Piper/Desiring God believe that all infants........

[Peter]

I mean all the sons of Adam are personally guilty or responsible for Adam's disobedience. Is that OK. I'm still not sure what you believe.

 

[johnrsorrell]

Originally posted by Peter
I mean all the sons of Adam are personally guilty or responsible for Adam's disobedience. Is that OK. I'm still not sure what you believe.

Responsible is the key term. I agree. I was trying to differentiate between OS and actual sin. I misrepresented myself.

However, you did not adequately answer the MacArthur quote, scripturally.

 

[johnrsorrell]

This Spurgeon quote sums up what I was trying to say:

Our first parents were utter bankrupts. They left us nothing but a heritage of old
debts, and a propensity to accumulate yet more personal obligations.

 

[Scott Bushey]

Originally posted by doulosChristou

Originally posted by Scott Bushey
OK,
I'll admit I was 'hoodwinked'. I don't have the sources. However, I still hold to what I have said. As far as reputable sources. I will lay claim to my interpretation of the WCF. as well as seek Matt for sources as I know he agree's with me.

At least you got a good laugh! See, thats twice this week I admitted I was wrong.

Good form, Scott. Now, while you are in a frame to take back things you have asserted rashly, perhaps you'd be willing to take back the statement that yours is the Reformed position by at least admitting that you are no longer sure what the Reformed position is, since you need to check with Matt as to whether any Reformed theologians actually believe what you assert.

Originally posted by Scott Bushey
Greg,
Strill waiting for your answers:

Do you as well believe that the children that died in the flood are in Heaven? The egyptian children, Muslim, devil worshippers?

Again, from the Reformed position, there are two answers to the fate of the infants who died in the flood, etc. The first (Calvin, Newton, A. A. Hodge, Charles Hodge, Warfield, Boettner, etc.) would say that these infants are definitely in heaven. The second group (Gill & Berkhof, for example) would say that we do not have enough Scriptural evidence to say for certain. Personally, I lean toward the second group, though I sympathize with Calvin's view.

Greg,
You are correct. I assumed that the reformed position was thus. Based upon what you as well as others have provided in the lines of reputable citations, I stand corrected. I am researching the subject and will inform you through this thread what I find.

To be honest, I cannot understand how the reformers held to the position they did in light of the statement in the creeds. I cannot for the life of me, understand how they could use such a discriminating term as 'elect infants' and mean all infants.

Whatever the case, I am willing to learn.

 

[doulosChristou]

 

[Dan....]

Originally posted by Scott Bushey
To be honest, I cannot understand how the reformers held to the position they did in light of the statement in the creeds. I cannot for the life of me, understand how they could use such a discriminating term as 'elect infants' and mean all infants.

Scott,

Actually, given the two positions cited by Greg,

(1) All infants dying in infancy are elect.

(2) It is murky and mysterious and we just don't know enough to say.

...the wording of the confessions make the best sense:

Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated, and saved by Christ, through the Spirit,[12] who worketh when, and where, and how he pleaseth:[13] so also are all other elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.[14]

Both positions 1 and 2 can agree to this statement. Group 1, in making the subset "elect infants, dying in infancy" to include "all infants dying in infancy", can agree, given the all-inclusive parameters of their subset. Group 2, in making the subset "elect infants, dying in infancy" to include "anything from all to less than all infants, dying in infancy", can also agree, given the uncertain limitations of their parameters.

A graph:

1. All infants dying in infancy:
((elect infants))

2. All infants dying in infancy:
((elect infants)..(??possible non-elect infants?))


Think about it this way:

Both groups 1 and 2 are gathered together and must come up with a statement to which both can agree -what would they come up with that both can actually agree on?? (Hint, see the confession).




[Edited on 11-22-2005 by Dan....]

 

[Scott Bushey]

Dan,
Maybe it's me, but the statement 'elect infants' do not include all infants. The confession discriminates in other places about the elect.

For example, here in ch 11:

IV. God did, from all eternity, decree to justify all the elect,[11] and Christ did, in the fullness of time, die for their sins, and rise again for their justification:[12] nevertheless, they are not justified, until the Holy Spirit doth, in due time, actually apply Christ unto them.[13]

Elect people God justifies, not all people.

 

[panta dokimazete]

I propose that only infants that die in infancy and the mentally defective are Elect due to the fact that they do not become self-aware to the knowledge of good and evil and are incapable of violating the moral/spiritual law.

This is blatant nonsense, and indefensible biblically. Its Pelagian. The moment the cells form a human being in the womb, they are at instant enmity against God for violating the moral Law IN ADAM. They are held guilty, defiled and abominable as they partook of the forbidden fruit in the loins of the father. As a result, they are judged for everything upon judgment that Adam transgressed as if they ate the fruit themselves. To say otherwise is to become Pelagian. Are you really saying what it seems you are saying

The infants are not Elect soley on this point - they are Elect soley by the Sovereign Grace of God not by any merit of their own - that, too me, is a given - the discriminator is the fact that they have no opportunity to develop the curse of Adam - the knowledge of Good and Evil - or to experience the fruit of that curse - rejecting God's sovereignty in favor of grasping for equality with God, thus they are positioned as beneficiaries of God's Grace and Mercy as they pass through the gateway of Death into Eternal Communion with Him.

My position is that the nature of the Elect is that God foreknew their potential to accept His sovereignty and mercifully predestined them to eternal communion with Him happily non posse peccatore.

Corporeal existance for the Elect is to interact with other Elect and the Reprobate for whatever amount of time (from 0 to ??) to act as instruments of His will, advance redemptive History soli Deo gloria and to prepare to accept non posse peccatore willingly after the pain of temporal existance.

 

[fredtgreco]

Scott,

Dan is right. The language was specifically written to cover both interpretations.

I am sure Chris Coldwell might be able to help with citations, but that is a fact. We often forget that the Confession is a consensus document. There is no need to read it more restrictively than its face. It was not intended to be restrictive.

 

[Dan....]

Maybe it's me, but the statement 'elect infants [dying in infancy]' do not include all infants [dying in infancy] .

Of course, (given your presupposition), to you it doesn't; but to those in group 1 (given their presupposition) it does. We may not all see the statement to mean the same thing, but we can all agree with the statement.


[Edited on 11-22-2005 by Dan....]

 

[pastorway]

Isaiah 55

8 "œ For My thoughts are not your thoughts, Nor are your ways My ways," says the LORD. 9 "œ For as the heavens are higher than the earth, So are My ways higher than your ways, And My thoughts than your thoughts. 10 "œ For as the rain comes down, and the snow from heaven, And do not return there, But water the earth, And make it bring forth and bud, That it may give seed to the sower And bread to the eater, 11 So shall My word be that goes forth from My mouth; It shall not return to Me void, But it shall accomplish what I please, And it shall prosper in the thing for which I sent it.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Originally posted by Dan....

Maybe it's me, but the statement 'elect infants [dying in infancy]' do not include all infants [dying in infancy] .

Of course, (given your presupposition), to you it doesn't; but to those in group 1 (given their presupposition) it does. We may not all see the statement to mean the same thing, but we can all agree with the statement.

The wording of the WCF is very prudent.

Are there any historians of the WCF here that have access to any writings that discussed why they wrote it the way they did?

Surely the WCF divines were aware of Calvin's belief on the subject.

Is it possible that they say "elect infants" in order to explain that the infants are saved by Grace too against any other idea that they might not be under some sort of curse? In other words, the tenor of the WCF emphasizes God's sovereign grace and is not, primarily addressing the population set of who is elect. They emphasize that, like adults, even infants and the mentally impaired, are under the Curse and deserve condemnation except they be elect and are saved by Grace.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Originally posted by jdlongmire

I propose that only infants that die in infancy and the mentally defective are Elect due to the fact that they do not become self-aware to the knowledge of good and evil and are incapable of violating the moral/spiritual law.

This is blatant nonsense, and indefensible biblically. Its Pelagian. The moment the cells form a human being in the womb, they are at instant enmity against God for violating the moral Law IN ADAM. They are held guilty, defiled and abominable as they partook of the forbidden fruit in the loins of the father. As a result, they are judged for everything upon judgment that Adam transgressed as if they ate the fruit themselves. To say otherwise is to become Pelagian. Are you really saying what it seems you are saying

The infants are not Elect soley on this point - they are Elect soley by the Sovereign Grace of God not by any merit of their own - that, too me, is a given - the discriminator is the fact that they have no opportunity to develop the curse of Adam - the knowledge of Good and Evil - or to experience the fruit of that curse - rejecting God's sovereignty in favor of grasping for equality with God, thus they are positioned as beneficiaries of God's Grace and Mercy as they pass through the gateway of Death into Eternal Communion with Him.

My position is that the nature of the Elect is that God foreknew their potential to accept His sovereignty and mercifully predestined them to eternal communion with Him happily non posse peccatore.

You might want to ammend your signature where you write you are "reformed to the core" to say you don't subscribe to unconditional election if that is your position regarding election.

[Edited on 11-22-2005 by SemperFideles]

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by SemperFideles

Originally posted by jdlongmire

I propose that only infants that die in infancy and the mentally defective are Elect due to the fact that they do not become self-aware to the knowledge of good and evil and are incapable of violating the moral/spiritual law.

This is blatant nonsense, and indefensible biblically. Its Pelagian. The moment the cells form a human being in the womb, they are at instant enmity against God for violating the moral Law IN ADAM. They are held guilty, defiled and abominable as they partook of the forbidden fruit in the loins of the father. As a result, they are judged for everything upon judgment that Adam transgressed as if they ate the fruit themselves. To say otherwise is to become Pelagian. Are you really saying what it seems you are saying

The infants are not Elect soley on this point - they are Elect soley by the Sovereign Grace of God not by any merit of their own - that, too me, is a given - the discriminator is the fact that they have no opportunity to develop the curse of Adam - the knowledge of Good and Evil - or to experience the fruit of that curse - rejecting God's sovereignty in favor of grasping for equality with God, thus they are positioned as beneficiaries of God's Grace and Mercy as they pass through the gateway of Death into Eternal Communion with Him.

My position is that the nature of the Elect is that God foreknew their potential to accept His sovereignty and mercifully predestined them to eternal communion with Him happily non posse peccatore.

No. You might want to ammend your signature where you write you are "reformed to the core" to say you don't subscribe to unconditional election if that is your position regarding election.

[Edited on 11-22-2005 by SemperFideles]

This is clearly an unbiblical position, and rejected completely and explicitly by the Confession:

This effectual call is of God's free and special grace alone, not from anything at all foreseen in man;(1) who is altogether passive therein, until, being quickened and renewed by the Holy Spirit,(2) he is thereby enabled to answer this call, and to embrace the grace offered and conveyed in it. (WCF 10.20)

Also, by the way, it is "non posse peccare."

From your friendly neighborhood Latin police. "Hey boy, you got a permit to parse them verbs?"

 

[Saiph]

Mat 2:16
Then Herod, when he saw that he had been tricked by the wise men, became furious, and he sent and killed all the male children in Bethlehem and in all that region who were two years old or under, according to the time that he had ascertained from the wise men.



Who here would say that these infants were not martyrs for Christ ?



Mat 2:17-18
Then was fulfilled what was spoken by the prophet Jeremiah:
"A voice was heard in Ramah, weeping and loud lamentation, Rachel weeping for her children; she refused to be comforted, because they are no more."

 

[Bladestunner316]

Saiph,
But isnt that one specific inccident now your not saying that all infant deaths are the death of a martyr?

blade

 

[Saiph]

I am just curious Nathan. God is fairly clear on orphans and widows. He does not like when they are ignored. I do not know what He decides regarding the election of misscarriages and abortions, but I tend to favor the side of mercy. I would not say He does elect all that die before a certain knowledge, but he certainly could. I do not think He is cruel if He does not either. His ways are mysterious. I prefer optimism in this area, and would definitely speak that way to someone who has lost a child.

 

[Bladestunner316]

I agree I've allready stated my position. I was'nt attacking you Your the only one who like's blade runner here so we gota stick together

blade

 

[Mayflower]

Is anyone familair with :

THE THEOLOGY OF INFANT SALVATION by R.A WEBB (SPRINKLE PUBLICATIONS) ????

 

[panta dokimazete]

Also, by the way, it is "non posse peccare."

From your friendly neighborhood Latin police. "Hey boy, you got a permit to parse them verbs?"

peccare! Sorry and thanks - why no spell check for Latin????

(What I get for trying to formulate a response and get work done at the same time...)

-JD

 

[panta dokimazete]

This is clearly an unbiblical position, and rejected completely and explicitly by the Confession

Which part? - I am confused:

1. All Infants inherit the curse of Adam and are therefore culpable and without individual merit

2. God is merciful and elects them for His own purpose for His own reason:

III. Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated, and saved by Christ, through the Spirit,[12] who works when, and where, and how He pleases:[13] so also are all other elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.[14]

I speculate that it could be that His Mercy is driving His Justice in that they have no developed outright rebellious action attributed by their own activities.

...and since this is my opinion, but the net effect coincides with the net effect reasoning of other - much more auspicious and learned Reformed thinkers than I, I am comfortable.

-JD

[Edited on 11-22-2005 by jdlongmire]

 

[biblelighthouse]

Originally posted by Scott Bushey

To be honest, I cannot understand how the reformers held to the position they did in light of the statement in the creeds. I cannot for the life of me, understand how they could use such a discriminating term as 'elect infants' and mean all infants.

Whatever the case, I am willing to learn.

Scott,

I agree with you that the term "elect infants" cannot mean "all infants". If some infants are specified as elect, then we should also assume that there are non-elect infants.

At the same time, I agree with everyone else on this board:
We cannot assume that God certainly sends some infants to hell.

How can I hold both positions simultaneously, without contradicting myself? I believe the solution is easy:


Suppose there are two groups of infants:
1) elect infants
2) non-elect infants

Now suppose that God ordains every member of group #2 to NOT die in infancy. In other words, God ordains that every non-elect infant will grow up and demonstrate his/her own personal sin.

This suggestion does two positive things for us:

1) In this scenario, we can retain the full meaning of the word "elect", thus recognizing that there is also a "non-elect" group of infants.

2) We can still agree with the Reformers, and with the majority of modern reformed Christians, by holding to the belief that we *cannot* say for sure that God sends any infants to hell.


It is *certain* that there are elect infants, and it is *certain* that there are non-elect infants.

The only real question is this:
Does God ordain any of the non-elect infants to die in infancy?

And I don't know if we can answer that question from Scripture. It is a mystery.

 

[gwine]

Originally posted by jdlongmire

I speculate that it could be that His Mercy is driving His Justice in that they have no developed outright rebellious action attributed by their own activities.

...and since this is my opinion, but the net effect coincides with the net effect reasoning of other - much more auspicious and learned Reformed thinkers than I, I am comfortable.

-JD

But in order to say that it seems you are saying that God is judging them based on their behaviour, i.e. works. And if you do that then when do you decide that they are starting to develop outright rebellious action? 3 months? 6 months? 1 year?

Better to say, "We don't know", and leave it to the grace of God.

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by jdlongmire

This is clearly an unbiblical position, and rejected completely and explicitly by the Confession

Which part? - I am confused:

1. All Infants inherit the curse of Adam and are therefore culpable and without individual merit

2. God is merciful and elects them for His own purpose for His own reason:

III. Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated, and saved by Christ, through the Spirit,[12] who works when, and where, and how He pleases:[13] so also are all other elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.[14]

I speculate that it could be that His Mercy is driving His Justice in that they have no developed outright rebellious action attributed by their own activities.

...and since this is my opinion, but the net effect coincides with the net effect reasoning of other - much more auspicious and learned Reformed thinkers than I, I am comfortable.

-JD

[Edited on 11-22-2005 by jdlongmire]

JD,

I am specifically referring to this:

My position is that the nature of the Elect is that God foreknew their potential to accept His sovereignty and mercifully predestined them to eternal communion with Him happily non posse peccatore.

Election is clearly not based on God's foreknowledge of man's free will. That is what your statement above says. You may very well not believe that, but if so, you should revise your communication on that.

 

[Larry Hughes]

Saiph,

Well said, I agree completely. Of what possible point could it be to speculate the negative - especially to even pagans who lost their child. It would drive them further to hate God as they already do OR fear Him only in terror producing a false convert of which many are within the church (fear of punishment is't conversion but further selfishness & deeper into sin).

L

 

[Scott Bushey]

We cannot assume that God certainly sends some infants to hell.

On what grounds do we base God's bypassing the infant? His mercy? The fact that they do not have the faculties to know the difference between wrong and right? What?

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Originally posted by Larry Hughes
Saiph,

Well said, I agree completely. Of what possible point could it be to speculate the negative - especially to even pagans who lost their child. It would drive them further to hate God as they already do OR fear Him only in terror producing a false convert of which many are within the church (fear of punishment is't conversion but further selfishness & deeper into sin).

L

Right, and further:

VIII. The doctrine of this high mystery of predestination is to be handled with special prudence and care, that men, attending the will of God revealed in His Word, and yielding obedience thereunto, may, from the certainty of their effectual vocation, be assured of their eternal election. So shall this doctrine afford matter of praise, reverence, and admiration of God; and of humility, diligence, and abundant consolation to all that sincerely obey the Gospel.

I've seen this subject of infant election brought up in Sunday School before. It only leads to unnecessary rancor over something we ought to leave to the mystery of God.

If someone claims that infants are innocent and go to heaven apart from Christ then we have a soteriological issue but when one begins a heated debate about which infants God elects then the debate becomes speculative and, frankly, non-Confessional per the above (provided one subscribes to the WCF).

[Edited on 11-23-2005 by SemperFideles]

 

[Scott Bushey]

Having said that Rich, I will end this discussion.

Thanks everyone for the vigourous exchanges.