Infant Salvation

Careful brother Bob, I did not say you could not post. I asked you to stay on the topic of this thread and not divert its subject as you did in the other thread. I also asked for your good Christian spirit which you affirmed in another post.

Are you suggesting that I want to kill you? Please. Place your stock in the Roman Catholic Encyclopedia if you will. I do not. Now, I have indulged your bunny trail long enough and wish to get back on subject. Please cooperate in that regard. I have also indulged to the point of quoting extensively from Phillip Shaff's History of the Christian Church on this subject.

 

Certainly, if it makes you happy. I rejected, if you re-read, the Roman Catholic Encyclopedia. I did not realize the second part of excerpted from Phillip Schaff's history, which I find informative. I also allowed this divergence for honesty. The excerpt you quoted is not enough. Everyone needs to read the entire section to get the full opinion of Shaff on the matter, as well as the footnotes.

You have attempted to throw contempt on Calvinist theolgy through the discussion of infant salvation. You have failed. Augustine's belief in infant damnation (which I stated before I didn't know what he thought about it, but now I do) had anything to do with his teaching on predestination. Shaff rightly poitns out his belief on infant damnation, apparantly was his belief, had to do with the doctrine of necessity of baptism for salvation.

Do you see that brother Bob or are you going to insist that its calvinist principles that drive a belief in infant damnation?

 

**sigh, must we really start this again Bob?

 

Is that an answer? If so, it doesn't make sense to me. Do you see that Augustines apparant belief in infant damnation had to do with, according to Schaff, his belief regarding infant baptism and not predestination. It was Calvin that brought ideas AWAY from infant damnation.

 

All right all, I will get back to topic and post soon what I previously said I would post. I will no longer be responding to Brother Bob who insists on hijacking my thread. :BangHead:

 

The way in which I believe infants to be saved.

Spurgeon noted in his sermon that some suppose the reason for infant salvation is that the infant in innocent. I do not believe such a thing because the Scripture does not teach it. The Scripture teaches in 1 Corinthians 15:22 that "For as in Adam all die..." All of Adam's posterity was represented by him when he sinned, and all fell in Adam. When Adam fell, he fell for all the human race.

On this point Spurgeon said,

And he is quite right. And less we cry foul or unfair to the biblical doctrine of the imputation of Adam's guilt to all his posterity, let us remember that we also have another Head, Jesus Christ the righteous, whose obedience and righteousness is imputed to His posterity. "For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive."

Therefore, if any infant be saved, it is not because of natural innocence in them. One of the most obvious evidences of the imputation of original guilt is the fact that an infant may die. The Scirpture says, "The wages of sin is death." On account of whose sin does the infant suffer the wage of sin? Is it there own? We cannot suppose that. No, it must be orignial guilt.

More in the next post...

 

I touched very briefly on this subject. In theology what I am describing is called federal headship.

 

With original guilt being established by Scripture, that in Adam all die, even those who had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's sin, we must go on to ask, then how is an infant saved?

In the exact same manner as an adult and under no other Gospel but the Gospel of Christ. Infants enter heaven the same way we do, through Jesus Christ. None here will likely believe an infant can be saved through baptism, and we (reformed Baptists) affirm no such thing.

What I believe is that the infant is saved because it is elect. This is the selfsame reason anyone, infant or adult, is saved. As it is written,

"Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ: According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved."

Sometimes Romans 8:29-30 is referred to as the golden chain of redemption, "For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified."

Certainly it is not a stetch of Scripture truth to include infants in the foreknowledge (fore-love) and foreordination of God. Our Lord Jesus, slain from the foundation of the world, purchased with His own blood elect sons and daughters of both infants and adults.

And we would not dare to say that the infant is saved apart from regeneration. Christ our Lord has said, "Ye must be born again." And so must they. The infant is elect for no reason other than what the Scripture declares, "according to the good pleasure of His will." And is called in death, justified, and glorified by the operation of God no different than we are. On this point Spurgeon said,

Amen and Amen.

 

To begin to dig into the doctrine of original sin would be to take this thread in a different direction. It is certainly a worthy topic, but the use of the doctrine was in an explaination of infant salvation. Perhaps after I finish the discussion of infant salvation we can talk about orginal sin.

 

I will take your response as a passionate reply to what you believe. I simply disagree with your conclusion brother in what I have "single handedly" done.