Psalm 58:3 (and babies)

[latterrain77]

Hi Scott. Thank you for your comments.

You said, Rom 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

All have sinned but sin has NO power to condemn those who ARE saved. Eternal life is guaranteed for those who are saved, despite sin (Eph. 2: 5). There is NO judgment for those who are in Christ Jesus (Romans 8: 1). There is no wrath for the elect who are saved (Rom. 5: 9-10).

No one (saved or otherwise) measures up to the “glory of God.” GOD is uncorruptible (Rom. 1: 23). Humans are corruptible (Rom. 3: 23, Rom. 1: 23, 1 Cor. 15: 53). The elect do NOT pay the price for their corruption because Christ paid the price for them (Rom. 8: 1, 2 Cor. 5: 21). It took the “work” of GOD to measure up to the glorious standard of GOD. Mankind remains corruptible even after salvation (we continue to sin). Full glory is a future event (Rom. 8: 18, 1 Cor. 15).

You said, Rom 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. You are correct – and this verse proves my point. As stated above, the wages of sin (death) has no effect over the elect. I agree that the gift of GOD is eternal life, and that gift applies to all who are saved including babies.

You said, Looks pretty clear to me..........

It looks clear to me too Scott.

Do you believe that little children who do not survive could potentially be sent to hell? If so, please explain. I’m not sure how the verses you quoted have anything to do with babies who do not survive, or if "little children" are wicked specifically, or the Psalm 58: 3 text that is (was) the subject of this thread. Thank you again Scott. As always, I much appreciate your comments and thoughts.

latterrain77

[ November 05, 2002, 07:17 AM: Message edited by: latterrain77 ]

 

[Scott_Bushey]

Laterrain,
As you have stated, "As stated above, the wages of sin (death) has no effect over the elect."

Scott responds:
Are you implying that "ALL" infants are elect?
If you are not, infants who are not elect fall under the Rom 3:23, 6:23 implication.

Also: To deny "imputation" of the Adamic sin is no less than Pelagianism.

I have previously exhausted this topic previously.
See my posts in : http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=10;t=001809;p=1

And:
http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=10;t=001795

[ November 05, 2002, 08:36 AM: Message edited by: Scott_Bushey ]

 

[Karen]

Originally posted by Scott_Bushey:
.....
Scott responds:
Are you implying that "ALL" infants are elect?
If you are not, infants who are not elect fall under the Rom 3:23, 6:23 implication.

Also: To deny "imputation" of the Adamic sin is no less than Pelagianism.

I have previously exhausted this topic previously.
See my posts in.....

Scott,

I think that part of the problem is that you and others with your point of view are not spelling things out as clearly as you think you are.
(I do believe that all babies go to Heaven, by whatever method - all elect, or all imputed with Christ's righteousness.)

But what you fail to point out is that even if you do think some babies go to Hell, you do not think that God will be toasting babies for eternity. ANYONE in Hell will have "adult consciousness" and will realize somehow that it is where he deserves to be. There will NOT, even in your framework, be young children unaware of what is even going on, except that they hurt. And in spite of thinking that you have exhausted the topic, you have NOT ONCE made this clear.

Perhaps this shows the gulf quite clearly between the men on this board who are really trying to address Scripture and the mothers who are likewise, but are seeing some of the implications you have not even thought necessary to explain.

Karen

 

[Scott_Bushey]

Karen writes:
But what you fail to point out is that even if you do think some babies go to Hell, you do not think that God will be toasting babies for eternity.

Karen,
This statement confuses me.........Please expound.

 

[Karen]

Originally posted by Scott_Bushey:
Karen writes:
But what you fail to point out is that even if you do think some babies go to Hell, you do not think that God will be toasting babies for eternity.

Karen,
This statement confuses me.........Please expound.

Not quite sure how to explain it other than that it is my understanding that Calvinists generally think that anyone who will experience Hell will do so with knowledge and awareness, with an "adult" understanding of what is going on.
Rather than God punishing babies as babies eternally.

Karen

 

[Scott_Bushey]

Karen,
You write:
"Not quite sure how to explain it other than that it is my understanding that Calvinists generally think that anyone who will experience Hell will do so with knowledge and awareness, with an "adult" understanding of what is going on.
Rather than God punishing babies as babies eternally."

Scott states:
The first part of your statement is true; those in Hell will be full aware of the extent of their sin in light of Gods holiness and perfection. Whether they are adults or not adults is irrelevant. Sin will be exposed in light of a righteous God. In that, even an infant will know.

Jesus made mention of Rocks crying out.
Luke 19:40 And he answered and said unto them, I tell you that, if these should hold their peace, the stones would immediately cry out.
The inanimate becoming animated in the presence of HIM who creates.
Luke 3:8 "...for I say unto you, That God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham."

Mat 21:16 And said unto him, Hearest thou what these say? And Jesus saith unto them, Yea; have ye never read, Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings thou hast perfected praise?

Jesus is here affirming that even infants are able with their "prattle" to offer up worthy praises to Him!

Karen,
You also write:
(I do believe that all babies go to Heaven, by whatever method - all elect, or all imputed with Christ's righteousness.)

Scott responds:
This idea *cannot* be supported by scripture. It may be your opinion, but it is not scriptural. In fact, It is Pelagian.

My position is:
Rom 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

The above states: "ALL". This statement includes children. Not that I like it, but God said it, so I believe it!

[ November 05, 2002, 07:14 PM: Message edited by: Scott_Bushey ]

 

[Baptist Vine]

Scott, according to your view of scripture, is it possible for any babies to avoid hell, and if so, how?'

 

[Scott_Bushey]

Originally posted by Baptist Vine:
Scott, according to your view of scripture, is it possible for any babies to avoid hell, and if so, how?'

Scott states:
BaptistVine, God saves! The scriptures describe the elective decree. John the baptist was regenerated within the womb. Jeremiah was set apart from the womb, Sampson was born a Nazarite....Judg 13:5 For, lo, thou shalt conceive, and bear a son; and no razor shall come on his head: for the child shall be a Nazarite unto God from the womb: and he shall begin to deliver Israel out of the hand of the Philistines.

I have taught my daughters from a early age to understand that all men, all children, all humans are at emnity, at war, against God. That since Adam, all men are on a slippery slide, descending toward destiny. Somehow, God in His mercy and grace has decided to save some. Not for any particular reason; just because He is God. This is election. God reaching down into sinful mankind and regenerating and cleansing, with the ultimate goal in bringing glory unto Himself. In the scope of this mercy, God saves men, woman, children, infants.

However, the unmistakable fact in this decree is that God does not save all infants, or all men, or all children, or all woman........He saves some.

[ November 05, 2002, 08:22 PM: Message edited by: Scott_Bushey ]

 

[rlvaughn]

Originally posted by latterrain77:
...I’m suggesting that the tragic event of an infant death, could ITSELF be specific evidence that such a child IS among the elect (i.e. saved).

latterrain, I have no problem agreeing that it could. The fact appears to me that salvation of ALL infants is only apparently consistent with two positions - pelagianism, in which they are not sinners, or universalism, in which it doesn't matter because all will be saved. In systems in which faith is a condition of salvation (such as arminianism), one must factor in some way for faith to be applied by proxy (baptism, covenant, etc.), or have some kind of age of accountability. In systems in which election is unconditional (such as calvinism), one must factor in some way that death in infancy or at young age is evidence of election (because election based on death in infancy would NOT be UNconditional). I do believe that some verses of scripture (such as you mention, and David's statement about his young child) give us reason to hope that infants and young children will be in heaven. Beyond that, I am willing to leave the question alone until I have further light.

Little children who DO survive are not necessarily in this category because they, in time, will no longer be little children (since they survived).

Do they survive because they are not elect? Why do any elect survive? If the wages of sin is death, why is it that only the elect children die?

A little child on his way to HELL would hardly be a blessing – to either the little child himself or the parents. In fact, such an idea would be crippling to any parent. How do you reconcile such an idea with Psalm 127:3-5?

I am wondering how you reconcile it?? You obviously believe (above quote) that some little children are on their way to hell (whether we or they know it or not), but you have also said that ALL children are a blessing. Could we possibly be dealing with the fact that children generically are a blessing (heritage, inheritance) from the Lord? Certainly everything about every child is not a blessing.

 

[latterrain77]

Hi Scott. As I've mentioned elsewhere on this thread, I’m suggesting that the tragic event of an infant death could ITSELF be specific evidence that such a child IS among the elect (Matt. 18: 10, Matt. 18: 3, Psalm 131: 2, Psalm 127: 3-5, etc). I believe this is entirely consistent with Biblical predestination as such babies are saved by the action of GOD, not by there own will (OBVIOUSLY not by there own will since a baby does not have any free will).

I haven’t argued for the essential goodness of humanity or the free will of man (Pelagianism) but rather I’ve argued for (and believe) the opposite.

Rather than sending babies to hell, Jesus points in the other direction. It seems to me that those who take the position that "babies suffer eternal death" are very similar to the one in Mark 5: 35 and Luke 8: 49 (those who tell parents that their children are dead when they are NOT).

In Mark 5: 36 and Luke 8: 50, Jesus shows the parent of this child that the person in Mark 5: 35 and Luke 8: 49 is WRONG and that the child is NOT dead. While this delightful person in Mark 5: 35 and Luke 8: 49 laughs Jesus to scorn in Mark 5: 40 (along with others) for believing this, Jesus pays no attention to them and just SAVES the child (Mark 5: 41-42, Luke 8: 54-56). It's interesting that the LORD put those mockers OUT before saving the child (Luke 8: 54). This is a glorious picture of salvation for children. Could it also be a punishing picture for those who would see children as dead (eternally or otherwise)?

Luke 8: 41-56, Mark 5: 22-43 - Concerning the salvation of dying children, Jesus says to parents “Be not afraid, ONLY believe" and the child will be made whole (Luke 8: 50, Mark 5: 36). "made whole." This verse is a glorious picture of the salvation of children. It is also the fantastic comfort that only GOD can give to frightened and grieving parents.

Jesus is acutely sensitive and concerned about parents. He is especially comforting to suffering parents and ALWAYS grants their requests in the Biblical examples concerning their dead or dying children, sometimes immediately (Mark 9: 18-26, Mark 5: 22-45, Luke 8: 41-56). This is true even in some examples when those parents were “unsaved” themselves! All of this is a picture of salvation.

Matt. 18: 14 is a wonderful picture of the salvation of every child. Matt. 18: 10 shows that angels protect children. All of these are pictures of salvation.

Babies do not have “free will" and cannot even discern their left hand from their right hand (a predicament that GOD addressed in Jonah 4: 11 by SAVING such ones). "Adamic sin" is trumped by "Christ Grace" - "For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive." (1 Cor. 15: 22).

You said, However, the unmistakable fact in this decree is that God does not save all infants, or all men, or all children, or all woman........He saves some.

What "decree" are you referring to Scott? Also, do you REALLY think it’s an “unmistakable fact” that some infants and children go to hell? Where does it unmistakably say this in the Bible?

Thank you again Scott.

latterrain77

 

[Karen]

Originally posted by rlvaughn:
[QB]....The fact appears to me that salvation of ALL infants is only apparently consistent with two positions - pelagianism, in which they are not sinners, or universalism, in which it doesn't matter because all will be saved. In systems in which faith is a condition of salvation (such as arminianism), one must factor in some way for faith to be applied by proxy (baptism, covenant, etc.), or have some kind of age of accountability. In systems in which election is unconditional (such as calvinism), one must factor in some way that death in infancy or at young age is evidence of election (because election based on death in infancy would NOT be UNconditional). I do believe that some verses of scripture (such as you mention, and David's statement about his young child) give us reason to hope that infants and young children will be in heaven.....

Dear rl and Scott,
Thanks for your comments. I don't see Pelagianism or universalism as the only options.
In Romans 5, it states that Adam's sin has been imputed to us. It also states that Christ's righteousness has been imputed to us. It is my understanding that Christ's righteousness is imputed to those who are incapable of responding on this earth. The age of accountability is an individual thing, thereafter.

I do think this is important. Churches are full of silent, grieving parents. They need as much comfort as the Scriptures give, not just silence.

Also, one's views on this do seem to speak to what he thinks is the character of God.
We have to be careful, in all the discussion of God can do whatever He wants, to not SEEM to present God as less loving, caring, and merciful than WE are.

Karen

 

[Scott_Bushey]

Latterain,
Let me ask you..........During the flood, do you believe that children and infants were involved in that example? God takes Noah and his family and saves them....specifically identifying the "ark" as a vessel unto salvation. Are you trying to tell me that "infants" that drowned in the flood were of the "elect"? Genesis 7:21 states that "all flesh perished". Are you implying that the word "PERISHED" does not mean that these sinners were condemened to Hell?
How about other OT examples where God orders Israel (The nation) to go into enemy camps and literally destroy everything, i.e. men, woman, children, babies, dogs, cattle etc......were these infants also elect? Unfortunately, you will be hard pressed to support your theory in light of these examples.

Also, the decree I spoke of is Gods decree to "elect". Maybe I should have used the term "doctrine", even though I believe it was decreed. In the promise to Abraham, I believe lies this decree of election.

Karen writes:
In Romans 5, it states that Adam's sin has been imputed to us. It also states that Christ's righteousness has been imputed to us.
It is my understanding that Christ's righteousness is imputed to those who are incapable of responding on this earth. The age of accountability is an individual thing, thereafter.

Scott responds:
You acknowledge that the Adamic sin is imputed. Romans 3 reveals that "ALL" have sinned (my emphasis)....even infants.
Karen, your idea (above) is a beautiful theory, but it is just that, theory. You will be hard pressed to support this idea w/ scripture.

 

[latterrain77]

Hi rlvaughn. Thank you for your reply. I appreciate your follow up and comments. Children who DO survive are obviously not necessarily “unsaved.” Elect babies can and do survive and they are among the saved. Non-Elect babies also can and DO survive and grow to become adults (though not saved).

Those babies who do NOT survive, I believe, are covered under circumstances that I have already expressed on this thread.

You are correct that the wages of sin is death. However, where sin is GRACE does much MORE abound (Rom. 5: 20). I agree with you that this grace is available to the Elect (saved) only. My suggestion is that babies who do NOT survive are being covered by that grace for reasons that I have mentioned in this thread (based on my read of the Scriptures that I have cited and the incredible examples of children presented by the LORD himself).

Babies who DO survive grow to become adults (obviously, because they survived). If they were elect from “before the foundation of the world” (Heb. 4: 3, Rev. 17: 18), then they too are saved (and remain so throughout their lives).

Thank you again your input rlvaughn. I appreciate your excellent input and courteous reply.

latterrain77

 

[latterrain77]

Hi Scott. You did not answer the question. Where is the “unmistakable fact” that some infants and children go to hell?

Infants who drowned in the flood died. It says all “flesh” perished Gen. 7: 21. The same verse also says that animals, cattle, birds, and other creatures died too. Did these animals go to hell too? Where does it say that infants who died in the flood went to hell? Chapter and verse please.

Infants being killed in war, and as a result, being sent to hell is not stated in the Bible. If you think I’m wrong, please cite chapter and verse that says these infants who died in war went to hell.

I’ve already answered your question about “Adamic sin” in one of my posts. You may have missed it. Please check the post again. Where sin is GRACE does much more abound (Rom. 5: 20).

Why not share your thoughts on the MANY verses concerning the LORD and babies? Thank you again Scott. It’s always great to hear from you.

latterrain77

[ November 06, 2002, 09:52 AM: Message edited by: latterrain77 ]

 

[Scott_Bushey]

Latterrain writes:
Hi Scott. You did not answer the question. Where is the “unmistakable fact” that some infants and children go to hell?

You also state in regards to my usage of Rom 3:23:
" Rom 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

All have sinned but sin has NO power to condemn those who ARE saved.

Scott responds:
Romans 3:23 All have sinned, sin equals condemnation, unless God steps in to save via grace,through the propitiatory sacrifice of Christ, whoever the unsaved are, they perish. Whether one is an infant is irrelevent.

Latterrain writes:
Infants who drowned in the flood died. It says all “flesh” perished Gen. 7: 21. The same verse also says that animals, cattle, birds, and other creatures died too. Did these animals go to hell too? Where does it say that infants who died in the flood went to hell? Chapter and verse please.

Scott asks:
What does the word "perish" imply in regards to the flood, that these whom were not on the ark only literally died? Why did God have Noah and his family get into the ark....just to keep them from dying? No, the ark was an antitype of Christ;It was salvific in that Noah and his family possesed the faith spoken of in Hebrews ch 11. Those whom perished in the flood were as described in Gen 6:5 "continually" evil.......

Josh 23:16 When ye have transgressed the covenant of the LORD your God, which he commanded you, and have gone and served other gods, and bowed yourselves to them; then shall the anger of the LORD be kindled against you, and ye shall perish quickly from off the good land which he hath given unto you.

Keep in mind, I am in no way implying that "all" infants who perish go to hell; non-elect infants will.

I am sorry, what you pose, does not follow.

Also, your comment of animals is misguided. Animals have no souls, nor do they suffer from imputed sin or condemnation from the disregarding of Gods moral standards as typically "all" men do.

[ November 06, 2002, 06:18 PM: Message edited by: Scott_Bushey ]

 

[Me2]

karen,
Dont take the death of Jesus too lightly..Jesus Died for All Sin..
or else how could the power of death be defeated ?.
It is death that is the curse of Gods Law and Jesus came to Sacrifice Himself for ALL to take away the curse and to defeat the power of Death.

If God held one sin against one human being ..The curse and its power would still exist after the judgement.
Death would still exist and Jesus sacrifice to defeat the curse and its power would have been proven a Failure.

1 cor 15:26 The Last enemy that shall be destroyed is death

So, anyone who says that Jesus Christ Did Not Die For ALL Sin is a LIAR
(or simply, they dont understand what the defeat of the power of death actually means)

How many sins causes death?...one. which means after judgement that 100% of sin has been eradicated and there is no seperation between any man and God..and that means no condemnation to the entirety of God's creation.

 

[rlvaughn]

Originally posted by Karen:
I don't see Pelagianism or universalism as the only options.

Karen, I would like to clarify that I do not think Pelagianism and Universalism are the only options. I believe neither are true. But the point I had hoped to make is that these two are obviously and clearly positions that consistently fit together with the fact that ALL babies go to heaven, without any further qualifiers or explanations. All other systems seem to have to create exceptions in order to insert into their theology the fact that ALL babies go to heaven: Catholics - all babies are sinners SO must be baptized to wash away their sin; Covenantal Protestants - babies are sinners, BUT the faith of the parents stand for the baby; Evangelical Protestants - babies are sinners and faith is necessary for salvation, BUT children who have not reached the age of accountability are not responsible for having saving faith; Calvinists - babies are sinners BUT God has elected all who die in infancy. Hope this helps explain what I meant.

I do think this is important. Churches are full of silent, grieving parents. They need as much comfort as the Scriptures give, not just silence.

Grieving parents need the sympathy and support of their church. They do need as much comfort as the Scriptures give. This is not furthered by adding to what the Scriptures say. Disclaimer: I understand that those of you who believe in an age of accountability or that all dieing infants are elect, etc., do not think you are adding to the Scriptures. So I am not questioning your motive, just whether you are correct. I am asking, though, that you neither require nor expect the rest of us to teach something we do not believe merely for sympathy's sake.

...one's views on this do seem to speak to what he thinks is the character of God.
We have to be careful, in all the discussion of God can do whatever He wants, to not SEEM to present God as less loving, caring, and merciful than WE are.

Anyone who thinks God is less loving, caring and merciful than WE are, either does not understand God or His love, care and mercy, or both (and perhaps does not understand humankind as well). I do not mean you, Karen - I mean any and all of us. Yet I also think we must have a greater concern for presenting what we understand to be scriptural truth, than for how it may seem to someone.

[ November 06, 2002, 08:11 PM: Message edited by: rlvaughn ]

 

[rlvaughn]

latterrain, thanks for your continuing to clarify your position. I agree with the first paragraph in your post, and think there is a possibility that your contention in the second paragraph is correct (as I stated in the previous post). I do not think, though, that there is enough information revealed (as I understand it) to be absolutely dogmatic on the matter. Having reviewed what you have previously said, I do think your position about babies dying is consistent within itself, because I see that you are not arguing that some are sinless, just that they have been regenerated in the womb (but still have a sin nature). I'm not saying that I agree with all of what you have said - just that we've discussed it enough that I feel I now understand your position. Thanks.

 

[latterrain77]

Hi Scott. Thank you for your reply. As always, it is appreciated. The comment about animals is not mis-guided at all. OBVIOUSLY animals cannot go to hell. That is precisely the point! Gen. 7:21 is talking about physical death – NOT eternal damnation of infants. Otherwise Gen. 7: 21 would NOT have included animals, cattle, fowls, etc within the text if it were referring to "eternal death" (unless you believe that animals can suffer eternal death, which both you and I agree they cannot).

I would like to know more about the “unmistakable fact” that some infants and children go to hell. If you would like to provide that chapter and verse it would be appreciated. If not, may I ask your your opinion on Deut. 1: 39?

Either way, I thank you for your comments Scott. It is much appreciated.

latterrain77

[ November 06, 2002, 09:01 PM: Message edited by: latterrain77 ]

 

[latterrain77]

Hi rlvaughn. Thank you for your follow up. I appreciate your gracious reply. This is surely a tough subject. I certainly do not know all the answers. I'm just searching for truth trying to make sense of it all. This is a very painful topic because it hits every nerve - mind, heart, soul.

I'm thankful to GOD for the opportunity to brainstorm with the terrific thinkers on the board (folks like You, Scott, Karen, and all of the others). We are blessed to know that truth can be found in the inerrant Bible. Unlocking those truths requires GOD's grace, prayer, study and fellowship - which I'm most thankful to enjoy on this board with the terrific folks like you and the others. Thank you again rlvaughn. I much appreciate your comments.

latterrain77