Infant Salvation

[moondg]

This is what we have been talking about Salvation.
Great job Bro Bob:thumbs:

 

[Brother Bob]

Jauthor;

But this is not WHY we are sinners. The verse clearly says we are sinners because of Adam sin. right?

Yes, but when?

In Christ all are made alive, but when? Not at birth.

To me it is very plainly stated that we inherited the natural death. Not the Spiritual.

1Cr 15:21For since by man [came] death, by man [came] also the resurrection of the dead.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Just got back to the thread this morning. I see its been bouncing this way and that. For the one who asked what WCF means, it stands for the Westminster Confession of Faith. FYI

This thread has over 100 replies and has pointed to a few different areas of doctrine. i.e. original sin (which has been denied), unconditional election, et. I think new threads should be started to discuss those subjects on an individual basis. I also still notice a good bit of "heat" being generated and I wish to stay out of such quarrelling and will remain so. I believe I have given a short answer to the original point of this thread. The point I showed was to give my reasons why I believe infants who perish are saved. My hope and prayer to our Lord Jesus Christ was that this would serve to uphold His glorious Gospel and give comfort to the saints if perhaps someone reading had lost an infant.

May the Lord be pleased to take my feeble attempt to magnify and glorify His Name and Gospel and use it to His glory. Amen.

Your servant in Christ,
RB

 

[Brother Bob]

ReformedBaptist;

Here are some Scriptures that allude to the belief that the children of believers will be saved:

LUK 18:15 And they brought unto him also infants, that he would touch them: but when his disciples saw it, they rebuked them. 16 But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.

ACT 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. 39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.

Therefore, the WCF says, "Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated, and saved by Christ, through the Spirit."

Other Scripture may be considered also,

1 Cor 7:14 For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.

King David said of his infant child he lost,

"He answered, "While the child was still alive, I fasted and wept. I thought, 'Who knows? The LORD may be gracious to me and let the child live.' 23 But now that he is dead, why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I will go to him, but he will not return to me." 2 Sam 12:22-23

The Scripture is scant on the subject, and I can't say directly answers the question. But it does give hope and comfort to the hearts of believers. And as I said before, the Calvinist system best fits the doctrine of infant salvation.
__________________

This in no way leaves the impression you believe the children of the unsaved go to Heaven. You only try to use scripture you think shows the "elect's" children going to heaven, but are silent on the unsaved, as some of your Predecessors. When you do that you leave yourself "open" to doubt of what you believe on the unsaved's children.

I do not believe you can show this scripture is only talking of the "elect's" children.

LUK 18:15 And they brought unto him also infants, that he would touch them: but when his disciples saw it, they rebuked them. 16 But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.

Also, I never saw the so called "heat" you are speaking of, but that Sir is not up to you or I, but is the job of the moderators.

Accusations create heat, not calm it down.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

ReformedBaptist;

This in no way leaves the impression you believe the children of the unsaved go to Heaven. You only try to use scripture you think shows the "elect's" children going to heaven, but are silent on the unsaved, as some of your Predecessors. When you do that you leave yourself "open" to doubt of what you believe on the unsaved's children.

I do not believe you can show this scripture is only talking of the "elect's" children.

LUK 18:15 And they brought unto him also infants, that he would touch them: but when his disciples saw it, they rebuked them. 16 But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.

Also, I never saw the so called "heat" you are speaking of, but that Sir is not up to you or I, but is the job of the moderators.

Accusations create heat, not calm it down.

Bob,

I hope your not trying to stir the pot here Bob...I am sure that is not your intent.

What are you accusing me of Bob? It seems you are in what you wrote. Are you charging me with wrongdoing because I see emotions running high in this thread? That is my viewpoint. The moderators job is to moderate. lol I have moderated apologetic forums before. Emotions run high. And when the subject deals with especially controversial issues, it is real easy for each one of us to act fleshly and sling mud.

I grant that you missed my posts concerning my views on this subject in some particulars. I do find it hard to believe that someone can read what I have written here and come away with doubts as to my position. I even, Bob, addressed the "silence" you are referring to here. I quote the eminant theologian Boettner once again as it illustrates my sentiments:

The Scriptures seem to teach plainly enough that the children of believers are saved; but they are silent or practically so in regard to those of the heathens. The Westminster Confession does not pass judgment on the children of heathens who die before coming to years of accountability. Where the Scriptures are silent, the Confession, too, preserves silence.

Some may, and will, suppose such a stance as insufficient and infuse their meaning into the silence and seek to create evil suspicions about the persons, but that would be unfair. And I certainly don't believe you mean to misrepresent me on this public forum when I have offered so many words and quotes of great men of God to express my views on the subject of infant salvation, both of believers' children and nonbelievers.

 

[Amy.G]

Here are some Scriptures that allude to the belief that the children of believers will be saved:

LUK 18:15 And they brought unto him also infants, that he would touch them: but when his disciples saw it, they rebuked them. 16 But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.

ACT 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. 39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.

Therefore, the WCF says, "Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated, and saved by Christ, through the Spirit."

Other Scripture may be considered also,

1 Cor 7:14 For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.

King David said of his infant child he lost,

"He answered, "While the child was still alive, I fasted and wept. I thought, 'Who knows? The LORD may be gracious to me and let the child live.' 23 But now that he is dead, why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I will go to him, but he will not return to me." 2 Sam 12:22-23

The Scripture is scant on the subject, and I can't say directly answers the question. But it does give hope and comfort to the hearts of believers. And as I said before, the Calvinist system best fits the doctrine of infant salvation.

Reformed, I don't believe any of those scriptures speaks to infant salvation in any way. I believe you have to look through the lens of Calvinism to see that. I don't mean any disrespect when I say that.

Luk 18:16 But Jesus called for them, saying, "Permit the children to come to Me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these.

Such as these is speaking of the humility of a child, their simple trust and
faith.



Act 2:38 Peter {said} to them, "Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
Act 2:39 "For the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself."

The promise is that if you repent and be baptized in the name of Christ, you will receive the Holy Spirit. We are never promised that our children will be saved.


1Cr 7:14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified through her believing husband; for otherwise your children are unclean, but now they are holy.
1Cr 7:15 Yet if the unbelieving one leaves, let him leave; the brother or the sister is not under bondage in such {cases,} but God has called us to peace.
1Cr 7:16 For how do you know, O wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, O husband, whether you will save your wife?
1Cr 7:17 Only, as the Lord has assigned to each one, as God has called each, in this manner let him walk. And so I direct in all the churches.

I think you have taken this one totally out of context. This passage has nothing to do with salvation of those related to a believer, but rather telling believers who had unbelieving spouses that they were not to leave them because of their unbelief. God had sanctified the unbeliver because of the believing spouse, so their marriage is not to be considered unclean.

But there is no promise implied that the unbeliever will be saved because of their marriage to a believer.


2Sa 12:23 "But now he has died; why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I will go to him, but he will not return to me."

I believe David is probably speaking of Sheol. I believe he is saying "I will be dead, just as he is dead".

Again, nothing about salvation.

 

[webdog]

WB: so you don't think it is worth the effort to defend your position with Scripture ? Then I will repeat , do not rely on your personal philosophy . If "the other side" has a lot of Scripture that opposes your view then you owe it to yourself (as one who professes to believe the Bible) to show biblical evidence to the contrary . Otherwise why are we here ? Is it it just to share our ideas without any biblical mooring ?

My "own personal philosophy" is based on Scripture. Please don't allude that it isn't.
What I don't have time for is to take each of your "proof texts" and place them back into the correct context. It's been done enough here on the BB in the 2 years I've been here. I'm sure you can do a search on your own...

 

[webdog]

Well...

In a way I can live with this answer. But you are splitting hairs for some reason. On the other hand I see no need to split hairs.

You just admitted that babies have a sin nature. Christ was not born with this sin nature. Christ did not sin.

I was born with this sin nature...I sinned. The sin nature made me sin. My sin originated (original sin) in me, because of the sin nature.

You have this sin nature as well.

We all have it. This is why the verse clearly says...."we are made sinners"....because sinners will sin.

We are not born perfect...and then learn sin. Sin is part of us...and sinners sin.

I don't think it's splitting hairs at all. You don't see a difference when someone pleads "not guilty" as opposed to "innocent" in the court of law? This sin nature is woven into our humanity, in the same way physical defects are. Does a child come out of the womb walking? Why not...they are programmed to in their DNA as a human, are they not? A child WILL walk at some point, as they grow, and the sin nature is the same way.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Reformed, I don't believe any of those scriptures speaks to infant salvation in any way. I believe you have to look through the lens of Calvinism to see that. I don't mean any disrespect when I say that.

Luk 18:16 But Jesus called for them, saying, "Permit the children to come to Me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these.

Such as these is speaking of the humility of a child, their simple trust and
faith.



Act 2:38 Peter {said} to them, "Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
Act 2:39 "For the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself."

The promise is that if you repent and be baptized in the name of Christ, you will receive the Holy Spirit. We are never promised that our children will be saved.


1Cr 7:14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified through her believing husband; for otherwise your children are unclean, but now they are holy.
1Cr 7:15 Yet if the unbelieving one leaves, let him leave; the brother or the sister is not under bondage in such {cases,} but God has called us to peace.
1Cr 7:16 For how do you know, O wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, O husband, whether you will save your wife?
1Cr 7:17 Only, as the Lord has assigned to each one, as God has called each, in this manner let him walk. And so I direct in all the churches.

I think you have taken this one totally out of context. This passage has nothing to do with salvation of those related to a believer, but rather telling believers who had unbelieving spouses that they were not to leave them because of their unbelief. God had sanctified the unbeliver because of the believing spouse, so their marriage is not to be considered unclean.

But there is no promise implied that the unbeliever will be saved because of their marriage to a believer.


2Sa 12:23 "But now he has died; why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I will go to him, but he will not return to me."

I believe David is probably speaking of Sheol. I believe he is saying "I will be dead, just as he is dead".

Again, nothing about salvation.

Amy,

You are correct in what your saying. There is no Scripture that says, "All infants go to heaven." Somehow I seem to not come accross clear to folks. I have been trying to communicate that upon this subject the Scripture is SCANT. On the subject of the eternal state of unbelievers infants the Scripture is SILENT. Concerning the children of believers there are Scriptures that give us hope and comfort, but no direct precept, hence my language use of "alludes"

As Boettner said, "The doctrine of infant salvation finds a logical place in the Calvinistic system..." And this was part of my original post and point. It is not as if the Scipture is insufficient in answer our question. But I believe only the Calvinistic system logically answers it.

 

[Rippon]

I had asked some questions . WD responded to them all in the negative .

Are all born in sin? No.

Are all under the wrath of God ? No .

Are children , even babies , under the wrath of God ? No .

All humanity -- which includes infants is under condemnation . Romans 5:12 plainly states that .

So , WD and others who may share his opinion -- do babies need Jesus ? Do they need the Savior ? You maintain they are sinless -- so it would follow that Jesus and His cross-work does not apply to them .

 

[webdog]

So , WD and others who may share his opinion -- do babies need Jesus ? Do they need the Savior ? You maintain they are sinless -- so it would follow that Jesus and His cross-work does not apply to them .

Can you explain how an infant can receive the Gospel message and exercise faith in Christ?

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Can you explain how an infant can receive the Gospel message and exercise faith in Christ?

I thought I did that. Perhaps you should read Surpgeon's sermon on the matter as it is more thorough than what I posted here. Here is the link again,

http://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/0411.htm

Your servant in Christ,
RB

 

[webdog]

I thought I did that. Perhaps you should read Surpgeon's sermon on the matter as it is more thorough than what I posted here. Here is the link again,

http://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/0411.htm

Your servant in Christ,
RB

I did read it. Spurgeon doesn't believe an infant needs to have faith to be saved. That's false doctrine, brother. NO spiritually dead man is saved apart from grace THROUGH faith. He makes the mistake, first, of stating they are regenerated unto election...and Scripture never teaches this. What you have here is two dispensations of salvation...one by grace through faith, and the other by grace apart from faith. That's false doctrine. Here is what he says from the link you provided...

"Now, let every mother and father here present know assuredly that it is well with the child, if God hath taken it away from you in its infant days. You never heard its declaration of faith—it was not capable of such a thing—it was not baptized into the Lord Jesus Christ, not buried with him in baptism; it was not capable of giving that "answer of a good conscience towards God;" nevertheless, you may rest assured that it is well with the child, well in a higher and a better sense than it is well with yourselves; well without limitation, well without exception, well infinitely, "well" eternally.

"On what ground, then, do we believe the child to be saved? We believe it to be as lost on the rest of mankind, and as truly condemned by the sentence which said, "In the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." It is saved because it is elect. In the compass of election, in the Lamb's Book of Life, we believe there shall be found written millions of souls who are only shown on earth, and then stretch their wings for heaven. They are saved, too, because they were redeemed by the precious blood of Jesus Christ. He who shed his blood for all his people, bought them with the same price with which he redeemed their parents, and therefore are they saved because Christ was sponsor for them, and suffered in their room and stead. They are saved, again not without regeneration, for, "except a man"—the text does not mean an adult man but a person, a being of the human race—"except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." 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."

 

[ReformedBaptist]

I did read it. Spurgeon doesn't believe an infant needs to have faith to be saved. That's false doctrine, brother. NO spiritually dead man is saved apart from grace THROUGH faith. He makes the mistake, first, of stating they are regenerated unto election...and Scripture never teaches this. What you have here is two dispensations of salvation...one by grace through faith, and the other by grace apart from faith. That's false doctrine. Here is what he says...

"On what ground, then, do we believe the child to be saved? We believe it to be as lost on the rest of mankind, and as truly condemned by the sentence which said, "In the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." It is saved because it is elect. In the compass of election, in the Lamb's Book of Life, we believe there shall be found written millions of souls who are only shown on earth, and then stretch their wings for heaven. They are saved, too, because they were redeemed by the precious blood of Jesus Christ. He who shed his blood for all his people, bought them with the same price with which he redeemed their parents, and therefore are they saved because Christ was sponsor for them, and suffered in their room and stead. They are saved, again not without regeneration, for, "except a man"—the text does not mean an adult man but a person, a being of the human race—"except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." 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."

I'm glad you read the sermon. Spurgeon's assessment and opinion is identical to mine. I think you read into the sermon the exclusion of faith. I never read that in what he wrote. In that mysterious manner Spurgeon descibed, when the infant in regenerated, I believe faith in Christ is present. They come alive, in regeneration, and believe, just as we do.

Perhpas this is more of a difference of when faith occurs than if. In other words, I think Spurgeon assumes faith occurs. I think we could at least grant the late Mr. Spurgeon that as it has always been his Gospel. And if you don't wish to grant it to him, then grant it to me.

 

[webdog]

I'm glad you read the sermon. Spurgeon's assessment and opinion is identical to mine. I think you read into the sermon the exclusion of faith. I never read that in what he wrote. In that mysterious manner Spurgeon descibed, when the infant in regenerated, I believe faith in Christ is present. They come alive, in regeneration, and believe, just as we do.

Perhpas this is more of a difference of when faith occurs than if. In other words, I think Spurgeon assumes faith occurs. I think we could at least grant the late Mr. Spurgeon that as it has always been his Gospel. And if you don't wish to grant it to him, then grant it to me.

I edited in another paragraph where Spurgeon admits an infant is incapable of having faith. Now we are branching off into different dispensations of faith that Scripture doesn't teach. I know of only one faith, that which comes by hearing (understanding), and that from the Word of God...that which is the substance of things hoped for and not seen. An infant (as Spurgeon correctly stated) cannot have faith, plain and simple.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

I edited in another paragraph where Spurgeon admits an infant is incapable of having faith. Now we are branching off into different dispensations of faith that Scripture doesn't teach. I know of only one faith, that which comes by hearing (understanding), and that from the Word of God...that which is the substance of things hoped for and not seen. An infant (as Spurgeon correctly stated) cannot have faith, plain and simple.

I still think your misunderstanding me, and Spurgeon, for that matter. I saw you additional paragraph and agree with Spurgeon 100%. I beg you to differ! Can an infant child have faith in Christ? The idea is abusrd to me, and I agree that the child is not even capable of such a thing. "it was not baptized into the Lord Jesus Christ, not buried with him in baptism; it was not capable of giving that "answer of a good conscience towards God;"

A baby hasn't been baptized, and outward sign of an individuals "answer of a good conscience towards God." The context is that of grieving parents. Had they lost a child who made it to adulthood, and heard that child's praise of the Lord Jesus Christ, attended to their baptism, they will find great comfort knowing their son or daughter to be safe in the arms of Christ. But we see none of this in an infant child, and it is not even possible.

How then do we gain comfort than an infant is safe in the arms of Almighty God? On what do we ground our belief that "it is well with the child" ?

Upon the Gospel of Jesus Christ. On no other foundation than our Lord Jesus Christ because no other foundation can be laid. Under no other Gospel than the one true Gospel. Under no other faith than the one true faith of Christ. Under no means other than pure evangelical means. We ground our conviction that the child is saved under the same condition that anyone is saved at all--the boundless mercy and grace of God through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus.

I think you have greatly misunderstood me and Spurgeon's sermon.

 

[Brother Bob]

ReformedBaptist;
Here are some Scriptures that allude to the belief that the children of believers will be saved:

LUK 18:15 And they brought unto him also infants, that he would touch them: but when his disciples saw it, they rebuked them. 16 But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.

ACT 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. 39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.

Therefore, the WCF says, "Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated, and saved by Christ, through the Spirit."

Other Scripture may be considered also,

1 Cor 7:14 For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.

King David said of his infant child he lost,

"He answered, "While the child was still alive, I fasted and wept. I thought, 'Who knows? The LORD may be gracious to me and let the child live.' 23 But now that he is dead, why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I will go to him, but he will not return to me." 2 Sam 12:22-23

The Scripture is scant on the subject, and I can't say directly answers the question. But it does give hope and comfort to the hearts of believers. And as I said before, the Calvinist system best fits the doctrine of infant salvation.

I challenge you to show where you gave the children of the non-elect any chance at all.

ReformedBaptist

Bob,

I hope your not trying to stir the pot here Bob...I am sure that is not your intent.(humoreous)

What are you accusing me of Bob? It seems you are in what you wrote. Are you charging me with wrongdoing because I see emotions running high in this thread? That is my viewpoint. The moderators job is to moderate. lol I have moderated apologetic forums before. Emotions run high. And when the subject deals with especially controversial issues, it is real easy for each one of us to act fleshly and sling mud. (emotions were just fine, until you falsely accused us of being "heated")

You accuse me trying to stir the pot when I challenge you to show of any heated discussion. Also, others see what I see, that you are making a way for the elect"s children only. You do not accuse them of stirring the pot.
You talk down to people when you are only in your 30's. I say you got a ways to go and then you should not talk down to people. No one has the right to talk "down" to another, unless its his child.
There is only been debating, not heat as you accused as soon as you came back.

I challenge you to show the heat. We were getting along very nicely, thank you.

What we are saying is that the child is not lost to start with. If you want to prove otherwise, use scripture and lay off how the rest of us are doing, we don't need your admiration or disapproval!

You are just another member as we are.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

I challenge you to show where you gave the children of the non-elect any chance at all.

ReformedBaptist
You accuse me trying to stir the pot when I challenge you to show of any heated discussion. Also, others see what I see, that you are making a way for the elect"s children only. You do not accuse them of stirring the pot.
You talk down to people when you are only in your 30's. I say you got a ways to go and then you should not talk down to people. No one has the right to talk "down" to another, unless its his child.
There is only been debating, not heat as you accused as soon as you came back.

I challenge you to show the heat. We were getting along very nicely, thank you.

What we are saying is that the child is not lost to start with. If you want to prove otherwise, use scripture and lay off how the rest of us are doing, we don't need your admiration or disapproval!

You are just another member as we are.

Bob,

As much as I have tried to understand you, your points, have misunderstood, sought clarification, et. It is apparant that you and I just can't communicate with one another in a way that is beneficial to the readers or to each other. Rather than keeping this going, let's just part ways.

 

[Amy.G]

Bob,

As much as I have tried to understand you, your points, have misunderstood, sought clarification, et. It is apparant that you and I just can't communicate with one another in a way that is beneficial to the readers or to each other. Rather than keeping this going, let's just part ways.

wow. That's a new one.

Bro. Bob, do you want me to talk to you? I won't give you the brushoff.:laugh:

 

[ReformedBaptist]

wow. That's a new one.

Bro. Bob, do you want me to talk to you? I won't give you the brushoff.:laugh:

Sister,

Is that really the right judgment of me? I am contending for peace. I think you have misjudged the purpose of me not answering Bob back.

"For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. But if ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of another. This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh." Gal 5: 14-16