All Infants according to Calvin are saved

ezra said:
my perspective is to guard against the old man. he can come out at any given moment and it dont mean we are week just humans being who need Christ his mercy endures forever
Click to expand...
It means that we are not yet fully trained in righteousness, Heb 12:5-11, which only applies to the legitimate but sinful children of GOD.
 
TedT said:
Are you a Mormon or a JW because you believe YHWH is the Father or Jesus is our saviour? All theologies contain some overlap but the separation is found in the details...

I scorn the idea of unconditional election and unconditional reprobation especially when those who espouse unconditional election refuse to accept that this must mean unconditional reprobation also. The mental gymnastics they use to separate these corollaries is amazing.

I wrote this short pov of election by merit and reprobation / condemnation by dismerit 5 years ago:


Every verse that states or implies our GOD is loving, righteous and just.

1 Timothy 5:21 I charge thee before GOD and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the ELECT angels. Since there are elect angels we can assume that the demonic angels were passed over for election or not considered for election. Angels do not presumably have any racial solidarity, ie, they all are holy or sinful by their own choice, not by anyone else's choice. So now we have to answer the question: were some elected before or after the fall of the Satanic rebellion?

IF they were elected / chosen before the fall then there is no stated reason for the non-election of the others. Unconditional election means ALL were just as acceptable for election as everyone but SOME did not receive it. Unmerited election then also means unmerited non-election, ie, for no lack of merit at all some were passed over for salvation and NOT chosen to be saved if they should ever sin.

What can we make of such a supposition? Can we say it is loving? Righteous? Just? The best we can say is HE is sovereign and if HE chose this way then who are you to argue, which is not a real answer at all and only serves the Calvinist pov and does nothing to further the understanding of GOD's glory but restricts it to HIS sovereignty.. Why teach us HE is loving, righteous and just if it has no meaning in the biggest question in their existence: Why were some passed over for election!!!

It is entirely possible that the decision for some to receive unmerited election and others to receive unmerited rejection for election with no indication that this decision was loving, righteous or just could have precipitated the Satanic war in heaven for NOT BEING loving, righteous or just so they committed themselves to war, putting their faith in the belief that YHWH was a false god and a liar, unworthy of being their GOD.

This is what 'unconditional' implies. It implies 'no reason', not just an 'unknown reason' because if there was a reason there would be merit by being on the side of the reason. Unconditional election means they were just as acceptable for election as everyone but did not receive it... that does NOT sound like my GOD at all. IF they were passed over for an evil they did then there is merit to the election of those that were not passed over but who got the promise of election because they did not do that evil!!

BUT, if election was a response to the Satanic rebellion to reward those angels who did not rebel and to pass over those angels who did rebel with the unforgivable sin and condemn them on the spot, Jn 3:18, then merit makes sense. Their free will rebellion to the command to put their faith in the Son and to love one another which they heard in the beginning* is the reason they were passed over to be HIS Bride. The free will choice by some to accept HIM as their GOD and to put their faith in in HIS Son was the reason they were elected based upon the merit of this choice to obey the commandment.

*[1 John 2:24 Let that therefore abide in you, which ye have heard from the beginning. If that which ye have heard from the beginning shall remain in you, ye shall continue in the Son, and in the Father.

1 John 3:8 ...for the devil sinneth from the beginning. Jamieson, Fausset and Brown's commentary(#27) says: “sinneth from the beginning - from the time that sin began; from the time that he became what he is, the devil.”

1 John 3:11 For this is the message that ye heard from the beginning, that we should love one another. I believe that John is referring to the loving purpose GOD has for each of us: 1 John 3:23 And this is His commandment, That we should believe on the name of His Son, Jesus Christ, and love one another, as He gave us commandment. ]

Thus we probably have an angelic precedent for election being based upon merit and proper free will decisions being the condition of being elected. And since unconditional election is false in the first people elected, the angels, I strongly suggest that it is wrongly used for sinful men who were also elected before the foundation of the world, Ephesians 1:4, you know, at the beginning, the time of the Satanic fall, perhaps, which implies that all the sons of GOD who sang HIS praise at the creation of the physical universe, Job 38:7 ...while the morning stars sang together and ALL the sons of God shouted for joy? Berean Standard Bible, included me and thee, another definitely non-Calvinist doctrine that is the basis of my whole Christian pov.

Also I repudiate the Calvinist acceptance of the dogma of our sinfulness being inherited from Adam and NOT by our free will decision to rebel against GOD which I contend is the only way to accrue sinfulness to oneself. This evil doctrine makes GOD the creator of sin, a pov Calvinists are comfortable with but which I find to be anathema. If Calvinists see this as enough to reject me as one of their own then that is quite acceptable to me.

Thanks so much for providing this springboard for me to jump into my favourite doctrine, our pre-conception existence, our pre-earthly lives in which we all became sinners before we were sown into this world, Matt 13:36-39.
Click to expand...
I miss crowcross. If you see him invite him to the forum
 
TedT said:
It means that we are not yet fully trained in righteousness, Heb 12:5-11, which only applies to the legitimate but sinful children of GOD.
Click to expand...
shazam i do believe i said that we are righteous but not fully sanctified until we get to heaven. ( just admit it your Calvinist all your writing falls in line with the reformed/Calvinist theology
 
The Rogue Tomato said:
I don't think that's what 1 Cor 7:14 means, but I would gladly say I stand corrected if I'm wrong.
Click to expand...
no it dont... but how ever why would a Just Holy God send a little one to hell King David said it best i can see him again

2 Samuel 12:23​


“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.”


honestly it really doesn't matter what Calvinist think or any other denomination thinks... its solo scripture
 
civic said:
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) where he explained that reprobation (pre-destination for hell) was true of infants, but that God would allow all of them to grow to a condition of sinful accountability so that they could secure their own damnation (here is a long but fascinating paper which takes an in-depth look at all Calvin taught on this subject).

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 !!!
Click to expand...
I was of the impression that all children under the age of accountability were saved, if they died. And its the point where they can make a decision about Jesus and understand the consequences for their sin/actions/words.

Admittedly, I'd heard this from Calvary Chapel first.

The idea originates with the age restrictions on the entrance to the priesthood (20 years old).
David's child with Bathsheba- the child dies, and David responded-- I will go to Him, but he shall not return to me.

So... I suppose this would be the first time I've ever heard that it originated with Calvin.
 
Bob Carabbio said:
Chuckle - it's nothing but "Theology". I expect to meet Angeline (our first born) on the other side. She only made it for 5 hours after she came too early in a rural hospital that wasn't equipped to do anything.
Click to expand...
Anyone who would say or hope otherwise has no idea what Gods love looks like, what Gods mercy looks like and what Gods grace looks like. I look forward in eternity meeting you and your family brother. My wife and I will also meet our unborn child on the other side of eternity and our grandchild.
 
civic said:
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) where he explained that reprobation (pre-destination for hell) was true of infants, but that God would allow all of them to grow to a condition of sinful accountability so that they could secure their own damnation (here is a long but fascinating paper which takes an in-depth look at all Calvin taught on this subject).

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 !!!
Click to expand...
@atpollard did you see this ? I saw your interaction on infant baptism in another place.
 
civic said:
@atpollard did you see this ? I saw your interaction on infant baptism in another place.
Click to expand...
I had not.

It is ironic ... I still care little about what Jon Calvin had to say, but I care a GREAT DEAL about what the Apostles wrote!
Let's examine ALL the verses on Infant Baptism in scripture:
Yup, that's all of them.
Some people look at that and say "See, it is not prohibited!" ... [then neither is baptizing your dog.]
Other people look at that and say "See, babies are never baptized in the Bible." ... [which is true, however people never go to the restroom in the NT either, so should we stop doing that, too?]

When it comes to the question of "Do babies go to heaven?" ... the Biblical answer is:

What shall we say then? There is no injustice with God, is there? Far from it! For He says to Moses, "I WILL HAVE MERCY ON WHOMEVER I HAVE MERCY, AND I WILL SHOW COMPASSION TO WHOMEVER I SHOW COMPASSION." So then, it does not depend on the person who wants it nor the one who runs, but on God who has mercy. - Romans 9:14-16 [NASB]

Therefore, I will trust in the MERCY of God to do what is RIGHT as GOD decides what is right, not as I choose.
[This same argument applies when men want to argue over "Who did Jesus choose to die for?"]
 
atpollard said:
[This same argument applies when men want to argue over "Who did Jesus choose to die for?"]
Click to expand...

You usually avoid me. I don't mind it. We don't have to interact with one another.

However, this simple comparison is completely bogus. Do you mind deal with this claim with me?

The Character of God is in question here. Integrity demands that if Christ died for any of the children of Adam and Eve then Christ died for ALL of them.
 
TomL said:
A whole lot right? ;)
Click to expand...
The beauty of being a Particular Baptist and a Non-Cessationist is that whatever you believe, WE probably agree on some important things (unless you deny the deity of Christ, then we are going to disagree on just about EVERYTHING) and WE are probably going to disagree on some things that are not "salvific". So we can discuss and debate, but the chance that either of us will change GOD's MIND is ZERO ... so TRUTH will remain TRUTH and our speculation will go on and on and on ....

If Jon was still alive, we would agree on more than we disagree ... but I would NEVER be convinced that we should reopen Scripture to add his writing as a new book to the Bible (and Servetus doesn't even enter into the picture). :ROFLMAO:
 
civic said:
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.
Click to expand...
I don't know about "Calvinism", but since biblically, a person ONLY IS JUDGED FOR THEIR OWN SIN (Deut 24:16), and not for anybody else's, then Infants, and unborn would therefore have NO SIN, and while not being "Born again" as a Christian, there would be no reason for them to go anywhere but Heaven, should they die. Our Firstborn (Angeline) onIly lasted a few hours, and I fully expect to meet her as she is when I leave here in the not-so distant future.
 
Bob Carabbio said:
I don't know about "Calvinism", but since biblically, a person ONLY IS JUDGED FOR THEIR OWN SIN (Deut 24:16), and not for anybody else's, then Infants, and unborn would therefore have NO SIN, and while not being "Born again" as a Christian, there would be no reason for them to go anywhere but Heaven, should they die. Our Firstborn (Angeline) onIly lasted a few hours, and I fully expect to meet her as she is when I leave here in the not-so distant future.
Click to expand...
ditto
 

Similar threads

civic
Infant Reprobation and Damnation
7 8 9
Replies
178
Views
2K
civic
civic
Richard
Is Calvinism Gnosticism?
5 6 7
Replies
121
Views
1K
TomL
T
civic
What Calvinists and Arminians have in common
Replies
3
Views
118
Rockerduck
R
civic
Calvin contradicts his own teaching on Limited Atonement
Replies
8
Views
176
Maurice
Maurice
Behold
More about Calvin & Tulip
Replies
7
Views
107
MTMattie
MTMattie
Back
Top Bottom