civic
Well-known member
Exactly brother !!!
All Infants according to Calvin are saved
- Thread starter civic
- Start date
The Rogue Tomato
Well-known member
Responding to the OP, I couldn't give a rat's bahootie what Calvin said. This is a Berean forum. Would the Bereans have searched Calvin (if it were possible) to see if what Paul said was true? No, they searched Scripture. So stop already with your "Calvin said this", "Augustine said that", "Sproul said this", etc., posts. They are entirely meaningless to those who regard Scripture over men's opinions.
Rockson
Well-known member
To me that tells me one of two things.
1) That they down right know they would that is if the Calvinist truly has God's love born into their hearts. When you KNOW God, I mean actually KNOW Jesus not as just a historical figure but KNOW him by fellowship you know that you know certain ways of thinking grieves him. You can know it for his spirit bears witness with your spirit that he his grieved. So how can a born again Calvinist actually say some things? What's the dynamics going on within them? It's like going to the shower with your socks on. You're trying to force a wrong thing probably because of fear but deep down your spirit is saying NO, NO, NO. It just can't be right. Children MUST go to heaven when they die.
Or two,
2) A person is merely a religionist. They really don't have God's love in their hearts. They're truly not born again. Not being such they have no problem with great conviction tell people God can do the most atrocious things and all is fine. If they KNOW God and I mean through fellowship they just know, that they know his character.
Your gut feels when they're shocked, or when their heart marvels at the hard heartedness of people who can say the most unbelievable things about his character. One's not born again doesn't understand nor comprehend LIFE, LOVE at all.
I'm not saying they're mentally deficient, like one might call someone stupid . I don't mean that. I'm talking about spiritually deficient. If one wasn't spiritually deficient the question would never even be asked.....does an infant go to heaven. You would KNOW and the answer automatically would be yes.
civic
Well-known member
are all infants who die saved ?
When I first was taught about our pre-conception existence (pce) I too wondered if it was the Mormon concept so I asked a Mormon I knew who called in three elders to discuss our definitions and theology and they all decided that we were seriously UnMormon, and anathematized us (cursed us) for being idolaters following a demonic spirit. We said thank you for helping us to find this distinction between us and sent them off, shaking their feet.
PCE is an ancient concept as old as the theory of our being created on earth at our conception, taught in rabbinic literature and can be seen to be in the Bible, both the protestant bible and expressly in the Catholic bible though Christianity as a whole denies this interpretation of what is written in favour of the current favorite theory that we are created on earth...as sinners....contrary to GOD's attribute of perfect holiness, ie, HE cannot create evil by any means.
Judaism
In rabbinic literature, the souls of all humanity are described as being created during the six days of creation (Book of Genesis). When each person is born, a preexisting soul is placed within the body. (See Tan., Pekude, 3). Tan., Pekude, 3: http://tinyurl.com/cnpetph
This was loooong before Origen who invented nothing.
Bible: [including 3 verses out of 3 dozen verses available]
For example, in Jeremiah 1:5 we read, "Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations." which Origen also quoted in his explanation of HIS pce pov.
But Origen claimed his strongest impulse to accept PCE theology arose from his study of Romans 9:11-14
For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth; It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated. What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.
Origen argued that God could not love Jacob and hate Esau until Jacob had done something worthy of love and Esau had done something worthy of hatred, therefore, this passage must mean that Jacob and Esau who had not yet done good or evil in this life that their conduct before this life was the reason why Esau would serve Jacob. He rejected the position that God loves or hates a soul based on its inclination toward good or evil, before the soul actually commits a good or evil act.
A look at his trial some hundreds of years after his death proves that most of his being condemned was due to the politics of the day, not his theology.
Jn 9:1-3 The question Christ's disciples asked about the man born blind, suggests that they believed in the pre-existence of the man's spirit.
1 As he passed by, he saw a man blind from birth.
2 And his disciples asked him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?”
3 Jesus answered, “It was not that this man sinned, or his parents, but that the works of God might be displayed in him.
How does it make sense that the disciples ask if the man was born blind due to his own sin, if they did not believe in the pre-existence of the spirit/person able to sin before their creation on earth? Notice Jesus did not chastise them for making an error about our creation but only about the reason for his suffering nor did He correct them!
Catholicism:
The Wisdom of Solomon 8:20 As a child, I was born to excellence and a noble soul fell to my lot; or rather, I myself was noble, and I entered into an unblemished body ......
or
I was a boy of happy disposition. I had received a good soul as my lot, or that, being good, I had entered an undefiled body.
pretty straight forward unless you are a created on earth believing Catholic or a Protestant denying that the Wisdom of Solomon is scripture...
Of course I don't if it refers to something existing before it exists...
I do accept the pre-conception existence aka the pre-earthly existence of all people and I also accept that these people, ie, ALL the sons of GOD, all the people made in the image of GOD saw the creation of the physical universe and sang HIS praises for this proof of HIS divinity and eternal power as taught in:
Job 38:7 ...while the morning stars sang together and ALL the sons of God shouted for joy? Berean Standard Bible
with
Rom 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. 20 For since / FROM the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.
IF conception is our creation and
IF we are sinners from conception by inheriting Adam's fall,
Then we are created as sinners...
GOD is light, Light cannot create darkness since its very nature destroys darkness!
GOD is love. Love cannot create evil.
A good tree cannot put forth rotten fruit, Matthew 7:18
A stream of life giving water cannot put forth salt or brackish water, James 3:11
Psalm 5:4 You are not a God who takes pleasure in evil; with you the wicked cannot dwell.
so how could He possibly be the creator of evil people by HIS will? Before my creation by my conception there was X amount of evil in existence. This doctrine tells us that at the time of my conception / creation there was suddenly X+1 amount of evil inexistence by HIS WILL, NOT BY MINE!!!
I contend rather that the evil in HIS creation came from the individual choices of part of HIS creation to rebel against HIM, not by HIS will but by their own free will.
HE did not have to make HIS Bride evil by inheriting Adam's sin since HE obviously proved it is not necessary by letting Satan and the demons fall by their free will and even Adam and Eve fell by their free will but the rest of us get the dirty end of the stick, forced to live lives of suffering and death because HE decides by HIS own will to make us sinners in Adam??? Then mind boggles at the shere calumny of this suggestion!
Bob Carabbio
Well-known member
I'll go with Calvin on this one. There's no such thing as "Inherited SIN" (which in the Catholic case has to be removed with "Paedobaptism").Calvin’s Institutes, where Calvin condemned Servetus. He said that Servetus’ theology was so twisted that it stressed free will to the point that if you followed him, you would be forced to conclude that even infants who died were damned to hell because they were not able to exercise their will to believe in saving faith (Institutes IV, 16, p 31). In that same section, Calvin addresses John 3:36, and argues that it points to infant salvation, as infants were not able to exercise willing unbelief, so they do could not possibly stand condemned.
Calvin often taught on this issue, and in one instance he even preached a sermon (on Isaiah 14:21
After Calvin and Luther died, their followers went in different directions on this issue. Calvinists stressed the salvation of infants, while Lutherans (and later Methodists) went on to claim the salvation of baptized infants, while remaining largely silent on the fate of others. The Westminster Catechism seems to track with the Calvinists, by arguing that infants who die are in glory (ch. 10, sec. 3 says those “dying in infancy are regenerated and saved by Christ”).
Loraine Boettner explained why the doctrine of infant salvation must be uniquely Calvinistic:
BB Warfield had earlier written something similar:
Charles Hodge agreed. He wrote, “All who die in infancy are doubtless saved, but they are saved by grace” (Systematic Theology, ii, 11).https://thecripplegate.com/theologians-on-infant-salvation/
hope this helps !!!
TibiasDad
Well-known member
The citing of various authors is merely the observation of their interpretation of scripture, and our reasoning for disagreement. Such vitriol, as above, is what is meaningless rhetoric; nobody is placing any man’s opinion above scripture, but men’s opinions about scripture is precisely what the Berean scholars were testing against scripture. We are doing nothing less with Calvin, or anyone else’s conclusions about what scripture says.
Doug
Ezra
Well-known member
this is a age old argument
19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.
20 Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound:
21 That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.
some refuse to say young children infants even those who are mentally handicap go to heaven when they pass . i see this alot with Calvinist. i dont know as if i would use the term created as sinners.. i like born with a sinful nature . either way once we come to the knowledge we need Jesus . then we must be saved. i only go by the Bible
The Rogue Tomato
Well-known member
I don't know, since Scripture doesn't say either way. I know we're born in sin, but God can exercise His mercy however He pleases. We've already quoted the scripture about being conceived in sin. To add to that:
Genesis 8: 21 The Lord smelled the pleasing aroma and said in his heart: “Never again will I curse the ground because of humans, even though every inclination of the human heart is evil from childhood.
But nothing rules out whatever decision God makes about infants or children.
civic
Well-known member
No the Psalm 51 is David saying his parents were sinners and his conception was from sinful parents, not that he was born a sinner.
Titus
Member
RC Sproul a very well known famous calvinist said that John Calvin once said "babies are as depraved as rats"
RC Sproul went on to say,
"This is one time I disagreed with Calvin. That is terribly insulting to rats"
Last edited:
Ezra
Well-known member
we only have what king david had to say after learning of the death of his child .
2 Samuel 12:16-23
16 David therefore besought God for the child; and David fasted, and went in, and lay all night upon the earth.
17 And the elders of his house arose, and went to him, to raise him up from the earth: but he would not, neither did he eat bread with them.
18 And it came to pass on the seventh day, that the child died. And the servants of David feared to tell him that the child was dead: for they said, Behold, while the child was yet alive, we spake unto him, and he would not hearken unto our voice: how will he then vex himself, if we tell him that the child is dead?
19 But when David saw that his servants whispered, David perceived that the child was dead: therefore David said unto his servants, Is the child dead? And they said, He is dead.
20 Then David arose from the earth, and washed, and anointed himself, and changed his apparel, and came into the house of the Lord, and worshipped: then he came to his own house; and when he required, they set bread before him, and he did eat.
21 Then said his servants unto him, What thing is this that thou hast done? thou didst fast and weep for the child, while it was alive; but when the child was dead, thou didst rise and eat bread.
22 And he said, While the child was yet alive, I fasted and wept: for I said, Who can tell whether God will be gracious to me, that the child may live?
23 But now he is dead, wherefore should I fast? can I bring him back again? { I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me.}
i will always stand by infants young children mentally handicaped Go to Heaven
Ezra
Well-known member
i dont agree with the Calvinist point on babies not saved
The Rogue Tomato
Well-known member
Character assassination is not a wise way to understand Scripture.
civic
Well-known member
How is quoting scholars/theologians " character assignation" ?
Are you character assassinating others when you quote them and disagree with them ?
many were made sinners...Have you never noticed that the word made, kathistémi, is, in Strong's concordance rendered as
c. "to set down as, constitute" (Latinsisto), equivalent to "to declare, show to be": passive with ἁμαρτωλός, δίκαιος, Romans 5:19 (cf. Prof. T. Dwight in New Englander for 1867, p. 590ff; Dietzsch, Adam u. Christ...
This provides the nuance that being human does not create shinners from Adam as orthodoxy suggests but it does prove your sinfulness, show you to already be a sinner. This is how GOD has declared (shown) one to be sinner, not by voice but by action of sowing the person into mankind as per: Matt 13:36 Then He left the crowds and went into the house. And His disciples came to Him and said, “EXPLAIN* to us the parable of the tares of the field.” 37 And He said, “The one who sows the good seed is the Son of Man, 38 and the field is the world; and as for the good seed, these are the sons of the kingdom; and the tares are the sons of the evil one; 39 and the enemy who sowed them is the devil, and the harvest is the end of the age; and the reapers are angels.
To sow in these verses cannot mean to create because the devil does it also so it must be used in its ordinary meaning to "to move from a place of storage to scatter into a field to grow." These verses clearly tell us that sinners are brought here into mankind and that the two kinds of sinners found in the world, that is, the elect and the reprobate, were divided into these groups prior to coming to this world.
*No metaphor in parable form can be explained by means of or the use of another metaphor as this does not explain the metaphor in the least but only extends it.
Then we have
Psalm 9:17:
KJV - The wicked shall be turned into hell …
NASV - The wicked shall RETURN to Sheol ...
Kiel - Delitzsch(#16) - Yea, back to Hades must the wicked RETURN.
Berean Standard Bible - The wicked will RETURN to Sheol—all the nations who forget God.
In this verse, we can see a little of the 'created on earth' bias of the KJV translators against the pre-conception existence (PCE) view, rendering return as turned into. It is important to see this because, once we recognise the fact that almost every translator has a bias against pre-conception existence theology, we must realise that we will often have to look very deeply at their translations of the Scriptures, if we are going to see past it.
From the other translations of this verse, we can see that these persons, at their death, return to Sheol, a place they have obviously been in before. Of course we accept return to mean return or to go back to where you once had been...which suggests very strongly where at least some people were before they were sown, ie, moved into, this world.
Agreed...
but we do know some are predestined from before the foundation of the world to be saved and others are condemned already, Jn 3:18, so I think it is quite acceptable to say that the time of death in the life of a person has no bearing upon their election nor reprobation so it also has no effect upon their relationship with GOD.
Iow, all elect infants who die will be saved, redeemed and sanctified and all reprobate infants will return to Sheol to await their judgement, Ps 9:17. That we are separated into elect and reprobate before our conceptions is suggested in Matt 13:36-39.
Last edited:
Ezra
Well-known member
have i noticed ? no im usually not in a habit in trying to rewrite scriptures. i do look up words what the meaning is but only to help explain . i dont know much about metaphor passive . in a layman's terms i m not sure what your trying to say . i keep it on the bottom shelf to where a child can understand . you have spread this allover. i highly suggest a copy and paste
Similar threads
