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?
![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/pilgrim/pil_sig2.gif)
![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/Smileys/pencil.gif)