what would have become of them had they lived. The infant (or anyone) is elect because it seemed good to the Lord.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Why is everyone talking about what other people say?
I do not care what this preacher or that researchers said. I only care what God said in his word.
Small children and people that can not discern wrong from wright go to heaven when they die.
Because God is a just God.
Subject closed.

hahaha., hey brother, if that settles it for ya! :applause:

 

[webdog]

Brother, I think you misunderstand me and Spurgeon. Spurgeon is not saying, nor am I, that the children are elect because they would believe. That is evangelical Arminianism. We do disagree that our salvation is hinged upon what we "do" with Jesus. Our salvation hinges upon the Sovereign will and pleasure of God alone, irrespective of the creature. It truly is by grace brother. You are quite right in saying that an infant is not elect based on what would have become of them had they lived. The infant (or anyone) is elect because it seemed good to the Lord.

...then we are back in this viscious circular reasoning that faith is not necessary for salvation, that only "God's pleasure" is necessary. This is arbitrary selection, and negates a good portion of Scripture commanding men to repent, and accept by faith. This is hyper calvinism, my friend.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

But in order to say that all infants are the elect they must have all been elected based on the fact that they are unable to make a decision for God. Otherwise, they would fall in the same catagory as the rest of mankind and be chosen or not chosen.

Hey dear sister,

I think quite the opposite. All who are elect are elect not because of anything in themselves, whether it be foreseen faith or action. They are elect because it pleased God to elect them.

 

[Amy.G]

Hey dear sister,

I think quite the opposite. All who are elect are elect not because of anything in themselves, whether it be foreseen faith or action. They are elect because it pleased God to elect them.

I do agree that God does what pleases Him and certainly accept that.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

...then we are back in this viscious circular reasoning that faith is not necessary for salvation, that only "God's pleasure" is necessary. This is arbitrary selection, and negates a good portion of Scripture commanding men to repent, and accept by faith. This is hyper calvinism, my friend.

Actually no, but now we will be discussing unconditional election. And I think we are opperating under a different definition of hyper-calvinism. The best definition of hyper-calvinism I have heard comes from Phil Johnson, "Hyper-Calvinism, simply stated, is a doctrine that emphasizes divine sovereignty to the exclusion of human responsibility."

This is not what I am teaching or what Spurgeon taught. It is not historic calvinism. Of course, there is always the chance I am not articulating well the doctrines of grace. Brother martin?

 

[webdog]

Hyper Calvinism, simply stated, is a doctrine that emphasizes divine sovereignty to the exclusion of human responsibility."

And how is this not happening? If God chooses infants solely on His good pleasure (apart from human responsibility...repentance / faith), this is exactly what it is. Either infants are spiritually dead and need to be saved in the same manner all spiritually dead humans are, or they are not spiritually dead, and are found not guilty in God's eye. I go with the second, as it has to be one or the other. There is no special dispensation as some calvinists here believe there is.

 

[webdog]

I want to add something to this discussion that Allan once pointed out to me from John 9:39 Jesus said, "I came into this world for judgment, in order that those who do not see will see and those who do see will become blind."
Joh 9:40 Some of the Pharisees who were with Him heard these things and asked Him, "We aren't blind too, are we?"
Joh 9:41 "If you were blind," Jesus told them, "you wouldn't have sin.
But now that you say, 'We see'--your sin remains.
I think a key word is found in verse 41 "remains". The greek (meno) means "to stay", or "not depart", meaning it is imputed to you and charged to you...you alone . This was the case with Adam, and every person born since. Original sin and infant salvation go hand in hand. Adam is guilty of his sin, we are guilty for ours.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

And how is this not happening? If God chooses infants solely on His good pleasure (apart from human responsibility...repentance / faith), this is exactly what it is. Either infants are spiritually dead and need to be saved in the same manner all spiritually dead humans are, or they are not spiritually dead, and are found not guilty in God's eye. I go with the second, as it has to be one or the other. There is no special dispensation as some calvinists here believe there is.

Somehow your quote of Phil Johnson left "Hyper-" off before the word Calvinism. Phil said it is Hyper-Calvinism that emphasizes the Sovereignty of God to the exclusion of the responsibility of man. This is not historic/proper Calvinism.

Take this Scripture, ""But we are bound to give thanks always to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth: Whereunto he called you by our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ."—2 Thessalonians 2:13-14.

God foreordains both the means and the end. The end being salvation, which God has from the beginning chosen us for. And the means, through sanctifcation of the Spirit and belief of the truth. Where we are called by the Gospel of Jesus Christ, for it is the Gospel that is the power of God for salvation to everyone that believes.

We believe salvation is the gift of God, including faith. I don't see how this affects an infant child who is regenerated and brought to faith in Christ, albeit mysteriosuly to us.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

And how is this not happening? If God chooses infants solely on His good pleasure (apart from human responsibility...repentance / faith), this is exactly what it is. Either infants are spiritually dead and need to be saved in the same manner all spiritually dead humans are, or they are not spiritually dead, and are found not guilty in God's eye. I go with the second, as it has to be one or the other. There is no special dispensation as some calvinists here believe there is.

I responded to this post before you edited it. Thanks for the correction in Phil's quote. I am not sure what calvinsts believe in a special dispensation, or who here does. To whom and what are you referring?

 

[ReformedBaptist]

I want to add something to this discussion that Allan once pointed out to me from John 9:39 Jesus said, "I came into this world for judgment, in order that those who do not see will see and those who do see will become blind."
Joh 9:40 Some of the Pharisees who were with Him heard these things and asked Him, "We aren't blind too, are we?"
Joh 9:41 "If you were blind," Jesus told them, "you wouldn't have sin.
But now that you say, 'We see'--your sin remains.
I think a key word is found in verse 41 "remains". The greek (meno) means "to stay", or "not depart", meaning it is imputed to you and charged to you...you alone . This was the case with Adam, and every person born since. Original sin and infant salvation go hand in hand. Adam is guilty of his sin, we are guilty for ours.

I read and re-read this post trying to understand what connection you made between the sin of these men spoken of in John 9 and the doctrine of original sin (as we call it theologically) revealed in other places in Scripture. In reading the story, I see a man quite sensible of his sin and need of Christ, that is, the man born blind who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ. Now, some of the Pharisees who were following Jesus with a wicked heart, that they may trap Him or ensare Him somehow, heard what Jesus said of Himself.."...for judgment I am come into this world That they which see not, might see And that they which see might be made blind." v.39

When those certain Pharisees heard it they asked the Lord if they were blind also. I do not suppose they asked this question with grieved and worried hearts, sensible of the possible danger of their souls. No. I believe they felt the finger of God upon their souls, and His conviction burned in their minds and they asked with indignation this question, considering themselve to be wise and knowledgeable.

So our Lord tells them that if they were blind, that is, if they were sensible to it, and desired to know the truth, then they would have no sin. Not that our Lord is teaching that unbelief is not sin, but that they might have pardon of their sin, and being somewhat sensible of their blindness, have hope that they may be forgiven and illuminated.

But becasue they thought themselves already wise and knowledgeable, needing nothing, and certainly not from Jesus, their sin remains. That is, it is not taken away. Their error would not be forgiven.

From my estimation Jesus in the case is highlighting a specific sin. The text is not teaching or supposing to teach what we theologically call "Federal Headship" This is clearly taught in other passages of Scripture, and this passage in no way (as best as I can see) takes away from such teaching.

Just my thoughts on it...

 

[Sopranette]

Isn't there some mention of the souls of babies and toddlers residing in the main hall of heaven, right up close with God? I've been trying to find that verse all day. I could swear I read that somewhere. I just simply cannot believe in a God that would condemn infants to hell, when they are incapable of understanding faith. Also, how about those who are physically or mentally unable to accept the Lord? He is the God of Mercies, God is Love, after all.

love,

Sopranette