Ok, I have a quick question. I was in a bible study the other night, defending my stance on reformed faith and predestination and the question of course came up. Are there reprobate children?
I know this has been covered here before, several of times, but I would like to find a couple of articles online that I can print for my personal folder.
I would really like to read something from Calvin, Luther, Edwards, Packer, Owens or any other reformed teacher. So if anyone has any quick links or references for me I would appriciate it.
So basically what I'm looking for is the reformed position on infant salvation and infant covenant succession. I havn't looked in my bible yet, but I plan on doing that when I get home. But if anyone would like to give scriptural references that would help too. Although, I'm thinking there just isn't really anything to be found in the bible. Not sure though. Thanks for the help all. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />
The First Main Point of Doctrine .... Article 17: The Salvation of the Infants of Believers
Since we must make judgments about God's will from His Word, which testifies that the children of believers are holy, not by nature but by virtue of the gracious covenant in which they together with their parents are included, godly parents ought not to doubt the election and salvation of their children whom God calls out of this life in infancy.
Romans 8:29 (in Arminian): For whom He foreknew, He also [foreknew] to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren.
John MacArthur - "Yes, children are born sinners, their death proves that, but never being able to understand the truth and therefore consciously reject it and choose rebellion, they have no record against them in the books of God and they then constitute a marvelous and vast opportunity for sovereign grace to operate, apart from any works at all.
So here's a final summary: all children who die before they reach the condition of accountability, by which they convincingly understand their sin and corruption and embrace the gospel by faith, are graciously saved eternally by God through the work of Jesus Christ, being elect by sovereign choice, innocent of willful sin, rebellion, and unbelief, by which works they would be justly condemned to eternal punishment. (Get the tape if you want that again). So, when an infant dies, he or she is elect to eternal salvation and eternal glory. So, dear one, if you have a little one that dies, rejoice! Count not your human loss; count your eternal gain. Count not that child as having lost, but having gained, having passed briefly through this life, untouched by the wicked world, only to enter into eternal glory and grace. The true sadness should be over those children of yours who live and reject the gospel. Don't sorrow over your children in heaven; sorrow over your children on earth, that they should come to Christ. This is your great responsibility, your great opportunity."
Charles Spurgeon - "Among the gross falsehoods which have been uttered against the Calvinist Proper is the wicked calumny [slander] that we hold the damnation of little infants. A baser lie was never uttered. There may have existed somewhere in some corner of the earth, a miscreant" --a criminal-- "who would dare to say that there were infants in hell, but I have never met with him, nor have I met with a man who ever saw such a person! We say with regard to infants, Scripture saith but little, and therefore, where Scripture is confessedly scant, it is for no man to determine dogmatically, but I think I speak for the entire body or certainly with exceedingly few exceptions and those unknown to me when I say we hold that all infants who die are elect of God and are therefore saved! We look to this as being the means by which Christ shall see of the travail of his soul to a great degree and we do sometimes hope that thus the multitude of the saved shall be made to exceed the multitude of the lost. Whatever views our friends may hold upon the point, they are not necessarily connected with Calvinistic doctrine! I believe that the Lord Jesus who said, 'Of such is the kingdom of heaven,' doth daily and constantly receive into his loving arms, those tender ones who are only shown and then snatched away to heaven."
So do they go to Heaven because they are of the elect or because they haven't been able to understand and can't be condemned?
[edit] and do children of elect parents go to a different place than the children of unbelievers? [/edit]
Last edited by reformed yevot; Tue Nov 23, 200410:33 PM.
Romans 8:29 (in Arminian): For whom He foreknew, He also [foreknew] to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren.
For one thing, it sure makes abortion look a lot more terrible.
Romans 8:29 (in Arminian): For whom He foreknew, He also [foreknew] to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren.
Only elect infants are saved. I see nothing in scripture that would say otherwise.
God bless,
william
Thanks William. That helped allot. I have a question though. I still don't know how to search for past threads. I try to use the search engine but it doesn't work for me. Can anyone give me some advice?
It seems that this is a hard topic. But I believe one that is silent in scripture. I find that this is used allot against the reformed faith. So I was hopeing to be able to put a good defense together. I believe that I will most likely just state that infants going to heaven just isn't supported in scripture and leave it at that.
I have only used the search feature a few times. SemperReformanda seems quite able, and I am sure Pilgrim could help there as well.
I believe that scripture speaks little on the subject as well. My understanding of mans nature is that all children are born sinners, due the wrath of God. God surely elects some children, but not all. The notion of an "age of accountability" is simply not found in scripture. I uphold UNconditional election. To say that no children are saved seems a bit harsh. To say that all children are saved is a bit optimistic. Elect, children or otherwise, are surely saved.
I believe that scripture speaks little on the subject as well. My understanding of mans nature is that all children are born sinners, due the wrath of God. God surely elects some children, but not all. The notion of an "age of accountability" is simply not found in scripture. I uphold UNconditional election. To say that no children are saved seems a bit harsh. To say that all children are saved is a bit optimistic. Elect, children or otherwise, are surely saved.
I agree with you and Pilgrim on this issue. During the bible study that I mentioned at the start of this thread, my answer was that I believed there was no way of telling that all children are saved.... even if you are not of a reformed faith.
Yet again here's a comment from John MacArthur -
Quote
If you survey reformed Calvinistic literature over 450 years since Calvin, you'll find that the vast majority of all the writers believe that all infants who die are taken to heaven.
Now, let me kind of expand on that for this is very, very important. You see, it's only pure, true, reformed soteriology --salvation-- only pure, true, reformed soteriology can account for the fact that fallen, sinful, guilty, depraved children who die with no spiritual merit, die with no religious merit, die with no moral merit of their own, can be welcomed by a holy God into eternal glory! Only pure, reformed theology can allow for that because only the purist theology believes that salvation is all by grace!
How were you saved? By what? Grace! You say, "Well, if God just takes all the babies to heaven, that's just grace!" Right! But how were you saved? By law? What do you want? Law for babies and grace for you? You had no more to do with your salvation than a helpless infant. That's why the truest and purest theology is that theology which understands that salvation is by grace, and maybe that's what Jesus had in mind in part when He said, "You who go to heaven, go to heaven as little children." Is there a better illustration of a salvation by grace than the salvation of a helpless infant? Any true understanding of Scripture yields the reality that all salvation is by sovereign choice by God through grace based on nothing that the sinner merits, and is there a better illustration of that than saving lost infants? Does that magnify sovereignty? Does it magnify grace? Of course it does.
It seems interesting to me that there are allot of reformed preachers throughout church history that seem to believe in Unconditional infant salvation.
I believe though John Calvin was of the opinion that only the elect childern were saved.
I have to think of the demands of being a pastor. Do you suppose that even the most calvinistic of preachers compromised their theology when it came to this subject? I imagine it can be pretty hard being in this position.
The one thing that I have learned over the past year or so is the difference between the Christian who reads and is interested in the whole councle of God and the Christian who isn't. When I was in my study the lady, who after I started to share my reformed beliefs of election, asked as a matter of factly.... "Well what about babies?" "Don't they all go to heaven?" When I replied that I believed that only the elect or remanent are saved including infants, her and her husband and pretty much the rest of the group looked at me with shameful faces. All except a couple of the men who read the bible and know my reformed views. So as I thought about this later, I felt like retracting my statement. But then I started to realize that their opinion was based on their emotions and not on their biblical knowledge. It seemed unjust to them and cruel that babies would be damned. It also seemed very unfair that people don't have the ability to choose God and that Christ died for the elect only. So again, it's another situation where it's been very hard for me to share my reformed views within a freewilled congregation.
I have a praise report though for those of you that know me some. I took my wife to a Reformed PCA church for the first time last Sunday. She said she liked it and was very pleased with the sermon, which was expository and very good. The only concerns she has is the lack of a Sunday School class for the children and the lack of any church related activities that she's so heavily involved in now. But she's been very polite in considering my desire to move. So keep us in your prayers. Thanks.
Any true understanding of Scripture yields the reality that all salvation is by sovereign choice by God through grace based on nothing that the sinner merits, and is there a better illustration of that than saving lost infants? Does that magnify sovereignty? Does it magnify grace? Of course it does.
Puritan,
I would take issue with the argument above. Based on his argument, I would conclude that all people should be saved because what better illustration of "that" then saving lost sinners. Shouldn't that magnify God's sovereignt and grace too. Of course, it does.
If he wants to base his proof of salvation of all infants dying in infancy on that bit of logic, I see no reason why he should stop at just infants and apply it to all people. Except, of course, that Scripture is quite clear that all people aren't saved. Basically, the line of reasoning he uses on this point is pretty weak.
Quote
I have a praise report though for those of you that know me some. I took my wife to a Reformed PCA church for the first time last Sunday. She said she liked it and was very pleased with the sermon, which was expository and very good. The only concerns she has is the lack of a Sunday School class for the children and the lack of any church related activities that she's so heavily involved in now. But she's been very polite in considering my desire to move. So keep us in your prayers. Thanks.
I'm glad your wife enjoyed the church. If you do decide to move to that church, I'm sure opportunities for both your wife and children to get involved more will arise as time passes.
Just to clarify, that is not my quote, it's MacArthurs. But I think you understood this.
Quote
I would take issue with the argument above. Based on his argument, I would conclude that all people should be saved because what better illustration of "that" then saving lost sinners. Shouldn't that magnify God's sovereignt and grace too. Of course, it does.
If he wants to base his proof of salvation of all infants dying in infancy on that bit of logic, I see no reason why he should stop at just infants and apply it to all people. Except, of course, that Scripture is quite clear that all people aren't saved. Basically, the line of reasoning he uses on this point is pretty weak.
Very Good point John, I agree.
Dave
Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified. - Galatians 2:16
Here is an interesting verse to consider in light of this discussion.
1 Corinthians 7:14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.
chestnutmare said: Here is an interesting verse to consider in light of this discussion.
1 Corinthians 7:14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.
I'd be even more interested in knowing how you interpret/understand that text, re: infant salvation? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/evilgrin.gif" alt="" />
The First Main Point of Doctrine .... Article 17: The Salvation of the Infants of Believers
Since we must make judgments about God's will from His Word, which testifies that the children of believers are holy, not by nature but by virtue of the gracious covenant in which they together with their parents are included, godly parents ought not to doubt the election and salvation of their children whom God calls out of this life in infancy.
We shouldn't question because we cannot get an answer. However, if God may not pass over an infant born of a believer then God is not God. The Hodges believed that all infants, pagan descent and Christian descent, are saved through premature death. I find this without warrant. Is God required to extend grace to fallen infants in Adam? Hey, if God ordains the damnation of some children, he's doing them a favor by not letting them live -- for an extended life would only increase their eternal penalty.
May I ask an innocent question: Who are the "elect children"? By the context of the doctrines of John Calvin and other similar minded reformers, "Elect infants" are a specific group or subset. Some of the additions to this thread imply that there is not distinction between "elect infants" and the "elect". How should we proceed with an infant who is near the so-called age of accountability (the Jews recognized this is bar-mitzvah) and he is not of the "elect"? Do we extend God's grace to him, even though God knows he will not accept?
Furthermore, was the Bible only written to the elect? Did Jesus only die for the elect? Did He only love the elect and thus is the "Kosmos" of John 3:16 only the elect?
Can only the elect receive Christ? What are they receiving if they are already chosen of God? When we preach to the lost for their salvation, should we have it in the back of our minds that many that are hearing are incapable from the foundation of the earth to receive the message of saving grace? If salvation is by grace, then it must have been exercised only once when God chose the elect. Their acceptance would only be a formality.
Perhaps some of you have heard this description and you may likely call it an Armininiast compromise: That God's choice in the begining was to set down the plan of salvation and that all who would accept it would become the elect. They were chosen in that the plan for their salvation was in place and God foresaw their own agreement to enter "the plan". The stumbling block for the "freewill people" is predestination. The passage in Romans seems to be an argument in favor of predestination. That certain vessels were created by God for the sole purpose of destruction in order to bring Him glory, but other vessels to receive His full mercy and provision. You would most likely say that Arminiasts are the group who answer to God, "...why hast thou made me thus?..."
I am not of the "freewill" belief in that I recognize that since Adam's fall into sin, sin infected ALL men from birth. We begin on the wrong side of the fence, ALL of us (John 3:18) "...he who does not believe is condemned already because he has not believed in the name of only begotten Son of God..."
Quote
Gal 3:22 22 But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.
Unless most of you beleive that the "elect" start out on the proper side of the fence, "they (we)" just do not know it yet until we appropriate it by making our spirit conscious of the fact.
Be kind to me now...dont' load the guns of Navarone....I am not Arminian, nor Calvinist, nor Lutheran, nor King Jamesian, nor John MacArthurian, I am a Christian. I follow Christ and hold His words above those other noble, yet fallible men.
I am curious, did Calvin's teachings need reforming or did he speak infallibly?
Ron D said: We shouldn't question because we cannot get an answer. However, if God may not pass over an infant born of a believer then God is not God. The Hodges believed that all infants, pagan descent and Christian descent, are saved through premature death. I find this without warrant. Is God required to extend grace to fallen infants in Adam? Hey, if God ordains the damnation of some children, he's doing them a favor by not letting them live -- for an extended life would only increase their eternal penalty.
Peace in Christ,
Ron
Ron were you writing hyperbolically when you wrote increase their eternal penalty if something is eternal how can it increase? Or were you referring to their torment?
Peter
If you believe what you like in the gospels, and reject what you don't like, it is not the gospel you believe, but yourself. Augustine of Hippo
Ron D said: We shouldn't question because we cannot get an answer. However, if God may not pass over an infant born of a believer then God is not God. The Hodges believed that all infants, pagan descent and Christian descent, are saved through premature death. I find this without warrant. Is God required to extend grace to fallen infants in Adam? Hey, if God ordains the damnation of some children, he's doing them a favor by not letting them live -- for an extended life would only increase their eternal penalty.
Peace in Christ,
Ron
Ron were you writing hyperbolically when you wrote increase their eternal penalty if something is eternal how can it increase? Or were you referring to their torment?
Torment, penalty, same thing. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/bingo.gif" alt="" />
Hello, again. I'll answer the first paragraph as it relates to the topic. The rest of your post would make a great new topic.
Quote
May I ask an innocent question: Who are the "elect children"?
We don't know, directly. We don't know who is truly elect as an adult, either. We know that since some are elect out of mankind, this must include infants since there are elect adults who were once infants. Scripture also mentions the election of some people to specific stations prior to birth. While I see no need to believe that every infant who dies in infancy is elect, I see no reason to believe every infant that dies in infancy is non-elect. I simply leave election up to God and believe He elects some infants.
Quote
By the context of the doctrines of John Calvin and other similar minded reformers, "Elect infants" are a specific group or subset. Some of the additions to this thread imply that there is not distinction between "elect infants" and the "elect".
I should ask for some clarification. The elect are those chosen of God to be saved out of this world of sinners. Age matters not.
Quote
How should we proceed with an infant who is near the so-called age of accountability (the Jews recognized this is bar-mitzvah) and he is not of the "elect"? Do we extend God's grace to him, even though God knows he will not accept?
I do not believe, nor does scripture teach, an age of accountability. All humankind are born sinners and deserve the wrath of God. I extend the message of salvation to all who will hear me. I hope that helps.
I'll try to answer a few of these questions. But I may be treading near the limits of my knowledge, so someone might have to correct me.
Quote
believingThomas said: Furthermore, was the Bible only written to the elect?
This is an interesting question. I would say no (and yes?). God is glorified when his word is proclaimed, to elect and non-elect. Plus, there are numerous places in the Bible that speak of Scripture as convicting and curbing the sins of even non-Christians. But, there is also a sense in which the Bible is written to the elect specifically. Without a regenerate heart, one is not capable of understanding the true meaning of many parts of the Bible. Also, in many of the epistles where the first person "we" is used, I don't think you can say that that "we" includes non-elect.
Quote
Did Jesus only die for the elect?
Yes, his death secured forgiveness of sins and salvation for the elect only. But, while on this earth, non-Christians also receive some temporal benefits of Christ's death. For example, God sends rain, which benefits elect and non-elect alike.
Quote
Did He only love the elect and thus is the "Kosmos" of John 3:16 only the elect?
I think the "Kosmos" of John 3:16 is only the elect, but others are much more capable of exegeting that passage them I am. I'm not 100% sure the two part of your question go hand-in-hand, but I would say that Jesus loves only the elect. I'm interested in hearing other opinions on the first part of this question.
Quote
Can only the elect receive Christ? What are they receiving if they are already chosen of God?
Only the elect can receive Christ, and the elect will receive Christ because God will regenerate their heart first so that they are able and will be willing. They are receiving Christ as their Saviour. Even though they are elect from eternity, there is still a temporal aspect of salvation. We do have to at some point in time actually accept Christ into our hearts.
Quote
When we preach to the lost for their salvation, should we have it in the back of our minds that many that are hearing are incapable from the foundation of the earth to receive the message of saving grace? If salvation is by grace, then it must have been exercised only once when God chose the elect. Their acceptance would only be a formality.
Someone touched on part of this question recently, but I can't remember who/which thread it was.
Of course it should be in the back of our minds that only the elect will accept the Gospel message (after God regenerates their hear), but that shouldn't prevent us from preaching. God is glorified when the Gospel is preached and it is the means he has ordained to bring the elect to Christ. I'm not sure I can answer latter half of the question (I guess the first half really wasn't a question though). I don't think I would say that their acceptance is only a mere formality because it seems to make the acceptance of Christ into a believer's heart meaningless.
Quote
Perhaps some of you have heard this description and you may likely call it an Armininiast compromise: That God's choice in the begining was to set down the plan of salvation and that all who would accept it would become the elect.
This question has been dealt with many times already, but I'll say that if this were (subjunctive tense) the case then the word "elect" doesn't really have much meaning (IMO).
Quote
Unless most of you beleive that the "elect" start out on the proper side of the fence, "they (we)" just do not know it yet until we appropriate it by making our spirit conscious of the fact.
The elect most definitely do not start out on the proper side of the fence. The Bible declares many times that all are sinners and under the penalty of death. Until that point in time at which God regenerates the person's heart and they accept Christ as their saviour, they are under God's wrath (Ephesians 2:3). All the elect will come to Christ though, i.e., it's not possible they might die before they accept Christ. It's not the case that the elect only have to make their spirit conscious of the fact. Until God changes our hearts, our spirits are at emnity with God. Our spirits hate the things of God and God himself until we are changed by God's grace.
Quote
Be kind to me now...dont' load the guns of Navarone....I am not Arminian, nor Calvinist, nor Lutheran, nor King Jamesian, nor John MacArthurian, I am a Christian. I follow Christ and hold His words above those other noble, yet fallible men.
Labels don't necessarily have to be a bad thing. I find them very useful in that I can convey a large amount of information in a short amount of time. When I'm talking with someone if I say, "I'm a Calvinist," or they say, "I'm an Arminian," we are able to get a quick feel for one another's beliefs. It's sometimes the case when probing a little deeper that the other persons true beliefs aren't what they claim they are, but this is usually from misconceptions of what the terms imply instead of deception. Of course, many people often abuse labels, and, hence, the aversion many people have with them. My point is, though, that if you examine your beliefs closely, you can probably align it fairly well with one of the major systems of though (since really new ideas don't come around very often).
Quote
I am curious, did Calvin's teachings need reforming or did he speak infallibly?
I don't think you'll find anyone on this board advocating the position that Calvin spoke infallibly. Even Calvin himself wouldn't say that. In fact, since I've been on this board, I've heard most everyone mention personal disagreements with Calvin or point out some of Calvin's ideas that are not correct. For the most part, however, Calvin was spot on in his theology (IMO).
John
p.s. I'm waiting to be correct <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />
Well Pilgrim you did not ask me,but this means that the unbelieveing family members,can enjoy the blessings of the believer. I'm hoping that the prayers of the believeing family member will be heard and that if GOD wills the others will be saved.
Without a regenerate heart, one is not capable of understanding the true meaning of many parts of the Bible. Also, in many of the epistles where the first person "we" is used, I don't think you can say that that "we" includes non-elect.
Actually I think you are wrong about the non-elect not being able to understand many parts of the Bible. Some of the most knowledgeable people of the Bible I have ever met were non-Christians. My friend's dad, who was by no means a Christian (he was an alcoholic), was like an encyclopedia of Bible knowledge. But he did so not because he wanted to please God, but because he loved obtaining knowledge. He also did so that he could argue against cults such as JWs. In fact my friend told me how one time he had a JW elder in the house, the JW would quote Scripture and he would immediately stop the JW when ever he misused the text. In the end, the elder ran out of the house in a huff and my friend’s dad was calm as could be. In fact he was enjoying himself.
It isn’t that the unregenerate can’t understand the Bible if they want to. It is that they will not and can not come to Jesus.
I don't think you read John's quote correctly! He was quite right in what he said that "Without a regenerate heart, one is not capable of understanding the true meaning of many parts of the Bible". Many people may be able to quote Biblical passages with much "head knowledge" yet they do not "see" or understand the TRUE meaning. Please read carefully!!!!!!!! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/bananas.gif" alt="" />
Actually I think you are wrong about the non-elect not being able to understand many parts of the Bible. Some of the most knowledgeable people of the Bible I have ever met were non-Christians.
Tom,
As Ruth pointed out, I wasn't speaking of just a general head knowledge of the Bible, but a true understanding in the heart. I still maintain that this true understanding of what the Bible teaches is not possible by an unregenerate person. 1 Corinthians 2 has a lot to say about this. I do agree with you that the unregenerate are unwilling to believe what the Bible teaches due to the corruption of their nature, but one of the reasons they are unwilling to accept the truth is because the truth is "foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised" (1 Cor. 2:14). I agree that some non-Christians are extremely knowledgeable about the Bible, even more so than I am. Some of them can probably explain the doctrines of the Bible quite well, but at a heart level, they truly don't understand them. I think that even the newest Christian with only a little bit of knowledge about the Bible, at a heart-level, understands the true meaning of the doctrines of the Bible more than someone who has studied it all their lives but is still not a Christian. From the outside, if you were to talk to the two of them, it may not seem like the Christian understands more than the non-Christian, but I still believe that is the case.
I was just wondering if anyone believes that elect children who die in infancy possess some measure of faith or if the righteousness of Christ is imputed to them in another way. Scripture seems to teach one way of salvation, justification by faith alone. I believe that the children of believers will go to heaven like David's child in 2 Sam 12. The question is, by what means does God regenerate them?
That's a common and difficult question and one which has been discussed here in the past. There are, of course, opposing views. My own view is that the "essence of faith", i.e., that kernel of communication between the soul and Christ is created in all elect infants who are taken out of this world before they would have matured to the point where they would have been called, repented and believed upon Christ. Thus at their death the soul of the elect infant is united to Christ, for faith naturally flows to Him and embraces Him. Immediately/simultaneously, Christ's righteousness is imputed.
Secondly, I'm not totally convinced that David's son "went to heaven". I simply don't find any compelling evidence of that idea. And yes, the interpretation of 2Sam 12:23 has been hotly discussed here as well.
And lastly,
Quote
The question is, by what means does God regenerate them?
Perhaps this is the easiest to answer of the three. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> Since there is no participation or even prompting of man in regard to regeneration; it is solely the secret, sovereign and sole work of the Holy Spirit upon them whom God has predestinated to salvation, which occurs at the time determined by God from eternity, infants are regenerated no differently than adults.
Soli Deo Gloria said: I was just wondering if anyone believes that elect children who die in infancy possess some measure of faith or if the righteousness of Christ is imputed to them in another way. Scripture seems to teach one way of salvation, justification by faith alone. I believe that the children of believers will go to heaven like David's child in 2 Sam 12. The question is, by what means does God regenerate them?
The righteousness of Christ is imputed to elect infants by faith alone. God regenerates elect infants through the ordinary means of word and sacrament.
For the most part i think i agree with you. I do not believe that elect infants who die possess the faith talked about in Heb 11:1 yet its seems they do possess the seed of faith or the holy spirt that 1 Jn 3:9 talks about. We can see that both John the Baptist and Jeremiah both were being sanctified by the spirt while yet still in the womb.
I'm not sure if all believers children who die in infancy are part of the elect because of Rom 9:11. But all the covenant promises seem to be made "with the fathers and their children"Acts 2:39. God will be "the God of Abraham and of his seed"Gen 7:7. Yet i do think David was sure his son was of the elect when he said "I will go to him, but he will not return to me."
As for my last question, I meant to say "The question is, by what means does God justify them?" that is if its not by faith. I agree with your comments on regeneration
The righteousness of Christ is imputed to elect infants by faith alone. God regenerates elect infants through the ordinary means of word and sacrament. [/quote]
Could you elaborate on that speratus. I would agree that both regenerations are a work of God but it does not seem like the ordinary means of word and sacrament.
Soli Deo Gloria said: But all the covenant promises seem to be made "with the fathers and their children" Acts 2:39. God will be "the God of Abraham and of his seed" Gen 7:7.
Re: Acts 2:39 I think it is imperative to recognize and to be faithful to the context of that passage in order to grasp its truth.
Acts 2:38-39 (ASV) "And Peter [said] unto them, Repent ye, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of your sins; and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For to you is the promise, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, [even] as many as the Lord our God shall call unto him."
This "promise" is (a) not universal, i.e., indiscriminate but to those who at that time were to repent and believe and to those who were not present at that time, both adults and children. And with the further qualifier, (b) to those who are called (efficacious calling) of God. For only those who are "called", i.e., given ears to hear will and are capable of repentance and faith in Christ. So, the promise is to believers only; adults and/or children but not as some want it to say, believers and all their children without discrimination.
Quote
Yet i do think David was sure his son was of the elect when he said "I will go to him, but he will not return to me."
The other viable interpretation of this passage is, which I happen to hold, albeit with some reservation, is that David is simply acknowledging that his son was truly dead and will be put into the grave from which he cannot return and which also he, his body, too will someday be put to rest. I don't see much warrant in making the text speak of something spiritual/eternal in its context.
Quote
As for my last question, I meant to say "The question is, by what means does God justify them?" that is if its not by faith.
It seems to me that we must make a distinction between "faith" and "belief". The former is that element that resides in the soul and which actually becomes united with God. The latter, faith, is that which describes the outward expression of that faith, albeit they are not two separate things. Adults who have been regenerated will naturally express their faith in their believing; both in word and deed. Infants and those who are physically and/or mentally incapable of such outward expression should not be required to do so. For union with Christ is an invisible and spiritual reality that exists through regeneration. Thus I believe that elect infants who die in infancy and those who are incapable of demonstrating "faith" are regenerated and true faith, which is part of regeneration and which its specific purpose is to unite one to Christ, is resident in their souls. And thus, they are justified.
Soli Deo Gloria said: Could you elaborate on that speratus. I would agree that both regenerations are a work of God but it does not seem like the ordinary means of word and sacrament.
Trust me, you don't want to go there, because we have been, more then once. Our friend seems content to continue to proclaim these kinds of statements (i.e. regeneration being by "word and sacrament") as unarguable truth long after they have been dicsussed, refuted, and shown to be in patent error. Even just do a search on the phrase "word and sacrament," and you should find some of these threads I speak of.
I believe all elect people from infant to adult are saved by the same means, by grace through faith. As much as I am a big fan of people like CH Spurgeon who believed that all infants go to heaven, and that infants who are not old enough to have sinned goes to heaven. I see no biblical support for it. Many people who agree with Spurgeon about this, say that there is no way infants can have faith. How do they actually know this? Just because we may not be able to see their faith, doesn't necessarily mean that they don't. Spurgeon's view comes from wishful thinking, but I see no solid evidence from Scripture to support it. I see no reason from Scripture that any person is exempt from the biblical formula of by grace through faith.
Soli Deo Gloria said: Could you elaborate on that speratus. I would agree that both regenerations are a work of God but it does not seem like the ordinary means of word and sacrament.
Trust me, you don't want to go there, because we have been, more then once. Our friend seems content to continue to proclaim these kinds of statements (i.e. regeneration being by "word and sacrament") as unarguable truth long after they have been dicsussed, refuted, and shown to be in patent error. Even just do a search on the phrase "word and sacrament," and you should find some of these threads I speak of.
But, since those threads, I have studied the Westminster Confession and I seem to agree with it more than many on The Highway who confess it.
Quote
Chapter 10: All those whom God hath predestinated unto life, and those only, he is pleased, in his appointed and accepted time, effectually to call, by his Word and Spirit, out of that state of sin and death, in which they are by nature, to grace and salvation, by Jesus Christ; enlightening their minds spiritually and savingly to understand the things of God, taking away their heart of stone, and giving unto them a heart of flesh; renewing their wills, and, by his almighty power, determining them to that which is good, and effectually drawing them to Jesus Christ: yet so, as they come most freely, being made willing by his grace.
The WCF says "all". There is no exclusion in WCF for elect infants in the effectual calling by His Word and Spirit. What is effectual calling other than a regeneration?
Quote
Chapter 28: The efficacy of Baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered; yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance, the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited, and conferred, by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongs unto, according to the counsel of God's own will, in His appointed time.
Baptism (which the WCF calls a sacrament) does confer grace to elect infants in His appointed time. What is grace other than a regeneration?
speratus said: The WCF says "all". There is no exclusion in WCF for elect infants in the effectual calling by His Word and Spirit. What is effectual calling other than a regeneration?
You are confusing/intermixing two separate operations of the Holy Spirit; i.e., "regeneration" and "effectual calling". It would behoove you to do some more theological study of these terms. Regeneration is the creation of the new nature which has a new disposition toward God. This renewing of the soul effects the mind, emotions and will, thus enabling a once spiritually dead sinner to comprehend God and His truth. Effectual calling is that operation of the Holy Spirit whereby He "draws" or "woes" the regenerated sinner to Christ by means of conviction of sin and displaying the loveliness of Christ and the necessity to believe upon Him for justification and reconciliation with God. Although they occur relatively concurrently; temporally regeneration occurs prior to effectually calling from the very nature of what they accomplish, the are nonetheless unique operations of the Spirit.
See here for detailed information of these respective terms:
Baptism (which the WCF calls a sacrament) does confer grace to elect infants in His appointed time. What is grace other than a regeneration?
Again, you are confusing/intermixing terms. Grace is a very broad term which may be simply defined as God extending undeserved favor upon men. The term may even be sub-divided into two further categories; Salvific Grace and Common Grace. The former being extended to only those whom God has predestinated to salvation in Christ. The latter is that general benevolence of God whereby men are granted temporal favors, even physical life itself; i.e., the judgment that they deserve from the moment of conception is withheld during the time that the reprobate are allowed to live on earth. Regeneration was addressed above.
Pilgrim, I will admit that it is not clear what David was sure of when he said "I will go to him, but he will not return to me." So it could be interpreted either way.
And as for Acts 2:39, I definitely do not believe that all of believers children will go to heaven, only those God foreknew or foreloved. I guess it makes sense to say that the children of believers that die in infancy may not be foreknown and therefore will not be glorified (Rom 8:30.
speratus said: The WCF says "all". There is no exclusion in WCF for elect infants in the effectual calling by His Word and Spirit. What is effectual calling other than a regeneration?
You are confusing/intermixing two separate operations of the Holy Spirit; i.e., "regeneration" and "effectual calling". It would behoove you to do some more theological study of these terms. Regeneration is the creation of the new nature which has a new disposition toward God. This renewing of the soul effects the mind, emotions and will, thus enabling a once spiritually dead sinner to comprehend God and His truth. Effectual calling is that operation of the Holy Spirit whereby He "draws" or "woes" the regenerated sinner to Christ by means of conviction of sin and displaying the loveliness of Christ and the necessity to believe upon Him for justification and reconciliation with God. Although they occur relatively concurrently; temporally regeneration occurs prior to effectually calling from the very nature of what they accomplish, the are nonetheless unique operations of the Spirit.
But isn't the effectual call irresistable? All who receive the effectual call by Word and Spirit will be regenerated. Therefore, is not the Word the universal means whereby the elect are brought to regeneration?
John Owens, in "The Nature, Causes, and Means of Regeneration", describes the ordinary outward means for adults,
Quote
That the word of God, thus dispensed by the ministry of the church, is the only ordinary outward means which the Holy Ghost maketh use of in the regeneration of the adult unto whom it is preached.
That squares with the WCF which states,
Quote
Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated, and saved by Christ, through the Spirit, who worketh when, and where, and how he pleaseth: so also are all other elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.
So Elect infants are regenerated being called by the means of the Word but not the ministry of the Word.
Quote
Quote
Baptism (which the WCF calls a sacrament) does confer grace to elect infants in His appointed time. What is grace other than a regeneration?
Again, you are confusing/intermixing terms. Grace is a very broad term which may be simply defined as God extending undeserved favor upon men. The term may even be sub-divided into two further categories; Salvific Grace and Common Grace. The former being extended to only those whom God has predestinated to salvation in Christ. The latter is that general benevolence of God whereby men are granted temporal favors, even physical life itself; i.e., the judgment that they deserve from the moment of conception is withheld during the time that the reprobate are allowed to live on earth. Regeneration was addressed above.
I'm a little confused here. If the WCF is referring to Common Grace or an even broader form of grace not Salvific Grace, why does the WCF say that the grace may be "offered, exhibited, and conferred" at a later time? What possible benefit would there be to the non-elect at a later time removed from the Baptism itself? Is Baptism ever a benefit to the non-elect?
Soli Deo Gloria said: Does the same apply for the mentally retarded?
I believe that the Westminster Confession of Faith's answer is right on target:
[color:"blue"]The Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter X Of Effectual Calling[/color]
III. 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]
12. Gen. 17:7; Luke 1:15; 18:15-16; Acts 2:39; John 3:3, 5; I John 5:12 13. John 3:8 14. John 16:7-8; I John 5:12; Acts 4:12
There is the "outward call" which is common to all men, e.g., through the preaching of the Word whereby sinners are called to repent and believe upon Christ. And, there is that special "inward call", aka: effectual calling, which is the sovereign and sure work of the Holy Spirit wherein a sinner, having been regenerated is brought under conviction and flees to Christ, believing upon Him and trusting in His atoning work. Those incapable of comprehending the "outward call", yet who by God's immutable counsel are to be saved at His appointed time, are called "inwardly" so that their souls are enlightened, united to Christ, reconciled to God and thus become adopted sons and daughters of the Living God.
speratus asks: But isn't the effectual call irresistable? All who receive the effectual call by Word and Spirit will be regenerated. Therefore, is not the Word the universal means whereby the elect are brought to regeneration?
I perceive that there is much confusion which occupies your thinking and I'm not sure if I will be able to entangle the labyrinth that exists there.
1) Of course the effectual call is irresistible, for that is what "effectual means".
2) Let me state it one more time, although I fail to understand how you could have missed it before. In the order of time, first comes regeneration which is a quickening of a sinner's spiritually dead soul. This creation of a new nature ENABLES the individual (makes it possible) at the time of an "outward call" with which the Holy Spirit normally works in conjunction and brings the "inward call" (efficacious/effectual call), to which the sinner responds. I cannot help but believe that much of your confusion is due to your belief that a sinner has no part in conversion; i.e., that no one exercises their will in repenting of their sins and believing upon Christ. This position you hold and which you have often stated on this Board is as erroneous as it is extreme.
Quote
(after having quoted Chapter 10, section III of the WCF) So Elect infants are regenerated being called by the means of the Word but not the ministry of the Word.
Nooooooo, you are so confused! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/rolleyes2.gif" alt="" /> Infants are incapable of hearing the Word; i.e., the normal ministry of the Word. Regeneration is normally wrought by the Holy Spirit during a time when the Word is preached. This is true for adults and all those who are physically capable of hearing that Word. Chapter 10, section III of the WCF is addressing a specific situation, i.e., infants who die in infancy and those who are incapable of apprehending the "outward call", the ministry of the Word. What it is teaching is that there is no reason to doubt the grace and mercy of God Who will have ALL the elect saved, even those who die in infancy and those who are physically impaired to the point where they are outside the effects of the preaching of the Word. In these specific cases, the Holy Spirit is not bound to the typical and normal means which God has ordained to call sinners to Christ.
Quote
Lastly, you asked: Is Baptism ever a benefit to the non-elect?
IMHO, No! there is no benefit to the reprobate in baptism.
Pilgrim, I am interested in how you interpret this verse and what is meant by "holy."
I know Francis Turretin and John Gill believe the holiness to be a external or federal holiness. Turretin says they are called holy because they are born into christianity and not heathenism which is a sate of "uncleanness."
Before I entered this thread I interpreted this verse differently, but now I think I agree with Turretin and Gill. But where else does holiness refer to christianity?
Soli Deo Gloria said: I know chestnutmare brought up 1 Cor 7:14.
Pilgrim, I am interested in how you interpret this verse and what is meant by "holy."
I've answered this question previously when this subject was being discussed. Here is what I wrote then and which I still hold to be true:
Covenant children are to presumed unregenerate until proven otherwise, since they are born in sin and under the wrath of God, no differently than all of mankind. Covenant children are "holy" (1Cor 7:14), i.e, they are truly blessed in that they have been given the privilege of being born into a home where there is at least one believing parent through and by whom the gospel will be heard and used to regenerate them, if it so be God's electing choice to do so in His perfect time. And they are subject to the teaching of righteous living, according to the Scriptures. They also have the privilege of being present in the house of God where believers offer worship, hear the Word of God preached, witness the sacraments, hear the testimonies of godly men, women and children, etc. which are the means of grace given by God to convert sinners to Christ. Covenant children should be expected to make a valid profession of faith before the church when THEY are moved to do so; having been convinced of their own conversion and the necessity of doing so, thereby becoming full members, fellow heirs of Christ, with the Body of Christ.
Romans 9:4, 5 seems to me to describe how the word "holy" is to be understood; i.e., the primary definition used in Scripture of "being separated, separate". And let's not overlook the fact that the unbelieving spouse is likewise deemed "holy" (Grk: agiazo). Paul uses the same word when describing the position of unbelieving spouses as he does for the children that have come by the union of a believing and unbelieving couple. So, whatever one wants to make "holy" mean, it must be applied to both unbelieving spouses and the children.
![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/pilgrim/pil_sig2.gif)
![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/Smileys/pencil.gif)
![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/Smileys/welcome_scroll.gif)
to The Highway Discussion Board! ![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/Smileys/wave3.gif)
