Does 2 Samuel prove infants can go to heaven?

[MW]

Actually, it's the opposite- babies don't go to hell because their parents were not in the covenantal community. Revelation speaks of the judgment of the world and that each are judging according to their works- what works will non-elect infants be judged for (I am not referring to original sin, but actual sins)? It is the everlasting purpose of grace that would teach us God is a merciful God who does not send babies who die in infancy into the lake of fire.

One cannot possibly understand the doctrine of original sin if he speaks in this manner. David traces his actual sin back to the fountain of his original sin (Ps 51) in order to show God's justice in judging, that is, because there is absolutely no good thing to which he can appeal to mitigate his sin. The apostle Paul considers guilt, condemnation, and death as the natural consequences of Adam's headship of the human race (Rom. 5). If "the soul that sins shall die" is an absolute statement which admits of no qualification then all infants who die in infancy are damned without any hope. Please reconsider your position. It is pernicious.

Concerning divine mercy, the apostle Paul shows very clearly that the hope of eternal life is not grounded in the richness of God's merciful nature alone, but in that merciful nature expressing itself through an everlasting love for His elect people, Ephesians 2:1-7, and especially verse 4. Arminians argue that God's merciful nature implies that He has a purpose of grace for all without discrimination. Calvinists know of no such "nature-God."

 

[au5t1n]

Is that why 70-80% of evangelical children drop out of church when they go to college?

Are you under the impression this is the expected Biblical norm? The reason for the apostasy rate is because at least 70-80% of Christian parents do not read their children the Bible, pray with them, or catechize them; and they throw them in front of every form of worldly influence imaginable. The Bible teaches parents to "bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord" (Eph. 6:4).

 

[saintandsinner77]

Is that why 70-80% of evangelical children drop out of church when they go to college?

Are you under the impression this is the expected Biblical norm? The reason for the apostasy rate is because at least 70-80% of Christian parents do not read their children the Bible, pray with them, or catechize them; and they throw them in front of every form of worldly influence imaginable. The Bible teaches parents to "bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord" (Eph. 6:4).

You were speaking in present tense terms, not 2000 year ago norms, so I addressed your present tense statement. Also, where are your statistics for the first century of children remaining faithful? What of the apostates in the Evangelical and Reformed community whose parents prayed with them, catechized them and sheltered them from all worldliness? What about the super-strict sheltered homeschooling families I know of whose children do not attend church nor care for things of God? All the parents' fault? And what of the Christian children who attended public school who still remain Christians?

 

[au5t1n]

Is that why 70-80% of evangelical children drop out of church when they go to college?

Are you under the impression this is the expected Biblical norm? The reason for the apostasy rate is because at least 70-80% of Christian parents do not read their children the Bible, pray with them, or catechize them; and they throw them in front of every form of worldly influence imaginable. The Bible teaches parents to "bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord" (Eph. 6:4).

You were speaking in present tense terms, not 2000 year ago norms, so I addressed your present tense statement. Also, where are your statistics for the first century of children remaining faithful? What of the apostates in the Evangelical and Reformed community whose parents prayed with them, catechized them and sheltered them from all worldliness? What about the super-strict sheltered homeschooling families I know of whose children do not attend church nor care for things of God? All the parents' fault? And what of the Christian children who attended public school who still remain Christians?

The apostasy rate among public-schooled Christian children after high school is somewhere in the range of 70-93%, depending on the study. For homeschooled Christian children, it is more in the vicinity of 6%. However, I was not just thinking of public education, but also the hours and hours of junk television and movies. This is all a bit beside the main point, though:

Are you seriously saying you do not think the Bible generally expects Christians to raise Christians? Let me make sure I am not misunderstanding you. You are really saying that Christians should expect the same percentage of unbelieving children as unbelievers, regardless of how they raise them?

 

[saintandsinner77]

Is that why 70-80% of evangelical children drop out of church when they go to college?

Are you under the impression this is the expected Biblical norm? The reason for the apostasy rate is because at least 70-80% of Christian parents do not read their children the Bible, pray with them, or catechize them; and they throw them in front of every form of worldly influence imaginable. The Bible teaches parents to "bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord" (Eph. 6:4).

You were speaking in present tense terms, not 2000 year ago norms, so I addressed your present tense statement. Also, where are your statistics for the first century of children remaining faithful? What of the apostates in the Evangelical and Reformed community whose parents prayed with them, catechized them and sheltered them from all worldliness? What about the super-strict sheltered homeschooling families I know of whose children do not attend church nor care for things of God? All the parents' fault? And what of the Christian children who attended public school who still remain Christians?

The apostasy rate among public-schooled Christian children after high school is somewhere in the range of 70-93%, depending on the study. For homeschooled Christian children, it is more in the vicinity of 6%. However, I was not just thinking of public education, but also the hours and hours of junk television and movies. This is all a bit beside the main point, though:

Are you seriously saying you do not think the Bible generally expects Christians to raise Christians? Let me make sure I am not misunderstanding you. You are really saying that Christians should expect the same percentage of unbelieving children as unbelievers, regardless of how they raise them?

Where did you get your apostasy statistics from? Can I have the link to the website?

How would you ever draw the conclusion from the last couple posts that I don't believe Christians should raise their children in the ways of God? What I think is that you are giving incomplete explanations to why people fall away. Blaming TV is an incomplete explanation and can be seen as somewhat simplistic.

The real reason is lack of regeneration- pure and simple- you can be a catechism-memorizing, homeschooling, go to church 4 times a week unconverted person who falls away at 19 years old, or you can be a public-school going, allowed to watch a movie here and there, allowed to play on sports teams and socialize with unbelievers and be regenerate and continue with Christ till your old and gray. Children need to be raised in a godly environment yes of course, but they also need to be taught the need for a new birth. If the children are truly converted, I am not worried about them falling away, because as a Calvinist, I believe in the preservation of the saints. What's more worrisome to me, which I have observed, is children who outwardly dot all their i's and cross their t's, but who have not experienced the new birth.

I don't determine what Christian parents should expect. According to Christ, 1/4 of the seed sown actually falls on good ground. Now, I'm not gonna say, expect only 1 child out of 4 to be converted. At the same time, I am not a federal visionist or baptismal regenerationist who just assumes that all children baptized, who are in the covenant community and memorize their catechisms and "behave," are necessarily regenerate.

Raise children in prayer and much exposure to the Word of the living God, and be a good example and leave the results to Him, Who determines our destinies, trusting in the promises.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Actually,
The parable of the soils/seed/sower isn't about percentages, and so making it into such a witness is a misuse of the text.

And besides that, the 1/4 percentage is simply wrong in the story itself. The "soil-types" are not evenly distributed over the available sown-ground. Plus there are 3 "unfruitful" results descriptions, and 3 (count them) fruitful results descriptions. Which presents a more balanced "results" outlook. Not that parity is what the story is about.


Walter,
Does God expect us to employ "the due use of ordinary means" in the course of our life of faith? Are we, or are we not, then obligated to believe that those divinely appointed means will "ordinarily" produce the results that God's Word testifies should attend their employment?

It sounds like you object to a kind of "plug-and-play" mentality, a "robotic" formulaic approach to passing on the faith, divorced from a well-rounded, means-of-grace centered piety in home and church. Fine, that's not what's being pointed to here.

But for the parents that believe in God's promises, as they are attached to their due use of ordinary means, they have a "right" to expect the outcomes that God unites to those means by way of promise. It's not an absolute right. We always must admit that God may still choose to deviate from his ordinary providence, for his own wise and holy ends.

But I can't tell the difference between the position you seem to be defending/advocating, and (after all we have done in faith) the view of our children that its still a crapshoot from our standpoint, guessing whether we'll see our children in heaven. What? Don't we have "reasonable" expectations (not absolute guarantees) that God's promises mean what they sound like?

 

[proregno]

Canons of Dordt 1:17 - "Since we are to judge of the will of God from His Word, which testifies that the children of believers are holy, not by nature, but in virtue of the covenant of grace, in which they together with the parents are comprehended, godly parents ought not to doubt the election and salvation of their children whom it pleases God to call out of this life in their infancy (Gen 17:7; Acts 2:39; 1Co 7:14)."

The reason for the parents comfort (their child dying in infancy being saved and savely in our Father's hand through Christ's work alone, John 10:28, see HC q/a 1), is not 'nature' (being born in a christian family/having christian parents) or 'the work of man' (baptizing the infant/christian education), but the sovereign 'election' of God that is revealed in history through the 'covenant of grace' (Rom.9:6 etc).

John 1:12-13 "But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God."

 

[Moireach]

Not that the argument as a whole isn't interesting, but can I have more opinions on this verse, does David saying it make it true?
Earlier it was suggested he had a good understanding of the covenant etc so it would.
But is it wrong for me to say just because he said it, it isn't necessarily true? Because it's just a conversation? He may have been comforting himself.
And though he had now repented, he was just on the back of more than 9 months of backsliding.

 

[Skyler]

It is true that not every quotation of someone in the Bible is necessarily true or morally good.

However, there must be valid exegetical reasons to conclude one way or the other.

 

[Romans 8 Verse 28]

Concerning the OP, two options have been presented -- heaven or death. In the Psalms those who go down to the grave are never described in terms of life and hope, e.g., Psalm 30:9. Conversely, the hope of the Psalmist is, after death, in seeing the face of God, e.g., Psalm 17:15. Given the living and hopeful nature of David's expression it is appropriate to understand it as referring to heaven.

Well said, Pastor Winzer sir!

---------- Post added at 04:59 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:54 PM ----------

Canons of Dordt 1:17 - "Since we are to judge of the will of God from His Word, which testifies that the children of believers are holy, not by nature, but in virtue of the covenant of grace, in which they together with the parents are comprehended, godly parents ought not to doubt the election and salvation of their children whom it pleases God to call out of this life in their infancy (Gen 17:7; Acts 2:39; 1Co 7:14)."

The reason for the parents comfort (their child dying in infancy being saved and savely in our Father's hand through Christ's work alone, John 10:28, see HC q/a 1), is not 'nature' (being born in a christian family/having christian parents) or 'the work of man' (baptizing the infant/christian education), but the sovereign 'election' of God that is revealed in history through the 'covenant of grace' (Rom.9:6 etc).

John 1:12-13 "But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God."

Exactly!

---------- Post added at 05:05 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:59 PM ----------

Not that the argument as a whole isn't interesting, but can I have more opinions on this verse, does David saying it make it true?

I made a post regarding this verse that you may find helpful in this thread:

http://www.puritanboard.com/f17/bible-verse-most-taken-out-context-54285/#post701156

Also, I'd suggest the following post on the topic of babies dying in infancy:

http://www.puritanboard.com/f48/arminians-infant-salvation-52490/#post678054