Infant Reprobation and Damnation

dizerner said:
Let us all pray and read God's dear precious Word and what it illustrates to us:

Genesis 22:1 Now it came to pass after these things that God tested Abraham, and said to him, "Abraham!" And he said, "Here I am."
2 Then He said, "Take now your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains of which I shall tell you."
3 So Abraham rose early in the morning and saddled his donkey, and took two of his young men with him, and Isaac his son; and he split the wood for the burnt offering, and arose and went to the place of which God had told him.
4 Then on the third day Abraham lifted his eyes and saw the place afar off.
5 And Abraham said to his young men, "Stay here with the donkey; the lad and I will go yonder and worship, and we will come back to you."
6 So Abraham took the wood of the burnt offering and laid it on Isaac his son; and he took the fire in his hand, and a knife, and the two of them went together.
7 But Isaac spoke to Abraham his father and said, "My father!" And he said, "Here I am, my son." Then he said, "Look, the fire and the wood, but where is the lamb for a burnt offering?"
8 And Abraham said, "My son, God will provide for Himself the lamb for a burnt offering." So the two of them went together.
9 Then they came to the place of which God had told him. And Abraham built an altar there and placed the wood in order; and he bound Isaac his son and laid him on the altar, upon the wood.
10 And Abraham stretched out his hand and took the knife to slay his son.
11 But the Angel of the LORD called to him from heaven and said, "Abraham, Abraham!" So he said, "Here I am."
12 And He said, "Do not lay your hand on the lad, or do anything to him; for now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me."
13 Then Abraham lifted his eyes and looked, and there behind him was a ram caught in a thicket by its horns. So Abraham went and took the ram, and offered it up for a burnt offering instead of his son.
14 And Abraham called the name of the place, The-LORD-Will-Provide; as it is said to this day, "In the Mount of The LORD it shall be provided."
15 Then the Angel of the LORD called to Abraham a second time out of heaven,
16 and said: "By Myself I have sworn, says the LORD, because you have done this thing, and have not withheld your son, your only son--
17 "blessing I will bless you, and multiplying I will multiply your descendants as the stars of the heaven and as the sand which is on the seashore; and your descendants shall possess the gate of their enemies.
18 "In your seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed, because you have obeyed My voice."
19 So Abraham returned to his young men, and they rose and went together to Beersheba; and Abraham dwelt at Beersheba. (Gen. 22:1-19 NKJ)
Click to expand...

All rubbish. God is love, and a loving God would not command Abraham to sacrifice his son, even if he had a way out via an angel.
 
The Rogue Tomato said:
All rubbish. God is love, and a loving God would not command Abraham to sacrifice his son, even if he had a way out via an angel.
Click to expand...
Maybe you can answer this question. @dizerner refused to give me an answer. I'm hoping you will give us an honest answer and not run away from the question.

Is it a sin for a parent to use the rod of discipline ( beat their bottom, spank them with the rod) on a 1 month old infant for crying ? yes or no

Proverbs 22:15
Foolishness is bound up in the heart of a child, but the rod of discipline drives it far from him.

Proverbs 23:13
Do not withhold discipline from a child; although you strike him with a rod, he will not die.

Proverbs 23:14
Strike him with a rod, and you will deliver his soul from Sheol.

Proverbs 13:24
He who spares the rod hates his son, but he who loves him disciplines him diligently.

Hebrews 12:7
Endure suffering as discipline; God is treating you as sons. For what son is not disciplined by his father?

hope this helps !!!
 
Last edited:
from ligoneer more double talk.

What if My Child Dies?​

A second practical problem is how reprobation relates to infants who die? The caricature described in the Canons of Dort is that those who hold to a doctrine of reprobation believe “many children of the faithful are torn, guiltless, from their mothers’ breasts, and tyrannically plunged into hell” (CD, Conclusion).

Not only was this question a huge issue in the seventeenth century when about 25% of children died in childbirth and then another 25% of those who lived died before age five, but for us, according to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) anywhere from 10–25% of all clinically recognized pregnancies will end in miscarriage.

So how does the doctrine of reprobation relate to this struggle? The Scriptures teach us as believers that our children are covenant children. The children of at least one believing parent are holy (1 Cor. 7:14) not because they are sinless but because they belong to God’s set apart people. The Lord made His covenant with Abraham and his children (Gen. 17:7). When David found out his child died, he ceased weeping and fasting and arose in confidence that while his son would not come back to him, one day David would see him (2 Sam. 12:23). Where? In the presence of God. David prayed as a covenant member that when he was in his mother’s womb it was the Lord who was forming him and who knew him (Ps. 139). Moving into the New Testament we see that nothing changes. Jesus and the apostles inherit this outlook on children and never say anything to abolish or revoke it. Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 19:14). On Pentecost Peter said God’s promise was to those who believed and their children (Acts 2:39). Paul addressed children in Ephesians 6:1 as they would have been present in the covenant community when this letter was read.

Does this mean all human life that dies in its infancy is in heaven? Whereas Scripture gives us confidence about the children of believers, it is silent about the rest. Great men have personally believed that all infants dying are saved, such as C.H. Spurgeon, Charles Hodge, and B.B. Warfield. So what do we say about aborted life, miscarried life, or precious children of non-believers who die tragically before their life can even get going? We say that God is a good, gracious, and just God and that He will do what is right. We can trust Him.

In the end, what both the doctrines of election and reprobation teach us is that we have a totally sovereign God who is perfectly good. In the end, He will be glorified for His justice but especially His grace, love, and mercy.
 
Reformed teaching on the reprobate and non elect infants. What a damnable doctrine and assault on our God.

www.lutheranlibrary.org

Infant Baptism And Infant Salvation In The Calvinistic System – A Review Of Dr. Hodge's Systematic Theology by Charles Krauth | Lutheran Library Publishing Ministry

“There are but two developed systems in the world that claim with any show of probability to be purely Biblical. These systems are the Lutheran and the Calvinistic. They possess a common basis in their recognition of the same rule of faith; their profession of the Old Catholic faith as set forth...
www.lutheranlibrary.org www.lutheranlibrary.org
 
civic said:
Great men have personally believed that all infants dying are saved, such as C.H. Spurgeon, Charles Hodge, and B.B. Warfield.
Click to expand...
I surely won't call myself a great man in fact if one did that would be proof they weren't such a one. But you can add my name on the list here too. :)
 
Rockson said:
I surely won't call myself a great man in fact if one did that would be proof they weren't such a one. But you can add my name on the list here too. :)
Click to expand...
Look at the extremities the doctrine of original sin and election/predestination leads too. Unbelievable. It leads to a monstrous god who is exactly like the gods of paganism and Greek Mythology.

Anyone with a moral compass can see how horrific and ungodly such a belief really is and must run far away from such false teachers.
 
ezra said:
i only listen to certain ones i can trust glad i live a sheltered life of listening
Click to expand...

I agree with him on many things relative to the KJV and English translation of the Bible. He is also a talented Christian apologist relative to the discussion of Islam.

Much is the same with Augustine. I admire his stand against Jerome concerning the Greek OT. I also admire Augustine's willingness to openly talk about his own sin.

Which shows how we can agree with someone yet disagree with them in many meaningful ways.
 
Rockson said:
Where in the world did you even get this ? I just scanned dozens of translations in bible hub I saw one something similar with the NLT which said,

But you desire honesty from the womb, teaching me wisdom even there. Ps 51:6

All the other translations and there are lists have it down much this way,

Behold, You desire truth in the inward parts, And in the hidden part You will make me to know wisdom. Ps 51:6
Click to expand...
Where in the world did I even get this ? I don't precisely remember who opened my eyes to the possibilities of interpretation here ... ...

Berean Standard Bible
Surely You desire truth in the inmost being; You teach me wisdom in the inmost place.
A short perusal of an English / Hebrew interlinear and a word study in Thayer and Strong's concordances about this verse quickly shows that the pertinent words, truth, inmost being, wisdom and inmost / hidden place are busy words, full of nuances and implications. This means that it is a large arena of latitude for eisegetic interpretation to grow into a truth. The Hebrew for inmost being and inmost place are indeed metaphors common to scripture for the womb...that you reject that interpretation here reflects your eisegesis, not ultimate truth.

The theology of our pre-life existence (which I like to refer to as Pre-Conception
Existence Theology, or PCE) is a full theology impacting every corner of Christian theology (not just this verse) but ignored as a possible interpretation of scripture because no one ever thinks about it as a possibility.

My apology, in the theological sense, for the last 40 yrs or so, is:
I present the verses I do which in my Christian opinion witness to our pre-conception existence, along with some others which I feel make a lot more sense when they're interpreted in light of this doctrine.

Now, being that hardly anyone has searched the Scriptures in light of the pre-conception view, these Scriptures have rarely been interpreted this way before in any commentary or discussion though the best will mention it as a possibility but then throw that interpretation out without thought. Therefore, it stands to reason that such an exegesis of these Scriptures will be new and that it will be fairly unique, that is, that almost all the other interpretations of the same Scriptures will be different.

In other words, any verse that can be seen to convey the idea of our pre-earth existence has rarely been interpreted this way before because almost every exegete automatically looks for a different interpretation when they read such an interpretation. This being the case, a mere list of the over 3 dozen verses of Scripture I use will not constitute proof of scriptural support for this doctrine but, to provide such proof, such a list will have to be accompanied by an in-depth exegesis of the said Scriptures.

Providing only a list of pertinent verses without the accompanying new exegesis would only tend to prove to its searchers that this doctrine had no scriptural support, simply because they would tend to interpret the Scriptures that supply proof of our pre-conception existence only in orthodox terms, in much the same way that the rabbis used to interpret the Scriptures regarding the future Christ King.

It has been my job for the last 15 years or so to present the alternative PCE interpretations of scripture in the Christian forums...not that I offer them as proof more than the truth offered by any other interpretation, we live by faith, not proof, but to show that the PCE interpretation of scripture does fit the words of scripture and often provides a better fit with the holy attributes of GOD.

I used to ask for any verse that said or even hinted that the pov of our pce was impossible but when that produced nothing I started to offer to be quiet if anyone could produce any verse that suggested our pre-earth existence was impossible but over 10 or 12 years I've had no takers even offering one such verse for my perusal...I conclude there is none.
Rockson said:
Then you go to the commentaries and all the ones I saw have the hidden part to be considered the hidden man of the heart 1 Pt 3:4 our spirits. That is how God enlightens us....The spirit of man is the candle of the Lord enlightening all the inward parts of the belly. Prov 20:27 So to suggest the hidden parts is the physical womb is pretty weak.
Click to expand...

I saw have the hidden part to be considered the hidden man of the heart 1 Pt 3:4 our spirits....
Click to expand...
...exactly, you accepted a consensus of interpretation without any thought since it fit your preconception of our reality. I repeat: the Hebrew for inmost being and inmost place are indeed metaphors common to scripture for the womb...that you reject that interpretation here reflects your eisegesis, not ultimate truth, as do I and everyone else.

Rockson said:
Point : I wouldn't take too seriously what you consider to be likely about unborn having sinned before coming here or being conceived. That's pretty weird.
Click to expand...
We accept that infants are sinful in the womb because some people die there and death is the wages of sin, not a mere consequence of life and because the story of Jacob and Esau tells us that they were trying to crush each other to pieces (ie, to sinfully murder each other) in the womb, not just to jostle (facepalm) each other.

So we must conclude that either the most holy GOd creates a race of sinners in the womb before they can make any moral choices at all and they are sinners and condemned thru no willful choice of their own but only by HIS will to have them conceived in Adam and to force the consequences of Adam's choice upon them...
OR
we had an existence befor our conception in which we made our free will decisions to put our faith in YHWH as our saviour or to rebuke him as a false god and whether to accept HIS call of the judgement of the now demonic rebukers or not.

PCE suggest that all sin is accrued to a person only by their free will decision to rebel against GOD and as light, HE cannot produce dark (sinners), as life giving water, HE cannot produce brackish water (sinners) and as a tree of life, HE cannot produce rotten sinful fruit by any means even such as through the surrogate Adam at all.

Therefore our conception on earth as sinners cannot be our creation which gives us a new outlook on Job 38:7 in which ALL the sons of GOD saw the creation of the physical universe, all sinners were flung to earth, Rev 12:4-9, probably into Sheol in the middle of the earth since the wicked return to Sheol upon their death, Ps 9:17, and as explained in Matt 13:36-39, everyone, both the sinful people of the kingdom and the reprobate people of the evil one are sown into this world, not created since the devil sows also and cannot create so to sow must mean to remove from a place of storage (Sheol) and to scatter in a field to grow.

This is the nut of the matter, a hard nut to crack but it yields an understanding of our loving GOD who is holy and so cannot create evil people by any means at all, without quibble or any doublethink...
 
Rockson said:
If people are feeling that I think they should stay with the understanding we may not be able to choose how we're born but we can choose what we're going to do after birth.....that is at the time of the age of accountability. (which I believe does exist but not a year but based on spiritual comprehension status.

Not only that you sinned before birth and committed the unforgivable....it actually goes contrary to what the scripture states that sin entered passed down from Adam because of his choice. That's not just some wild speculation as the other thing is.....that is Rom 5:12.
Click to expand...
Rom 5:12 actually says that death comes to all people through Adam because they are sinners, NOT that they are all sinners because of HIM.
 
TedT said:
Then why do some people die before that time in the womb? Death is the wages of sin, not a consequence of life.
Click to expand...

Yep, they never have a real answer for this.

They have to start being inconsistent with how they are using Scripture, just applying it when they like it.
 

Similar threads

Johann
Original Sin from a Jewish perspective.
Replies
1
Views
325
101G
101G
Johann
Q: In Jn 1:1, how could the Word both be God and with God?
Replies
6
Views
470
101G
101G
Johann
Most Important Doctrines
Replies
13
Views
431
Biblelesson
Biblelesson
civic
Does God really determine all evil ?
Replies
19
Views
477
TomL
T
Back
Top Bottom