Saved at birth? Part 2

[Lou Martuneac]

Infant Salvation

The salvation of infants will always be a difficult theological issue. Those I have interacted with on this subject all concede this. We also concede that the Bible is not altogether clear on the subject. So, we are ultimately left in somewhat of a quandary as to whether or not all infants who die in infancy are damned or are saved. We can’t know this for sure, and must not be dogmatic about it. It is a good discussion, but we should not devote a great deal of time and energy to it.

We have some clue as to what the actual destiny of an infant is when Jesus said to allow the little children to come to Him for of such is the Kingdom of Heaven. “But when Jesus saw it, He was much displeased,, and said to them, Suffer the little children to come unto Me; and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God,” (Mark 10:14).

My personal position is that infants who die in infancy go immediately into the presence of God in Heaven. I also include those who are severely mentally retarded, aborted babies who are murdered in the womb by the hand of the abortionist, miscarried babies, even babies in the wombs of their Christian mothers at the rapture.

I can share much more on this, but I trust this has been helpful.


LM

 

[webdog]

Web.....

The battle cry of Coelestius, Pelagius, and Julian was...."If I ought, I can"

This is why they were kicked out of the church.

The main point on which the whole free will system is found, contradicts the consciousness of men. Every man knows that he is bound to be better than he is, and better than he can make himself on his own. We are bound to love God perfectly, but we know that perfect love is beyond our power. We are told to be free from all sin, and absolutely conformed to the perfect law of God. Yet no man is so foolish or so blinded to his own being to really believe that he either is perfect, or has the power to make himself so.

"If I ought, I can" tells us man is able. The Bible tells us we are not.

I still don't believe you know what pelagianism is. It entails much more than "If I ought, I can" (wherever you got this from). Your catchy tag line doesn't apply to me anyway, nor every "free will system".

 

[Jarthur001]

I still don't believe you know what pelagianism is. It entails much more than "If I ought, I can" (wherever you got this from). Your catchy tag line doesn't apply to me anyway, nor every "free will system".

Webdog...

it is my guess you have never read the man....but I could be wrong.

Do you remember saying this webdog?

.....is God fibbing by telling man to seek Him?

and other statements like this, over the years.

well...."If I ought, I can"

Also....
building upon this statement he denied man was a sinner until he sinned....

Have you ever said anything like this webdog? Nearly every week. This too is against Bible truth and is pelagianism.

how am I doing so far?

It seems Charles Hodges agrees.

2. The Synod also anathematizes those who say that the sin of Adam injured himself only, and not his posterity; or that he lost the holiness and righteousness which he received from God, for himself only and not also for us, or that he transmitted to the whole human race only death and corporeal pains (pœnas corporis), and not sin, which is the death of the soul.

It is here taught that the effects of Adam's sin upon his posterity are: (1.) The loss of original righteousness. (2.) Death and the miseries of this life; and (3.) Sin, or spiritual death (peccatum, quod est mors animæ). This is a distinct condemnation of Pelagianism, and the clear assertion of original sin, as something transmitted to all men. The nature of that however, is not further stated than that it is the death of the soul, which may be differently explained.

Do you agree with this statement?

God cannot by any right demand from fallen man faith in Christ, which he cannot have of himself, except God has either bestowed, or is ready to bestow, sufficient grace by which he may believe if he will.

 

[Dale-c]

..what I am tring to show you, and what Amy has said a few pages back, is that if followed to the end, when you use "God elects based in what He fore-sees", this works out to the same as the Supralapsarian Calvinist. However..the Calvinist view gives all the glory to God. The way you express it (through foreseen faith) gives glory to those people that are smart.

I only posted your view, but you felt I was saying my view. To me...and I may be wrong...but to me it shows you have not taken your view to the end and seen this before. I'm sure you agree with all 4 statements above....right?


Now..do not get mad and leave. When faced with this for the 1st time, many freewillers kick and run. I don't want you to do that. Hang in there and lets get to the truth. You have not dodged the issue, but have hit it head on. What will you do about it?

There are many that now embrace a new heresy called open theism which denies that God even knows the future at all.

 

[PK]

Agreed. But we are the elect after salvation has occured not before. This is why Paul said "us"

Rippon : Ephesians 1:4 : for He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world , to be holy and blameless in His sight .

2 Thessalonians 2:13 : But we must always thank God for you , brothers loved by the Lord , because from the beginning God has chosen you for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and through the belief in the truth .

2 Timothy 1:9 : who has saved us and called us with a holy calling , not according to our works , but according to His own purpose and grace , which was given to us in Christ Jesus before time began .

All of my Scripture references are from the HCSB .

Summary from the Bible : We are elect before the foundation of the world . We do not become elect after salvation .

where do we start?

Eph. 1:4
Please observe the subject of the choice is "us", which are the believers, not the people of the world. Also the object or goal is predestination, "unto the adoption of children". He was talking about the saved. He did not say, "according as He has chosen some to be saved before the foundation of the world". The salvation of the soul is not mentioned. Before the foundation of the world God chose that the believers in Christ should be without blame.

2 Thess. 2:13
First of all the word "chosen" used here is not the common word for election or predestination. In the context we see the principle that unbelievers perish because they receive not the love of the truth (vs 10) and neither do they believe it (vs12); but the other group called brethren predicated upon the belief of the truth (vs13).
Then notice the chosing is not of the unsaved to become believers, but of the brethren to obtain certain aspect of salvation....to obtain the Glory of the Lord Jesus Christ. One more thing, "from the beginning" here has the idea of being the "first fruits". Rev. 17:14 - "they that are with Him are called, and chosen, and faithful." Now when is the chosing? After the calling. That's God's order of events. It's the same in 2 Peter 1:10, you have the calling before the election. So we see here that God's people are called, and when they respond, they are chosen, and then they are faithful and glorified.

 

[PK]

Is God fibbing when He says:


Rom 3:10 as it is written, "THERE IS NONE RIGHTEOUS, NOT EVEN ONE;
Rom 3:11 THERE IS NONE WHO UNDERSTANDS, THERE IS NONE WHO SEEKS FOR GOD;
Rom 3:12 ALL HAVE TURNED ASIDE, TOGETHER THEY HAVE BECOME USELESS; THERE IS NONE WHO DOES GOOD, THERE IS NOT EVEN ONE."

please see below...

 

[PK]

Is God fibbing when He says:


Rom 3:10 as it is written, "THERE IS NONE RIGHTEOUS, NOT EVEN ONE;
Rom 3:11 THERE IS NONE WHO UNDERSTANDS, THERE IS NONE WHO SEEKS FOR GOD;
Rom 3:12 ALL HAVE TURNED ASIDE, TOGETHER THEY HAVE BECOME USELESS; THERE IS NONE WHO DOES GOOD, THERE IS NOT EVEN ONE."

(VS10) - in this statement, it is assumed, that no man ever exercises choice when coming to God or embracing His salvation.
It speaks of the fool and of those who have corrupted their way upon the earth. Here in Romans it is used to give weight to the fact that man in his condition is sin.
Since there are so many places in the Bible that speak to those who do seek God, and there are others that show that man should seek God, this statement is to be understood that there are none who seek God as much as they should.
Is. 55:6
Jer. 29:13
Acts 17:27
Heb. 11:6
Surely the Lord does not tell man to do something which he cannot do?

 

[webdog]

Also....
building upon this statement he denied man was a sinner until he sinned....

Have you ever said anything like this webdog? Nearly every week. This too is against Bible truth and is pelagianism.

how am I doing so far?

The same as always...which is not saying much of anything at all. The denial of augustinian original sin DOES NOT MAKE ONE PELAGIAN, but since you have a seared conscience, and only like to hear yourself talk, I know I'm only wasting my time.

 

[Allan]

(VS10) - in this statement, it is assumed, that no man ever exercises choice when coming to God or embracing His salvation.
It speaks of the fool and of those who have corrupted their way upon the earth. Here in Romans it is used to give weight to the fact that man in his condition is sin.
Since there are so many places in the Bible that speak to those who do seek God, and there are others that show that man should seek God, this statement is to be understood that there are none who seek God as much as they should.
Is. 55:6
Jer. 29:13
Acts 17:27
Heb. 11:6
Surely the Lord does not tell man to do something which he cannot do?

As Non-Calvinist PK, I disagree with your 'interpretation' here with specific regard to the above.

That is a disortion of the scirpture given. What it discribes is man in his natural state without the intervening of God toward man, and NOT that man isn't seeking God as much as he should. Man in his sin will NOT seek after and THAT is the reason God has to FIRST come to man. If it were not for God reaching out and revealing Himself and His truth TO man, man would stay in his sin and condemnation forever. Why? Because there is none that seek after God for ALL have turned aside and do no meritorious good. We are in sin and our 'good' is filthy rags and therefore having no salvic aspect to it.

 

[webdog]

I agree with Allan. "No one seeks God" are the fools that have already rejected the truth and righteousness.

 

[Rippon]

The same as always...which is not saying much of anything at all. The denial of augustinian original sin DOES NOT MAKE ONE PELAGIAN, but since you have a seared conscience, and only like to hear yourself talk, I know I'm only wasting my time.

WD : You need to seriously evaluate the appropriateness of charging James of having " a seared conscience ." If you care to use Scripture with any semblance of integrity you will not accuse a brother in the Lord with that allegation . Look at the context : " Now the Spirit explicitly says some will depart from the faith , paying attention to deceitful spirits and the teachings of demons , through the hypocrisy of liars whose consciences are seared." ( 1 Timothy 4:1,2 HCSB ) . Straighten-up and fly right . No , I am not confusing you with SP , but the same advice applies to him also .

 

[Jarthur001]

WD : You need to seriously evaluate the appropriateness of charging James of having " a seared conscience ." If you care to use Scripture with any semblance of integrity you will not accuse a brother in the Lord with that allegation . Look at the context : " Now the Spirit explicitly says some will depart from the faith , paying attention to deceitful spirits and the teachings of demons , through the hypocrisy of liars whose consciences are seared." ( 1 Timothy 4:1,2 HCSB ) . Straighten-up and fly right . No , I am not confusing you with SP , but the same advice applies to him also .

I just wanted to post this number.

88

It may come in handy later

 

[webdog]

WD : You need to seriously evaluate the appropriateness of charging James of having " a seared conscience ." If you care to use Scripture with any semblance of integrity you will not accuse a brother in the Lord with that allegation . Look at the context : " Now the Spirit explicitly says some will depart from the faith , paying attention to deceitful spirits and the teachings of demons , through the hypocrisy of liars whose consciences are seared." ( 1 Timothy 4:1,2 HCSB ) . Straighten-up and fly right . No , I am not confusing you with SP , but the same advice applies to him also .

Don't tell me what do do. I'm not your son or your dog, so don't talk to me like either one.

I don't recall quoting that ENTIRE verse, so no, my application of what I stated does not have to fall under how you want to define it. I stand by what I stated.

 

[webdog]

I just wanted to post this number.



It may come in handy later

edited...not worth it...

 

[reformedbeliever]

(VS10) - in this statement, it is assumed, that no man ever exercises choice when coming to God or embracing His salvation.
It speaks of the fool and of those who have corrupted their way upon the earth. Here in Romans it is used to give weight to the fact that man in his condition is sin.
Since there are so many places in the Bible that speak to those who do seek God, and there are others that show that man should seek God, this statement is to be understood that there are none who seek God as much as they should.
Is. 55:6
Jer. 29:13
Acts 17:27
Heb. 11:6
Surely the Lord does not tell man to do something which he cannot do?

Lets go to scripture to see if the Lord tells man to do something which he cannot do.
Matt. 5:48. "Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

Are you perfect yet?

 

[PK]

Lets go to scripture to see if the Lord tells man to do something which he cannot do.
Matt. 5:48. "Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

Are you perfect yet?

Colossians 2:28

Vs27) "To whom God would make known what is the riches of His glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory:
Vs28) Whom we preach, warning every man, and teaching every man in all wisdom; that we present every man perfect in Christ Jesus:

I would have to say, in God's eyes I am perfect through Christ and the work of the cross. Sorry to give such a simple answer.

 

[reformedbeliever]

Colossians 2:28

Vs27) "To whom God would make known what is the riches of His glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory:
Vs28) Whom we preach, warning every man, and teaching every man in all wisdom; that we present every man perfect in Christ Jesus:

I would have to say, in God's eyes I am perfect through Christ and the work of the cross. Sorry to give such a simple answer.

We are justified... but not perfect. How about the Law? Didn't God give us the law and tell us to obey it? Could we? No. Therefore He did tell us to do something we could not do.... hense the need for Christ. The use of the word perfect is also mature. We are not fully mature are we? We may be on the way, but I don't know about you... but I have a way to go.

 

[Rippon]

Don't tell me what do do. I'm not your son or your dog, so don't talk to me like either one.

I don't recall quoting that ENTIRE verse, so no, my application of what I stated does not have to fall under how you want to define it. I stand by what I stated.

The passage being referred to is 1 Timothy 4:1,2 . Webdog charged James with having "a seared conscience ." I thought that was an uncalled for remark since the context of the phrase deals with reprobates , not believers in our Lord . Now WD says he doesn't appreciate my admonishment . WD , you said a brother in our Lord has a seared conscience . Then you try to mitigate that by saying you didn't quote the entire passage . Do you think it's right to use Scripture for your purposes and then divorce content from the context when it suits you ? Do not cite a phrase from the Bible then run from its ramifications when you are caught .

How about if someone said your "destiny is destruction" -- Philippians 3:19 ?

How about if someone said you have "a form of godliness"-- 2 Timothy 3:5 ?

How about if someone said that you believe another gospel -- Galatians 1:8,9 & 2 Corinthians 11:4 ?

How about if someone said you "are secretly introducing destructive heresies " -- 2 Peter 2:1 ?

When the shoe is on the other foot you may cry "FOUL !" , huh ? You need to be reproved for your actions . Your hurt feelings are a minor consideration when it is taken into account the downright evil things you have said about a brother in the Lord . I disagree with some here on the BB . I have called some pompous and arrogant . But I have never ( to my knowledge ) called a brother or sister in the Lord such despicable things as you have from God's Holy Word when the references clearly apply only to reprobates . It's shameful .

 

[Alex Quackenbush]

The salvation of infants will always be a difficult theological issue. .

My personal position is that infants who die in infancy go immediately into the presence of God in Heaven. I also include those who are severely mentally retarded, aborted babies who are murdered in the womb by the hand of the abortionist, miscarried babies, even babies in the wombs of their Christian mothers at the rapture.

Lou,

Allow me to respond in general and not personally. I believe the Bible is clear, the problem I am certain is not with the Bible but the immaturity of the related arguments (again I say this generally). Most arguments begin with the belief that the Bible is not "really" clear and certainties regarding infants and those volitionally incapable and their salvation is vague at best.

The reason I believe it is held as an unclear is because it requires doctrinal conclusions, a task that is not for the novice or a person that begins with an agenda. Also, we have such a large body of spiritually infantile or at best adolescent believers today, due to pulpits being manned by such, that most beliefs are reduced to direct statements in the Bible.

To them, if there isn't a direct statement then it doesn't exist and no authoritative conclusion can be made. That reflects the mind of a child. Adults, spiritual adults, reflect the ability to recognize conclusions, to construct arguments from implications and prescriptive examination. Most believers, even those claiming to be really good teachers can't and don't do this.

So I will state why the volitionally incapable are saved, automatically.

The Advocacy of Jesus Christ:
1 John 2:1-2

1My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:

2And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

There is only one acceptable advocate that the court of heaven accepts to represent each human being, Jesus Christ. He and He alone is the advocate that is acceptable to God that can present us spotless.

The alternative of course is that you advocate for yourself and the clear result of that is a judgment of unrighteous from Heaven's Judge.

The court acts in the interest of the person who cannot, by reason of volitional incapacitation, to assign an advocate FOR THEM (the principles and boundaries of the court of heaven abound in Scripture and if one wishes, those practices, rules, regulations and boundaries are revealed, not in total but in enough detail that we can and do recognize the divine court structure and its policies and practices ).

An infant cannot decide, hence because Jesus is the Advocate (the only one recognized by the court) as stated here, He is by default, assigned to be the representative of those who cannot exercise their volition.

This is a doctrinal conclusion based on what is both understood and stated. While for some it may be difficult, for others it will be quite clear and for some it will be met with violent protest.

I will be clear. This is not in anyway a THOROUGH treatment of the subject by me, but is intended to provoke further investigation and debate.

 

[webdog]

The passage being referred to is 1 Timothy 4:1,2 . Webdog charged James with having "a seared conscience ." I thought that was an uncalled for remark since the context of the phrase deals with reprobates , not believers in our Lord . Now WD says he doesn't appreciate my admonishment . WD , you said a brother in our Lord has a seared conscience . Then you try to mitigate that by saying you didn't quote the entire passage . Do you think it's right to use Scripture for your purposes and then divorce content from the context when it suits you ? Do not cite a phrase from the Bible then run from its ramifications when you are caught .

How about if someone said your "destiny is destruction" -- Philippians 3:19 ?

How about if someone said you have "a form of godliness"-- 2 Timothy 3:5 ?

How about if someone said that you believe another gospel -- Galatians 1:8,9 & 2 Corinthians 11:4 ?

How about if someone said you "are secretly introducing destructive heresies " -- 2 Peter 2:1 ?

When the shoe is on the other foot you may cry "FOUL !" , huh ? You need to be reproved for your actions . Your hurt feelings are a minor consideration when it is taken into account the downright evil things you have said about a brother in the Lord . I disagree with some here on the BB . I have called some pompous and arrogant . But I have never ( to my knowledge ) called a brother or sister in the Lord such despicable things as you have from God's Holy Word when the references clearly apply only to reprobates . It's shameful .

When all else fails...play the martyr card.