----- Original Message -----
From: "breusswane" <breusswane@...>
To: <soundofgrace@...>
Sent: Thursday, December 25, 2003 3:30 PM
Subject: Re: [soundofgrace] Infant Salvation


> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Chris Arnzen" <carnzen@...>
> >Every passage that I can recall specifically mentions those who are being
> sent there are being damned for >their wicked DEEDS.
>
[Chad] > This is why Romans 9 is important.  Esau was damned before he was
born.  If
> we allow "deeds" to be the sole qualifier in soteriology we are no better
> than the Arminians or Shepherdians/New Perspectivists.

[Chris] Of course Esau was damned before he was born. I never attempted to
dispute that the non-elect were anything other than damned from the moment
of their conception. What I was attempting to say was that it is very
legitimate and not at all contradictory for a Calvinist, such as Spurgeon,
to believe that God does not permit non-elect children to die in infancy
because all biblical descriptions of hell involve the damned being punished
for their wicked deeds (damned infants do not have the opportunity to
perform such deeds). Their election or non-election has nothing whatsoever
to do with their deeds, but their punishment does have much to do with their
deeds. Regarding deeds, it is unfair to equate in any way my views with
Arminians or Shepherdians/New Perspectivists, or Romanists for that matter.
I am a FIRM believer in Sola Fide. Deeds are NEVER a qualifier for entering
into eternal life in Heaven, but they biblically are always a reason for
eternal punishment in hell. The non-elect don't go to hell simply because
they are non-elect. It is because they are non-elect that their sins have
not been paid for at Calvary, and therefore, since Christ was not punished
for their sins as their substitute, they must be punished for their own
sins. That is why they will go to hell.


[Chad] And John the
> Baptist's situation is also important on this point... if we grant that
John
> the Baptist had been given faith in the womb, then we must grant that
> unbelief can be pre-natal as well... or worse... unbelief is inherent to
> human depravity (which I tend to believe).  And contra the guy you knew
who
> believed all dead infants are damned, Jacob was redeemed before he was
born.
> What is good for Esau is good for Jacob, and vise versa.

[Chris] I believe my statements above prove I am in full agreement with you
here.


[Chris (from previous post)]> >I am also not certain why many Calvinists who
reject that all dead infants
> are among the elect reject 2 >Sam.12:23 as a support that all dead infants
> are of the elect, where David, speaking of his dead son, said: >"But now
he
> is dead, wherefore should I fast? can I bring him back again? I SHALL GO
TO
> HIM, but he shall >not return to me." I have heard from some that David's
> statement "I shall go to him" is not referring to Heaven >but merely the
> grave. I am not certain why David would have found comfort in that (it
> appears he is now in a >state of comfort and peace since he ceased fasting
> and weeping).
>
[Chad] > Personally, I don't think it matters whether David is referring to
Heaven or
> the grave.  The best reading of the text is that he is speaking of heaven.
> The problem is hermeneutical: it is always a dicey thing, and in this
> instance - unwise (IMHO), to base theology on the narrative.  There is not
> enough indicative in the narrative, a mere sentence, to build an entire
> theological paradigm with the intentions of giving comfort.  Far better
for
> us to allow the volumnous weight of reformed theology on the typical ordo
> salutis and fit our infant theology into the volumnous material, rather
than
> cram a system of theology into one sentence in the Old Testament.  Was
David
> speaking with authoritative revelation about this child's redemption?  On
> what basis does this quote carry any more authority than any number of the
> hundreds of quotes in the OT?

[Chris] I did not say it was ultimate proof, but merely that it supports the
notion that believers can have confidence their children dying in infancy
are in Heaven (non-believers would not necessarily be seeking this comfort
about their children). The Scriptures never correct David if he spoke a
non-truth here.


[Chris (from previous post)] > >Are you who reject that all dead infants are
among the elect saying that
> even CHRISTIAN parents who grieve >the death of a very young child or
infant
> cannot find *doubtless* comfort in Paul's words in 1 Thes.4:13-18?:
>
[Chad]  I don't find this to be problematic.

[Chris] How can you not find that problematic??? I did stress *doubtless*
comfort for parents regarding the state of their dead infants.


[Chris (from previous post)] > >But if we are honest as Baptistic brethren,
we believe there is an "age of
> accountability" where a child >reaches a stage where he or she can make a
> credible profession of faith in order for him or her to be >baptized and
> receive the Lord's Supper. I think we have to be careful with how we word
> our protests to an >"age of accountability" lest we begin to sound like
> paedobaptists or paedocommunionists.

[Chad] > And here's where I hop off the baptist bandwagon to join the
paedobaptists,
> even in my credobapticity. :-)  Are we suggesting that it is the
profession
> that saves?  We must not confuse the age of accountability in profession
of
> the table with the "age of saving faith" (for lack of a better term).  If
> you or I had died before having the chance to say the sinner's prayer or
> make a public profession would we have been saved or damned?  We must
> insist, if regeneration precedes faith is true and faith is a gift is
true,
> that the profession is a fruit of regeneration.  My daughter has never
said
> the sinner's prayer.  I've never encouraged her to.  But I have encouraged
> her to trust Jesus as her savior and as her satisfaction.  I've seen her
> simple child-like faith in the various statements she's made about Jesus.
> Somewhere along the way, I think she has believed... and who knows... that
> gift of faith may have been given to her as an infant.  What I refuse to
do
> is load the profession with more soteriological meaning than it warrants,
> which is what the age of accountability does, IMHO.  And contra the
> paedobaptists, it is her regeneration that places her into the body of
> Christ, not the professional baptism (part of the problem... another
rabbit
> trail with implications... is how we've disconnected baptism from
> regeneration with "baptism/membership classes" and "probationary
> validation", etc...The moment it is obvious that there has been
> regeneration, there should be a baptism.  The early church knew nothing
> about a profession of faith outside of baptism.  But I digress....)

[Chris] No disagreement here. You misunderstood me. I never said that my
view of an "age of accountability" had anything to do with regeneration or
salvation (I think my comments about John the Baptist prove my beliefs on
that). I merely said all Baptistic Christians believe in an "age of
accountability" for baptism & the Lord's Supper. Historically these
ordinances have never been administered to a child of an age where credible
evidence of genuine faith could not be detected in Baptistic churches.


> I don't really have a problem with those reformed who believe "only elect
> infants die"... so long as they recognize the "special dispensation"
they're
> "creating", and do not ground the belief in God's morality, but allow that
> God could/might allow reprobate infants to die.

[Chris] My views in this regard have nothing to do with a false belief that
if God worked contrary to my views He would be unjust. I am merely basing my
views on the biblical evidence of WHO goes to hell and WHY they go there. It
is never because God has merely looked at the damned at their death and
noticed the "non-elect" stamp on their foreheads that only He can see. It is
always biblically because the non-elect have sins that need to be punished,
and Christ has not been punished on their behalf, as He was for His elect.
Biblically, although I believe even elect infants are deserving of hell due
to our inherited Adamic sin that elect and non-elect share, I have never
seen a passage indicating that as a sole cause for the punishing of the
damned in hell. Grace & peace!