Predestinate

[Brother Bob]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brother Bob
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.

No! you are not going to pull that stuff on me, asking me to supply a source and then you supply one and then do not uphold them. What kind of support is that for your belief.

Again, you wanted a source for children going to hell, and you gave me one. Thanks,

 

[Brother Bob]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brother Bob
Newton was a slave trader, not God.


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

That is not a statement, that is the truth. If you can't take the truth I can't help it. Yea, its sad he was a slave trader, but that was what he was.

 

[Martin]

No! you are not going to pull that stuff on me, asking me to supply a source and then you supply one and then do not uphold them. What kind of support is that for your belief.

==Well, first, you have not provided any sources. You have avoided answering a very simple question. So don't try to turn this around. Second I never said that the Canons were my source. I cited the Second London Confession, the Abstract of Principles, and the Southern Baptist Statement of Faith as my statements of faith. I only said that the Canons, and allow me to quote my own post, "does a good job of laying out the principles of the Five Points". So don't claim that I said the Canons were my source when anyone can read that I never said such a thing. Third, I have asked you a very simple question in more than one reply. Why have you ignored it? You came on here making all of these claims about Calvinists and babies in hell yet the best you can do is Augustine. You have not shown, in anyway, that infant damnation is a position held by any major group of Calvinists. I don't care if you can find one, two, or even ten, you have not shown that this position (infant damnation) you are trying to nail on all/most Calvinists is actually a mainstream Calvinist position. I have given you chance after chance to answer and you have not.

Again, you wanted a source for children going to hell, and you gave me one. Thanks,

==The Canons do not say any infant goes to hell. It is silent on the matter. Though we are, of course, free to read into that silence a error on this issue.

 

[Martin]

That is not a statement, that is the truth. If you can't take the truth I can't help it. Yea, its sad he was a slave trader, but that was what he was.

==John Newton was a slave trader who repented of his sins and became a person who God used (along with Wilberforce) to end slavery in England. He was a man who knew, first hand, about the grace of God and how God saves the worst of sinners. That is why he wrote the song we call Amazing Grace. Newton was also a theologian and a strong Calvinist.

 

[Brother Bob]

Do you deny being of the reformed churches?

 

[TCGreek]

==John Newton was a slave trader who repented of his sins and became a person who God used (along with Wilberforce) to end slavery in England. He was a man who knew, first hand, about the grace of God and how God saves the worst of sinners. That is why he wrote the song we call Amazing Grace. Newton was also a theologian and a strong Calvinist.

John Newton is a testimony to How the Sovereign Grace of God works. Praise God for this glimpse into his matchless grace.

 

[Martin]

Do you deny being of the reformed churches?

Since I already answered this:

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1068288&postcount=119

 

[Brother Bob]

John Newton is a testimony to How the Sovereign Grace of God works. Praise God for this glimpse into his matchless grace.__________________

No one said he was not. I spoke of the truth of the man and it took the bad part and his overcoming with the help of the Lord to make him a man that we can respect. If we did not know the History of the man, do you think we would quote him as much or sing his song. I doubt it.

It would be like Paul trying to hide his past and only tell of his time in Christ.

 

[Brother Bob]

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brother Bob

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?

Again, you wanted a source for children going to hell, and you gave me one. Thanks,

 

[TCGreek]

No one said he was not. I spoke of the truth of the man and it took the bad part and his overcoming with the help of the Lord to make him a man that we can respect. If we did not know the History of the man, do you think we would quote him as much or sing his song. I doubt it.

It would be like Paul trying to hide his past and only tell of his time in Christ.

Amen, Bob. And we praise God for that.

 

[Martin]

you wanted a source for children going to hell, and you gave me one. Thanks,

==Of course that statement does not say that infants goto hell and you have not proven that infant damnation is a mainstream Calvinist position.

 

[Brother Bob]

Oh, but it sure don't say they go to heaven but leaves the impression for all to see, they go to hell. There is only two places that hold the whole human race and one is heaven and the other hell and the Lake.

The Five Points of Calvinism
(From the Synod of Dort, 1619)​

The Synod of Dort was held in Dortrecht, Netherlands, in 1619, in order to discuss a doctrinal
controversy within the Dutch Reformed churches. The Synod had international significance for
Reformed theology (often labeled Calvinism), because churches from eight other countries sent
delegates. The Synod reaffirmed several basic Calvinistic tenets and rejected the errors of
Arminianism, a theological trend that emphasized the ability of human beings to earn salvation for
themselves. Notice that the handy acronym—TULIP—can help you remember the five points.
The quotations below come from a statement made by the Synod. –D. Voelker​

1.​

Total Depravity of Humanity: “Therefore all men are conceived in sin, and are by nature
children of wrath, incapable of saving good, prone to evil, dead in sin, and in bondage
thereto; and without the regenerating grace of the Holy Spirit, they are neither able nor
willing to return to God, to reform the depravity of their nature, or to dispose themselves to
reformation.”
2. Unconditional Divine Election and Reprobation: “Election is the unchangeable purpose of
God, whereby, before the foundation of the world, He has out of mere grace, according to
the sovereign good pleasure of His own will, chosen from the whole human race, which had
fallen through their own fault from the primitive state of rectitude into sin and destruction, a
certain number of persons to redemption in Christ. . . . Some only, are elected, while others
are passed by in the eternal decree; whom God, out of His sovereign, most just,
irreprehensible, and unchangeable good pleasure, has decreed to leave in the common
misery into which they have willfully plunged themselves, and not to bestow upon them
saving faith and the grace of conversion; but, permitting them in His just judgment to follow
their own ways, at last, for the declaration of His justice, to condemn and punish them
forever, not only on account of their unbelief, but also for all their other sins. And this is the
decree of reprobation.”
3. Limited Atonement by Christ: As per #2, Christ’s death atoned for the sins of the elect
only—not for the sins of all of humanity. The atonement was thus “limited” to the elect.
4. Irresistible Grace: The Synod roundly rejected the error “That God in the regeneration of
man does not use such powers of His omnipotence as potently and infallibly bend man’s will
to faith and conversion; but that . . . man may yet so resist God and the Holy Spirit.”
5. Perseverance of the Saints: “Those whom God, according to His purpose, calls to the
communion of His Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, and regenerates by the Holy Spirit, He also
delivers from the dominion and slavery of sin, though in this life He does not deliver them​

altogether from the body of sin and from the infirmities of the flesh.”

 

[Martin]

Thanks for the history/theology lesson but I already know about the Synod of Dort (etc).

 

[Brother Bob]

Thanks for the history/theology lesson but I already know about the Synod of Dort (etc).
__________________

You wouldn't acknowledge it until I proved it to you because you know it says that only the children of the saved will go to heaven if they die.

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.

So, if this is the Calvinistic doctrine, it would include the whole bunch of you, saying only the children of the saved will go to heaven if they die, except you deny your own TULIP......

 

[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 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.

So, reformed I went back and read some of your thread "are babies righteous". It seemed to me you were struggling with where ALL infants are saved or not. Being you are reformedbeliever, I assume you hold to the doctrine of Synod of Dort? Of which the Tulip was derived of?

 

[Martin]

You wouldn't acknowledge it until I proved it to you because you know it says that only the children of the saved will go to heaven if they die.

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.

So, if this is the Calvinistic doctrine, it would include the whole bunch of you, saying only the children of the saved will go to heaven if they die, except you deny your own TULIP......

==As I have said, as John MacArthur has said, as RC Sproul has said, as Spurgeon has said, as Newton has said, as Gill has said, as others on this forum has said, I believe that all infants who die go to heaven. The silence of the Canons on this issue is regretable but it does not affect my position. As I have said to you already, I don't view the Canons as my statement of faith (etc). I think they do a good job at laying out the five points. That does not mean I agree with every line or sentence of the the Canons. I have told you that my statement(s) of faith are: The Southern Baptist Statement of Faith, the Southern Baptist Abstract of Principles, and the Second London Confession. I am not a follower of John Calvin, I don't believe in infant baptism or covenant theology. I, like many if not the vast majority of Calvinists throughout history, do not believe in the doctrine of infant damnation.

"In my own theological tradition, we believe that those children who die in infancy are numbered among the redeemed. That is to say, we hope and have a certain level of confidence that God will be particularly gracious toward those who have never had the opportunity to be exposed to the gospel, such as infants or children who are too disabled to hear and understand... infants who die are given a special dispensation of the grace of God; it is not by their innocence but by God’s grace that they are received into heaven...We come into this world with a sin nature, and so the baby that dies, dies as a sinful child. And when that child is received into heaven, he is received by grace." -RC Sproul http://www.ligonier.org/questions_answered.php?question_id=48

 

[Brother Bob]

==As I have said, as John MacArthur has said, as RC Sproul has said, as Spurgeon has said, as Newton has said, as Gill has said, as others on this forum has said, I believe that all infants who die go to heaven. The silence of the Canons on this issue is regretable but it does not affect my position. As I have said to you already, I don't view the Canons as my statement of faith (etc). I think they do a good job at laying out the five points. That does not mean I agree with every line or sentence of the the Canons. I have told you that my statement(s) of faith are: The Southern Baptist Statement of Faith, the Southern Baptist Abstract of Principles, and the Second London Confession. I am not a follower of John Calvin, I don't believe in infant baptism or covenant theology. I, like many if not the vast majority of Calvinists throughout history, do not believe in the doctrine of infant damnation.

"In my own theological tradition, we believe that those children who die in infancy are numbered among the redeemed. That is to say, we hope and have a certain level of confidence that God will be particularly gracious toward those who have never had the opportunity to be exposed to the gospel, such as infants or children who are too disabled to hear and understand... infants who die are given a special dispensation of the grace of God; it is not by their innocence but by God’s grace that they are received into heaven...We come into this world with a sin nature, and so the baby that dies, dies as a sinful child. And when that child is received into heaven, he is received by grace." -RC Sproul http://www.ligonier.org/questions_an...question_id=48__________________

After reading your posts on "are babies righteous", I believe you may have just come to this conclusion. Also, as a Calvinist, your doctrine upholds the TULIP, which was derived of the Cannon. If I am not mistaken. The Cannon may be "silent" as you say, but I think it leaves no doubt to where the non-elect children are going. "HELL"

Seems you believe the infants will have to suffer some kind of temporal judgment, what ever that means.

Babies are righteous?

Martin;==That is a very interesting question and one that I have never spent much time thinking about. As far as I can recall we are not told that there were, or were not, children in Sodom. However let's keep in mind that Scripture says that all of us are born in sin. We are sinners from the start. Therefore God would be just in bringing temporal judgment on anyone He wishes. As for the eternal destiny of those who die in infancy, well, I think they do enter heaven (no matter who their parents are). However that does not exempt them from temporal judgments just like Christians are subject to temporal judgments.

Also, you now are turning on the very source you gave me for infants being saved, and part of the foundation of your doctrine, the TULIP.

I, like many if not the vast majority of Calvinists throughout history, do not believe in the doctrine of infant damnation.

We are starting to get closer, at least you acknowledge it is many who do not believe in infant damnation and then you add "if not the majority". Well Sir, that leaves a lot of people.

I don't need to go get proof, I can just wait and quote you. Thanks,

 

[ReformedBaptist]

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?

Brother Bob,

I have engaged in this conversation, my brother, striving toward a true Christian spirit of love and unity, letting iron sharpen iron. Brother, when you use Rhetoric such as "your precious Calvin" you stir the pot and take this from a gentleman's discussion to a potential hissy fit (as we say in the south). Such dialogue my brother tends to generate more heat than light is not a benefit to you, me, or our readers.

Please let me know if this conversation can turn towards a more gentlemanly Christian attitude, or if we should end it now before it becomes an embarrasment to the Name of Jesus Christ.

Your servant in Christ,
RB

 

[Martin]

I have quoted Sproul, now Piper (a mainstream Calvinist):


"God in his justice will find a way to absolve infants who die of their depravity. It will surely be through Christ...It is important to emphasize that, in our view, God is not saving infants because they are innocent. They are not innocent, but guilty. He is saving them because, although they are sinful, in his mercy he desires that compassion be exercised upon those who are sinful and yet lack the capacity to grasp the truth revealed about Him in nature and to the human heart.
It should also be emphasized that the salvation of all who die in infancy is not inconsistent with unconditional election (the view that God chooses whom to save of His own will, apart from anything in the individual). As Spurgeon pointed out, it is not that God chooses someone to salvation because they are going to die in infancy. Rather, He has ordained that only those who have been chosen for salvation will be allowed to die in infancy. God's justice in condemnation will be most clearly seen by allowing those who will not be saved to demonstrate their inherent sinfulness through willful, knowing transgression.
Finally, for those who have struggled with this issue through personal loss, we would want to say that knowing what happens to infants who die is a good place to rest your soul. But it is only the second best place for resting your soul." -Desiring God Website: http://www.desiringgod.org/Resource...te/2006/1622_What_happens_to_infants_who_die/

John MacArthur's view, which is also that all infants who die enter heaven through Christ, can be found in his great book "Safe in the Arms of God".

These are the views of mainstream Calvinists. Bob has yet to provide even one example of a modern, mainstream Calvinist who holds to infant damnation (though he has been asked to on more than one occasion).

 

[Brother Bob]

Brother Bob,

I have engaged in this conversation, my brother, striving toward a true Christian spirit of love and unity, letting iron sharpen iron. Brother, when you use Rhetoric such as "your precious Calvin" you stir the pot and take this from a gentleman's discussion to a potential hissy fit (as we say in the south). Such dialogue my brother tends to generate more heat than light is not a benefit to you, me, or our readers.

Please let me know if this conversation can turn towards a more gentlemanly Christian attitude, or if we should end it now before it becomes an embarrasment to the Name of Jesus Christ.

Your servant in Christ,
RB

I do not wish to be mean spirited but do take to heart when I gave eye witness proof and have it questioned.

I was asked to provide proof of any Calvinist who believe in infants not going to heaven. I provided the Synod of Dort, of which all were of the Calvinist belief. IMO

I was given this Synod of Dort challenging my belief that many Calvinist believe in infant damnation. This document is the basis of the Calvinist doctrine of the TULIP. When given this document, I went and researched it and low and behold, it supported my statement that many Calvinist believe infants receive damnation. Now if you refuse to accept this document, then you should not be using it for support. I will again post it for your observation and you can say or do as you wish.
When you question whether I have heard it preached or not, then you are questioning me, of which I do not take lightly. If you in anyway are offended at the way I present my argument, then I apoligize. I am never too big to apoligize if I offend any one. I speak plainly and always have. Some times I may make a poor choice of words but I am not out to slander you in no way. I keep reading, are you going to provide proof or not, and I give it but its not received. I don't know how many more Calvinist you want than those who make up the Cannon.

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? Seems to me you need to deny the Synod of Dort, or acknowledge it.