Predestinate

[Martin]

I have told you, I personally heard a Calvinist preach that there would babies in hell no bigger than the span of your hand

==And that means, what?? I have heard non-Calvinists teach antinomianism. Does that mean that all non-Calvinists are antinomians? Certainly not. Just because some people in one camp hold a position does not mean that all within that camp hold the position. I have pointed out that many Calvinists do not believe what you are asserting. I have also pointed to a statement by Spurgeon in which he responds to the position you are trying to put on all Calvinists (he called it slander).

Btw, I am still waiting on your reply:
http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1067278&postcount=75

I do not blame you for not likeing the doctrine, but live with it for it is true. So, as the old saying goes, put that in your pipe and smoke it.

==Since most Calvinists don't believe that infants burn in hell I don't see why any Calvinist (who does not believe it) should have to "live with it".

Can you name me one high profile, modern, mainstream, Calvinist who believe in infant damnation? Give me their name, the quote, and where you found the quote.

 

[Brother Bob]

None of theAbove Articles shall be considered as to hold with particular election and reprobation so as to make God partial,directly or indirectly.... So what would you call this association's doctrinal stance?

I think where the difference come in Bro Mike, is we believe God's spirit is striving with all men. To believe, we do not consider a "work". We do believe man is lost and cannot save himself, but though he is dead in sin, he still has a concious of God and is aware of the Spirit striving with him. I will speak for myself. When I was a sinner, I knew that and something told me I was a sinner. I knew there was a God and something told me that. I knew if I died in that condition, hell would be my home and something told me that.

BBob

 

[Brother Bob]

Can you name me one high profile, modern, mainstream, Calvinist who believe in infant damnation? Give me their name, the quote, and where you found the quote.

4th century CE
St. Gregory of Nazianzus (circa 329 - circa 390) commented in Orat., XL, 23 that infants dying without baptism "will neither be admitted by the just judge to the glory of Heaven nor condemned to suffer punishment, since, though unsealed [by baptism], they are not wicked." This was the common view of the early Church Fathers.
Pope St. Siricius insisted on the baptism of infants as well as adults lest "each one of them on leaving the world, loses both [eternal] life and the kingdom
5th century CE: St. Augustine of Hippo (354 - 430) convinced the Council of Carthage (418 CE) to reject the concept of limbo "of any place...in which children who pass out of this life unbaptized live in happiness." According to the Catholic Encyclopedia: "St. Augustine and the African Fathers believed that unbaptized infants share in the common positive misery of the damned, and the very most that St. Augustine concedes is that their punishment is the mildest of all." i.e. they go to Hell for eternal punishment, but are not as badly treated as other inmates. According to Revelation 14:10, the infants would be tortured in the presence of Jesus. However, this verse is ambigous about whether Jesus is directing or merely observing the torture.

John Calvin taught Augustines' viewpoint so clearly and consistently that after Calvin's time Augustinianism was renamed "Calvinism". John Knox, the Scottish reformer held to Calvin's view as well. So did a host of others including Theodore Beza, William Farrel, Ulrich Zwingli and William Tyndale.

If there's no limbo and we're not going to revert to St. Augustine's teaching that unbaptized infants go to hell, we're left with only one option, namely, that everyone is born in the state of grace," said the Rev. Richard McBrien, professor of theology at the University of Notre Dame.

VATICAN CITY: Pope Benedict XVI has reversed centuries of traditional Roman Catholic teaching on so-called limbo, approving a Vatican report released Friday that says there were "serious" grounds to hope that children who die without being baptized can go to heaven.

I do not plan on doing it over and over. I was asked to show where Augustine believed it and think I provided sufficient info where even the Catholic of which Augustine was, believe that it was the belief of Augustine. I have shown where Calvin endorsed most of Augustine's doctrine. It is a fact and you know it.
I am glad you and you say the most of Calvinist do not believe it. By saying the "most" you are acknowledging that at least some do believe it. I know they do, this is not the first discussion on this subject on this board. If you were not here, then start searching.

 

[Martin]

Let's review my question(s) to see if you provided an answer:

Can you name me one high profile, modern, mainstream, Calvinist who believe in infant damnation? Give me their name, the quote, and where you found the quote.

I don't know, but the fourth century does not fit modern, mainstream, or high profile. I would also like to know where you are pulling your quotes from. Catholics are not Calvinists and therefore Benedict XVI does not count as a high profile modern Calvinist. You also did not reply to my other post which I have now brought to your attention TWICE.

I do not plan on doing it over and over. I was asked to show where Augustine believed it

==I did not ask about Augustine (nor do I care about Augustine). I asked about modern, high profile, Calvinists. Let's say from the 16th century thru today. You have not answered that point so you will not be going over anything again.

I am glad you and you say the most of Calvinist do not believe it. By saying the "most" you are acknowledging that at least some do believe it.

==Just like some non-Calvinists are antinomian and semipelagian? Yes. There have been different views on this matter throughout church history. My point is that the majority of Calvinsts have not and do not hold to infant damnation. Of course Spurgeon made that very point many years ago.

What works, written by actual Calvinists (of any age), have you read for yourself?

 

[Brother Bob]

The absolute necessity of this is often insisted on by the Fathers of the Church especially when they speak of infant baptism. Thus St. Irenæus.org Christ came to save all who are reborn through Him to infants, children, and youths" . St. Augustine says "If you wish to be a Catholic, do not believe, nor say, nor teach, that infants who die before baptism can obtain the remission of original sin." A still stronger passage from the same doctor (Ep. xxviii, Ad Hieron.) reads:"Whoever says that even infants are vivified in Christ when they depart this life without the participation of His Sacrament (Baptism), both opposes the Apostolic preaching and condemns the whole which hastens to baptize infants, because it unhesitatingly believes that otherwise they can not possibly be vivified in Christ St. Ambrose Abraham c. xi) speaking of the necessity of baptism, says:" No one is excepted, not the infant, not the one hindered by any necessity."

Originally Posted by Brother Bob
I do not plan on doing it over and over. I was asked to show where Augustine believed it


==I did not ask about Augustine (nor do I care about Augustine). I asked about modern, high profile, Calvinists. Let's say from the 16th century thru today. You have not answered that point so you will not be going over anything again.

I was asked about Augustine. I did not start this discussion with you on Augustine, it was with another poster. I never said you asked of Augustine or not, but Calvin held to Augustine doctrine closely.
John Calvin taught Augustines' viewpoint so clearly and consistently that after Calvin's time Augustinianism was renamed "Calvinism".

 

[Martin]

I was asked about Augustine. I did not start this discussion with you on Augustine, it was with another poster. I never said you asked of Augustine or not, but Calvin held to Augustine doctrine closely, being he was raised a Catholic.

==I was never talking about Augustine so I don't know why you keep mentioning him. I asked a question of you in a post and you have yet to answer it:

Can you name me one high profile, modern, mainstream, Calvinist who believe in infant damnation? Give me their name, the quote, and where you found the quote.

That post was from today at 11:48am
http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1068157&postcount=101

So, can you answer the question?

 

[ReformedBaptist]

The absolute necessity of this is often insisted on by the Fathers of the Church especially when they speak of infant baptism. Thus St. Irenæus.org Christ came to save all who are reborn through Him to infants, children, and youths" . St. Augustine says "If you wish to be a Catholic, do not believe, nor say, nor teach, that infants who die before baptism can obtain the remission of original sin." A still stronger passage from the same doctor (Ep. xxviii, Ad Hieron.) reads:"Whoever says that even infants are vivified in Christ when they depart this life without the participation of His Sacrament (Baptism), both opposes the Apostolic preaching and condemns the whole which hastens to baptize infants, because it unhesitatingly believes that otherwise they can not possibly be vivified in Christ St. Ambrose Abraham c. xi) speaking of the necessity of baptism, says:" No one is excepted, not the infant, not the one hindered by any necessity."


I was asked about Augustine. I did not start this discussion with you on Augustine, it was with another poster. I never said you asked of Augustine or not, but Calvin held to Augustine doctrine closely, being he was raised a Catholic.

John Calvin taught Augustines' viewpoint so clearly and consistently that after Calvin's time Augustinianism was renamed "Calvinism".

Bob,

Instead of focusing on what some men believe or had believed, how about just discussing what we do believe. The term Calvinist in no way suggest we are followers of John Calvin or Augustine. Now, if I tell you I believe certain doctrines to be biblical, then someone will say, "You are a Calvinist." I may not care for the label, but it is convienient when discussing the subject.

I personally grow very weary when discussing theological matters to be made to respond as if to defend John Calvin or Augustine. I care to do neither other than to regard them as brethren. What I wish to defend is biblical truth.

Let's stay on subject, if we wish to continue to discuss, and not get hung up on men's persons.

 

[Brother Bob]

Bob,

Instead of focusing on what some men believe or had believed, how about just discussing what we do believe. The term Calvinist in no way suggest we are followers of John Calvin or Augustine. Now, if I tell you I believe certain doctrines to be biblical, then someone will say, "You are a Calvinist." I may not care for the label, but it is convienient when discussing the subject.

I personally witnessed and heared it preached by Calvinist. I take that to be more absolute for me than any statement by others. I stated what I have heard preached by Calvinist. Believe it or not.

This is my orginal statement and I still stand by it.

Tell me, are your children on the list or not?
Do you believe as many Calvinist, that the road to hell will be paved with the bones of infants?
I know St Augustine said the way to hell would be paved with infants skulls, and John Calvin followed with much of what Augustine believed and Calvin upheld him in many of his beliefs.

5th century CE: St. Augustine of Hippo (354 - 430) convinced the Council of Carthage (418 CE) to reject the concept of limbo "of any place...in which children who pass out of this life unbaptized live in happiness." According to the Catholic Encyclopedia: "St. Augustine and the African Fathers believed that unbaptized infants share in the common positive misery of the damned, and the very most that St. Augustine concedes is that their punishment is the mildest of all." i.e. they go to Hell for eternal punishment, but are not as badly treated as other inmates. According to Revelation 14:10, the infants would be tortured in the presence of Jesus. However, this verse is ambigous about whether Jesus is directing or merely observing the torture.




John Calvin taught Augustines' viewpoint so clearly and consistently that after Calvin's time Augustinianism was renamed "Calvinism

I think this proves my statements, and there are Calvinist who believe infants go to hell.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

I personally witnessed and heared it preached by Calvinist. I take that to be more absolute for me than any statement by others. I stated what I have heard preached by Calvinist. Believe it or not.

This is my orginal statement and I still stand by it.


5th century CE: St. Augustine of Hippo (354 - 430) convinced the Council of Carthage (418 CE) to reject the concept of limbo "of any place...in which children who pass out of this life unbaptized live in happiness." According to the Catholic Encyclopedia: "St. Augustine and the African Fathers believed that unbaptized infants share in the common positive misery of the damned, and the very most that St. Augustine concedes is that their punishment is the mildest of all." i.e. they go to Hell for eternal punishment, but are not as badly treated as other inmates. According to Revelation 14:10, the infants would be tortured in the presence of Jesus. However, this verse is ambigous about whether Jesus is directing or merely observing the torture.




John Calvin taught Augustines' viewpoint so clearly and consistently that after Calvin's time Augustinianism was renamed "Calvinism

I think this proves my statements, and there are Calvinist who believe infants go to hell.

Brother Bob,

I expected more my brother. But if this is the road you wish to travel so be it. You are on record as saying you have heard Calvinists preach infant damnation. You also use the language of "many" in association with this idea.

1. How many Calvinists have you heard preach infant damnation? What are their names, qualifications, and congregations? Please provide references.

2. Why are you quoting a Roman Catholic encyclopedia as a valid source? Perhaps others are more inclined to take Antichrist's testimony, but I am not. No offense.

3. Please provide an official, documented definition of historic calvinism.

4. Bob, there are evangelical Baptists who believe in Open Theism (which I call hyper-Arminianism). So what is the point your trying to make regarding the fact there some Calvinists may beleive infants can/are damned? Or, as I suspect, are you just trying to muddy the waters?

 

[Martin]

==I was never talking about Augustine so I don't know why you keep mentioning him. I asked a question of you in a post and you have yet to answer it:

Can you name me one high profile, modern, mainstream, Calvinist who believe in infant damnation? Give me their name, the quote, and where you found the quote.

That post was from today at 11:48am
http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1068157&postcount=101

So, can you answer the question?

==I take it that the answer is no?

 

[Brother Bob]

==Since most Calvinists don't believe that infants burn in hell I don't see why any Calvinist (who does not believe it) should have to "live with it".

Can you prove this?

Do you believe that all children who die are the "elect"? If so, why do just the elect children die?
Has God regenerated them so they can believe?

==Calvin "may" have believed that it was possible for the children of unsaved parents to end up in hell. However I doubt he believed it was possible for the children of saved parents to end up in hell. I say this because the Synod of Dort states that the children of the saved will be saved if they die in infancy and it denies that infants of the saved are cast into hell. However I don't think it says anything about infant children of unbelievers.

So, here you yourself quote the Synod of Dort saying the children of the saved will be saved. The emphasis being that the children of the unsaved will be cast to hell, or at least that is the impession you are giving me.

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.
    
    One of your sources.

 

[Brother Bob]

Brother Bob,

I expected more my brother. But if this is the road you wish to travel so be it. You are on record as saying you have heard Calvinists preach infant damnation. You also use the language of "many" in association with this idea.

Since I been on BB, there have been several Calvinist who would not deny that infants go to hell, and some who even endorsed it. Can I go back and find the posts, No! But can you prove there are not many who believe this to be the case. There is you and Martin, would you care to prove that "most" do not believe it and name them. I know you have Spurgeon, but Calvin is murkey on his belief in the Institutes. He does claim that baptism to a Christian is what Circumcism was to the Jew. Can any of you prove that?

I personally have witnesseth it preached by Calvinist. You say "so what", well so what means a lot to me, when I am the one who heard it. Your precious Calvin, held to the Augustine doctrine of which even the Catholic acknowledge that he believed the unbaptized went to hell. Calvin himself was raised "a good little Catholic", so no great wonder he held to Augustine doctrine. I cannot produce Calvin saying babies would be in hell, but as I said, he place a lot of emphasis on baptizing infants and to not deny them being baptized to make them a part of the church family. He then goes on to make allowances for the "elect's" children being holy. Honestly, I wonder about what he believed about the non'elect's children.

Do you believe that all children who die are the "elect"? If so, I wonder why just the elect children die?

 

[Martin]

Can you prove this?

==Since the vast majority of Calvinist teachers in church history have denied infant damnation, yes.

Do you believe that all children who die are the "elect"? If so, why do just the elect children die?
Has God regenerated them so they can believe?

==Since they are too young to believe, no they don't believe. However they are elect. All infants who die are part of the elect. I love the way John Newton, author of Amazing Grace, worded it:

"I cannot be sorry for the death of infants. How many storms do they escape! Nor can I doubt, in my private judgment, that they are included in the election of grace" -Letter IX "The Works of John Newton"

Now, are you going to answer my question to you or not? So far you have done your best to avoid it. I must assume you cannot answer my question:

Can you name me one high profile, modern, mainstream, Calvinist who believe in infant damnation? Give me their name, the quote, and where you found the quote.

That post was from today at 11:48am (it is now 2:01 and several replies later)
http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost...&postcount=101

 

[Brother Bob]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brother Bob
Can you prove this?


==Since the vast majority of Calvinist teachers in church history have denied infant damnation, yes.

I asked for proof.

You are of the reformed church, are you not? Do you hold to the Synod of Dort as supporting your doctrine?

Now, are you going to answer my question to you or not? So far you have done your best to avoid it. I must assume you cannot answer my question

You are of the reformed church, are you not? Do you hold to the Synod of Dort as supporting your doctrine?

==Since they are too young to believe, no they don't believe. However they are elect. All infants who die are part of the elect. I love the way John Newton, author of Amazing Grace, worded it:

Why do the elect children die and the non-elect do not? Can you answer this?

BTW; Newton was a slave trader, not God.

 

[Martin]

I asked for proof.

==Excuse me? You are going to say that after continuing to ignore a very simple question I have been asking you? You have to be joking. I am waiting on you to answer my question. Once you do that we can move forward. Until you do that this discussion has hit a brickwall.

 

[Martin]

Do you hold to the Synod of Dort as supporting your doctrine?

==No, I don't. Personally I hold to the the Second London Confession, the Southern Baptist Statement of Faith, and the Southern Baptist Abstract of Principles.

The Canons of Dort, I think, does a good job of laying out the principles of the Five Points. However I don't refer to the Canons as my doctrinal statement.

I agree with each of those because I believe they best fit Scripture.

 

[Brother Bob]

==No, I don't. Personally I hold to the the Second London Confession, the Southern Baptist Statement of Faith, and the Southern Baptist Abstract of Principles.

The Canons of Dort, I think, does a good job of laying out the principles of the Five Points. However I don't refer to the Canons as my doctrinal statement.

I agree with each of those because I believe they best fit Scripture.
__________________

Being this one of your good sources then why do they leave out the non-saved children going to heaven.

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.

What about all the rest of the children, are they lost? If not, why did Synod leave them completely out?
If you are going to name a source, then I expect you to uphold that source.

 

[Martin]

Newton was a slave trader, not God.

==What a sad statement. I hope you don't sing Amazing Grace in your church.

 

[Martin]

Are you of the Reformed Church or not?

==My church is Southern Baptist. Is it a Calvinistic Baptist Church? No.

 

[Martin]

Being this one of your good sources then why do they leave out the non-saved children going to heaven.

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.

What about all the rest of the children, are they lost?

==You would have to ask them. This very point was discussed earlier in this thread. Also I thought I made it clear that the Canons are not my statement of faith. I don't know how to get much clearer than "No, I don't".