Types of Calvinists

Prove that this is eternal salvation, and not timely salvation. Here's what I have to say: Is this jailor's eternal salvation dependent on the mercy of God (Titus 3:5), and the obedience of Christ unto death to the Father's will, or on his belief and assent to the Saviorhood of Christ.
For that matter, is the eternal salvation of all the souls in his household dependent on his believing and their getting baptized, or on the finished work of Christ.

Remember that the penalty, under Roman times, for a jailor whose prisoner escapes, earthquake or not, is death, which penalty, according to some scholars, may or may not extend to his family.

Second, not all references to salvation in the Bible, in both the Old and New Testaments, speak of the soul. There are prayers and petitions for salvation from earthly circumstances. In fact, many are to earthly circumstances, and this is one of them.

And what is the gospel ? It is "good news" of a finished, done, completed salvation. A salvation that is in want of nothing to be added or taken away, that is a present reality, not just a possibility as you would want it presented.
That good news, and the cause for that good news, and its applicability, is effective whether or not you believed it happened.
They at first did not believe that Christ the Lord has risen.
Did that unbelief bring Christ back to being dead and in the grave ?
Did their unbelief cause Christ not to send anyone anymore to look for them ? To go to somebody else because these people whom He sought when He came to earth did not believe He rose from the dead ?

They were redeemed, saved, covered by the blood, justified by the blood, whether they knew it or not, whether they believed it or not. God's will for all His children is what prevails.

So, I suppose you drink poison yourself, Brother Bob ? Are you of those snake handling, rattler-kissing "Christians" in the country ? Do you seek those who seem "possessed" and cast out their devils ? Did all the sick you ever prayed for recover from their illnesses ? What new tongues have you spoken ?

I know I speak English, and four more tongues in my own country, and have proclaimed the gospel in all six tongues, the sixth being my own mother tongue, yet I have not added anything to the salvation that Christ has authored, nor taken away the glory from Him by assigning the "mopping up" operations to fallen sinners.

I am sorry, and I mean no disrespect, but none of these Scriptures prove there are any more "lost" souls out there that need mopping up for Christ.

 

Well, that about sums it up doesn’t it…

The Scripture to back it up… 1 John 5:1-5

5:1 Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God, and everyone who loves the Father loves whoever has been born of him. 2 By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and obey his commandments. 3 For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments. And his commandments are not burdensome. 4 For everyone who has been born of God overcomes the world. And this is the victory that has overcome the world—our faith. 5 Who is it that overcomes the world except the one who believes that Jesus is the Son of God?

Overcoming is a key component of true belief or saving faith. If someone goes to Islam, that is hardly overcoming but the opposite, therefore it would not fit within this passages framework…

 

I already did… you can run but you cannot hide

SEE AGAIN Romans 10 especially vv. 14-15

14 But how are they to call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? 15 And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, “How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!”

 

I'm sorry, BP/Th, but this Scripture won't work. Read the context very well, please.
Paul was not referring to spiritual salvation, or the salvation of the soul.
His reference was to timely, or earthly salvation, for those in Jewry who are among God's elect, but still caught up in the religion of Judaism.
The logical question, therefore, would be verses 14-15. We cannot make it say what it does not say.

I was born in the Roman Catholic religion, in a predominantly Roman Catholic country, was educated in Catholic schools, have a family with a lot of priests in them.

Having known my Savior, and having been saved out of Roman Catholicism and its errors, and knowing the Doctrine of Grace, do I believe that all who remain in Roman Catholicism will never make it to heaven ?
Certainly not, for the salvation of God does not limit itself to one's creed, skin color, tongue, or geographical location !
I know that God has people in the Roman Catholic church, who are piously observing the Roman Catholic doctrines because they sincerely believe that is the right way.
So, how shall they know "..how are they to call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? 15 And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, “How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!”.

You can apply the same principle to one who was born, raised and educated in a Muslim environment, or in an animist one.

 

Context, how about the verses that directly precede vv. 14-15, how is that for context…

Now either you eyes to see or you do not but it does not get any more plain than this…

The salvation being referred to here is the only salvation there is and by no other name can anyone be saved.

 

That is a good question!! "What is the Gospel". If you would take what it really is then you would not be making such statements." The Gospel is the "Power of God unto Salvation, unto EVERYONE that believeth, to the Jew first and also to Greek. Now the coming in of the Gentiles was after Jesus had gone back to Heaven. Maybe you just plain forgot that one.

You must be the Hyper de Hyper Calvinist. If they were no lost out there then there would be no need for you to speak 20 languages for it would do no good. What do you think the Lord needs you for if everyone is already saved. I suspect you believe we already walking on the street of Godl too. I think you doctrine is false and think God for all those preachers who have worn out their lives preaching to a dying and lost world of which I am one of them. peace and I am glad for you that you didn't have to repent, believe, baptized or nothing. Boy! that is great.

 

Hello Baptist_Pastor/Theologian,

1st your name is to long.

Does a child go to heaven when he/she dies at an early age?​

Again..I do not know and I feel no one can know for sure. But we do have some things to look at. 1st I want to say, the easiest reply for me to give would be to say yes he does go to Heaven. This seems to make every one happy, for no one in their right mind wants to see a child go to Hell. To us a child’s life seems to be held higher then others. This feeling is played out in the media day after day. On the news we will hear…”10 killed in the war..1 was a small child”. 10 people dead man lady or child is bad. When the media adds..”and a child”..this means very, very bad. I understand and can relate, but it also places more value on one family’s child over another family’s Father. Really both are bad. But I guess we look at it this way…Wars are started by men. Most kids really do not care one way or another about the reason for the war. They just want it to end, and when they end up getting killed, in many ways it just does not seem fair to us. Yet..you know that the family of the father had many more years, many more times to remember then the young child’s family.

Now I do not mean to try and switch a dad that was killed in the war to a higher level then the child. I only want to show that this is our way of thinking. Yet all would agree that each death hurts. Each death is real. Each death is a loss to others. So in many ways, a death of a dad should be view just as bad as a death of a child.

I believe this same idea holds true with a child in his/her eternal state. Why would God send a young one to hell, who has never even sinned? I’m not saying God does, I’m just playing out that line of reason. If good works cannot save a man, it cannot save a child. On the other hand…If God lets us in to heaven based on grace and we have sinned, why would He not let a child who has not sinned into Heaven? The works of sin and bad works can be played both ways. If the child does go to heaven, it is not based on works.

I hold to a two-fold guilt of man. The atonement covers the very sins we partake in. Yet we still have a sin nature. That sin nature does not come at age 3. We are born with that sin nature. The Bible is clear about this, and there is no need to list the verses. We are also redeemed from the sin market at the cross. The ransom paid for us places the believer in the family of God. Though we still carry the sin nature, being in Gods family we now have tools to fight the sin nature. Holy Spirit, Gods Word, Prayer, and the fruits are just some of those tools. This takes care of both guilts. Still, this only happens when someone believes and takes Christ as Lord. Salvation is always by faith.

Now we hold this toward a Dad as the only way to be saved. A Dad has sinned. A child has not. Both have a sin nature. If we stick fully with “salvations plan” all must believe.

Anytime one dies a Christ-less death they are going to be damn to hell.

Does a child go to heaven if he/she dies early in life?
I do not know…but I do know that one did go to heaven.

But what does David’s child prove? This proves salvation is in the hand of God. There is no reason to believe it is do to good works or bad works. Salvation is not about works, be it a man or a child. Salvation is always from the grace of God. David’s child, maybe not even knowing of God, I’m not sure, but in all ways we know this, David’s child was chosen to be with God in grace not works.

David was sure that his boy was going to heaven. Yet we cannot jump and say all kids will be. Or at least I can't. We just do not know. Its had to know about a grown man at times. Some men that die, claim salvation and yet did not live as if they worshipped God, and so when they die, I must say, I just do not know. Salvation is between a man and God. Between a lady and God. Between a child and God. We just do not know.

This is not to say works are not taught in the Bible. In fact, they are. But works always has to do with the believers blessings and/or fellowship, and not salvation. Check out the book of James on this.

Your passage in Deuteronomy 1 is talking about this very thing. This was not about salvation at all, but it was about the blessings. God was not going to bless those that had sinned, but would NOT hold off and bless the younger who had not sinned.

“they shall possess it.”…"it" is the land. Many have wrongful said that the land is a picture of heaven. It is clear that this is just not the case. The Promised Land and the Temple in Jerusalem symbolized the same reality…. the Presence of God in our life. This means that the Temple and the Conquest of the Promised Land are theologically equivalent…..they form one and the same theme.

John Calvin saw Canaan as a symbol of the Christian life, not heaven. Calvin’s commentary on Hebrews 4:8, shows that the writer thought of Canaan as land of rest to be enjoyed here and now. Now here we have both sides agreeing…for so did Wesley. The Promised Land was a kingdom to be realized in this world. This is why Wesley and Fletcher often described Christian perfection as “the Canaan of perfect love. “

Possession of the land is the ultimate goal of the people, and its attainment is promised by God. But it is more…. the land is the sanctuary of YHWH, his dwelling place on earth (Exod. 15:17). The divine promise of a land thus became part of the larger idea of Israel as the elect of God, as his “possession” .

Thus your statement..

…Could very well be true, but should not be based on this passage.

So…Does a child go to heaven when he/she dies at an early age?

If so, God elects them, not because of good, not because of bad, not because they do not have a sin nature, for all do. God elects then just as he does a dad. It is for His own pleasure. We do know that He can, we just do not know if He does in all cases.

Salvation is in the hands of God.



In Christ..James

 

Dr Fuss,


I read Stanley's book last night and I disagree in the way he said this. To believe in my view is to worship God. Though I believe all that become saved will always be saved, I also believe that if a believer falls in sin, they will not stay put!! Believers do sin, but always come back to the fold.


In Christ...James

 

James,


While I can see that you are truly wrestling with this issue biblically, I would like to offer another approach or way of getting at this issue for your consideration. Respectfully your reply is a case of taking a logical or philosophical approach and applying it to a spiritual or moral argument. Logic presses us to understand God and we cannot. God says his ways are not our ways but his ways are far above our ways. You are basically stating an unborn child or an infant is no different than someone born in China or Iran who never heard the gospel before. If you apply your same logic that you just used to the pagan then one could conclude and holdout the same hope that maybe somehow God will save the non-Christian who never heard about Jesus. Many today want to do just that and it is referred to as inclusivism. The case is weak for such a teaching but not so strained for the case of young children prior to knowledge of moral good and evil.

John 3:18 states:

“18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.”

And Romans chapter 1 speaks directly to the moral guilt of all men regardless of evangelism:

“18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.”

Those who are adult in understanding, who realize the difference from moral good and evil and yet they chose moral evil and therefore stand condemned already. They are not innocent just because they have not heard Jesus’ name. They are guilty of moral evil and rebellion against God. The same is not true of a young child.

Romans 1 also is a ready defense for the unborn and small child because what can be said as the divine decree against humanity cannot be said of them. Vs. 19 states that what can be known, ie general revelation, about God is plain to them. Why because they have reached an age where they are aware of moral good and evil and have chosen to rebel. While all are born into sin, sin as a nature leads to the inevitability of rebellion but that rebellion takes place within the framework of a relationship. Moral guilty is just that guilt, ie a trespass against God willfully. In order to do that a young child must reach an age of consciousness. That is why it is completely absurd to baptize young children, because they cannot possibly know what it is they are doing.

That is why Mark 16:16 states:

“16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.”

The matters of the heart matter to God and are a factor in his condemning anyone to hell.

1 John 3:19-23 states:

“19 By this we shall know that we are of the truth and reassure our heart before him; 20 for whenever our heart condemns us, God is greater than our heart, and he knows everything. 21 Beloved, if our heart does not condemn us, we have confidence before God; 22 and whatever we ask we receive from him, because we keep his commandments and do what pleases him. 23 And this is his commandment, that we believe in the name of his Son Jesus Christ and love one another, just as he has commanded us. 24 Whoever keeps his commandments abides in him, and he in them. And by this we know that he abides in us, by the Spirit whom he has given us.”

While there is a persistent resident evil so to speak and by all account the believer should be condemned right along side the reprobate, God assures him that his sins are atoned for and not to worry. In the same what that we should go to hell as sinners, but as believers we are assured we will not, so to can a young child or unborn baby be assured by the unmerited favor God. Truly all are born into sin but a child does not embrace that nature and by all accounts the Bible suggests there is a prevenient grace that applies to the unborn and young children. Hence my initial reference to Duet. 1 which states:

“39 And as for your little ones, who you said would become a prey, and your children, who today have no knowledge of good or evil, they shall go in there. And to them I will give it, and they shall possess it.”

In the context of that passage, what separates the young child from their fathers is that they had yet to reach and age of accountability and were not guilty of wanton rebellion. Therefore they were able to qualify to reach the Promised Land. So it is not without biblical precedent and the other Scriptures referenced indicate that God has a prevenience to his grace that allows him to receive with special favor young child and the unborn. If anything this gives great encouragement to those who have lost their children, and if I am wrong then I will have not lost anything in the process, because I too believe in the sovereignty of God. I too believe that salvation is in God’s hands, I just believe that God has a way of orchestrating events to meet his good pleasure and if that requires him to call one of the elect home prior to adulthood, then who am I to question the means by which God accomplishes his desired objectives. But what I can know is that God is consistent with himself and with Scripture. I do not see the salvation of young children and the unborn in anyway as a violation of Scripture. However the notion of God condemning an unborn child just does not measure up with what has been suggested throughout the various texts that I have referenced.

 

This is the best most civil discussion of calvinism I have seen on this board in 3 years. You are all to be commended.:thumbs:

 

I can only speak for myself. I would call myself a 4.5 point Calvinist. I'm not so sure about the perserverence of the saints, but I'm not ready to say I don't believe in it. My reason for being on the fence: there were Corinthians who were so blatantly disobedient that God took them home early (some had "fallen asleep"). The Bible makes it pretty clear (though not perfectly clear) that these Corinthians were saved. But why didn't they perservere? Or did they, and it isn't written how they did despite their disrespect of things like the Lord's Supper? Or do I simply not understand what it means to perservere?

I find supralapsarianism to be more Biblical than infralapsarianism (do a google search for definitions if you're not familiar with these terms).

I do not believe I am a hyper-Calvinist.

I also do not believe that God is the author of sin. But I do believe that God is ultimately responsible for the nature of those who sin and sinned. People (and angels) sin of their own will, making them the authors of their own sins. But they would not have an inclination to sin unless God arranged it (whether you want to define "arrange" as "made it so" or "permitted" to me is irrelevant).

Edit: Typos

 

Hello Baptist_Pastor/Theologian,

Thanks for your reply.

I do not see how one can conclude this based solely on the words of my post.

Let me be clear. I do not argue that God cannot save the young child, I argue that biblical proof that this happens is weak. My statement was playing popular logic heard in theological circles to its end. It is my opinion that most of this logic is based purely on emotion with little or no backing from scripture. My post dealt directly with the subject of a young child and not the salvation of those who have not heard. The reasoning does not apply to the pagan, for the pagan is addressed in Romans and may find support elsewhere. The young? Well, that is what we are looking for.

I think given the fact that I posted the only strong verse on the subject (1Sam), is poof of my honest position. If any passage lend itself to this view it would be 1 Sam.

Having been involved with the Right-To Life Movement for nearly 20 years now, believe me, I would gladly take all verse to support this view. Many times I have been asked this very pointy question and avoid answering as much as I can, for I have no verses to support it. Its not for the lack of looking. Most give the verse in Duet 1 as proof, for they see this as salvation. Yet the context overrules this idea. I am not looking for ways to send babies to hell. On the other hand, nor am I inclusive in the path to God. If salvation is given to any outside of grace though faith, it would have to be fully a act of God. He is God and that being said can do as He pleases. The post was to answer a post about your proof text in Duet 1. Any logic given was in viewing the reasoning of those that hold to your views.

To be honest, maybe I do have a bias toward "no works" as it was shown in my post. But this is salvation we are talking about. I can indeed believe that God would elect all the young deaths to salvation. But it is one thing to believe it, and another to back it from the Bible. What is so funny, is i being a 5 point Calvinist, should just run with this.... "God elects all that die young" to salvation. This would be a easy arguement for election. No believeing..(in this case)..just Gods Sovereignty. This may well be the very thing that happens. I do trust it is. Yet I would be misleading you if I said the Bible is clear.

Just a side note, so that there will be no misunderstanding, I am very exclusive about salvation and that being faith in Christ and Him alone. Now you seem to be exclusive as well, going by your post, but you would have to admit that with no backing from the Bible this may turn inclusive.

I’ll not address John 3:18 or Mark 16:16 for these are weaker then Duet 1.

Your point in Romans 1 is well taken. Yet it may not be as strong you are saying. But I shall study it. Thanks.

And this is what I would love to tell those dear families. My sister lost 2 kids in 5 years. But I cannot base my docrine on feelings of what I would like to see happen. To do this would be wrong in my book. If I can not back it in the Bible and I let my feelings drive me in my doctrine, I would be a fool and have no peace. I can only say with full peace in my heart, that God can and will save His people, and we know that this could be all the young deaths. I can show them that this indeed happen once.

It seems you have peace about this. Maybe Romans 1 19-20 will give me that peace as well.

Well, maybe we have spent to much time on this. No one has said anything yet...but I don't want to overtake the thread.

I guess they will tell us if we are wrong.

In the end...we serve a Great God.


Thanks again..

In Christ..James

 

I believe that any person who dies in infancy or early childhood, or the mentally impared, are elect. No, I can't base it dogmatically upon scripture. I do understand that even very young children or infants display a sinful nature. (Try to get one to share his candy). They display selfish tendencies waaaay before they are learned. I just have to reason that God would not condemn anyone who was not able to reason. The native in the farthest reaches of the jungle can at least reason. He is guilty because he has broken laws that even he knows exist. You give a very good argument James. Now you have my opinion.... for what its worth. :tongue3:

 

John 14:9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?

Luke 18:16 But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.

 

James,
Please do not consider me an antagonist here but I am going to give you one more cross-examination so to speak. This is more of an iron sharpens iron sort of thing, as opposed to I am God’s gift to the church so let me straighten you out. Believe me there are areas in Theology that are not my strength, for instance Covenantal Theology vs. Dispensationalism. You could probably teach me a thing or two on that topic. When it comes to logic, I have been fortunate to study with some brilliant men and benefited from their wisdom. I did not want to flesh out your syllogistic logic because that would have been a bit premature at the time. But I am afraid you fell right in line with the reasoning that I detected you were using in your last post. Let me quote your own words and it will answer the question you poised to begin your last post. You stated in your last post.

So based on this type of logic you leave the issue of whether or not children are elect unresolved and in the hands of God as you put it, which on the surface seems reasonable in light of your proof text. In fact your proof offers nothing more than evidence that death is final and permanent. That passage is not given in the context whether his son was in heaven or hell but alive or dead, and that has less bearing on this discussion that Duet. 1 which humorously you refer to as “weak,” yet it is given in reference to pre-adult young children who will inherit the Promised Land. Now, if the Promised Land is not a metaphor for heaven then many preachers are recanting their life’s work at this point. So Duet. 1 is not weak, combined with the other passages that I offered you it builds a cohesion throughout the Bible, as one would expect. As I said the Lord is consist with himself and therefore his revealed Word has a seamless character to it as well. The God of the OT is the same God of the NT.

Now as to my outright warning that your logic could lead to inclusivism, given the above quote, I further iterate that it indeed could. If there is a salvation for infants that is outside of faith through grace as you put it, and if it would have to be fully an act of God, and if God can do as He pleases, as you put it, then the same could be said for the pre-Christian pagan, whom the inclusivist refer to as anonymous Christians. The very same logic you apply to the infant discussion is being applied to the inclusivism debate. Like I said there is no need to go there in light of Romans 1 on both accounts. We do not need to solve this issue with logic that is unclear at present and in God’s hands at best but rather we can have assurance in both cases that there is no reason to think anything other than what is implied in the case of the infants and plainly stated in the case of the pre-Christian pagan.

By the way, just one more blow to your logic, comes at the suggestion that God can do as he pleases, wait before you stone me. You stand on logic that simply just does not hold up. Case in point, can God lie? So if God pleases can he lie? Can God make something so big that he cannot move it? This discussion of the nature of salvation for infants has more to do with moral guilt than what God can or cannot do. According to my view God does as pleases but it is consistent with what is taught in other Scripture. While your view seemingly hinges on a hope that while we cannot expect that he will save an infant, since all have sinned and need to believe in Jesus in order to be saved, but if God wants to lift that qualification in order to make an exception on behalf of the infant that is his choice. Yet, in fact, God is able to save infants and not violate the qualification of faith because faith is for individuals with the knowledge of moral good and evil, which young children do not have, as I previously demonstrated.

James, believe me the inclusivism debate is quite thorough and complex and we do not want to get into it here. But just to offer you some of the more creative ways the inclusivist are getting at this issue they say things like you are saying about the infants, in addition, they want to put pre-Christian pagans in a different dispensation or as B.C. They think that not having the Gospel gives them a type of amnesty which enables them to come to God with the light they have. The only problem with that argument is that no one seeks God apart from Christ or in the case of the OT, special revelation.

Just for the record, I am not suggesting you are an inclusivist but using similar logic. Second, your logic similarly does not hold up to biblical scrutiny. Third, something I have not hit on, I do not need a “proof text” but have the freedom to construct a theology from an overall biblical worldview and base my view on a collaboration of texts. This is not uncommon in our faith. Many doctrines which are foundational have been constructed in like manner. The Trinity is one that comes to mind that is constructed more so than clearly stated. So the idea that you can dismiss my suggestion based on the fact that some of the passages I have offered do not directly address this subject of infant salvation is not exactly fair when they do address the nature of condemnation which is very relevant. You have my respect and you are certainly welcome to believe whatever you feel comfortable believing. I have enjoyed your contribution to this discussion and respect your opinion…

 

Anyone baptizing children would do well if they themselves were as well off morally as the infant or small child they are attempting to baptize. So, a child is born with a sinful nature (don't know where that word came from) I say they inherited the fall of Adam in the flesh but not the soul. The Scripture says "the soul that sinneth shall die". How could a soul die if it was born in this life already "dead". How can something be "saved" that is not lost? A child is born with a flesh that inherited "natural" death but its soul is "alive" in the Lord already. When it comes to know sin and then the soul dies in sin and the second death is pronounced upon that child. Then and only then does it need a Saviour to redeem it from that sinful state and to receive a Spirit that will also quicken their mortal body in the resurrection.

Again, except you become as this little child ye shall in no wise enter into the Kingdom of Heaven for such IS the Kingdom not going to be but already IS!

 

Right on, BB, amen.

 

You forgot the rest of the quote...

Children are typically trusting, especially of their parents. Parents or other people they trust can tell them something totally absurd and they'll still believe it because they trust the person. As we get older, we become more skeptical, and it becomes a given that -- in the flesh -- we're not going to trust what the Bible says just because "it is written", let alone the trust in Jesus or the way of salvation.

People quote this passage from Luke all the time to "prove" children are saved. What they fail to note are the expressions "such as these" and "like a little child". Don't you know any little children who are NOT trusting? I do. Don't you know any little children who refuse to accept anything you say? I do. They are exceptions, but they exist. Surely Jesus was not talking about these exceptions, but of typical children, to make the point that unless we are as trusting as typical little children, etc. He was not teaching us that all little children are automatically saved.