Infant Salvation

I agree, and perhaps my explainations are not clear enough or I did not state positively enough what I am trying to communicate. I am in full agreement with Spurgeon on the subject who said,

And I would add to this brother, that no system of theology can permit the salvation of infant souls than the calvinst system. And there is nothing within the system that prevents us from believing infants who die are elect. This cannot be said of other systems. Within the eternal decree of Almighty God, and unconditional election, are we saved, accoding to His will and good pleasure, and not for any forseen faith or merit or action on the part of the individual is the well-spring of our election. But rather, it is the pleasure and and will of God that is the well-spring of our salvation determined before the world began.

The Arminian system, however, falls woefully short in this regard, hinging salvation upon the decision of man. This system then must contend for another reason for the salvation of infants until such a decision may be reached.

In regard to this question Dr. S. G. Craig has written:

See Boettner's section on Infant Salvation as reference.

 

Brother, I think you misunderstand me and Spurgeon. Spurgeon is not saying, nor am I, that the children are elect because they would believe. That is evangelical Arminianism. We do disagree that our salvation is hinged upon what we "do" with Jesus. Our salvation hinges upon the Sovereign will and pleasure of God alone, irrespective of the creature. It truly is by grace brother. You are quite right in saying that an infant is not elect based on what would have become of them had they lived. The infant (or anyone) is elect because it seemed good to the Lord.

 

hahaha., hey brother, if that settles it for ya! :applause:

 

Hey dear sister,

I think quite the opposite. All who are elect are elect not because of anything in themselves, whether it be foreseen faith or action. They are elect because it pleased God to elect them.

 

Actually no, but now we will be discussing unconditional election. And I think we are opperating under a different definition of hyper-calvinism. The best definition of hyper-calvinism I have heard comes from Phil Johnson, "Hyper-Calvinism, simply stated, is a doctrine that emphasizes divine sovereignty to the exclusion of human responsibility."

This is not what I am teaching or what Spurgeon taught. It is not historic calvinism. Of course, there is always the chance I am not articulating well the doctrines of grace. Brother martin?

 

Somehow your quote of Phil Johnson left "Hyper-" off before the word Calvinism. Phil said it is Hyper-Calvinism that emphasizes the Sovereignty of God to the exclusion of the responsibility of man. This is not historic/proper Calvinism.

Take this Scripture, ""But we are bound to give thanks always to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth: Whereunto he called you by our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ."—2 Thessalonians 2:13-14.

God foreordains both the means and the end. The end being salvation, which God has from the beginning chosen us for. And the means, through sanctifcation of the Spirit and belief of the truth. Where we are called by the Gospel of Jesus Christ, for it is the Gospel that is the power of God for salvation to everyone that believes.

We believe salvation is the gift of God, including faith. I don't see how this affects an infant child who is regenerated and brought to faith in Christ, albeit mysteriosuly to us.

 

I responded to this post before you edited it. Thanks for the correction in Phil's quote. I am not sure what calvinsts believe in a special dispensation, or who here does. To whom and what are you referring?

 

I read and re-read this post trying to understand what connection you made between the sin of these men spoken of in John 9 and the doctrine of original sin (as we call it theologically) revealed in other places in Scripture. In reading the story, I see a man quite sensible of his sin and need of Christ, that is, the man born blind who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ. Now, some of the Pharisees who were following Jesus with a wicked heart, that they may trap Him or ensare Him somehow, heard what Jesus said of Himself.."...for judgment I am come into this world That they which see not, might see And that they which see might be made blind." v.39

When those certain Pharisees heard it they asked the Lord if they were blind also. I do not suppose they asked this question with grieved and worried hearts, sensible of the possible danger of their souls. No. I believe they felt the finger of God upon their souls, and His conviction burned in their minds and they asked with indignation this question, considering themselve to be wise and knowledgeable.

So our Lord tells them that if they were blind, that is, if they were sensible to it, and desired to know the truth, then they would have no sin. Not that our Lord is teaching that unbelief is not sin, but that they might have pardon of their sin, and being somewhat sensible of their blindness, have hope that they may be forgiven and illuminated.

But becasue they thought themselves already wise and knowledgeable, needing nothing, and certainly not from Jesus, their sin remains. That is, it is not taken away. Their error would not be forgiven.

From my estimation Jesus in the case is highlighting a specific sin. The text is not teaching or supposing to teach what we theologically call "Federal Headship" This is clearly taught in other passages of Scripture, and this passage in no way (as best as I can see) takes away from such teaching.

Just my thoughts on it...