GRPL ping.
As far as infants are concerned, no man inherits any sin.(Ezekiel 18:19-20) The soul that sinneth shall die. Sin is trangression of the law. (I John 3:4)What is the law for the newborn that he has transgressed? Isaiah 7:16 teaches that there is a time before a child knows to to choose between good and evil.
Calvin, Campbell, Arminus, Spurgeon, Thomas Aquinas, all of them, who should care what any man says? We will be judged by the words of Christ, not by the doctrine of any man. (John 12:48)
You had me reading eagerly to this point - then you swipe needlessly to bolster the calvinist position
you if anyone can present a rational argument based on the merits of calvinism alone.
do you honestly feel our heresy is damning? and only double pre-dest 5pt OP's are non heretical and valid?
The thief on the Cross had no time to investigate theology - by grace alone is th e mantra, isn't it ?
that aside.......
I take issue with your application of......In Mark 10:14, Jesus Christ said, "Let the little children come to Me, and do not forbid them; for of such is the kingdom of heaven." He then admonished adults in the next verse, "Assuredly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God as a little child will by no means enter it." .......clearly, "receiving" the kingdom of God as a child speaks to our complete surrender of will to that of God, Christ and the Holy Spirit - much in the same manner a young child relies completely upon the parents for their feeding and care - in this case, spiritual and eternal
In no way does it intimate that persons dying in infancy are saved and received into glory.
continuing - Old dead Calvinist, Matthew Henry (albeit a lukewarm 4pt T.U.L. P.) splashes water on your premise
Verses 13-16 Some parents or nurses brought little children to Christ, that he should touch them, in token of his blessing them. It does not appear that they needed bodily cures, nor were they capable of being taught: but those who had the care of them believed that Christ's blessing would do their souls good; therefore they brought them to him. Jesus ordered that they should be brought to him, and that nothing should be said or done to hinder it. Children should be directed to the Saviour as soon as they are able to understand his words. Also, we must receive the kingdom of God as little children; we must stand affected to Christ and his grace, as little children to their parents, nurses, and teachers.
"Christ's blessing would do their souls good" intimates there soul is in a condition that needs propitiation - and we know that to be true why ? .......the_doc told us about the damning nature of original sin.......bringing us to the the fork in the road.
Does God pardon that original sin in unbaptized infants? -or does He fully pardon the sins of those children despite the fact they have not been brough to Christ as Mark 10:14 so clearly presents as His desire?
I ask that honestly and seriously - not trying to be a smart alec
Hope you are feeling better.......I had opportunity to spend a few days in Jacksonville and St. Augustine last week - lovely area - and the locals were very polite and kind
God’s not going to cast them out of His presence because God is good???? Carry this out to its natural conclusion.
It was interesting but not surprising the author uses many of the same verses the Arminians use to support their views. These are all weak verses and text. Because there are no real substantive verses that children go to Heaven the author ends up quoting a number of theologians who happen to think this same thing as well.
It is regrettable in my mind that Calvins who pride (not a good word) themselves on strict scriptural interpretation would become mushy over this issue. I hate to sound like an ogre but there are no clear passages for children going to Heaven. In fact I would argue there is at least one scripture which would suggest, as shocking as this may sound, that not all children do in fact go to Heaven. When King Jeroboam’s son became sick and the mother went to the prophet Ahijah to see if the child would recover, Ahijah told her:
“All Israel shall mourn for him and bury him, for he alone of Jeroboam’s family will come to the grave, because in him something good was found toward the Lord God of Israel in the house of Jeroboam.” 1 King 14:13
I’m not exactly sure what “…something good was found toward the Lord God…” means (and I don’t believe it has to do with works or merit) but the text tells us that God singled out this child to take him home rather than live under the evil rule of Jeroboam. Surely Jeroboam had other children. The "he alone" strongly implies that God didn't do it for any of Jeroboam other children and doesn’t do this for all children as incomprehensible or unfair as that may seem to us.
Since the scriptures are silent on this issue all we can do is rest on the assurance that God is wise, merciful and just to make the right decisions and the right choices in the death of children. People are always telling God who needs to go to Heaven and that’s not our business.
I think I can fully agree with that statement. I believe that it is God's sovereign will that infants are saved even without any exercise of faith and that adults are saved through the exercise of faith. In all cases God's election is predicated on God's terms.
read later
Saved from what? Why would God condemn an infant, when He knows beforehand, everything that that infant will do for his entire life?
Sadly, the Calvinist's seem to have inherited the false Catholic doctrine of original sin.
To the Orthodox Christian original sin only applies to Adam and Eve. Since they were thrown out of paradise their offspring live with that consequence but they do not inherit that sin.
Only a psychopathic God would punish a child for the sin of the parent.
In the Old Testament, passage escapes me, it mentions that the sins of the fathers would be visited upon the third, even to the fourth generation. If one takes this passage out of context, one would believe that the children are sinful. However, the passage is referring to the consequences of sin, not spiritual death. If it were spiritual in nature, then it ends after the fourth generation, implying no further punishment for spiritual separation from God. Not so, if one does not repent, the ultimate end is hell. Also, conversely and logically, blessings of God would end after the fourth generation which is not plausible as heaven is eternal.
Hope that helps.
Good news bump.
The 1689 London Baptist Confession puts it thus;
Elect Infants dying in infancy, are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit; who worketh when, and where, and how he pleaseth: so also are all other elect persons, who are uncapable of being outwardly called by the Ministry of the Word.
appears as though not ALL infants are Elect, and we have no way of knowing which infants ARE Elect.
Consider: do abortionists save more souls than mainline evangelical churches?
I'm only through the fisrt 100 posts. If it's been mentioned already, I'll get to it...
Evils of infant baptism
http://www.reformedreader.org/history/howell/evilsofinfantbaptismtoc.htm
BTTT