Just to be absolutely clear here, I agree entirely with this statement.
Jesus Christ did not come to call the righteous but sinners to salvation. He came to seek and to save the lost. Therefore, if new-born infants are not lost sinners by nature, they have nothing to do with Jesus Christ QED.
Infants in hell
Discussion in 'Calvinism & Arminianism Debate' started by Agent47, Jan 2, 2017.
?
-
No assurance whatsoever,die and find out
2 vote(s)18.2% -
God's mercy and Love ASSURES you they are not
4 vote(s)36.4% -
Children of covenant parents are in covenant
0 vote(s)0.0% -
It is a Mystery....we know in part
1 vote(s)9.1% -
I don't care
0 vote(s)0.0% -
Because they are innocent..have yet to sin
4 vote(s)36.4%
Page 6 of 7
-
Martin Marprelate Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
You are entitled to your thoughts.
I have given part basis for my belief and I will do so in my own terms not yours.
Remind me your stance,I missed it
-
Martin Marprelate Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
Martin Marprelate Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
:Alien (nearest I can find to a troll) -
I believe that all of mankind is under the curse. All have human natures and therefore can be said to have sinned “in Adam” and are subject to the consequences of the curse. Insofar as infants who die, that death is evidence of this truth. Jesus' death is also evidence of this truth.
However, I do not believe that infants are condemned. We are condemned for our sins. Paul speaks of the justness of God and the rightful condemnation of those who do not believe. The reason is that God has manifested himself throughout creation. His glory and attributes, even the Godhead, is evident. Yet men reject God. I do not see this as applicable to children who die in infancy.
More to the point, Scripture does not address the salvation of infants. For those of us who have lost children through miscarriage, disease, or accident, I don’t think that any of us have found comfort and assurance that our child died before they sinned. We find comfort and assurance in God and his love and mercy.
So from a personal side, my wife and I found assurance in God and his providence. Our trust was that God is in control and works all things for his glory. Regardless of the reason, our assurance rests in the love of God.
From a biblical perspective, I don’t see Scripture dealing with this topic at all. Scripture instead seems to deal with God and God’s plan of redemption. From a theological perspective, I do not believe that our condemnation is that we have human natures. It is that we have human natures and we sin. Since Scripture does not separate the two (except with Christ, who was human but without sin), we can only speculate. I believe that all infants who died in infancy will be in Heaven as they have not sinned against God. That is an assumption – only God knows. -
I wholly agree that God comforts those who mourn, but the hope of reunion with a loved one is quite comforting, especially young ones. So strictly speaking, it is not death before sinning that comforts but rather the hope of reunion.
-
Demanding explicit scripture to justify your action or belief is rabid fundamentalism. It figured significantly in slavery debates.
God nowhere explicitly condemns slavery so being nice to them is the most that is required of you....So the argument went.
We can formulate biblical answers where scriptures do not explicitly deal with an issue.
Infant salvation/reprobation is one such. I have shared my first rationale for my belief and I'll do handle the other one -
-
You and I are Reformed Baptists, and seem to be a disagreemnt between us and Presby Reformed on this issue! -
-
-
"Elect infants dying in infancy..."
or
"Infants dying in infancy..." -
HeirofSalvation Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
that all persons born of man are condemned by God?
Or, is the curse exactly what Genesis spoke of...
Namely, that man would have to till the ground, and that the woman would have multiple pain in child-bearing....
Something you should note:
Strictly speaking...God did not curse humans.
He cursed the GROUND and the serpent....
Calvinists insists God cursed MAN...
That's not Scripture.
Scripture says God cursed the ground.
that makes them humans.....
There's no Scripture which demands that humans are guilty of Adam's crime in perpetuity such that it consequences a change in their nature and being....
IF it's so....
Than it would be an indemnible part of human nature to be a partisan of Adam's crime....
Except that Jesus was ALSO a Son of Adam, and yet he was without sin.
There's no escaping the Scripture on this.
Jesus was a man.
A REAL MAN...tempted as are we yet without sin...
Adam's transgresion is either a part of human nature and condemns him by default...or....Jesus wasn't a real HUMAN.
I've read Genesis, I've read about the "curse"...
God actually "cursed" the Serpent, and the "Ground"...
I'll post it since it is such a point of contention:
And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life
No curse of humans...let's continue...
And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;
God cursed the "serpent"...and God cursed the "ground"...
God DID NOT "curse" humanity...
Jesus Christ was a human Jon....as human as you and I...and he was not accursed.
Than, your Theology is inconsistent and illogical.
If men are condemned because of an inherited nature from Adam and they are partakers in that sin, than infants are absolutely positively and without excuse condemned as sinners and fellow partakers in that sin.
Absolutely, it's inescapable, you need to own the realities of your own teaching.
In your schema...everyone including infants are partakers in ADAM'S SIN...
NOT THEIRS.
It's critical to the Theological construct you adopt.
Because they can NEITHER choose to believe any more than they can choose to sin...
They're BABIES
Babies crap themselves Jon....
They don't defy God, they don't rebel against God....
They neither reject Grace nor accept it...
They hang around crapping their diapers
That's only a problem if you accept "Original Sin"...
If not, there's no issue, and your whole life becomes 1,000% less complicated...and...actually.....the Scriptures become a LOT EASIER to understand...
Infants don't need "SAVING"....
Ever wonder why God didn't address that contentious issue????
It's because it doesn't exist
Infants don't "sin"...so they don't need "salvation".
That zygote wasn't an odious sinner God hated from conception...
Get rid of your addiction to "Original Sin", and it's not complicated.
I have...My child was about 6 months old....he wasn't a "sinner"...
He was the size of a jumbo shrimp, not capable of choosing good or evil...
He wasn't a "sinner".
My kid wasn't anyway.
He couldn't talk, he couldn't breathe on his own.
He could neither accept nor reject God.
According to Calvinist Theology...
God hated that child because he was a vile unnacceptable sinner who was wicked from his very conception.
There's no getting around that.
That's what Calvinism teaches.
He (or she) was born cursed with the vile sinfulness and guilt of Adam inherent of every facet of it's nature, and was therefore hated by, and unacceptable. to God....
Accept Jon...according to your Theology...God hated that child of yours who died and it was worthy only of perpetual torture in hell because it was only evil and odious in his sight....
That's the doctrine.
And, (given "Original Sin".)...
God hates your baby and needs to punish and torture him/her for all of eternity to vindicate his "goodness"....
Because of the "curse" of Adam.......since you seem to believe that all men inherit the Sin of Adam..
It's so NON COMPLICATED.
If all children are conceived in sin and wickedness and in need of God's grace, than there's no Scripture on the planet which states that God has any reason whatsoever to grant them forgiveness.
If "Original Sin" is correct...
Than your child suffered from it, and God hated him or her and their sin and wanted nothing to do with them.
There's no passage which states God has a plan of "forgiveness" for your hated, despised, stinking, vile, sinful, odious, horrid, child.
Everything about that child makes God want to vomit and makes him seeth with hatred against it.
That's what Original Sin means Jon:
I'm sorry, but, that's what it means.
That is to say...that the "topic" doesn't actually exist Jon.
Babies poop and coo and eat...
They don't sin.
Get rid of the doctrine of "Original sin"...and it's so uncomplicated.
Human "nature" doesn't condemn anyone...
I agree.
Christ had a human nature...
He's our salvation.
keep going.
It's:
1.) That we have a "human nature"
So does your unborn babe
So did Christ
and.....
2.) That we Sin
That's Biblical.....
Get rid of number one and your baby (and mine) is safe...
accept it...and it's conflagrated bull-******
Scripture didn't create the TWO...
YOU DID...
Scripture is not required to condemn heresies you created...
Or any weird Theologies created in the perverted minds of men 1,000 years removed from the point of it's writing...
Sin is the willful disobedience against the ordinances of God..
That's it..
Babies can't do that.
Or...just do away with the "Original Sin" facet of your world-view.....and seriously.......it becomes SO...MUCH...LESS...COMPLICATED.
DING DING DING DING DING!!!!!
Sin is an action done by agents capable of rebellion....
it's not a weird disease contracted by humans because the suffer from a genetic deformity...
Couldn't be simpler....
Your child is safe Jon...
So is mine...
Not because they were "Good"...but because they never rebelled against God...they never had the chance.[/QUOTE] -
Martin Marprelate Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
Martin Marprelate Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
Mankind lives under the effect of the curse, one of which is death (Genesis 3:17-19). Note that the curse has come about because of sin. In fact Paul tells us (Romans 8:18-23) that the whole of creation is under the curse. -
HeirofSalvation Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
At least in your Theological construct.
Mankind suffers an irreparable damage and constitutional aleteration which makes him eternally and naturally hateful to God because of Adam's sin....
So, you are making a distiction between:
"being cursed"
and
"living under the effects of the curse".
You're being too smart for your own good.
Stop lying Martin....
That's what you believe stop being disingenuous. -
http://www.gracebaptistassembly.org.uk/gba2/wp-content/uploads/docs/1689-1966 Synopsis.pdf
-
Martin Marprelate Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
Martin Marprelate Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
What I have posted is what I believe. Do you believe that mankind does not live under the effects of the curse? -
HeirofSalvation Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
Not if they ARE lying anyway...
In your case:
You are either:
1.)lying
or
2.) So ridiculously unaware of the content of your own world-view that you don't understand the ramifications of it.
You ABSOLUTELY
are either one or the other in that application.
You either were lying,
Or you simply don't understand the ramifications of your own worldview...
I don't know which...
But I retract:
Zilch
Nil
Nada
Nothing
Until then...
I insist upon it.
That was the point.
I don't imagine you could comprehend the difference.
Page 6 of 7