Infants in Heaven

[OldRegular]

Then why did Jesus himself speak of persons who never went astray and need no repentance?

Why does Scripture say?

Romans 3:10. As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:

Romans 3:23. For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

Psalms 53:3. Every one of them is gone back: they are altogether become filthy; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

Isaiah 64:6. But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.

1 John 1:8. If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

 

[Winman]

Why does Scripture say?

Romans 3:10. As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:

Romans 3:23. For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

Psalms 53:3. Every one of them is gone back: they are altogether become filthy; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

Isaiah 64:6. But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.

1 John 1:8. If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

It is right before your eyes, and you do not even see it.

Does any piece of clothing start out as a filthy rag? NO, ALL clothing starts out clean and whole.

Does any leaf start out faded, dead, and brown? NO, ALL leaves begin tender, green, moist, and alive.

Right in front of your eyes...

 

[OldRegular]

It is right before your eyes, and you do not even see it.

Does any piece of clothing start out as a filthy rag? NO, ALL clothing starts out clean and whole.

Does any leaf start out faded, dead, and brown? NO, ALL leaves begin tender, green, moist, and alive.

Right in front of your eyes...

You are "skirting" the issue Winman! You said:

Then why did Jesus himself speak of persons who never went astray and need no repentance?

Luk 15:7 I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance.

Mat 18:13 And if so be that he find it, verily I say unto you, he rejoiceth more of that sheep, than of the ninety and nine which went not astray.

Luk 15:29 And he answering said to his father, Lo, these many years do I serve thee, neither transgressed I at any time thy commandment: and yet thou never gavest me a kid, that I might make merry with my friends:
30 But as soon as this thy son was come, which hath devoured thy living with harlots, thou hast killed for him the fatted calf.
31 And he said unto him, Son, thou art ever with me, and all that I have is thine.
32 It was meet that we should make merry, and be glad: for this thy brother was dead, and is alive again; and was lost, and is found.

Why did Jesus twice speak of 99 persons who never went astray and which need no repentance?

Why did Jesus speak of the elder son who never transgressed his father's commandment at any time? This elder son was never "dead" or "lost" like his younger brother.

Why would Jesus say such nonsensical things if Original Sin is true? Did he forget correct doctrine? Absurd!

"Never" went astray? "Never" went astray you say? Defend your "Never" went astray Winman!

By the way, Winman, have you ever seen wool before it was made int clothing?

 

[Iconoclast]

This alone answers the question.

3._____ Elect infants dying in infancy are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit; who worketh when, and where, and how he pleases; so also are all elect persons, who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.
( John 3:3, 5, 6; John 3:8 )

 

[quantumfaith]

This alone answers the question.

3._____ Elect infants dying in infancy are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit; who worketh when, and where, and how he pleases; so also are all elect persons, who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.
( John 3:3, 5, 6; John 3:8 )

YOUR keyword there being "elect"?

 

[Iconoclast]

YOUR keyword there being "elect"?

Exactly correct QF. That leaves the issue completely in God's hands.God in His holy wisdom and design has already planned the eternal destiny of all such persons.:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

I believe this statement to be the most biblically accurate description that no one can find fault with at all.

 

[Winman]

YOUR keyword there being "elect"?

He doesn't even know if he is elect.

 

[quantumfaith]

Exactly correct QF. That leaves the issue completely in God's hands.God in His holy wisdom and design has already planned the eternal destiny of all such persons.:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

Leaving in God's hands I completely agree. That is not what I assumed your statement to mean, thus I digressed. As to the "predestination" (single, double, triple etc. well you know I do not.

 

[Winman]

Exactly correct QF. That leaves the issue completely in God's hands.God in His holy wisdom and design has already planned the eternal destiny of all such persons.:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

I believe this statement to be the most biblically accurate description that no one can find fault with at all.

I find plenty of fault with it, Romans 9:11 shows babies have not sinned, but according to you God sends the non elect babies to hell anyway. Not for sin, but simply because that is his choice.

As a Calvinist you believe Romans 9:11 says Esau was already predestined to be lost, yet this same verse says he had done no evil. If your view is correct, God decided to send Esau to hell BEFORE he ever sinned.

 

[Iconoclast]

He doesn't even know if he is elect.

You have bigger fish to fry Winman...when Benjamin and Skan offer you correction which you resist.....you are making shipwreck of the faith my friend.

in your world ...only you have truth.. .It is easy for you..you just ignore real believers and what is orthodox...then submit whatever novelties that enter your confused mind:thumbs:

 

[webdog]

This alone answers the question.

3._____ Elect infants dying in infancy are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit; who worketh when, and where, and how he pleases; so also are all elect persons, who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.
( John 3:3, 5, 6; John 3:8 )

This implies there are unelect infants, no?

 

[Iconoclast]

Leaving in God's hands I completely agree. That is not what I assumed your statement to mean, thus I digressed. As to the "predestination" (single, double, triple etc. well you know I do not.

This well written statement should be bible 101 for all orthodox believers no matter where they are in their growth and grace. Only a confused and schismatic person would attempt to undermine this solid statement.

 

[Winman]

This implies there are unelect infants, no?

Any good Calvinist will tell you Romans 9:13 says God hated Esau, but verse 11 tells us Esau had done no evil. So God had already decided to damn Esau, not because he sinned, but simply because God hated him.

Wow.

 

[Iconoclast]

This implies there are unelect infants, no?

Well WD....I think if we can grant that God is the ONE who elects...and he does so according to His eternal purpose...then we are left trusting Him to do what is Holy and just with a perfect motive.

The wisdom of this statement is that God alone determines this....

many speculate all kinds of things such as;The elect dying in infancy could be

1] all children who ever die in infancy,ie...in this way God could have people from every tribe tongue and nation

2]all children of believers....Padeo household salvation concept..as in Noahs household

3] Some children ......

In any case...such speculation is just that and can lead to false philosophical arguments.... This statement is the only statement that can be accurate.

As many as God elects will be saved. We are forced to trust the revealed promise of God...jn 6:37-44:thumbs:

 

[Iconoclast]

Any good Calvinist will tell you Romans 9:13 says God hated Esau, but verse 11 tells us Esau had done no evil. So God had already decided to damn Esau, not because he sinned, but simply because God hated him.

Wow.

All sinned..All died in Adam...Esau included.You are not attempting to be a calvinist spokesman now are you

Winman we have it covered we do not need your help.

 

[webdog]

Well WD....I think if we can grant that God is the ONE who elects...and he does so according to His eternal purpose...then we are left trusting Him to do what is Holy and just with a perfect motive.

The wisdom of this statement is that God alone determines this....

many speculate all kinds of things such as;The elect dying in infancy could be

1] all children who ever die in infancy,ie...in this way God could have people from every tribe tongue and nation

2]all children of believers....Padeo household salvation concept..as in Noahs household

3] Some children ......

In any case...such speculation is just that and can lead to false philosophical arguments.... This statement is the only statement that can be accurate.

As many as God elects will be saved. We are forced to trust the revealed promise of God...jn 6:37-44:thumbs:

I don't see how it can read anything but option 3. If we substitute infants with men there is no way 1 or 2 fit. The other problem I have with that is electipn alone is the basis for salvation, the special dispensation of salvation I mention in the OP, not the biblical model of salvation for sinners.

 

[Winman]

All sinned..All died in Adam...Esau included.You are not attempting to be a calvinist spokesman now are you

Winman we have it covered we do not need your help.

Baloney, the term "in Adam" is used only once in all of scripture, and that is in 1 Corinthians 15:22;

1 Cor 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

This is the only time the scriptures say we are "in Adam" and it does not say we are dead in Adam, it says "in Adam all die" which is future tense.

What is more, this verse is speaking of physical death only, this chapter deals with the resurrection of our physical bodies.

You should study scripture for yourself instead of letting false teachers teach you serious error. It is a dangerous thing to misrepresent God's word and teach error to others.

 

[Winman]

t

You are "skirting" the issue Winman! You said:

"Never" went astray? "Never" went astray you say? Defend your "Never" went astray Winman!

By the way, Winman, have you ever seen wool before it was made int clothing?

I didn't say this, JESUS DID.

Jesus is the one who spoke of 99 just persons which need no repentance. In Matthew 18, he said it slightly differently, there he said 99 sheep "that went not astray".

And in Luke 15 Jesus said of the elder son "neither transgressed I thy commandment at any time".

I didn't say these things, Jesus did. Look in your Bible and see for yourself, I am not making this up.

And did the father call the elder son a liar or hypocrite? Did he correct the elder son? NO, he called him "Son" and said, "thou art EVER with me". They were never separated by sin and never will be.

He also contrasted the elder son to his younger brother that went astray. Only his younger brother had been "dead" and "lost". The elder son was never dead or lost.

If you have a problem with this, take it up with Jesus, these were his words, not mine.

 

[Iconoclast]

I don't see how it can read anything but option 3. If we substitute infants with men there is no way 1 or 2 fit. The other problem I have with that is electipn alone is the basis for salvation, the special dispensation of salvation I mention in the OP, not the biblical model of salvation for sinners.

I understand what you are saying.Such an election...would be an election unto salvation...the child while guilty would be covered by the blood of Jesus and the object of his mercy. If God has determined to save in this fashion that will be to the praise of his glory also. Again many understand the same for mentally defective persons.

Some theologians who are otherwise systematic...even {spurgeon} go into emotional arguments...which I believe are to be rejected as unnecessary .

They look at the character of God....as a secondary form of reasoning and get so emotionally worked up as if that clinches the discussion.

I say it is unnecessary and unbiblical. Whatever God does will be 100% Holy, righteous and just.

If he saves all infants {as elect} that will be correct...

If he saves no infants { I believe this is seriously doubtful that God would do such a thing}...nevertheless.....we cannot dictate to God what we think he should do.or not. That is why he is God ...perfect in Holiness and judgement.


If he saves 14 million 227 infants...that also would be for a reason.


I am glad we can offer Hope to parents whose children did not live but a few days...that God is able to have mercy of the infant...not because of any innocency...but actually because of the Covenant death for all the Father has given to the Son.

We are told John the Baptist was saved in the womb..

.as was Jer.1:5 Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations

 

[Iconoclast]

Baloney, the term "in Adam" is used only once in all of scripture, and that is in 1 Corinthians 15:22;

1 Cor 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

This is the only time the scriptures say we are "in Adam" and it does not say we are dead in Adam, it says "in Adam all die" which is future tense.

What is more, this verse is speaking of physical death only, this chapter deals with the resurrection of our physical bodies.

You should study scripture for yourself instead of letting false teachers teach you serious error. It is a dangerous thing to misrepresent God's word and teach error to others.

Stay on topic Winman...you are in the process of killing another thread:type: