Infant Reprobation and Damnation
- Thread starter civic
- Start date
Wilber
Active member
I find no place in Scripture where a person suffers the judgment of damnation on the basis of anything other than sinful deeds, including the sinful deed of disbelief—a conscious, willful, intentional choice to disbelieve. Furthermore, God does not charge people with sins until sins are committed.
Salvation is completely by grace, apart from works. Damnation is completely by works, apart from grace.
Scripture also does not teach infant damnation. Rather, every biblical reference—whether oblique or direct—to the issue of infants and children who die makes me believe they go immediately into the eternal presence of God.
So I believe our Lord graciously and freely receives all those who die in infancy—not on the basis of their innocence or their worthiness, but by His grace, made theirs through the atonement He purchased on the cross. These little ones experience salvation grounded in absolute sovereignty and comprehensive grace.
Salvation is completely by grace, apart from works. Damnation is completely by works, apart from grace.
Scripture also does not teach infant damnation. Rather, every biblical reference—whether oblique or direct—to the issue of infants and children who die makes me believe they go immediately into the eternal presence of God.
So I believe our Lord graciously and freely receives all those who die in infancy—not on the basis of their innocence or their worthiness, but by His grace, made theirs through the atonement He purchased on the cross. These little ones experience salvation grounded in absolute sovereignty and comprehensive grace.
The Rogue Tomato
Well-known member
I believe that, too, but mostly on the basis of what makes sense to me, since there is no scripture to explicitly say that.
Diserner
Well-known member
The thing is, it's not a random coincidence everyone automatically sins as soon as they can. People seem to think in weird external concrete ways. Sin is not just an external action, sin is an attitude of the heart. This means that we can literally be made out of sin—our very being can be a sinful attitude towards God, of pride or unbelief, or idolatry. And sin is not based on human intelligence—sin is a moral valuation, not an intellectual accomplishment. You can be smart and sin, and you can be dumb and sin. Thus sin is not based on the measure of intelligence.
Now it's good you recognize intuitively that no one should be considered inherently pure and holy and worthy to no longer need Christ. But the logical extrapolation of infant innocence is that they do indeed merit heaven, If all are born sinners, we don't need any "inherited guilt," because we are born sinful, we are born with bad desires and attitudes, we are born guilty for our own sinful nature. Having a sin nature is not holy—it is, itself, a sin. And thus we see the logical reason why no one can bypass the Blood of Jesus and need for grace and the atonement.
People become far too emotional when thinking about this, and no longer think in a disciplined and sanctified way. We must put God first in all things, at the cost of all our own discomfort or distaste for things we may not inherently or intuitively like about God or what he does.
Wilber
Active member
Infants are without sin deeds. Yes, they are in need of a Savior.
Yes, God has provided a Savior for them, Jesus Christ.
Yes, all infants who die before they reach a state of moral awareness and culpability in which they understand their sin and corruption which would make their sins their sins deliberate—are graciously saved by God through the work of Jesus Christ. They are counted not guilty because they are innocent of willful sin and rebellion.
Yes, God has provided a Savior for them, Jesus Christ.
Yes, all infants who die before they reach a state of moral awareness and culpability in which they understand their sin and corruption which would make their sins their sins deliberate—are graciously saved by God through the work of Jesus Christ. They are counted not guilty because they are innocent of willful sin and rebellion.
civic
Well-known member
Gods given us a conscience regarding right , wrong, morality and ethics. We are created in Gods image and therefore have worth and value in His sight. It’s why there is redemption for all mankind, not just some. The atonement was universal. Gods love is universal which includes all the world. Children are innocent , not guilty since they have no cognitive ability to sin, discern right from wrong and have no ability to understand the law or the gospel.
It’s sickening to see the traditions of men assault Gods Goodness, long suffering not wanting any to perish but all come to repentance. Children are innocent and not guilty for their parents or Adams sin.
hope this helps !!!
It’s sickening to see the traditions of men assault Gods Goodness, long suffering not wanting any to perish but all come to repentance. Children are innocent and not guilty for their parents or Adams sin.
hope this helps !!!
Frank Russell
Well-known member
How good do you have to be to get into heaven? This clip can be downloaded at www.worshiphousemedia.com.
View Video>
View Video>
Last edited by a moderator:
civic
Well-known member
Infants don’t need a savior , they haven’t sinned. They are innocent. That’s why even most Calvinists will admit they go to heaven which contradicts TD. They know they have a moral dilemma. A contradiction in their system when it comes to infants.
This alone shows the false teaching within Calvinism when it comes to the guilt and punishment that comes with a sin nature from birth.
Frank Russell
Well-known member
I'm assuming the source verse in Titus (1:16) has already been hashed out?
Wilber
Active member
Infants have not sinned but they still need Jesus.
Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me. John 14:6
We know any Infant who died prior to birth, at birth, or as a child too young to grasp the distinction between good and evil is indeed safe in the arms of God, eternally secure in His love and grace.
Jesus makes that happen.
And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among people by which we must be saved [for God has provided the world no alternative for salvation].”
Wilber
Active member
Go for it. Show us what you got.
Titus 1:16
They profess to know God, but they deny him by their works. They are detestable, disobedient, unfit for any good work.
Frank Russell
Well-known member
This passage comes about after the requirement of elders, the transition subject matter is shutting the mouths of the circumcision, and makes reference to locals who were always liars as a comparison. The comparison is basically painting the circumcision group to being the same as gentiles.
Regressing back to the reference to the circumcision .. it is taught to not give heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men that turn from the truth. Nowadays you could say to not give heed to Calvinist (or insert other group here) Fables.
Paul continues stating that unto the pure, all things are pure, but for those who do not believe, nothing is pure. It continues saying, they profess that they know God, but in works they deny him ... meaning even their good works are abominations. This section that was originally speaking of Jews who didn't believe in Jesus, so it can be applied to people who grew up in the church but never were born again.
Key words to keep in mind, "they profess they know God" .. most people don't but this verse is applied to them. Possibly a misdirection tactic to secure more offerings.
Also good to note: The subject matter continues with the main point in the next chapter
The content of this passage is saying to appoint good examples so the rest of the community can emulate the same behavior.
Furthermore, applying reprobation (or being an abomination as this is also used in the passage) to infants makes no sense since they cannot profess anything let alone that they know God.
Also it seems poignant to note that since the point of this passage is developing good Christlike behavior throughout the church community, demonizing babies seems to be missing the point .. I think even a nuke bomb would miss with that trajectory to be honest.
civic
Well-known member
Your last paragraph is spot on and that’s the whole point which refutes Calvinism.
Frank Russell
Well-known member
It's somewhat structurally ironic since a lot of baptists become calvinists, but use the same logic to refute infant baptism.
civic
Well-known member
Yes talk about oxymorons and being all over the map. Infants and salvation reveal the issues within their systematic theology.
And we know what Jesus thinks of infants and little children
Diserner
Well-known member
And we know what Jesus thinks of infants and little children
No one is good but One, that is, God. (Lk. 18:19 NKJ)
civic
Well-known member
Context .
A text without the context is a pre text for a proof text.
Nice job proof texting just like our Calvinist friends do. It’s how tulip was formed.
How sin nature was formed.hope this helps !!!
Frank Russell
Well-known member
Prooftexting wars make God out to be a liar.Context .
A text without the context is a pre text for a proof text.
Nice job proof texting just like our Calvinist friends do. It’s how tulip was formed.
hope this helps !!!
Scripture vs Scripture results in everyone thinking "that scripture sure does contradict itself"
civic
Well-known member
Ditto
Diserner
Well-known member
CONTEXT DOES NOT MAKE THE MEANING THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT IT SAYS.
That's special pleading, ad hoc, to sacrifice it's meaning to man-made ideas that are brought.
"It CAN'T just mean WHAT IT SAYS."
Turning the text on its head.
And then accusing those who just literally believe what it says that they are not believing the Bible.
THE IRONY IN THAT.
And all to protect the secret sin of self-righteousness in man.
Very shameful.
