Predestinate

[Martin]

After reading your posts on "are babies righteous", I believe you may have just come to this conclusion...Seems you believe the infants will have to suffer some kind of temporal judgment, what ever that means.

==No, I have not changed my position. Babies are not born righteous in their nature. They are children of wrath. They are only saved through grace. Are they guilty of personal sin? No, but they do have a sin nature. What did I say, in the part YOU quoted, "let's keep in mind that Scripture says that all of us are born in sin. We are sinners from the start".

Also nice job of taking statements out of context. Infants certainly have suffered temporal judgment (the flood, etc). No human is exempt from that. Again, what did I say? "As far as I can recall we are not told that there were, or were not, children in Sodom". Any children that were in Sodom did suffer temporal judgment but would have entered heaven. The same is true with the flood and other temporal judgments.

as a Calvinist, your doctrine upholds the TULIP, which was derived of the Cannon. If I am not mistaken.

==My Calvinist position does not come from the Canon. I agree with it where I agree with it and I disagree with it where I disagree with it.

The Cannon may be "silent" as you say, but I think it leaves no doubt to where the non-elect children are going. "HELL"

==The Canon IS silent. Period. We may draw some conclusions from that but the Canon is silent.

As for the "foundation" of my position, I have corrected you on that several times. If you wish to continue to misrepresent me go ahead. However you know, I know, and yes God knows that I made clear that the Canons are not my statement of faith or foundation. I only said that they do a good job laying out the five points. I have made clear that I don't agree with every line/sentence of the Canons of Dort.

 

[Brother Bob]

As for the "foundation" of my position, I have corrected you on that several times. If you wish to continue to misrepresent me go ahead. However you know, I know, and yes God knows that I made clear that the Canons are not my statement of faith or foundation. I only said that they do a good job laying out the five points. I have made clear that I don't agree with every line/sentence of the Canons of Dort.

Who Sir, brought the Cannons into this discussion?

For the "elects sake" is silent also on those who are not the "elect", you would agree on that wouldn't you?

"Chosen before the foundation of the world" is silent of those who were not chosen, wouldn't you say also?

 

[Martin]

I was asked to provide proof of any Calvinist who believe in infants not going to heaven

==I asked you for proof about modern, mainstream Calvinists. You have yet to provide even one example.

 

[Martin]

Who Sir, brought the Cannons into this discussion?

==What have I said?

 

[charles_creech78]

You are way off subject hear.

 

[Brother Bob]

==I asked you for proof about modern, mainstream Calvinists. You have yet to provide even one example.

You are asking me a question that I did not make a statement of. I said many Calvinist, with your help, I gave you more than I could possible know.

==What have I said?

Martin
==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.


You also, leave out the children of the unsaved.

 

[Martin]

You are asking me a question that I did not make a statement of. I said many Calvinist, with your help, I gave you more than I could possible know.

==So? I asked the question and you have not answered it. You are trying to pan Calvinism with this doctrine of infant damnation when most Calvinists don't believe it. You don't provide a modern, mainstream example because you can't. I am not aware of ANY mainstream, modern Calvinist who believes that infants who die goto hell.

Martin
==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.


You also, leave out the children of the unsaved.

==My gosh. I was talking about the content of the Synod. As I have said, more than once in this thread, I believe that all infants who die enter heaven. Note the red text.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

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.

I think you might be confusing my requests with brother Martin's. But that's ok. I will take this response of yours as a response my inquirey concerning genuine Christian love. The only reason I engage in such conversations with brethren, is because I love them and I love the truth of Christ's Gospel.

There has been so much said brother, what is it that you want to learn from me?

 

[ReformedBaptist]

You are way off subject hear.

Amen. LOL This thread was about the doctrine of predestination. But I can see how that may lead to a question about infants who die in infancy. Brother Bob wishes, in my opinion, to mar the image of those who are called calvinists by highligting the fact (I have never denied) that some who are called calvinists believe infants may/have perished and gone to hell.

I believe by bringing this out he hopes to antogonize the sensabilities of some who would be repulsed by such an idea. Indeed, the idea of an infant suffering in eternal fire is repulsive and grossly repugnant to me.

I think rather than try such a tactic, which is foolish in my opinion, I would rather see the doctrine in question defined and biblically discussed.

RB

 

[Dale-c]

One phrase for BBs arguments:
Ad Hominem.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

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.

I am certain brother Martin has successfully made his point regarding this article. I was engaged in whether or not this should be addressed with Brother Bob or not. Since his response that he does not mean to be mean spirited or antogonistic, I wanted to take a moment to comment about the statement.

Brother Bob, I find it a bit disconcerting the insinuation based on the Synods statement in Article 17 that these "calvinists" believed in infant damnation. The statement says nothing of the kind, which point I am certain brother Martin already gave.

I find this disconcerting brother because it would be dishonest. At worse, this allows a brother or sister to hold different opinions on the matter. Yet the statement stands for what it is. Whatever is read into the statement, my brother, is mere speculation.

 

[Brother Bob]

ReformedBaptist;
We had a storm and my power went off. Maybe it was for a reason. I see now you do acknowledge that some Calvinist do say infants go to hell. I also see you, as Martin ,want to take the silence of the Synod of Dort, as saying all children are saved, of which it does not say. Martin asked for documentation of where the Calvinist believe infants in hell, and he provided the info himself. It is no great surprise to me, that you choose not to recognize what is plain in the article 17 of the Synod of Dort, that if you are not children of the elect, then we will not mention where you are going.
Maybe, I posted a little hard but if you can produce anything I said that was entirely out of line, I will apoligize.
I see Dale-C put his two cents worth in too. Believe me, maybe you were not around, but Dale-C was, and this subject has been around and around, with Dale-c right in the forefront. He said he was going to do better, but he just now stuck his nose in this debate, instead of letting us work it out between us. You talk of dishonest, I think it is dishonest, to not recognize the fact ,that article 17 being silent on the unsaved's children. Also, if it means what I take it too mean, then there are many Calvinist that do believe infants in hell, as you now acknowledge there are some. Seeing you would like me to lay down and roll over, instead of using what material I have to prove my point, then I see no point whatsoever in this discussion.

At worse, this allows a brother or sister to hold different opinions on the matter. Yet the statement stands for what it is. Whatever is read into the statement, my brother, is mere speculation.
__________________

Here you admit what you all read into it is mere speculation, but you choose to read into it that it does not say the infants of the unsaved miss heaven.

If you have a right to speculate, so do I, and I read that it does indeed say by being silent on the children of the unsaved, while saying the children of the saved go to heaven, is saying the children of the unsaved do not. Also, that is what it says, whether you agree or not. I have heard too many Calvinist say so, yes right on here. Even Dale-c, if I remember correctly stated long before that he could not say whether infants went to hell or not, and he may have made it stronger than that, but if I can't remember, I will leave it at that.

BBob,

 

[Brother Bob]

Dale-c

One phrase for BBs arguments:
Ad Hominem.

Please be kind enough to point out Ad Hominem. You alway did use that word loosly when you indeed were one who taught the rest of us, what Ad Hominem is?
I see you are back to your old tricks, when Calvinist in trouble, run to their aid and gather at the "ok corral".
If I remember correctly Dale-c, you are among the Calvinist who stated you didn't know if God sent infants to hell or not. You may have even said it stronger, until you daughter was born, then seems you mellowed down some. You were the champ of using Ad Hominem, and you said you were going to do better, guess not.

RE: What or who is predestinated?

Posted June 30 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dale-c to BBob;

That is not only the most pathetic use of scripture I have seen in a long time, it would appear that you never got through second grade English class.


Followed by...
Quote:
I don't mean to be insulting

Naw, why would you think that is insulting?

 

[Lazarus]

I hope you don't mind if I enter the conversation. The question was asked why hell has expanded it's self. From my understanding, this is where paradise was located. When Jesus died on the cross he spent 3 days and 3 nights there. Look at the story of Lazarus. (No Relation)

Mt 12:40 For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.


After the 3 days and nights Jesus ascended to heaven and took all those in paradise with him (led captivity captive).

Eph 4:8 Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men.
9 (Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth?
10 He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things.)

With paradise empty no longer needed, hell enlarged itself into the empty space to contain all those who were destined for that place.

My thoughts!

 

[Martin]

Misrepresentations

I also see you, as Martin ,want to take the silence of the Synod of Dort, as saying all children are saved, of which it does not say.

==I never said that. You are grossly misrepresenting my position and what I have said throughout this discussion. What I have been saying was that the Canons are silent on the matter of the salvation of the infant children of the non-saved. I said the silence was "regretable" and I also have made it clear that it could mean they believed that those infants don't enter heaven. I have always asserted however that the Cannons of Dort are silent on this and they are. Anyone who would like to spend their time reviewing this thread will see that. So why you have made the above statement is beyond me.

My position, which unlike the Canons of Dort is not silent, is that all infants who die enter heaven. Not because they deserve it but because of the grace of God through Christ Jesus. I have told you several times that my positions don't rest of the Canons of Dort.

Martin asked for documentation of where the Calvinist believe infants in hell, and he provided the info himself.

==Again, you have misrepresented my position and the question I asked of you. I asked you for modern, mainstream, Calvinists who believe in infant damnation. You have not provided a single one. All you have done is point to silence of Dort, statements by Augustine, and Calvin. You have totally ignored the position of modern Calvinists.

 

[Brother Bob]

==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.

I guess we could read into this that you are silent on the matter also, so that kind of leaves the children of the unsaved in limbo.

modern Calvinists.

and who would that be?

This is going nowhere, you refuse to accept your own document of the Synod of Dort. You want to say because it is silent on the unsaved's children, while saying the saved's children go to heaven, that it is not condemning the children of the unsaved. I think it is very plain what the writers of that document were saying.
Have a good day,
BBob,

 

[Dale-c]

You alway did use that word loosly when you indeed were one who taught the rest of us, what Ad Hominem is?

Actually it was JAurthur who taught everyone here what Ad Himinem is.
The point is how can we argue?
This thread is about predestination and you keep saying certain people believe in infants in hell.

No, I am not sure about what all happens with infants.
If you can give me a place in the Bible that clearly states what does happens to infants I would be glad to accept it.
PLease show me Biblically what the Bible says about it.

 

[Brother Bob]

Dale-c
Mat 19:14But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.

 

[Brother Bob]

This thread is about predestination and you keep saying certain people believe in infants in hell.

Easy to place all the blame on me as you always have.

 

[charles_creech78]

I think this is trash going around about a babie will burn in hell. It is a lie about God. The God I serve is love and merciful and slow to anger. God is love and them that are born of God are born of love. Hell and the lake of fire are for the satan and the false prophets for the unGodly and for them that loveth and maketh a lie. And this is a lie. For it is not the will of the father that any should perish but all come to repentance and we all know a babie or a child can't repent. They have not the knowledge to repent. Like they would need to. I think they are just perfect just the way they are and I think God fills the same way. And to them who say we was born in sin that is a lie. You might have died in sin but you was not born into it. May God bless you with all of his understanding and I pray that he gives you the knowledge to understand that. Thank you GOD for your love and blessing on me let me always give you the glory in all things that I do. Let they will be done lord, let they will be done amen.