As has been said by others, you have a right to hold whatever view you wish, but you have failed to prove your presupposition Scripturally. Now I'm sounding like a broken record. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />
Wes
When I survey the wondrous cross on which the Prince of Glory died, my richest gain I count but loss and pour contempt on all my pride. - Isaac Watts
MHeath said: It wouldn't be such a stretch to think that maybe, just maybe, God did not include a hint of it, because people would be killing all their infants.
With the amount of infanticide that went on in the pagan world before Christ and the amount of infantacide that continues even now after Christ I think Michelle we can safely say that it makes no difference to people.
Besides Michelle there is still the commandment that states "thou shalt not murder". Killing infants is still murder.
[color:"FF0000"]What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid. We who died to sin, how shall we any longer live therein? (Romans 6:1-2)[/color]
Unfortunately that's not totally true. Yes, we don't really know who are the elect of God. Only God does. However the body of Scripture that has been presented to you in this thread shows that infants aren't an exception to the rule as you suggest. They are sinners as a result of the original sin even though they have not practiced sin. Your argument that the children of unbelievers and believers alike are destined for heaven if they die in infancy is contrary to God's promises.
God has promised to be a God to believers and their children. (Genesis 17:7, Acts 2:39). To suggest that unbeliever's children have the same promise is heresy.
Wes
When I survey the wondrous cross on which the Prince of Glory died, my richest gain I count but loss and pour contempt on all my pride. - Isaac Watts
I am not gonna debate the issue too much cuz I just wanted to throw out some thoughts that I had.
I can completely see your arguements. And they make perfect sense. I was actually throwing my thoughts out just because I was really having a hard time seeing how what I thought could be true. The thought process that only those infants who die in infancy are elect infants made sense...until this moment.
I've gone back and forth on this issue a lot, so I just don't know where I stand. Since the Bible is not clear on how God deals with infants, most of the time I leave it to Him. And I will continue to do so. And if the day comes where someone comes to me because their baby dies, I will trust that God will give me the words that will bring the person the most comfort at the time.
And if the day comes where someone comes to me because their baby dies, I will trust that God will give me the words that will bring the person the most comfort at the time.
I think that this is the real issue here. What do we say to comfort a parent who has lost their child or their baby? I think the "age of accountablity" teaching comes from this need to offer some comfort to grieving parents. Even the Canons of Dort seeks to offer comfort to the Christian parents of children who die in infancy.
Quote
Article 17 Since we are to judge of the will of God from His Word, which testifies that the children of believers are holy, not by nature, but in virtue of the covenant of grace, in which they together with the parents are comprehended, godly parents ought not to doubt the election and salvation of their children whom it pleases God to call out of this life in their infancy (Gen. 17:7; Acts 2:39; I Cor. 7:14).
I've also thought of those things about God's judgement on the world in Noah's day and have to believe that if any babies were elect, they would have been rescued with Noah and his family. Every nation but Israel belonged to the Devil, and many even in Israel were lost. We pity babies in their helplessness and it is hard for us to really believe that they have in their hearts seeds of every kind of evil. I don't think anyone could read the OT accounts of child sacrifice without feeling horror, or think of all the millions of babies who die without hoping they will somehow have a chance for life. I know, too, that we are all born in sin and if God sent all of us to hell He would still be just. I know godly men and women do disagree about what happens to infants dying and no one will know this for sure until we enter into glory to see how many saints have been saved when they were small children or infants who died so young. What could a pastor say at a baby's graveside service without going beyond what is written?
Sure, that's easy. Is everybody saved? Or does election to salvation mean mere salvability? If you are elected to salvation, can you fail to be saved? If every infant is elected unto salvation, why isn't every single one of us saved? Also, I'm not a WCF follower.
Quote
I do believe that all elect infants and only elect infants go to heaven based on Christ's substitutionary death for the elect. Although I tend to believe that not all infants are elect, I have not decided it conclusively in my mind (and may never come to a absolute conclusion).
Precisely. Only the elect go to heaven. Not everybody goes to heaven. Not everybody is elect. It's that simple.
OK. I like Spurgeon, despite his Baptistness. However, you have been asked, repeatedly, to uphold your view scripturally. Spurgeon isn't scripture. I can quote some people who support me, but I look to scripture for truth. Now, where's your scripture?
Article 17 Since we are to judge of the will of God from His Word, which testifies that the children of believers are holy, not by nature, but in virtue of the covenant of grace, in which they together with the parents are comprehended, godly parents ought not to doubt the election and salvation of their children whom it pleases God to call out of this life in their infancy (Gen. 17:7; Acts 2:39; I Cor. 7:14).
The last section clarifies it. "whom it pleases God to call out of this life in their infancy". This in no way necessitates a universalness, either to ALL infants, nor ALL infants of believers. It leaves it up to Gods calling.
Hey Pilgrim, thanx for the interpretation, this issue has come up at my church and my pastor has always taken the view that this passage supports all infants being saved, he says though that this passage is the strongest proof of his view. I knew that couldn't be the meaning of what's being said, but I never quite thought it all out or looked it up. Thanx
Yeah, Billy Graham has said that. I don't have the book here with me at school, but Kalled and I were running around the local christian bookstore a few weeks back and found a book comparing beliefs of certain groups and it mentions this belief is proposed by Billy Graham. I told it to my dad and my dad of all people responded something to the effect of 'Yeah, Billy Graham's got some liberal theology.'
Sorry you didn't know, but hey, that's what we're here for.
As one who holds to the belief that only elect infants are saved, I appreciate your difficulties in this matter, since I too have had to work through the issue. I would not have used the particular passages you mentioned, but they are interesting points. It is most unfortunate that several of the leaders of the church propose the view that all infants are saved and that very few if any church leaders bother to oppose this idea, I say it is unfortunate b/c it means we have to think for ourselves. Speaking of thinking though, I am very fond of something I believe Luther is quoted as saying, "I cannot believe anything if I am not convinced of it by scripture and plain reason." the point being that we can argue from the Bible a great many things and be "biblical" but not be right or true b/c we do not bother to be certain our beliefs are logically consistent with our other beliefs. I'm not saying this is what you're doing, though I'm certain other persons on this thread have made inconsistent statements.
If God is about the task of saving someone from every tribe and nation and people and tongue then it also backs up that some will be saved b/c infants can be considered another group. Also, (this is where the logic comes in) if we call this doctrine UNconditional election, then the fact that all infants are elect or all infants are not elect would be in contradiction with this UNconditional Election, as I believe it was Susan said earlier, Salvation is all of grace, so that God alone gets the glory.
We must consider the implications of what we say before we give a position. I was disheartened to see over the summer that Al Molher of Southern Seminary made a statement that all infants go to heaven, then I checked John Piper's site and while Mr. Piper was a great deal more consciouss of the facts he also said that the salvation of some infants was a premature conclusion and he went on to quote another pastor to make his case for all infants being saved. I find this to be sad, and it got me a bit hot under the collar so I spent several weeks on the subject, wrote a 15+ page paper on the issue. I never bothered to send the paper due to being side tracked, but I cannot escape the conclusion that if nothing else Calvinism can only agree with the salvation of elect infants.
I hope something in this post is helpful. I encourage you in this and other studies.
Thank you for the humor, as I said to John earlier, it's obvious we must reason out the beliefs we have and make certain that all our beliefs can logically coexist.
As for this disagreement between Wes and MHeath, I must agree with Wes on this issue. "all infants who die in infancy are elect". is a very specific case, but it still doesn't seem to jive with the doctrine of UNconditional election and what God says about the whole and all of mankind. It also doesn't match up with the just and wraithful and righteouss God who is unchanging and whom I know in Scripture. It's like those persons who say that Jesus was fond of kids so He's going to save them. Well, I'm sure that on earth Jesus was fond of other things but that doesn't mean they'll be in heaven.
I don't want MHeath to think though that I am insensitive to her position, this is a very sensitive issue and I'm certain that she has her reasons.
<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/ranton.gif" alt="" /> This may be off topic, and perhaps I'm misreading a few remarks, but as I understand it one of the two said something about agreeing to disagree, I think both did in fact say that. Personally though, I'm disturbed by this idea that we have a right to believe whatever we want to. NO! We have a no right even to hell as sinners, but we are required to know and do the things of God and we must come to know what is true or we are believing something false and putting our faith in a lie and that is no better than idolatry. We must come to the right conclusion. If I were free to believe whatever I wanted or to disagree with anyone I wanted then I am Santa Clause and there will be Pope's in heaven and libertines too, FIE! It is necessary to have Faith and True Faith in Christ for faith comes from Christ and Faith must go to Christ or it is not true faith it is false. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/rantoff.gif" alt="" />
Our beliefs must be grounded in the Bible first through last and then logic next and then perhaps on the great works of other Christians, but if we argue in any other order then we are not standing on a slippery slope but plunching to our deaths.
Could you please post a link or information as to what thread this was in, I have just read Mark 10 over and I did not see any indication that all infants who die in infancy are saved. I would very much appreaciate your explaination of this view.
