The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Infant salvation

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.



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.



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.


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.


God bless,

william

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.


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.

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.

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.


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.


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.


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).


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.


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).


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.

neicey

John you said:

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.

Tom

Hi Tom,

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="" />

In His Hands,

Ruth

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.

John

john

Sorry for my misunderstanding, I do agree with you that there is a difference between head knowledge and heart knowledge.

Tom

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?

to The Highway Discussion Board!

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,

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.

In His Grace,

The righteousness of Christ is imputed to elect infants by faith alone. God regenerates elect infants through the ordinary means of word and sacrament.

thanks for replying Pilgrim

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.

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.

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.

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.

In His Grace,