All Infants according to Calvin are saved

[TedT]

i will always stand by infants young children mentally handicaped Go to Heaven

Children can be sinful in the womb. This is proven by the story of Jacob and Esau in Gen 25:22 But the children inside her struggled with each other, and she said, “Why is this happening to me?” So Rebekah went to inquire of the LORD,
23 and He declared to her:
“Two nations are in your womb,
and two peoples from within you will be separated;
one people will be stronger than the other,
and the older will serve the younger.”
The word struggled is a mistranslation and is properly translated "trying to crush each other to pieces" which refers to a murderous impulse of at least one of them but more than likely to both of them. Whether the innocuous words like struggle, wrestle or jostle were deliberately chosen to lead people away from knowing that infants in the womb could be sinfully murderous or if it was just so obvious that they must only be wrestling for room is moot. Such eisegesis aside, they were being most sinful.

And why were they being so murderous to each other?? GOD's explanation was to refer to the Hebrew law of primogenesis that the elder, the first born, would rule the family which implies that they were trying to kill their rival to get that position for themselves.
So:
- How did they know about this law?
- How did they know they would be Hebrews under this law IF
they were recently created by their conception as tabula rasa??? This story only makes sense if we accept that they existed and loved and sinned before their conception and had discussed with GOD their earthly lives but without learning the detail that the the older will serve the younger!!

 

[TedT]

have i noticed ? no im usually not in a habit in trying to rewrite scriptures.

I'm certainly not asking anyone to rewrite scripture but only to look at what scripture actual can mean in light of the eisegetic* opinions of some translators...sigh.

*For those who do not look things up for themselves: EISEGESIS is the interpretation of a text (as of the Bible) by reading into it one's own ideas.

ALL WE HAVE IS INTERPRETATION, NOT PROOF. I provide the verses I stand my opinion upon and others will do as they like.

 

[TedT]

Children MUST go to heaven when they die.

IF an infant is sinful and either elect or reprobate in the womb then there is no MUST go to heaven in how GOD deals with them. The time of death has no bearing upon their relationship with GOD as under HIS promise of election or HIS condemnation already, Jn 3:18. HE will deal with them according to their relationship with HIM as HIS sinful family or as doomed reprobate...no matter when they die.

 

[Ezra]

IF an infant is sinful and either elect or reprobate in the womb then there is no MUST go to heaven in how GOD deals with them. The time of death has no bearing upon their relationship with GOD as under HIS promise of election or HIS condemnation already, Jn 3:18. HE will deal with them according to their relationship with HIM as HIS sinful family or as doomed reprobate...no matter when they die.

are you Calvinist ?

 

[TedT]

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.

Sure...but death proves sin as it is the wages for sin, not a mere consequence of life. And death comes to every age of person, from the shortest time after conception onwards.

 

[Rockson]

IF an infant is sinful and either elect or reprobate in the womb then there is no MUST go to heaven in how GOD deals with them.

Yes there is. It's as simple as that.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

IF an infant is sinful and either elect or reprobate in the womb then there is no MUST go to heaven in how GOD deals with them. The time of death has no bearing upon their relationship with GOD as under HIS promise of election or HIS condemnation already, Jn 3:18. HE will deal with them according to their relationship with HIM as HIS sinful family or as doomed reprobate...no matter when they die.

I hope God reads this forum to find out what He MUST do. I wouldn't trust God to make any decisions on his own. It's not as if God said, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy", like it was His decision or something.

 

[TedT]

are you Calvinist ?

Hardly... I share some doctrine with every portion of the Christian world but I do not accept any as the ultimate truth...only the bible that is interpreted in light of HIS self declared attributes and not according to the intellect of men: Prov 3:5 Trust in the LORD with all your heart, and lean not on your own understanding (consideration, discernment, truth)... Berean Standard Bible

 

[Ezra]

Hardly... I share some doctrine with every portion of the Christian world but I do not accept any as the ultimate truth...only the bible that is interpreted in light of HIS self declared attributes and not according to the intellect of men: Prov 3:5 Trust in the LORD with all your heart, and lean not on your own understanding (consideration, discernment, truth)... Berean Standard Bible

same as i do so what sayeyth you on infants young children that die? i have have done stated where i stand.

i have several types study bibles i have trusted places on the web i g to for reference and is how i come to my conclusion. that infants young children mental handicaps will go to heaven. those of sound mind must be born again the so called age of accountability varies. i have known of 6 year olds being saved. a lady we know of retirement age felt she was saved. several weeks back got saved and testified of it. southern Gospel singer Brian free raised in church sang with several southern Gospel groups. the Holy spirit impressed upon him he was not saved.. so my belief is not some losey goosey doctrine cooked up. i to have studied it out. where do you stand at this point i dont think i have seen your stand on the issue at hand.

 

[Rockson]

Children can be sinful in the womb. This is proven by the story of Jacob and Esau

NO it isn't.

in Gen 25:22 But the children inside her struggled with each other, and she said, “Why is this happening to me?” So Rebekah went to inquire of the LORD,
23 and He declared to her:
“Two nations are in your womb,
and two peoples from within you will be separated;
one people will be stronger than the other,
and the older will serve the younger.”

God moved upon the unborn one for there to be their moving in the womb. It was meant only so God could give Rebekah a prophecy of how their decedents would be.

Such eisegesis aside, they were being most sinful.

Sorry but I think you're being silly. An unborn child had no comprehension. even at what they're doing.

And why were they being so murderous to each other?? GOD's explanation was to refer to the Hebrew law of primogenesis that the elder, the first born, would rule the family which implies that they were trying to kill their rival to get that position for themselves.

You seriously want us to believe that these two in the womb even understood inheritances? Ask even a three year old child out of the womb if they understand such a thing and you'll be lucky to get the word What? from them. They hardly even know what Mommy and Daddy means!

This story only makes sense if we accept

Sorry Ted, I really am....but you going down this path even suggesting it makes sense is nonsensical.

that they existed and loved and sinned before their conception and had discussed with GOD their earthly lives but without learning the detail that the the older will serve the younger!!

But here's the thing Ted. The actual individual, Esau DID NOT serve the younger Jacob. Show me anywhere in Genesis where it states that the actual man Esau did any such thing. In fact Esau was a pretty prosperous man.....and Jacob when he came back from exile he Jacob increased Esau's wealth and called him Lord. We wouldn't call that serving him would we? I don't like putting down whole passages but let's do it here....below Gen 33. So show me where Esau ever served Jacob,

Jacob is about to meet Esau after coming back from exile. He was gone, fled from Esau about 14 years prior,

3But Jacob himself went on ahead and bowed to the ground seven times (doesn't seem like Esau is subservient to him. Seems the other way around) as he approached his brother.4Esau, however, ran to him and embraced him, threw his arms around his neck, and kissed him. And they both wept. (actually a good end result to their story) 5When Esau looked up and saw the women and children, he asked, “Who are these with you?”Jacob answered, “These are the children God has graciously given your servant.” (Jacob is calling himself a servant to Esau) 6Then the maidservants and their children approached and bowed down. 7Leah and her children also approached and bowed down, and then Joseph and Rachel approached and bowed down. 8“What do you mean by sending this whole company to meet me?” asked Esau.“To find favor in your sight, my lord,” Jacob answered.(he called Esau lord! So where is this Esau serving Jacob)
9“I already have plenty, my brother,” Esau replied. “Keep what belongs to you.”10But Jacob insisted, “No, please! If I have found favor in your sight, (Jacob was looking to have favor with Esau) then receive this gift from my hand. For indeed, I have seen your face, and it is like seeing the face of God, since you have received me favorably. 11Please accept my gifta that was brought to you, because God has been gracious to me and I have all I need.” So Jacob pressed him until he accepted. (Jacob pressed Esau to let him bless him. No Esau serving Jacob anywhere)
12Then Esau said, “Let us be on our way, and I will go ahead of you.”

 

[Rockson]

So what did the Esau serving Jacob mean? It had to do with the descendants of Esau many years later the Edomites ....they were subservaiant to Israel. Not Esau.

 

[Ezra]

Hardly... I share some doctrine with every portion of the Christian world but I do not accept any as the ultimate truth...only the bible that is interpreted in light of HIS self declared attributes and not according to the intellect of men: Prov 3:5 Trust in the LORD with all your heart, and lean not on your own understanding (consideration, discernment, truth)... Berean Standard Bible

did i insult you by asking this question?

 

[civic]

I hope God reads this forum to find out what He MUST do. I wouldn't trust God to make any decisions on his own. It's not as if God said, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy", like it was His decision or something.

everything to the minutest details has been predestined to occur on this forum down to every letter, word, thought, argument etc.... That is Calvinism 101, Reformed theology 101, WCF- they all teach this. So do these: the Heidelberg Catechism, and the Canons of Dort.

hope this helps !!!

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

everything to the minutest details has been predestined to occur on this forum down to every letter, word, thought, argument etc.... That is Calvinism 101, Reformed theology 101, WCF- they all teach this. So do these: the Heidelberg Catechism, and the Canons of Dort.

hope this helps !!!

Again, you keep posting a caricature of Calvinism to assassinate its character. Most of those of us who believe in "Calvinism" (I hate that name) don't care what the Heidelberg Catechism (never read it) or the Canons of Dort (never read it) say. I simply believe what the Bible says. I don't run it through a filter of what I think God should or would do based on something like "God is love". I trust that God is love, and that he works all things together for good for those who love Him and are called according to His purpose.

So when the Bible says he will have mercy upon whom he has mercy, I trust that He does this according to his own will. If that means he has mercy on the unborn/infants, then he has mercy on the unborn/infants. If he doesn't have mercy on the unborn/infants, then he doesn't have mercy on the unborn/infants. The Bible doesn't specify which, and I am not in a position to judge what he does. I take it on faith that it's always the right thing to do.

 

[civic]

Again, you keep posting a caricature of Calvinism to assassinate its character. Most of those of us who believe in "Calvinism" (I hate that name) don't care what the Heidelberg Catechism (never read it) or the Canons of Dort (never read it) say. I simply believe what the Bible says. I don't run it through a filter of what I think God should or would do based on something like "God is love". I trust that God is love, and that he works all things together for good for those who love Him and are called according to His purpose.

So when the Bible says he will have mercy upon whom he has mercy, I trust that He does this according to his own will. If that means he has mercy on the unborn/infants, then he has mercy on the unborn/infants. If he doesn't have mercy on the unborn/infants, then he doesn't have mercy on the unborn/infants. The Bible doesn't specify which, and I am not in a position to judge what he does. I take it on faith that it's always the right thing to do.

But predestination in reformed theology means God has foreordained everything you believe, what you will do, what you think, what you will wear today, when you will wake up, nap, eat etc......

Do you agree or disagree with the above ? yes or no

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

But predestination in reformed theology means God has foreordained everything you believe, what you will do, what you think, what you will wear today, when you will wake up, nap, eat etc......

Do you agree or disagree with the above ? yes or no

No, I do not agree, especially not in the way you keep repeating it. God has foreordained all things, yes, but that's not the same thing as forcing people to think and do things. Your problem is that you can only see things as either free will or robots. And that's a logical fallacy of false dichotomy and no third option.

 

[civic]

No, I do not agree, especially not in the way you keep repeating it. God has foreordained all things, yes, but that's not the same thing as forcing people to think and do things. Your problem is that you can only see things as either free will or robots. And that's a logical fallacy of false dichotomy and no third option.

Its good to hear that you reject the Calvinists definition of predestination and determinism.

 

[Bob Carabbio]

Calvinists stressed the salvation of infants,

And, of course, in the absolute, NOBODY KNOWS ANYTHING about it. It's all "just theology".

I'm personally with Calvin on this one. Since there's NO SUCH THING as an "inherited SIN", or an "inherited SIN NATURE", then damning a Baby (or a fetus), would be without cause. And for sure, as soon as the child is able to SIN, they will.

 

[Rockson]

And, of course, in the absolute, NOBODY KNOWS ANYTHING about it. It's all "just theology".

And I'd say Bob it's not that there's really a thelogy about this. For there to be so there'd have to be a Bible verse which comes right out and say yea or nay.

So why wouldn't God say yea or nay. Keep in mind it connects to the idea of an age of accountability as well. If God put down in scripture such an age ones younger than that might take from that they don't need to pray or serve God until such a time. So why would God reveal such an age? And so with unborn if you even start talking about what they know or how accountable they are.....raised so many detours of things God wants us to have our attention on.

I will say this though. Can't prove it with scripture so take it or leave it. I think in the next world Jesus will though tell people you really shoudlnt have wondered about this. You should have known better that there's no way I could send an innocent child to punishement. I mean you don't always have to have something fall in you to KNOW what God will do. At least that's what I think.

 

[Rockson]

No, I do not agree, especially not in the way you keep repeating it. God has foreordained all things, yes, but that's not the same thing as forcing people to think and do things. Your problem is that you can only see things as either free will or robots. And that's a logical fallacy of false dichotomy and no third option.

And I think you're sincere in saying this but the question you need to maybe ask .....when you take the wraps off of what you do say.....doesn't it come out to the same thing?

On another message board i gave this analogy....to Calvinists who claim they were being mispresented. It's like they say "We don't believe in the color PURPLE! That's not what we're about!" OK fine.....but if they're mixing BLUE and RED guess what they really believe when you take the wraps off? It comes out to the same thing. PURPLE. So the question what are the ingredients you're mixing when you think about God?