I think this is the fourth time I've told you. What things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law, Romans 3:19. Therefore, the Scriptures speak to infants, and infants are in need of redemption.
There Are No Infants in Hell
- Thread starter Ekklesian
- Start date
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2013
- Messages
- 3,347
- Reaction score
- 83
- Points
- 48
where does it say infants?
In context who is this letter written to?
It’s very clear it’s to adults, that can simply be proven.
Again, no mention of infants in context of scripture.
You seem to be a Calvinist. But apply IFB principles to your scripture interpretation, at least on this subject.
Also, the Holy Spirit does not bring understanding to infants. Unless you have a chapter and verse that specifically addresses infants?
Last edited:
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2012
- Messages
- 9,443
- Reaction score
- 3,061
- Points
- 113
You invoked circumcision, a facet of the law. The law only serves to condemn. Regardless of all that, they didn’t elect or choose to be circumcised. It was done unto them, not in them. Their circumcision proves nothing about a demonstration of faith on their part.
I didn't cite it as an act of faith on their part. I cited it, as I said above, to show that they were under the law, and therefore under the curse of the law, and in the same need of redemption as anyone else.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2012
- Messages
- 9,443
- Reaction score
- 3,061
- Points
- 113
You keep repeating the same lines to me. If you remember, I didn’t say that babies are born without original sin. I said that in the same manner that Calvin believes that faith is delivered to an elect adult, He could do the same for whomever He chooses, including (all) infants. That famous line from Calvinists, which says “ I don’t know who the elect neither do you so I’ll just preach the gospel” applies here. You don’t know that God doesn’t elect all infants and I don’t know that He elects any infants, but I choose by faith, for a variety of reasons cited by credible theologians like Spurgeon, MacArthur, Mohler, et al, to believe what I do about infants. May your chosen path bless grieving mothers and fathers in their time of need. I doubt it ever will, but we can hope.
As will happen until you quit ignoring them to put other words in my mouth.
You didn't actually say it that way. You said...
To which I replied...
The understood answer is, Nothing. But the answer I am expecting from you et al is, Infants do not have the capacity to exercise faith. My reply would be, but you do? and where does that capacity reside? And I would hope to build from there.
You're whole argument is that Calvinism, as you perceive it, allows for your notions about infants, so what's the problem? But Calvinism doesn't allow for any way to the Father for any descendant of Adam other than by grace through faith, because the Scriptures are emphatic.
So, if you're saying that all who die as infants are saved by grace through faith, just as anyone else who has entered Heaven, other than Christ Himself, I would simply say, it's possible. There's no question that some infants are saved. I would say few. But how do you know that ALL are?
And then you would post something like that article by Mohler that basically appeals to some carnal notion of fairness and the supposed amorality of infants.
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2012
- Messages
- 9,443
- Reaction score
- 3,061
- Points
- 113
I’m going to be charitable despite my desire to correct your mis-statements and misunderstandings, because grace and mellowness of old age has changed me, and simply say that if you were to have simply typed the bolded portion above you could have spared us a lot of unnecessary print.
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2012
- Messages
- 9,443
- Reaction score
- 3,061
- Points
- 113
More good reading to show that infant salvation is not an explicitly nor exclusively Calvinist or Arminian’s historically held doctrine.
I'd rather you just speak plainly. You won't say it outright, but you gave every indication above that you believe an infant must have faith to be saved, but you keep appealing to people who say faith is not required in infants.
Loraine Boettner explained why the doctrine of infant salvation must be uniquely Calvinistic:
“The doctrine of infant salvation finds a logical place in the Calvinistic system; for the redemption of the soul is thus infallibly determined irrespective of any faith
So if you want to be charitable, condescend to my simplicity and answer plainly: to be saved, must an infant have faith? Yes or no?
Spurgeon, as quoted in the cited article:
“Among the gross falsehoods which have been uttered against the Calvinists proper, is the wicked calumny that we hold the damnation of little infants. A baser lie was never uttered. There may have existed somewhere, in some corner of the earth, a miscreant who would dare to say that there were infants in hell...
I would direct you to the title of the thread, and to the first post. Isn't it really the superstitious thought that the ghost of a baby is a baby itself the source of indignation here?
Last edited:
Infants going to Heaven can make sense under either system. The doctrine is consistent with the predestination beliefs within Calvinism. However, it also makes sense with certain Arminian groups (anabaptists/Wesleyans) who put a heavier emphasis on willful sin.
Only if that doctrine requires that faith be found in the one being called. The elect obtain the promises by faith. The elect stand by faith. Romans 11
The birthmark of election is faith. Hebrews 11:6
No faith, no election.
Last edited:
Reiterating the premise of the title and the OP, there is no childhood or adulthood in Heaven (or Hell). Those things are exclusive to a life on earth.
The only place where an infant can burn is in the earth.
The only place where an infant can burn is in the earth.