All Have Sinned Part 2

Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by Tom Butler, Jan 28, 2011.

  1. Tom Butler

    Tom Butler
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2005
    Messages:
    9,031
    Likes Received:
    0
    In the other thread, now closed I had asked webdog to point out the inconsistencies between my position on the fate of infants and my Calvinism.
    I define the T, Total Depravity, as one being as bad off as he can be, not as bad as he can be. Don't see a problem here.

    The L, Limited (Particular) Atonement, is just that. To say the L falls requires an assumption that is not warranted. It assumes that the infant, born with a sinful nature, but not yet having sinned, is not elect and will eventually sin, and reach the point where he is so hardened he cannot be saved. The unwarranted assumption is that he will reach that point, which negates the entire proposition regarding his death as an infant.

    An infant who dies cannot ever reach the point of reprobation.

    Web, I'm sorry but I don't understand your point about the U--Unconditional Election. Some clarification will help. All I can say that election is not based on guilt or innocence. We'd all fail that test.
     
  2. webdog

    webdog
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2005
    Messages:
    24,691
    Likes Received:
    0
    How is someone created not guilty as bad off as can be compared to the view one is created a sinner?
    If every infant is "elect", all reprobates at one point were infants. Where does that logically take us?
    Aren't both the elect and reprobate chosen before the foundation of the world? If all infants are elect, and it's due to them not being guilty of sin or having reached "reprobate status", that in itself refutes the "U". Additionally, the elect are defined as believers...elect unto salvation, and you even stated they cannot have faith.
     
    #2 webdog, Jan 28, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 28, 2011
  3. jbh28

    jbh28
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2008
    Messages:
    3,761
    Likes Received:
    0
    Not all infants are elect. If they were, they everyone would be elect and we know that isn't the case.
    Yes
    there're not
    Not all infants are elect.
     
  4. Cypress

    Cypress
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2010
    Messages:
    376
    Likes Received:
    0
    Jbh,
    Are all infants that die elect in your opinion?
     
  5. Tom Butler

    Tom Butler
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2005
    Messages:
    9,031
    Likes Received:
    0
    Because they have a sinful nature, and if they live long enough, they will sin.

    It would take us to universalism, which neither of us believes.
    So, not all infants are elect. In the previous post, Cypress asked if all infants who die are elect. If I believe they are safe, then the consistent answer is yes. I believe that they are with the Savior. Just as David believed about his dead infant son.

    I don't buy your premise that their election is because they are not guilty of sin. I don't know why God elects anybody, except that it is his good pleasure and gets glory for himself. I will say this: even infants, because of their sinful nature, must be objects of God's grace to enter heaven. And I believe that it is consistent with my view that the Holy Spirit regenerates sovereignly those whom He will. (Remember Jesus likened this to the wind, which blows where it wants to).

    The Calvinist view, of course, is that regeneration precedes faith. The elect dead infant is the object of God's grace, is regenerated, and safe in the arms of the Savior. And, it is perfectly consistent with the U.

    Web, refresh my memory. The earlier thread had more than 300 posts, and I can't remember all of yours, and I'm not inclined to re-read them. Do you believe infants who die go to heaven?

    If you say yes, isn't that inconsistent with the human faith response for salvation required by your soteriology?

    If no, aren't you siding with some of my Calvinist brethren?
     
  6. jbh28

    jbh28
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2008
    Messages:
    3,761
    Likes Received:
    0
    yes. I believe God has chosen to save all the babies/infants.
     
  7. Tom Butler

    Tom Butler
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2005
    Messages:
    9,031
    Likes Received:
    0
    Let me add one other comment. Although I do not believe that an infant is born sinning, I do think that he is born with Adam's sin imputed to him. In that sense, the infant is not innocent.
     
  8. Luke2427

    Luke2427
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2010
    Messages:
    7,598
    Likes Received:
    8
    Tom, I think the problem you might be having here is thinking the Arminian position gives babies a better shot at heaven.

    It does not.

    ONLY the DoG consistently held gives babies a shot at heaven. God does not need their choice to save them. God does not need their faith to save them. He can, and I think he does, elect them all without their participation- the same way he saves EVERYONE.

    The Arminian viewpoint says salvation is synergistic- babies do not stand a chance.

    The Pelagian, webdog and Willis' position, viewpoint gets all babies into heaven but it does so via heresy- teaching that men are not born sinners.

    You are leaning towards the Pelagian viewpoint on this one particular matter, in my view.
     
  9. mets65

    mets65
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2011
    Messages:
    392
    Likes Received:
    0
    All men are sinful by nature, there is no sin age.
     
  10. Tom Butler

    Tom Butler
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2005
    Messages:
    9,031
    Likes Received:
    0
    If you'll read my post #5, I think your mind will be eased regarding my Pelagian leanings. I further clarify in post #7
     
  11. Tom Butler

    Tom Butler
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2005
    Messages:
    9,031
    Likes Received:
    0
    No, all men possess a sinful nature. But they are not sinners until they sin.

    Definitions and terminology are important here.

    Example; innocent and not guilty are not the same.
     
  12. mets65

    mets65
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2011
    Messages:
    392
    Likes Received:
    0
    Please tell me why those definitions are important. Those definitions don't determine my salvation. We are all sinners and we are born into sin. Regardless of how you define it doesn't make it less true.
     
  13. Earth Wind and Fire

    Earth Wind and Fire
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2010
    Messages:
    18,918
    Likes Received:
    95
    Thats why the best they can tell you is that they dont know where each individual child is. I personally went through this with 1 OPC Elder, 2 OPC Pastors, 2 PCA Pastors & 1 Reformed Pastor....all at once I might add. Again they cant say the demeanor of each child that dies because they do not know if the child was elect or non elect. There is speculation, there is hope, there are theologians who feel there is doctrine that bypasses it leading to a universalism approach, there are confessional stances that dispute it but the plain fact is that Reformed Theology cannot provide any assurance that your own child is in heaven or in hell.

    Now I can tell you that my own fight was never with the Reformed faith but with the Contra Calvinist that looked back at my past sinful life & made a decision that my sins put my child in hell, but that was an argument with a bunch of heretics who distorted Doctrine to make themselves feel superior & saved. I have just recently reunited with one of these pastors who has recanted & asked for forgiveness. Religion is a living & breathing thing involving human beings with both ego's & frailties....I factor that in. God knows, I'm a sinner & I make mistakes so why wouldn't I forgive this man? My own rage at the time probably caused them to question me. All & All, my lord did bless me shortly after with a beautiful young man who is now 19 & happy & healthy & pursuing a career as a European Car Mechanic specializing in German automobiles. Praise God for that blessing.
     
  14. Luke2427

    Luke2427
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2010
    Messages:
    7,598
    Likes Received:
    8
    And yet, the Reformed faith is the only one that gives ANY hope without turning to heresy that denies the orthodox doctrine of original sin.

    The Reformed faith teaches God does not require participation in order to be able to save ANYONE. Monergism is the only REAL hope for babies who die.

    I believe God has elected all babies who die.

    John MacArthur preaches a pretty good sermon on this. Here is the link to the manuscript.

    Here is part 2.
     
  15. mets65

    mets65
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2011
    Messages:
    392
    Likes Received:
    0

    Congratulations EWF, Sounds like you have a wonderful son.
     
  16. webdog

    webdog
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2005
    Messages:
    24,691
    Likes Received:
    0
    So the one created not guilty (non "T") is more depraved than the one created guilty (the "T")?
    But wasn't it your original statement that all infants are not guilty of sin, and that is why they are saved? It seems you are now backtracking on that and stating they are saved because they are of the "elect".

    Doesn't Scripture state the elect are made up of believers? You admitted an infant cannot believe, correct? How can an infant be "elect" given Scripture defining who they are?
    Does God elect those that are guilty, then? Does Scripture state the elect are made up of believers?
    Based on what you write here, regeneration = salvation? An infant can be regenerated, not have faith, and enter Heaven? You don't see the inconsistency in that?
    Again, one can be regenerated...not have faith...and enter Heaven? Where is Scripture backing this view?
    I do. The guilty go to everlasting punishment, those not guilty to be with the Lord.
    Not at all based on my above response. Sinners need faith in Christ. Like you I don't believe an infant is a sinner even though they are under the curse.
    N/A
     
  17. DHK

    DHK
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    37,982
    Likes Received:
    134
    In fact they do determine your salvation.
    Definitions are very important.
    For example, what is the definition of sin, and of a sinner?
    My father, a Roman Catholic, does not consider himself a sinner, but a righteous person. He is blind to his need of the gospel. He is not a sinner he says (and therefore does not need salvation). If you take his definition of sin and sinner you also will not be saved. Definitions are very important.
     
  18. Tom Butler

    Tom Butler
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2005
    Messages:
    9,031
    Likes Received:
    0
    Good, we agree. I'm sure I have been less than precise in stating my position. Am I correct that you are more interested in attacking the reasoning which got me there than the conclusion I drew?

    I gather that you hold that Calvinists can't state with certainty that infants go to heaven. I contend that only Calvinists can hold that infants who die go to heaven.

    It appears to me that though you are a non-Cal, you reached your conclusion through the same reasoning as I do.
     
    #18 Tom Butler, Jan 29, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 29, 2011
  19. webdog

    webdog
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2005
    Messages:
    24,691
    Likes Received:
    0
    Please, don't feel I'm attacking your conclusion. All along I have agreed with your conclusion, but from the beginning I have maintained with your soteriology that this conclusion is inconsistent, and that is what I am trying to show. I appreciate that fact you have thought this aspect through and not taken the "company line" of your calvinist brothers. Now just continue thinking through the rest and how they do not go together :)
     
  20. Tom Butler

    Tom Butler
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2005
    Messages:
    9,031
    Likes Received:
    0
    I didn't think you were attacking my conclusion, but how I got there, and so you were. That's fine. You've forced me to do more thinking than my brain can handle, and better than that, you drove me to the scriptures.

    Not all of my Calvinist brothers may see it the way I do. But John McArthur does. I read the sermons by him posted in links by Luke 2427, and as I read it, I said, yep, that's what I believe.

    I'm not concerned about whether my Calvinism is consistent with Calvinists. My concern, (and yours is, too) that that what I believe is consistent with scripture.
     

Share This Page

Loading...