Infants in hell

[Agent47]

What is the difference between an infant possessing sins he is not conscious of and a Totally Depraved** adult who is equally sin unconscious?


**Total Depravity means the adult lacks any capacity to acknowledge their sinfulness let alone trust in Christ for deliverance from it. Yet the adult is fully responsible for their sin and they suffer eternally for it apart from faith

The Baby has Orignal Sin debt, but Jesus paid for that debt on the Cross fo the infant.
God has chosen to remitthe sins ofBabes, mentally challenged, in order that He might get the glory!

 

[TCassidy]

**Total Depravity means the adult lacks any capacity to acknowledge their sinfulness let alone trust in Christ for deliverance from it.

No, it doesn't. As my father taught me over 65 years ago, "When you don't know what you are talking about it is probably a good time to stop talking."

 

[Yeshua1]

Can anything happen without God decreeing it?

Yes, as God decrees/ordains things directly, and also allows for indirect things, but all done under His control!

 

[Yeshua1]

All dead infants are Elect/saved. Ok

What do we call this? Infant universalism?


All I know is John Calvin was of contrary opinion. His theology had zero qualms with infants in hell. He rigidly held to eternal damnation of dead infants who were not Elect. But we are not debating Calvin, are we?

Catholic church has all baptized catholicbabies in Limbo, Calvin had many in hell,,,
I follow Jesus, not them in this areas!

 

[JonShaff]

Is Knowledge of Sin, Spiritual? If so 1 Corinthians 2 says the Natural man cannot understand that, so how does God hold him accountable for that which he doesn't understand?

Just a question to posit...

 

[StefanM]

Substantiate your position with scriptures

No. I don't care to discuss that point.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

No, it doesn't.

YES IT DOES!
You responded to this statement by Agent 47:

Total Depravity means the adult lacks any capacity to acknowledge their sinfulness let alone trust in Christ for deliverance from it.

That's exactly what "Total Depravity" means....
He is absolutely right.....
A "Totally Depraved" person is incapable of acknowledging their sin and seeking deliverance from Christ alone.
That's absolutely what you believe...
It's absolutely what your doctrine teaches..
It's absolutely what you personally teach...
You deny it whole-cloth.

As my father taught me over 65 years ago, "When you don't know what you are talking about it is probably a good time to stop talking."

Or....
Bully yourself into being an administrator in a Forum and lie.

You are lying...

You know you are lying.

What he said is absolutely a correct explanation of a significant part of your doctrine....
Your Calvinism (or your particular compatibilistic version of it) isn't some super-sexy super-complicated nuanced thing that the average Joe can't possibly get it...

They "GET IT"...

And Agent 47 "Gets it".

He understands what your Theology teaches.
In your schema even a sinner can't possibly know and understand their need for Christ and come to repentance unless they first be "regenerated"...
That's what Agent 47 said...

Agent 47 was right. That's exactly what your Theology teaches.

You denied it.

You lied.

You lied because you are a liar.

Pathetic.

 

[Agent47]

Could you offer your own concise definition of the same as opposed to rejecting mine? Then and only then is there validity in your claim that mine is wrong.

Just a general statement. You will back it up or clarify with scriptures if required to

No, it doesn't. As my father taught me over 65 years ago, "When you don't know what you are talking about it is probably a good time to stop talking."

 

[Agent47]

What's the difference between ordaining and allowing?

Specifically, does God allow what He does not Will or Ordained?

Yes, as God decrees/ordains things directly, and also allows for indirect things, but all done under His control!

 

[Agent47]

It was part of the OP; back your choice with scriptures or at least pretend to

No. I don't care to discuss that point.

 

[StefanM]

No.

 

[Agent47]

It matters not whether you quote Piper,MacArthur,Sproul,Van Dyke or even Calvin himself; you will always fall short of understanding their special brand of esoteric theories.

The more I interact with this posturing, the more I'm convinced it's a lame excuse to walk away from the illogical implications of their theological conundrum

Your Calvinism (or your particular compatibilistic version of it) isn't some super-sexy super-complicated nuanced thing that the average Joe can't possibly get it...
.

 

[Agent47]

No.

 

[Agent47]

Time to look at history
John Calvin, Institutes Book 3, Chapter 23,Paragraph 7

Commonly called horribile decretum


I again ask how it is that the fall of Adam involves so many nations with their infant children in eternal death without remedy unless that it so seemed meet to God? Here the most loquacious tongues must be dumb. The decree, I admit, is, dreadful; and yet it is impossible to deny that God foreknew what the end of man was to be before he made him, and foreknew, because he had so ordained by his decree.
https://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/institutes.v.xxiv.html

Canons of Dort

Article 17: The Salvation of the Infants of Believers

Since we must make judgments about God's will from his Word, which testifies that the children of believers are holy, not by nature but by virtue of the gracious covenant in which they together with their parents are included, godly parents ought not to doubt the election and salvation of their children whom God calls out of this life in infancy..
http://www.creeds.net/dordt/mp1.htm

Apparently, they only bothered themselves with children (and of course infants) of believers. This restrictive take on the issue suggests infants of unbelievers are necessarily reprobated.

Westminster Confession

CHAPTER X.
Of Effectual Calling.
III. Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit, who worketh when, and where, and how he pleaseth. So also are all other elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.
http://www.reformed.org/documents/i....org/documents/westminster_conf_of_faith.html

Now this is closer to @TCassidy's position that dead infants are Elect, but there could be more than meets the eye.

Why call them Elect infants, instead of just infants? Is it that dying in infancy makes them Elect or the term distinguishes Elect infants from non-Elect infants?

The fact that the infants need regeneration and salvation by the Spirit means they were lost. It is not that death saves them from (future) corruption but rather Holy Spirit regenerating them just as He does to adults.

So God does some work(regeneration and salvation) on some infants, not all.

Conclusion
Infant Reprobabtion is not a subject that Reformers shied away from or ignored under the guise of 'mystery'

Classic Reformed Theology openly embraced Infant Reprobation because they believed their understanding of scripture demonstrated the same and also perhaps because it is the logical conclusion of their theological assumptions.

It remains to be seen whether those modern 'Reformed' believers who are busy rejecting it are aware of the implications to whatever else they cling to

 

[Agent47]

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=

He believed in infant reprobation hence the careful distinction between Elect and non-Elect infants. The former are saved from damnation by Christ implying they are worthy of damnation to start with.

If you subscribe to Augustine's inherited corruption and guilt theories, as Calvin and his disciples did, this is the only inescapable logical conclusion.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Substantiate your position with scriptures

You ask people to do this, but you never do it yourself. And when people do it, you accuse them of 'proof-texting.' I think you sound pretty much like a troll.

OK, Mr Agent 47. What's your position and how about you substantiate it from Scripture?

 

[Bluefalcon]

God damning infants over sin they can't even comprehend is repugnant to all I know about God.

Canons of Synod of Dort
Part 2:
Rejection of Errors. The true doctrine having been explained, the Synod rejects the errors of those:
Paragraph 5:
Who teach: That all men have been accepted unto the state of reconciliation and unto the grace of the covenant, so that no one is worthy of condemnation on account of original sin, and that no one shall be condemned because of it, but that all are free from the guilt of original sin. For this opinion is repugnant to Scripture which teaches that we are by nature children of wrath (Eph. 2:3 )

So you see, Calvinists praise a God who damns all infants to hell on account of their sinning in Adam, that is unless they are in the covenant of grace by virtue of their being children of believers. So in effect one is damned having never actually sinned and the other saved having never actually believed. But don't worry. This brings great glawry to gaaaaawd.

 

[Yeshua1]

YES IT DOES!
You responded to this statement by Agent 47:

That's exactly what "Total Depravity" means....
He is absolutely right.....
A "Totally Depraved" person is incapable of acknowledging their sin and seeking deliverance from Christ alone.
That's absolutely what you believe...
It's absolutely what your doctrine teaches..
It's absolutely what you personally teach...
You deny it whole-cloth.

Or....
Bully yourself into being an administrator in a Forum and lie.

You are lying...

You know you are lying.

What he said is absolutely a correct explanation of a significant part of your doctrine....
Your Calvinism (or your particular compatibilistic version of it) isn't some super-sexy super-complicated nuanced thing that the average Joe can't possibly get it...

They "GET IT"...

And Agent 47 "Gets it".

He understands what your Theology teaches.
In your schema even a sinner can't possibly know and understand their need for Christ and come to repentance unless they first be "regenerated"...
That's what Agent 47 said...

Agent 47 was right. That's exactly what your Theology teaches.

You denied it.

You lied.

You lied because you are a liar.

Pathetic.

Arminians also belive that sinners cannot come to Christ on their own efforts, correct?

And total depraived mans the sinner cannot come to Christ for salvtion alone,as their sin nature precludes that from happening!

 

[Agent47]

I will state my position first, then ask for yours.

After this, I will be convinced you are no troll out to derail me, and I will try my best to back it with scriptures.


All infants dying in infancy are in heaven.

So Martin, what's your position?

You ask people to do this, but you never do it yourself. And when people do it, you accuse them of 'proof-texting.' I think you sound pretty much like a troll.

OK, Mr Agent 47. What's your position and how about you substantiate it from Scripture?

 

[Yeshua1]

What's the difference between ordaining and allowing?

Specifically, does God allow what He does not Will or Ordained?

God directly determined, direct caused some things to happen, and allowed others to make decisions/do tihings that still fit into His planGod ordained that Jesus would have one of His own be a traitor, and Judas willfully accepted that role!