Predestinate

[Rippon]

BB , you acknowledged that you were Arminian in the "Calvinist and Arminian Debate " thread . I just quoted you from 8/6/06 .

 

[Brother Bob]

To learn has many aspects to it . I track error . I keep tabs on it . I do not appreciate falsehoods .

Already proved part of it. Another poster posted that he also found where John Calvin had said it but couldn't find references. It alright to find falsehoods, as long as you acknowledge yours. You will not acknowledge yours.

 

[Brother Bob]

BB , you acknowledged that you were Arminian in the "Calvinist and Arminian Debate " thread . I just quoted you from 8/6/06

Before I learn what all Arminian believe.

 

[David Lamb]

Do you deny being of the reformed churches?

It depends on what you mean by "of the reformed churches". If you mean, "Does your church believe the "Five Great Alones" of the Reformation (that salvaltion is by grace alone, through faith alone, because of Christ alone, to the glory of God alone, on the authority of Scripture alone) then I answer a hearty "No" (I don't deny being "of the reformed churches". But if you mean something different, I have to answer, "I don't know."

 

[Brother Bob]

This might be worth checking out to see if Calvin did believe in infant damnation.
This is posted mostly for the benefit of Rippon and his list of materials. Others are free to comment and tell me if it valid or not.

HISTORY of the CHRISTIAN CHURCH*
CHAPTER XIV.
CALVIN’S THEOLOGY.
§ 111. Calvin’s Commentaries
But Calvin did not go so far. On the contrary, he intimates very clearly that there are reprobate or non-elect children as well as reprobate adults. He says that "some infants," having been previously regenerated by the Holy Spirit, "are certainly saved," but he nowhere says that all infants are saved.837 In his comments on Rom. 5:17, he confines salvation to the infants of pious (elect) parents, but leaves the fate of the rest more than doubtful.838 Arguing with Catholic advocates of free-will, who yet admitted the damnation of unbaptized infants, he asks them to explain in any other way but by the mysterious will of God, the terrible fact "that the fall of Adam, independent of any remedy, should involve so many nations with their infant children in eternal death. Their tongues so loquacious on every other point must here be struck dumb."839

837 Inst. Bk. IV. ch. XVI. 17: "Infantes, qui servandi sint—ut certe ex ea aetate omnino aliqui servantur—antea a Domino regenerari minime obscurum est." This was the doctrine of the Westminster divines, and is expressed in the Westminster Confession, ch. X. 3: "Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit, who worketh when, and where, and how he pleaseth." Although this passage admits of a liberal construction, yet the natural sense, as interpreted by the private opinions of the framers of the Confession, makes it almost certain that the existence and damnation of non-elect infants is implied. The Presbyterian Revisionists, therefore, wishing to avoid this logical implication, propose to strike out elect, or to substitute all for it (as the Cumberland Presbyterians have done in their Confession). The change will be acted upon by the General Assembly in May, 1892.
http://www.ccel.org/s/schaff/history/8_ch14.htm#_edn60

839 "Tot gentes una cum liberis eorum infantibus." Inst. III. ch. XXIII. § 7. To this should be added the challenge to Castellio: "Put forth now thy virulence against God, who hurls innocent babes even from their mothers’ breast into eternal death." Calvin here argues e concessis. The passage has been often distorted. We give it in Latin with the connection (Opera, IX. 289): "Negas Deo licere nisi propter facinus damnare quenquam mortalium. Tolluntur e vita innumeri adhuc infantes. Exsere nunc tuam virulentiam contra Deum, qui innoxios foetus a matrum uberibus avulsos in aeternam mortem praecipitat. Hanc blasphemiam, ubi palam detecta est, quisquis non detestabitur, mihi pro sua libidine maledicat." In the same way he challenges Castellio (fol. 289), to explain the admitted fact, that God allows innocent infants to be devoured by tigers or lions or bears or wolves ("qui fit ut Deus parvulos infantes a tigribus vel ursis vel leonibus vel lupis laniari vorarique sineat"). The attempt of Dr. Shields of Princeton to prove that Calvin believed in the salvation of all infants, is an entire failure ("The Presbyt. and Ref. Review " for October, 1890).

To show I am not being partial or the source, here are English and American Calvinist, who believe all infants to be saved, who die as an infant.

843 Among English Calvinists, who teach universal infant salvation, are Doddridge, Thomas Scott, John Newton, Toplady, Robert S. Candlish; among American Calvinists, Drs. Charles Hodge, A. A. Hodge, and B. B. Warfield, of Princeton, and Drs. H. B. Smith, G. L. Prentiss, and Shedd, of Union Seminary, New York. Comp. on this subject Schaff, Creeds of Christendom, I. 378, 381, 794, 898; Dr. Prentiss, who brings out the theological bearings, in the "Presbyterian Review" for 1883; Benjamin B. Warfield, The Development of the Doctrine of Infant Salvation, New York (Christ. Lit. Co.), 1891, pp. 61; also Chas. P. Krauth (Lutheran), Infant Baptism and Infant Salvation, Philadelphia (Lutheran Book Store), 1874, pp. 83.
844 See above, pp. 95 sqq.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

I will make this post for Rippon.


In speaking of souls who have failed to attain salvation, these theologians distinguish the pain of loss (paena damni), or privation of the beatific vision, and the pain of sense (paena sensus). Though these theologians have thought it certain that unbaptized infants must endure the pain of loss, they have not been similarly certain that they are subject to the pain of sense. St. Augustine (De Pecc. et Mer., I, xvi) held that they would not be exempt from the pain of sense, but at the same time he thought it would be of the mildest form

Rippon, all you do is run your mouth. You did not read this thread or you would of saw the catholic Encyclopedia says St Augustine did say they went to hell.

Brother Bob,

Apparantly you believe that quoting the opinion of Antichrist (I understand not everyone agrees with me on that point) is enough to put words and opinions in the mouth of Augustine. What you have referenced is a Roman Catholic (Antichristian) source that gives testimony to Augustine. What I, and others, would like to see is a primary source. At best your refernece is a secondary source. Please provide primary source work from Augustine himself and who will deny it? Frankly, I don't know one way or another what Augustine believed on the matter. If he did, on that point he was wrong, IMO. But upon the doctrine this thread is supposed to be about, predestination, he is correct as it agree with SCRIPTURE. The first part of your quotation brother Bob is the opinion of the Roman Catholic church.

Now, to bring truth to an emotionally heated board, I will bring one of the definitive works within the Reformed church upon this subject. I would hope that since you make yourself an opponent of calvinist teaching you have surely read Loraine Boettner's work "The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination." In Section 11. of chapter XI. (pages 143-148) Unconditional Election, and is subtitled, Infant Salvatio, the subject in which this thread has been diverted is specifically addressed.

The very first sentence written is, "Most Calvinistic theologians have held that those who die in infancy are saved." This princeton graduate, brother Bob, has already contradicted what you would have this forum believe. Boettner goes on to prove this from the Westminster Confession of Faith and writes concerning it,

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.

Why, brother Bob, is it a profane thing in your mind to find either a confession of faith, or the Synod of dort, silent where Scripture is also? Boettner also writes,

Our outstanding theologians, however, mindful of the fact that God's "tender mercies are over all His works," and depending on His mercy widened as broadly as possible, have entertained a charitable hope that since these infants have never committed any actual sin themselves, their inherited sin would be pardoned and they would be saved on wholly evangelical principles. Such, for instance, was the position held by Charles Hodge, W. G. T. Shedd, and B. B. Warfield.

Certainly there is nothing in the Calvinistic system which would prevent us from believing this; and until it is proven that God could not predestinate to eternal life all those whom He is pleased to call in infancy we may be permitted to hold this view.

This last quote is exactly what I contended for in my previous posts. Brother Bob, let us have the freedom to believe that our great and merciful God is pleased to call in infancy those who perish.

I will now show how you have repeated an old error through your use of Article 17 of the Synod of Dort. Boettner writes concerning the WCF,

It has often been charged that the Westminster Confession in stating that "Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated and saved by Christ" (Chap. X, Sec. 3), implies that there are non-elect infants, who, dying in infancy, are lost, and that the Presbyterian Church has taught that some dying in infancy are lost. Concerning this Dr. Craig says: "The history of the phrase 'Elect infants dying in infancy' makes clear that the contrast implied was not between 'elect infants dying in infancy' and 'non-elect infants dying in infancy,' but rather between 'elect infants dying in infancy' and 'elect infants living to grow up.'"

You have made the same logical error regarding the Synod of Dort. Boettner goes on to show, concerning the WCF, how later they clarified the point. Dr. Craig continues,

Concerning this Declaratory Statement Dr. Craig says: "It is obvious that the Declaratory Statement goes beyond the teaching of Chapter X, Section 3 of the Confession of Faith inasmuch as it states positively that all who die in infancy are saved. Some hold that the Declaratory Statement goes beyond the Scripture in teaching that all those dying in infancy are saved; but, be that as it may, it makes it impossible for any person to even plausibly maintain that Presbyterians teach that there are non-elect infants who die in infancy. No doubt there have been individual Presbyterians who held that some of those who die in infancy have been lost; but such was never the official teaching of the Presbyterian Church and as matters now stand such a position is contradicted by the Church's creed."

I think love, my brother, should compel us to believe such things of the Synod of dort. Let us not run headlong to evil suspicsion concerning our brethren from the past, but give them the benefit of the doubt and take the sons of the Reformation as good examples of such.

In closing, I leave you with Boettner's educated and fully researched statement concerning John Calvin on this subject:

It is sometimes charged that Calvin taught the actual damnation of some of those who die in infancy. A careful examination of his writings, however, does not bear out that charge. He explicitly taught that some of the elect die in infancy and that they are saved as infants. He also taught that there were reprobate infants; for he held that reprobation as well as election was eternal, and that the non-elect come into this life reprobate. But nowhere did he teach that the reprobate die and are lost as infants. He of course rejected the Pelagian view which denied original sin and grounded the salvation of those who die in infancy on their supposed innocence and sinlessness. Calvin's views in this respect have been quite thoroughly investigated by Dr. R. A. Webb and his findings are summarized in the following paragraph: "Calvin teaches that all the reprobate 'procure' -- (that is his own word) -- 'procure' their own destruction; and they procure their destruction by their own personal and conscious acts of such must live to the age of moral accountability, and translate original sin into actual sin.

In none of Calvin's writings does he say, either directly or by good and necessary inference, that any dying in infancy are lost. Most of the passages which are brought forth by opponents to prove this point are merely assertions of his well known doctrine of original sin, in which he taught the universal guilt and depravity of the entire race. Most of these are from highly controversial sections where he is discussing other doctrines and where he speaks unguardedly; but when taken in their context the meaning is not often in doubt. Calvin simply says of all infants what David specifically said of himself: "Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity; And in sin did my mother conceive me," Ps. 51:5; or what Paul said, "In Adam all die," 1Cor. 15:22; or again. that all are "by nature, the children of wrath," Eph. 2:3.

I think this is sufficient to clarify the points being made in this much diverted thread, and help bring truth to the matter, for I am sure that is what we all seek.

Your servant in Christ,
RB

 

[ReformedBaptist]

This might be worth checking out to see if Calvin did believe in infant damnation.
This is posted mostly for the benefit of Rippon and his list of materials. Others are free to comment and tell me if it valid or not.

I have just sufficiently answered this charge.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

I will now spend my time on the topic of Infant Salvation on the thread I created for that purpose. I will check back from time to time on this one.

 

[Brother Bob]

St. Augustine was a Catholic.IMO

John Calvin was raised a Catholic, and held strongly to St. Augustine doctrine. IMO

Who would know more about them than the Catholic.

I don't hold to Catholic, but they do not have everything wrong and their record keeping is far superior to anyone else, especially the Baptist.

Brother Bob,

Apparantly you believe that quoting the opinion of Antichrist (I understand not everyone agrees with me on that point) is enough to put words and opinions in the mouth of Augustine. What you have referenced is a Roman Catholic (Antichristian) source that gives testimony to Augustine. What I, and others, would like to see is a primary source. At best your refernece is a secondary source. Please provide primary source work from Augustine himself and who will deny it? Frankly, I don't know one way or another what Augustine believed on the matter. If he did, on that point he was wrong, IMO. But upon the doctrine this thread is supposed to be about, predestination, he is correct as it agree with SCRIPTURE. The first part of your quotation brother Bob is the opinion of the Roman Catholic church. (opinion or history?) St. Augustine was Catholic. John Calvin was raised a Catholic. I have this belief now, that you and others would not accept anything except if I could bring St. Augustine back to speak to you personally. IMO

Who do you think St. Augustine was, a Baptist?

Who is the ones who kept records, Baptist?

I do not think you answered the question. They question today's Pope on the same subject of infant damnation and he mellowed down their belief of damnation. IMO

Presbyterian minister Loraine Boettner (1901-1990 So, you go the Presbyterian way! Why should we believe him over the History of St Augustine's by Catholic Dictionary?

I have no intentions of rebuking your posts one by one, for they deal in silence of statements and their belief. You have quoted others and take it for the gospel, but if I quote others of which I have to for I did not live back then, you say I am wrong. I am sorry but its the Pot calling the Kettle "black". IMO

 

[Brother Bob]

I will now spend my time on the topic of Infant Salvation on the thread I created for that purpose. I will check back from time to time on this one.

Do you think those who believe in infants being lost are going to go public with it now. Your thread is a fog bank, it seems to me, for those who believe the other way are going to keep silent now. If I believed the other way, I would be man enough to stand up and defend my position. IMO

 

[ReformedBaptist]

St. Augustine was a Catholic.IMO

John Calvin was raised a Catholic, and held strongly to St. Augustine doctrine. IMO

Who would know more about them than the Catholic.

I don't hold to Catholic, but they do not have everything wrong and their record keeping is far superior to anyone else, especially the Baptist.



Who do you think St. Augustine was, a Baptist?

Who is the ones who kept records, Baptist?

I do not think you answered the question. They question today's Pope on the same subject of infant damnation and he mellowed down their belief of damnation. IMO

Presbyterian minister Loraine Boettner (1901-1990 So, you go the Presbyterian way! Why should we believe him over the History of St Augustine's by Catholic Dictionary?

I have no intentions of rebuking your posts one by one, for they deal in silence of statements and their belief. You have quoted others and take it for the gospel, but if I quote others of which I have to for I did not live back then, you say I am wrong. I am sorry but its the Pot calling the Kettle "black". IMO

What you have done Brother Bob is quoted what another said about someone else. If you wish to put stock in a Roman Catholic encyclopedia have at it. I don't.

I think my chat nick, Reformed Baptist, sufficiently describes who and what I am. Yet you say I have gone in the Presbyterian way. Some of the best theologians the Lord has given His elect have been presbyterians. While I differ with them in some areas, they are my brethren and I love them deeply. I cannot say the same of the Roman Catholic Church. It may have at one time been a true Christian church, but I believe it no longer is.

I expect you shouldn't answer my full response to your posts as they have sufficiently refuted them.

I think you have forgotten that the calumnies you raised against Augustine, John Calvin, and Calvinists require that the burden of proof be upon you. I have, and others, have asked for PRIMARY sources which you have failed time and time again to provide. You cannot produce one quote from Augustine or Calvin, to support your claim from your Roman Catholic encyclopedia. Tell me brother, do you also believe the Waldenses were heretics as the Roman Catholic encyclopedias say? Or did you read Peter Felix's work upon them?

I am not an expert on the life of John Calvin. Boettner and those whom he quoted are. It is easy to establish credibility of these men knowing their evangelical love of our Lord Jesus Christ and their educations. I cannot say the same of that pernicous system of Antichrist. So, this is not the pot calling the kettle black brother Bob. I am calling you to intellectual accountablily.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Do you think those who believe in infants being lost are going to go public with it now. Your thread is a fog bank, it seems to me, for those who believe the other way are going to keep silent now. If I believed the other way, I would be man enough to stand up and defend my position. IMO

What is the point of this post Brother Bob, other than to sling mud. Is that how you have learned Christ my brother?

 

[Brother Bob]

Originally Posted by Brother Bob
Do you think those who believe in infants being lost are going to go public with it now. Your thread is a fog bank, it seems to me, for those who believe the other way are going to keep silent now. If I believed the other way, I would be man enough to stand up and defend my position. IMO

What is the point of this post Brother Bob, other than to sling mud. Is that how you have learned Christ my brother?__________________

The truth is not mud, I guess it is to some but I was not slinging mud, just stating a fact.

What you have done Brother Bob is quoted what another said about someone else. If you wish to put stock in a Roman Catholic encyclopedia have at it. I don't.

What did you do, but quote someone who quoted others, such as Presbyterian minister Loraine Boettner. Again, you accuse, while doing the same. The Lord spoke of such you know.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

The truth is not mud, I guess it is to some but I was not slinging mud, just stating a fact.

What did you do, but quote someone who quoted others, such as Presbyterian minister Loraine Boettner. Again, you accuse, while doing the same. The Lord spoke of such you know.

Tell us plainly, are you saying i am not Christian now? Is that where you want to bring this?

I rejected the Roman Catholic Encyclopedia. I asked for a primary source. So did others. They haven't been provided, and may be impossible. I accepted the work by Shaff having known of him and possessing his work on the history of the church. I think you want me to be dishonest, et. to try to confirm your hated of calvinist theology, IMO.

I already admitted I was wrong and misinformed about the second quote, and Schaff's testimony regard Augustine's opinion is compelling. You have yet to concede (unless I missed it) that his belief has nothing to do with Calvinist theology. Have you conceded that point?

Also, is there some prejudice you harbor against Presbyterians so as to discredit Lorainne Boettner and his work? I am curious. Concerning the Roman Catholic histories which you enjoy, I regard the papacy as that Antichrist spoken of in Scripture. This may be a wild belief to some, but certainly you can understand why I put little stock in their "history."

 

[Brother Bob]

No, I removed that statement, sorry for how I worded it.

Also, is there some prejudice you harbor against Presbyterians so as to discredit Lorainne Boettner and his work? I am curious. Concerning the Roman Catholic histories which you enjoy, I regard the papacy as that Antichrist spoken of in Scripture. This may be a wild belief to some, but certainly you can understand why I put little stock in their "history."

You have no right to question me on using what I did, when you go and use presbyterian history. I think they have women preachers, but not sure. I am not arguing with you any more. You make statements that are degrading to others and when I question some of your references, you accuse me of being prejudice. You call it a "bunny trail" we are on. You accuse me of being dishonest. I would have to go back and look but there are many accusations you made. I apologized for any statements I may have made, but not you.
I will be the one accused of having a bad attitude, when your remarks bring out the worst in anyone.

opinions of the framers of the Confession, makes it almost certain that the existence and damnation of non-elect infants is implied. The Presbyterian Revisionists, therefore, wishing to avoid this logical implication, propose to strike out elect, or to substitute all for it (as the Cumberland Presbyterians have done in their Confession). The change will be acted upon by the General Assembly in May, 1892.

This is why you can quote the Presbyterians.