Infants in Heaven

[OldRegular]

t

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.

Sadly Winman you just do not know how to interpret Scripture. You continually harp that Jesus Christ died for ALL men. Now you are claiming that Jesus Christ insists some men do not need redemption. Can't you see the contradiction?

Consider the passage you are harping about:

Luke 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.

Does Jesus Christ say that these 99 men never needed repentance and justification? No He does not. In fact elsewhere He says they did as all men do.

Now consider the remarks concerning the elder son:

Luke 15:28-31
28. And he was angry, and would not go in: therefore came his father out, and intreated him.
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.

You are putting words in Jesus' mouth. Jesus did not say the elder son had not transgressed. That was the brag of the elder son!

Winman you are simply mistaken!

 

[Aaron]

Faith in what?

The Door...

 

[Jerome]

'The Confession' 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 )

The most biblically accurate description that no one can find fault with at all?

Huh?

Over at Reformed Baptist Fellowship, Reformed Baptist Elder D. Scott Meadows says the statement "goes beyond the Scriptural teaching, and it probably would have been better omitted from the Confession, since it is arguably dubious."

 

[Iconoclast]

Jerome

'The Confession' alone answers the question?

Yes...in full.

The most biblically accurate description that no one can find fault with at all?

Correct Jerome...

Huh?

I did not type it wrong did I?

Over at Reformed Baptist Fellowship, Reformed Baptist Elder D. Scott Meadows says the statement "goes beyond the Scriptural teaching, and it probably would have been better omitted from the Confession, since it is arguably dubious."[/QUOTE]
I do not know this man or his statement in full...if this is it..he is flat out mistaken.

Well as I expected...you cut-off his statement;

Even this cautious statement goes beyond the Scriptural teaching, and it probably would have been better omitted from the Confession, since it is arguably dubious. Still, it asserts only the salvation of “elect infants dying in infancy,” not all infants dying in infancy. Spurgeon and many Christians today have exceeded both the biblical statement and the confessional statement in advocating the doctrine of universal, unconditional infant salvation. Surely all Calvinists can affirm that if there are any “elect infants,” they shall certainly be saved, along with all God’s elect.[/QUOTE]

 

[Jerome]

Huh?

What does the part you cut out of his letter have to do with your 'mustn't question The Confession' pronouncements?

 

[quantumfaith]

Jerome


Yes...in full.


Correct Jerome...


I did not type it wrong did I?

Over at Reformed Baptist Fellowship, Reformed Baptist Elder D. Scott Meadows says the statement "goes beyond the Scriptural teaching, and it probably would have been better omitted from the Confession, since it is arguably dubious."

I do not know this man or his statement in full...if this is it..he is flat out mistaken.

Well as I expected...you cut-off his statement;

Even this cautious statement goes beyond the Scriptural teaching, and it probably would have been better omitted from the Confession, since it is arguably dubious. Still, it asserts only the salvation of “elect infants dying in infancy,” not all infants dying in infancy. Spurgeon and many Christians today have exceeded both the biblical statement and the confessional statement in advocating the doctrine of universal, unconditional infant salvation. Surely all Calvinists can affirm that if there are any “elect infants,” they shall certainly be saved, along with all God’s elect.[/QUOTE]

And now with that clarity, I know it will come as a shock to you, I REALLY disagree with you and ANYONE who holds that position. So grateful I was not predestinated to be of the reformed persuasion.

 

[Iconoclast]

Huh?

What does the part you cut out of his letter have to do with your 'mustn't question The Confession' pronouncements?

The highlighted portion of his completed statement supports the confessional statement.
he said;

Surely all Calvinists can affirm that if there are any “elect infants,” they shall certainly be saved, along with all God’s elect.

case closed despite your intent jerome:thumbs: he is free to make any statement he wants...but he will not undo the confessional statement or even begin to prove his statement when considered in terms of particular redemption.
Come to think of it...neither will you...lol

 

[Iconoclast]

I do not know this man or his statement in full...if this is it..he is flat out mistaken.

Well as I expected...you cut-off his statement;


And now with that clarity, I know it will come as a shock to you, I REALLY disagree with you and ANYONE who holds that position. So grateful I was not predestinated to be of the reformed persuasion.

Well QF...in what way do you think this is different from the confessional statement???
You said you agreed with the statement???/now you disagree with yourself???

 

[Iconoclast]

QF,

And now with that clarity, I know it will come as a shock to you, I REALLY disagree with you and ANYONE who holds that position. So grateful I was not predestinated to be of the reformed persuasion.

Your gratefulness will not change those whom God has already purposed to save.It will not increase or diminish the number at all.

 

[Iconoclast]

13 But he answered one of them, and said, Friend, I do thee no wrong: didst not thou agree with me for a penny?

14 Take that thine is, and go thy way: I will give unto this last, even as unto thee.

15 Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with mine own? Is thine eye evil, because I am good?

16 So the last shall be first, and the first last: for many be called, but few chosen.

 

[OldRegular]

The Door...

Without the Grace of God there would be no "Door"!

 

[OldRegular]

I do not know this man or his statement in full...if this is it..he is flat out mistaken.

Well as I expected...you cut-off his statement;


And now with that clarity, I know it will come as a shock to you, I REALLY disagree with you and ANYONE who holds that position. So grateful I was not predestinated to be of the reformed persuasion.

I don't consider myself of the "reformed" persuasion though I do believe in the Doctrines of Election and Sovereign Grace. That being said I also believe the Scripture I have presented, in particular the words of Jesus Christ. And then, of course, there are the words of David when his child died.

Luke 18:15, 16
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.

Following are some comments by one of the founders of the Southern Baptist Convention regarding the salvation of those dying in infancy. I realize that this is his opinion just as those of Mohler which I posted earlier are his opinion but they reflect what I believe.

19th Century Southern Baptist scholar P. H. Mell--'infants are saved but not by the Gospel'
Patrick Hues Mell (1814-1888) is said to have "held more official positions in Baptist life at every level than any other Southern Baptist in history," holding the presidency of the Southern Baptist Convention a staggering 26 terms. Mell is considered a strict Calvinist on virtually anybody's terms and by some an "original founder" of the Southern Baptist Convention.

Below is a selection from Mell's book, Baptism In Its Mode and Subjects published by the Southern Baptist Publication Society, Memphis Tennessee (1854). Speaking of the nature of the Great Commission being given only to adults who can understand the gospel, repent, and believe, Mell writes:

"Infants are not, like adults, saved by the Gospel. Those who die in infancy are saved by the atonement of Christ, and not by the Gospel, which is the proclamation of that atonement. The glad tidings of good news are never addressed to them—the prescriptions of the Gospel being applicable only to those who can hear, understand and believe it. Faith in Christ secures the salvation of adults, not because there is any saving efficacy in faith itself, but because, by divine appointment, it is the means by which they realize the benefits of Christ's atonement.

"By divine appointment, then, infants are saved in some other way, and without faith. What that is, by which they are brought into saving relations with Christ's atonement, we know not. Nothing in God's word is addressed to this class of human beings, nor are his ministers commissioned with a message to them. The Bible says enough for the consolation of parents who are bereaved of their infant offspring; but it does not satisfy their curiosity by informing them as to the means by which they realize the benefits of the atonement. All that is necessary to secure the salvation of adults—the only class addressed—is revealed in the Gospel; but it says no more with regard to the salvation of infants, than will suffice for the consolation of bereaved parents and friends" (pp.211-212, italics original; paragraph divided for easier readability)

--Patrick H. Mell, Baptism In Its Mode and Subjects, Southern Baptist Publication Society, Second Edition, 1854

http://peterlumpkins.typepad.com/pe...-infants-are-saved-but-not-by-the-gospel.html

 

[percho]

Scripture says your eisegesis is incorrect!

Ecclesiastes 12:1, 7
1. Remember now thy Creator in the days of thy youth, while the evil days come not, nor the years draw nigh, when thou shalt say, I have no pleasure in them;

7. Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.

Could or would you elaborate?

 

[percho]

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 )

Whereas I would say being confident in the word that just as every infant born of woman had nothing to do with that birth that infant to see/enter/inherit the kingdom of God will need to be born again/from above/by the Spirit and just like it's first birth it will have absolutely nothing to do with it's Spirit birth.

Christ died for the ungodly. And all (unqualified as to age) have sinned and come short of the glory of God. That glory BTW is eternal life for one could not inherit anything eternally without eternal life.

And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together. Romans 8:17

 

[OldRegular]

Could or would you elaborate?

When a believer dies the body goes into the grave and the spirit/soul goes to be with God. The Apostle Paul writes:

Philippians 1:21-24
21. For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain.
22. But if I live in the flesh, this is the fruit of my labour: yet what I shall choose I wot not.
23. For I am in a strait betwixt two, having a desire to depart, and to be with Christ; which is far better:
24. Nevertheless to abide in the flesh is more needful for you.

Paul states above that when he dies he will be with Jesus Christ, that is his soul/spirit. His body will go to the grave to be resurrected at the return of Jesus Christ. [1 Coirinthians 15]

 

[Winman]

Sadly Winman you just do not know how to interpret Scripture. You continually harp that Jesus Christ died for ALL men. Now you are claiming that Jesus Christ insists some men do not need redemption. Can't you see the contradiction?

Consider the passage you are harping about:

Luke 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.

Does Jesus Christ say that these 99 men never needed repentance and justification? No He does not. In fact elsewhere He says they did as all men do.

Now consider the remarks concerning the elder son:

Luke 15:28-31
28. And he was angry, and would not go in: therefore came his father out, and intreated him.
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.

You are putting words in Jesus' mouth. Jesus did not say the elder son had not transgressed. That was the brag of the elder son!

Winman you are simply mistaken!

First of all, it was Jesus himself who told us this elder son's words, if not for Jesus we would not have this statement in scripture.

And that is important, why would Jesus say something ridiculous and nonsensical if Original Sin is true? If OS is true, Jesus would surely know it, so why would he invent a parable about a person who claimed to have NEVER sinned?

But read on, Jesus told us that the boy's father did not correct him. The father did not call the elder son a liar or a hypocrite, he did not rebuke the boy. NO, in fact he confirmed what the elder son said was true.

Luk 15:31 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.

The father, who represents God the Father in this parable, called the elder son "Son". God would never call an unsaved, unregenerate man "son". This proves Jesus was not speaking of the Pharisees, Jesus called them "serpents" and "vipers" and "child of hell". NO, the elder son was one of God's children, he lovingly calls him "son". Further, they were NEVER separated by sin from one another, the father said to the elder son, "thou art EVER with me" and "all that I have is thine".

So, the father CONFIRMS that what the elder son said was true, he had never sinned, and his fellowship with his father had NEVER been broken, nor ever would.

Lastly, the father CONTRASTS the elder son to his younger brother who left home and went out in sin, he says "thy brother was DEAD", he says he was LOST.

One last point, the father said the prodigal was alive AGAIN, which proves he was not born dead in sin. NO, the prodigal was not dead at first, he was not separated from his father until he willingly and knowingly went out in sin. At this point he BECAME dead and lost, and was joined to a citizen of that far country.

Luke 15 absolutely refutes Original Sin.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Without the Grace of God there would be no "Door"!

Thank you:godisgood:

 

[quantumfaith]

Without the Grace of God there would be no "Door"!

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

[Aaron]

Without the Grace of God there would be no "Door"!

That's kind of like saying, without the grace of God there would be no God, but God does not exist by grace. (Jesus said, I am the door.)

There is only one way for a descendant of Adam to enter Heaven, and that is by grace through faith in the Door. None who perished outside of Noah's family found grace in the eyes of the Lord.

 

[pinoybaptist]

That's kind of like saying, without the grace of God there would be no God, but God does not exist by grace. (Jesus said, I am the door.)

There is only one way for a descendant of Adam to enter Heaven, and that is by grace through faith in the Door. None who perished outside of Noah's family found grace in the eyes of the Lord.

This is worth thinking deeply about, Aaron.
After all, the Bible did say "Grace and Truth came by Jesus Christ".
Did the Bible say each and everyone of Noah's family "had" faith ?
But let me stop here, because going further will derail this thread.