Infants in hell

[Martin Marprelate]

Jonathan Edwards, The "Miscellanies," Entry Nos. a–z, aa–zz, 1–500

n. DAMNATION OF INFANTS.
One of these two things are certainly true, and self-evidently so: either that it is most just, exceeding just, that God should take the soul of a new-born infant and cast it into eternal torments, or else that those infants that are saved are not saved by the death of Christ. For none are saved by the death of Christ from damnation that have not deserved damnation
http://edwards.yale.edu/archive?pat...nZXRvYmplY3QucGw/Yy4xMjo0OjEud2plby41NjQ4NTI=

Just to be absolutely clear here, I agree entirely with this statement.
Jesus Christ did not come to call the righteous but sinners to salvation. He came to seek and to save the lost. Therefore, if new-born infants are not lost sinners by nature, they have nothing to do with Jesus Christ QED.

 

[Agent47]

You are entitled to your thoughts.

I have given part basis for my belief and I will do so in my own terms not yours.

Remind me your stance,I missed it

Other people will make that decision, but I rather think you have been banned previously.
Now, are you going to substantiate your own position from Scripture or are you going to carry on trolling? Because I don't think you would know Scriptural exposition if it bit you on the leg. At least, you didn't seem to when you were on the board before.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

The charge that Calvin was misquoted demands that you quote him in context. Start with the single instance I shared

Here we go again. No attempt to defend your own understanding from Scripture

Nevertheless, I won't hesitate to share my understanding with honest members, not shadow boxers as I am not in the least ashamed or embarrassed of my beliefs

The facts seem to indicate otherwise.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

You are entitled to your thoughts.

I have given part basis for my belief and I will do so in my own terms not yours.

Remind me your stance, I missed it

(nearest I can find to a troll)

 

[JonC]

I believe that all of mankind is under the curse. All have human natures and therefore can be said to have sinned “in Adam” and are subject to the consequences of the curse. Insofar as infants who die, that death is evidence of this truth. Jesus' death is also evidence of this truth.

However, I do not believe that infants are condemned. We are condemned for our sins. Paul speaks of the justness of God and the rightful condemnation of those who do not believe. The reason is that God has manifested himself throughout creation. His glory and attributes, even the Godhead, is evident. Yet men reject God. I do not see this as applicable to children who die in infancy.

More to the point, Scripture does not address the salvation of infants. For those of us who have lost children through miscarriage, disease, or accident, I don’t think that any of us have found comfort and assurance that our child died before they sinned. We find comfort and assurance in God and his love and mercy.

So from a personal side, my wife and I found assurance in God and his providence. Our trust was that God is in control and works all things for his glory. Regardless of the reason, our assurance rests in the love of God.

From a biblical perspective, I don’t see Scripture dealing with this topic at all. Scripture instead seems to deal with God and God’s plan of redemption. From a theological perspective, I do not believe that our condemnation is that we have human natures. It is that we have human natures and we sin. Since Scripture does not separate the two (except with Christ, who was human but without sin), we can only speculate. I believe that all infants who died in infancy will be in Heaven as they have not sinned against God. That is an assumption – only God knows.

 

[Agent47]

I wholly agree that God comforts those who mourn, but the hope of reunion with a loved one is quite comforting, especially young ones. So strictly speaking, it is not death before sinning that comforts but rather the hope of reunion.

For those of us who have lost children through miscarriage, disease, or accident, I don’t think that any of us have found comfort and assurance that our child died before they sinned. We find comfort and assurance in God and his love and mercy.

 

[Agent47]

Demanding explicit scripture to justify your action or belief is rabid fundamentalism. It figured significantly in slavery debates.

God nowhere explicitly condemns slavery so being nice to them is the most that is required of you....So the argument went.

We can formulate biblical answers where scriptures do not explicitly deal with an issue.

Infant salvation/reprobation is one such. I have shared my first rationale for my belief and I'll do handle the other one

 

[Yeshua1]

Spurgeon doubtless found Infant reprobation repulsive. What he does here though is a shameless attempt to rewrite history.

Take the highlighted;
1. Assuming his deductions are accurate, strictly speaking, God still damns some infants without believing ancestors.

2. He strains a gnat and suffers elephants through by deliberately ignoring plain and direct writings of Calvin on the subject.


There are decent Calvinists out there like Sam Storm and MacArthur who won't deny their heritage much as they differ with it presently. But we also have liars who whitewash their own history. What a shame.

The charge that Calvin was misquoted demands that you quote him in context. Start with the single instance I shared

I stand on what the Bible taches to us, not Spurgeon/Calvin/Gill etc, all were scholers and great men of God, but we stand upon Jesus on this, as He seeed to allow fr little children to come nearunto Him, forbid them not!

 

[Yeshua1]

Just to be absolutely clear here, I agree entirely with this statement.
Jesus Christ did not come to call the righteous but sinners to salvation. He came to seek and to save the lost. Therefore, if new-born infants are not lost sinners by nature, they have nothing to do with Jesus Christ QED.

God would be just in this case to assign all babies to Hell, but thank God he also has chosen to provide an advocate for all of them, the Lord Jesus!

You and I are Reformed Baptists, and seem to be a disagreemnt between us and Presby Reformed on this issue!

 

[JonC]

God would be just in this case to assign all babies to Hell, but thank God he also has chosen to provide an advocate for all of them, the Lord Jesus!

You and I are Reformed Baptists, and seem to be a disagreemnt between us and Presby Reformed on this issue!

God is just in whatever he does (righteousness is defined by God).

 

[Yeshua1]

God is just in whatever he does (righteousness is defined by God).

True, but thankfully in the Coss of Christ is given to God the means to help those who cannot help themselves!

 

[Jerome]

"the Confession....asserts only the salvation of 'elect infants dying in infancy,' not all infants dying in infancy."

Here is the 1689 Confession of the subject (Article 10:3):

Infants dying in infancy...

Hold on. What does the 1689 Confession actually say?

"Elect infants dying in infancy..."

or

"Infants dying in infancy..."

 

[HeirofSalvation]

I believe that all of mankind is under the curse.

That's true...all mankind is "under the curse"...but, is "the curse"...
that all persons born of man are condemned by God?
Or, is the curse exactly what Genesis spoke of...
Namely, that man would have to till the ground, and that the woman would have multiple pain in child-bearing....
Something you should note:
Strictly speaking...God did not curse humans.
He cursed the GROUND and the serpent....

Calvinists insists God cursed MAN...

That's not Scripture.
Scripture says God cursed the ground.

All have human natures and therefore can be said to have sinned “in Adam”

All humans have "human nature"...
that makes them humans.....
There's no Scripture which demands that humans are guilty of Adam's crime in perpetuity such that it consequences a change in their nature and being....
IF it's so....
Than it would be an indemnible part of human nature to be a partisan of Adam's crime....
Except that Jesus was ALSO a Son of Adam, and yet he was without sin.

There's no escaping the Scripture on this.
Jesus was a man.
A REAL MAN...tempted as are we yet without sin...

Adam's transgresion is either a part of human nature and condemns him by default...or....Jesus wasn't a real HUMAN.

and are subject to the consequences of the curse.

Please show how the "curse" means that God condemns all infants as sinners........

I've read Genesis, I've read about the "curse"...
God actually "cursed" the Serpent, and the "Ground"...
I'll post it since it is such a point of contention:
And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life

No curse of humans...let's continue...

And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;

God cursed the "serpent"...and God cursed the "ground"...
God DID NOT "curse" humanity...
Jesus Christ was a human Jon....as human as you and I...and he was not accursed.

However, I do not believe that infants are condemned

.
Than, your Theology is inconsistent and illogical.
If men are condemned because of an inherited nature from Adam and they are partakers in that sin, than infants are absolutely positively and without excuse condemned as sinners and fellow partakers in that sin.

Absolutely, it's inescapable, you need to own the realities of your own teaching.

We are condemned for our sins.

I'd say that....BUT YOU DON'T
In your schema...everyone including infants are partakers in ADAM'S SIN...
NOT THEIRS.

It's critical to the Theological construct you adopt.

Paul speaks of the justness of God and the rightful condemnation of those who do not believe. The reason is that God has manifested himself throughout creation. His glory and attributes, even the Godhead, is evident. Yet men reject God.

Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes, and YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I do not see this as applicable to children who die in infancy.

OF Course, not..
Because they can NEITHER choose to believe any more than they can choose to sin...

They're BABIES

Babies crap themselves Jon....
They don't defy God, they don't rebel against God....

They neither reject Grace nor accept it...

They hang around crapping their diapers
That's only a problem if you accept "Original Sin"...
If not, there's no issue, and your whole life becomes 1,000% less complicated...and...actually.....the Scriptures become a LOT EASIER to understand...

More to the point, Scripture does not address the salvation of infants.

Of course not...
Infants don't need "SAVING"....
Ever wonder why God didn't address that contentious issue????

It's because it doesn't exist

Infants don't "sin"...so they don't need "salvation".

For those of us who have lost children through miscarriage, disease, or accident,

Lost one to misscarriage myself...
That zygote wasn't an odious sinner God hated from conception...
Get rid of your addiction to "Original Sin", and it's not complicated.

I don’t think that any of us have found comfort and assurance that our child died before they sinned

.
I have...My child was about 6 months old....he wasn't a "sinner"...
He was the size of a jumbo shrimp, not capable of choosing good or evil...
He wasn't a "sinner".

My kid wasn't anyway.

We find comfort and assurance in God and his love and mercy.

I find comfort in the painfully obvious...that my miscarried dead child was the size of an orange, and he didn't posses some vicious condemning facet of wickedness from Adam which constituted his nature...
He couldn't talk, he couldn't breathe on his own.
He could neither accept nor reject God.

So from a personal side, my wife and I found assurance in God and his providence

.
According to Calvinist Theology...
God hated that child because he was a vile unnacceptable sinner who was wicked from his very conception.

There's no getting around that.

That's what Calvinism teaches.
He (or she) was born cursed with the vile sinfulness and guilt of Adam inherent of every facet of it's nature, and was therefore hated by, and unacceptable. to God....

Accept Jon...according to your Theology...God hated that child of yours who died and it was worthy only of perpetual torture in hell because it was only evil and odious in his sight....
That's the doctrine.

Our trust was that God is in control and works all things for his glory.

He does......
And, (given "Original Sin".)...
God hates your baby and needs to punish and torture him/her for all of eternity to vindicate his "goodness"....
Because of the "curse" of Adam.......since you seem to believe that all men inherit the Sin of Adam..

Regardless of the reason,

There's no secret to the reason.
It's so NON COMPLICATED.

our assurance rests in the love of God.

God, absolutely does not "love" unregenerate rebellious sinners who disobey him.
If all children are conceived in sin and wickedness and in need of God's grace, than there's no Scripture on the planet which states that God has any reason whatsoever to grant them forgiveness.
If "Original Sin" is correct...
Than your child suffered from it, and God hated him or her and their sin and wanted nothing to do with them.
There's no passage which states God has a plan of "forgiveness" for your hated, despised, stinking, vile, sinful, odious, horrid, child.

Everything about that child makes God want to vomit and makes him seeth with hatred against it.

That's what Original Sin means Jon:
I'm sorry, but, that's what it means.

From a biblical perspective, I don’t see Scripture dealing with this topic at all.

It does...
That is to say...that the "topic" doesn't actually exist Jon.
Babies poop and coo and eat...
They don't sin.

Get rid of the doctrine of "Original sin"...and it's so uncomplicated.

Scripture instead seems to deal with God and God’s plan of redemption. From a theological perspective,

That doesn't come close to saving either your baby nor mine.

I do not believe that our condemnation is that we have human natures.

That's a start...
Human "nature" doesn't condemn anyone...
I agree.
Christ had a human nature...
He's our salvation.
keep going.

It is that we have human natures and we sin.

So, it's TWO THINGS???
It's:
1.) That we have a "human nature"
So does your unborn babe
So did Christ

and.....

2.) That we Sin
That's Biblical.....

Get rid of number one and your baby (and mine) is safe...
accept it...and it's conflagrated bull-******

Since Scripture does not separate the two

Scripture doesn't HAVE to....
Scripture didn't create the TWO...
YOU DID...
Scripture is not required to condemn heresies you created...
Or any weird Theologies created in the perverted minds of men 1,000 years removed from the point of it's writing...

Sin is the willful disobedience against the ordinances of God..

That's it..
Babies can't do that.

(except with Christ, who was human but without sin),

Except, in your view...all humans are possessed of wickedness by nature of their humanity...but Christ somehow escapes that....while still being an actual human...

we can only speculate.

No kidding:
Or...just do away with the "Original Sin" facet of your world-view.....and seriously.......it becomes SO...MUCH...LESS...COMPLICATED.

I believe that all infants who died in infancy will be in Heaven as they have not sinned against God.

You're RIGHT!!!!!
DING DING DING DING DING!!!!!

That is an assumption – only God knows.

No, it's simple obvious Scripture.....
Sin is an action done by agents capable of rebellion....
it's not a weird disease contracted by humans because the suffer from a genetic deformity...

Couldn't be simpler....

Your child is safe Jon...
So is mine...

Not because they were "Good"...but because they never rebelled against God...they never had the chance.[/QUOTE]

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Hold on. What does the 1689 Confession actually say?

"Elect infants dying in infancy..."

or

"Infants dying in infancy..."

It is as I wrote it.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Calvinists insists God cursed MAN...

No they don't. Try not to be silly.
Mankind lives under the effect of the curse, one of which is death (Genesis 3:17-19). Note that the curse has come about because of sin. In fact Paul tells us (Romans 8:18-23) that the whole of creation is under the curse.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

No they don't. Try not to be silly.
Mankind lives under the effect of the curse, one of which is death (Genesis 3:17-19). Note that the curse has come about because of sin. In fact Paul tells us (Romans 8:18-23) that the whole of creation is under the curse.

YES,.......They absolutely DO.....
At least in your Theological construct.

Mankind suffers an irreparable damage and constitutional aleteration which makes him eternally and naturally hateful to God because of Adam's sin....

So, you are making a distiction between:
"being cursed"
and
"living under the effects of the curse".
You're being too smart for your own good.
Stop lying Martin....
That's what you believe stop being disingenuous.

 

[Jerome]

It is as I wrote it.

Please educate yourself:

http://www.gracebaptistassembly.org.uk/gba2/wp-content/uploads/docs/1689-1966 Synopsis.pdf

3. Elect infants dying in infancy...

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Demanding explicit scripture to justify your action or belief is rabid fundamentalism.

Substantiate your position with scriptures

 

[Martin Marprelate]

YES,.......They absolutely DO.....
At least in your Theological construct.

Mankind suffers an irreparable damage and constitutional aleteration which makes him eternally and naturally hateful to God because of Adam's sin....

So, you are making a distiction between:
"being cursed"
and
"living under the effects of the curse".
You're being too smart for your own good.
Stop lying Martin....
That's what you believe stop being disingenuous.

You need to stop accusing people of lying. It is a very unattractive habit in you (one of several).
What I have posted is what I believe. Do you believe that mankind does not live under the effects of the curse?

 

[HeirofSalvation]

You need to stop accusing people of lying.

No I don't....
Not if they ARE lying anyway...

In your case:
You are either:
1.)lying
or
2.) So ridiculously unaware of the content of your own world-view that you don't understand the ramifications of it.

You ABSOLUTELY
are either one or the other in that application.

You either were lying,
Or you simply don't understand the ramifications of your own worldview...
I don't know which...
But I retract:
Zilch
Nil
Nada
Nothing

It is a very unattractive habit in you (one of several).

Make meaningful and consistent points consistent with your own world-view and you'll escape that accusation....

Until then...
I insist upon it.

What I have posted is what I believe.

You are confused about what you believe and you don't even understand the consequences of your own Theology.

Do you believe that mankind does not live under the effects of the curse?

He lives under "the effects" of the curse...but he isn't "cursed"...
That was the point.

I don't imagine you could comprehend the difference.