A Facebook conversation on the subject:
- The Salvation of the Infants of BelieversSince we must make judgments about God’s will from his Word, which testifies that the children of believers are holy, not by nature but by virtue of the gracious covenant in which they together with their parents are included, godly parents ought not to doubt the election and salvation of their children whom God calls out of this life in infancy._________________________________Because of human sin, and the fact that the guilt of Adam’s sin is imputed to all of his descendants, unspeakable tragedies occur. Ours is a sinful and fallen race. We are weakened in body because of the inherited corruption passed down to us from our first father. Furthermore, we are subject to the sinful actions of our fellow sinners. Because we are under the curse, we will all die. As one of the sages of popular culture puts it, “nobody gets out of here alive.”
One of the worst consequences of the Fall is the death of a child. It is bad enough that children, now grown, must bury those who brought them into the world, and who have cared and provided for them. It is even worse when parents are forced to bury a child who never lived to adulthood. If such a tragedy is not a graphic picture of the reality which is the imputation of Adam’s sin to all his progeny, then I don’t know what is.
Having raised the brutal reality of the consequences of original sin (guilt, death, and final judgment), the authors of the Canons have also spoken of election (the exercise of God’s mercy) and reprobation (the exercise of God’s justice).
But at this point, the Canons address the very difficult subject of what happens when infants and small children of believers die in infancy, or in their youth, without ever having made a public profession of faith in Jesus Christ. Are we to consider such children as elect (and saved)? Or as reprobate (and lost)? Even framing the question like this makes us shudder, but it is a question we have all asked (if the truth be known), and the Canons do not shirk from answering it.
Sunday, February 26 at 5:28pm · LikeReply
- Scott Bushey While most American evangelicals can fall back upon their Pelagianism and argue for the innocence of such children, we have already seen that the Scriptures do not allow us such an unbiblical escape. If the Bible is clear about anything, it is clear that our children–however precious they are to us–are sinful from the time of their conception (Psalm 51:5; 58:3). Like their parents, they are by nature, children of wrath, and therefore subject to the curse, which is death (Romans 5:12).Despite the widely accepted American dogma of an “age of accountability”–that unspecified moment when children supposedly become responsible for their sins, and for any possible rejection of Christ–there is no such doctrine taught anywhere in Scripture. Sadly, this unsupported dogma holds out the false promise of a salvation apart from Christ, and sets out the false hope that should our children die before they reach the age of accountability, they will automatically go to heaven, because they are “innocent” and never needed saving.Realizing the myth of human innocence under any circumstances, the Canons point us to an even better source of comfort–not the supposed innocence of our children, but to the merciful God, who in Jesus Christ, provides the means of salvation for all of his elect, including the children of believers. God’s grace may even extend to all those who die in infancy, but since Scripture is silent on this matter, and all we have is human opinion, we’ll leave that discussion for another time, as the Canons themselves wisely do.
According to the apostle Paul (1 Corinthians 7:14), the children of believers (even if only one parent is a Christian) are holy. They are “set apart” through the faith of a one believing parent, so that all promises made by God to his people under the covenant of grace apply to them. If we are believers in Jesus Christ, without hesitation we affirm that our children are members of the covenant of grace, the promises of which are signed and sealed unto them though baptism. As Christian parents, the Canons direct us to find comfort in the tragic case of the death of a child, in the fact that all of the promises of the covenant center in God’s unconditional promise, “I will be your God, and you will be my people.” We need not count upon the false hope of the innocence of our child to save them. No, we count on something much, much, greater–the mercies of God in Christ!
It is because God is absolutely faithful to his covenant promises, and not
Sunday, February 26 at 5:28pm · LikeReply
- Scott Bushey because our children are somehow “innocent,” we can be confident that those children of believers who die in infancy are indeed numbered among the elect, and go to heaven when they die. The Canons wisely counsel us not to doubt the election of such children, but to be absolutely confident of being joined with them eternally in the “age to come.” Why? Because of God’s covenant promise! God’s grace in Christ trumps human sin.The promises God makes to us under the covenant of grace give us wonderful comfort in the darkest of moments. These same promises remind us that God is gracious, and that death and the grave do not have the final word. God will raise all his own from the dead, ensuring that all his people will one day bask in their promised inheritance together–the children with their parents–as they enjoy their eternal Sabbath rest in the presence of the Savior.While the promise never removes the pain of death–this side of Christ’s second coming–it certainly gives us a sure and certain hope. Far better to count on the blood and righteousness of Christ, than on the supposed “innocence” of those we love. And this is why we make our judgments from Scripture, where we find far better promises and a much greater hope. For it is Scripture which promises us, that should our children die, they are even now beholding the face of that one who redeemed them with his precious blood.
Sunday, February 26 at 5:29pm · Like · 1Reply
- Andrew Gunn All infants that die before reaching the state of moral culpability are among the elect.Monday, February 27 at 4:08pm via mobile · Like · 1Reply
- Andrew Gunn To take the stance that only covenant infants that die in infancy go to heaven (based on the covenants of promise) logically lead to the doctrine of presumptive regeneration.Monday, February 27 at 4:13pm via mobile · Like · 1Reply
- Scott Bushey ’state of moral culpability’ ???Monday, February 27 at 4:25pm via mobile · Like · 1Reply
- Andrew Gunn LOL.Monday, February 27 at 4:28pm via mobile · Like · 1Reply
- Andrew Gunn They are not sinless. God is just gracious.Monday, February 27 at 4:28pm via mobile · Like · 1Reply
- Andrew Gunn That’s a false dichotomy, my friend. With that logic, you should also be able to kill Christian adults because they’d go to heaven too lol.Monday, February 27 at 4:31pm via mobile · Like · 1Reply
- Andrew Gunn Murder is sin, regardless of whether we kill babies or adults.Monday, February 27 at 4:31pm via mobile · Like · 1Reply
- Scott Bushey You’re elect then you’re not elect?Monday, February 27 at 4:42pm via mobile · LikeReply
- Andrew Gunn @Scott- No. They are decretively elect. If they die after reaching adulthood, then they were never elect to begin with (e.g., Esau).Monday, February 27 at 4:49pm via mobile · Like · 1Reply
- Andrew Gunn Most of the Reformers held to this view also.Monday, February 27 at 4:52pm via mobile · Like · 1Reply
- Andrew Gunn @Brian- LOL. You will need to expose the majority of the Reformers and Reformed theologians as well then.Monday, February 27 at 4:53pm via mobile · LikeReply
- Andrew Gunn I’ll post one quote and then post several more later. You can chew on this for now.“I everywhere teach that no one can be justly condemned and perish except on account of actual sin; and to say that the countless mortals taken from life while yet infants are precipitated from their mothers’ arms into eternal death is a blasphemy to be universally detested.” ~ John Calvin, Institutes, Book 4, p.335Monday, February 27 at 4:58pm via mobile · Like · 1Reply
- Andrew Gunn As I said I’ll post more when I get home. But here are more quotes from Ricky’s blog:“John Newton, the great minister who wrote the hymn Amazing Grace was certain of this truth. He wrote to close friends who had lost a young child: “I hope you are both well reconciled to the death of your child. I cannot be sorry for the death of infants. How many storms do they escape! Nor can I doubt, in my private judgment, that they are included in the election of grace.”The great Princeton theologians Charles Hodge and B. B. Warfield held the same position.
Such, for instance, was the position held by Charles Hodge, W. G. T. Shedd, and B. B. Warfield. Concerning those who die in infancy, Dr. Warfield says: “Their destiny is determined irrespective of their choice, by an unconditional decree of God, suspended for its execution on no act.
B. B. Warfield may have expressed it best when he beautifully affirmed, “If all that die in infancy are saved, it can only be through the almighty operation of Holy Spirit, who works when, and where, and how He pleases, through whose ineffable grace the Father gathers these little ones to the home He has prepared for them.”
My favorite and one of the most eloquent and powerful expressions of this understanding of infant salvation came from the heart of Charles Spurgeon. Preaching to his own congregation, Spurgeon consoled grieving parents:
“Now, let every mother and father here present know assuredly that it is well with the child, if God hath taken it away from you in its infant days.” Spurgeon turned this conviction into an evangelistic call. “Many of you are parents who have children in heaven. Is it not a desirable thing that you should go there, too? He continued: “Mother, unconverted mother, from the battlements of heaven your child beckons you to Paradise. Father, ungodly, impenitent father, the little eyes that once looked joyously on you, look down upon you now, and the lips which scarcely learned to call you father, ere they were sealed by the silence of death, may be heard as with a still small voice, saying to you this morning, ‘Father, must we be forever divided by the great gulf which no man can pass?’ Doth not nature itself put a sort of longing in your soul that you may be bound in the bundle of life with your own children?”
John Calvin, the sixteenth-century Reformer for whom Calvinism is named, asserted, “I do not doubt that the infants whom the Lord gathers together from this life are regenerated by a secret operation of the Holy Ghost.” And “he speaks of the exemption of infants from the grace of salvation ‘as an idea not free from execrable blasphemy’” (cited by Augustus Strong in Systematic Theology). He furthermore declared that “to say that the countless mortals taken from life while yet infants are precipitated from their mothers’ arms into eternal death is a blasphemy to be universally detested” (quoted in Presbyterian and Reformed Review, Oct. 1890: pp.634-51).
Charles Hodge was a 19th-century professor of theology at Princeton Seminary, which was in those days a foremost American bastion of Calvinism. He wrote: “All who die in infancy are saved. This is inferred from what the Bible teaches of the analogy between Adam and Christ. ‘As by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.’ (Rom. v.18,19.) We have no right to put any limit on these general terms, except what the Bible itself places upon them. The Scriptures nowhere exclude any class of infants, baptized or unbaptized, born in Christian or in heathen lands, of believing or unbelieving parents, from the benefits of the redemption of Christ. All the descendants of Adam, except Christ, are under condemnation; all the descendants of Adam, except those of whom it is expressly revealed that they cannot inherit the kingdom of God, are saved. This appears to be the clear meaning of the Apostle, and therefore he does not hesitate to say that where sin abounded, grace has much more abounded, that the benefits of redemption far exceed the evils of the fall; that the number of the saved far exceeds the number of the lost” (Systematic Theology, vol.I, p.26)
Monday, February 27 at 5:22pm via mobile · Like · 1Reply
- Andrew Gunn Buck buck buck!!!!!!! lolMonday, February 27 at 5:43pm via mobile · Like · 1Reply
- Scott Bushey The concept is eisegetical at best. What we do know is that men are born in sin. Infants are not above that. We know that God punishes sin. We know that everyone outside of the Ark perished and went to Hell; how do we know that, because Gods word tells us specifically:1 Pet 3:20who disobeyed long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water,
Gen 75The Lord saw how great man’s wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time. 6The Lord was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain. 7So the Lord said, “I will wipe mankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earth—men and animals, and creatures that move along the ground, and birds of the air—for I am grieved that I have made them.” 8But Noah found favor in the eyes of the Lord.
9This is the account of Noah.
Noah was a righteous man, blameless among the people of his time, and he walked with God. 10Noah had three sons: Shem, Ham and Japheth.
11Now the earth was corrupt in God’s sight and was full of violence. 12God saw how corrupt the earth had become, for all the people on earth had corrupted their ways. 13So God said to Noah, “I am going to put an end to all people, for the earth is filled with violence because of them. I am surely going to destroy both them and the earth. 14So make yourself an ark of cypressc wood; make rooms in it and coat it with pitch inside and out.
Surely, there were infants in the mix that was ‘wiped’ out!
Major fail on your idea.
Monday, February 27 at 6:53pm · LikeReply
- Scott Bushey Say what?Monday, February 27 at 7:51pm · LikeReply
- Scott Bushey In light of the doctrine of total depravity, and the passages I present having to do with Noah and the flood, this statement is a fail:“I believe that the scriptures teach ambiguously that all….”.The better terminology would be that you have arrived at the idea via necessary inference.
Monday, February 27 at 8:53pm · LikeReply
- Scott Bushey ”These “little ones” would inherit the Promised Land, and would not be judged on the basis of their fathers’ sins.”Maybe in this particular instance; but you can’t hang your hat on that single verse-especially when there are so many verses contrasting that rationale. You running with that is a straw man.Exodus 20:5 (New International Version)You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me,
Leviticus 5:17, 18.“And if a soul sins and commits any of these things which are forbidden to be done by the commandments of the Lord; though he knew it not, yet is he guilty, and shall bear his iniquity. And he shall bring a ram without blemish out of the flock, with your estimation, for a trespass offering, unto the priest: and the priest shall make an atonement for him concerning his ignorance wherein he erred and knew it not, and it shall be forgiven him.”
Here God holds even the ignorant, guilty as charged!
Look at this one:
Lev 4:27″‘If a member of the community sins unintentionally and does what is forbidden in any of the LORD’s commands, he is guilty.”
Just because a man has no knowledge, he is guilty:
(Isaiah 5:13), “My people are gone into captivity because they have no knowledge.” And again in Hosea, “My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge.”
Monday, February 27 at 9:08pm · LikeReply
- Scott Bushey One of the other things to consider Rick is that you have done what no Christian has done, that being, you have made Christ a universalist. You are saying that Christ saves all infants. Or is it just infants? Is there an age limit; for instance, you meet a woman whose 5 year old died last week from leukemia? In other words, what is the age limitation on your theory?Monday, February 27 at 9:19pm · LikeReply
- Scott Bushey To say that God saves all infants is unscriptural and it is universalism. No reformer holds to your position. It completely runs across the bibles idea of the elect. To say all infants are elect, is akin to a universalism.As well, you are pushing the age of accountability thing. You refuse to say that you have no idea of what age. That means that your position allows for children and not only infants.When it comes to the doctrine of total depravity, nothing more needs to be said. Romans says it clearly, All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God”. God must punish sin.
The Flood destroys your argument. Gods word clearly shows that all those outside the ark ‘perished’.
“13So God said to Noah, “I am going to put an end to all people, for the earth is filled with violence because of them. I am surely going to destroy both them and the earth.”
Monday, February 27 at 9:30pm · LikeReply
- Scott Bushey Additionally, here is what you have doen, what stops you from saying this universally across the board. God goes to men and issues the same grace to them whenever-even if they don’t know him-or they didnt repent; what the error her is Gods character; you have made him arbitrary. God is held by His decree and commands. He cannot be arbitrary.I will quote Phil Johnson:“It is that sense of the word that people usually mean when they say God is not arbitrary. He is not subject to fits of whimsy. He is a God of order and of law—a “principled sovereign”—and though we may not always understand His ways, we know He is never irrational, erratic, or inconstant (James 1:17). He always acts in accord with His own consummate holiness and perfect righteousness. He cannot lie (Titus 1:2), and He cannot deny Himself (2 Timothy 2:13).
Of course, He is bound by no rule higher than Himself, but nonetheless, all that He does must be consistent with His own immutable character. Thus He cannot be “arbitrary.”
Monday, February 27 at 9:34pm · LikeReply
- Andrew Gunn Isn’t John Calvin a Reformer? lolMonday, February 27 at 9:41pm via mobile · LikeReply
- Scott Bushey Rick, You didn’t interact with the sins that flow down generationally and sins that were done in ignoranceMonday, February 27 at 9:41pm · LikeReply
- Scott Bushey http://www.cprf.co.uk/crnews/crnoctober2011.htmCovenant Reformed News – October 2011www.cprf.co.ukHome l C.R.News l Books l Articles l Audio l Resources l Italian l S.Wales l Search
Monday, February 27 at 9:43pm · Like · Reply
- Scott Bushey The reformers you mention are not saying that the infants of devil worshippers go to heaven. You have misunderstood them. As well, when Jesus mentions the little ones, he is speaking covenantally, not universally. thats where you are blowing it.Monday, February 27 at 9:45pm · LikeReply
- Andrew Gunn @Scott- You believe that covenant children that die in infancy go to heaven, right?Monday, February 27 at 9:47pm via mobile · LikeReply
- Scott Bushey I want you to start with the flood and the passages I placed in response to your blog; lets take this a step at a time.Druggie!Monday, February 27 at 9:51pm · Like · 1Reply
- Scott Bushey ”You believe that covenant children that die in infancy go to heaven, right?”I do not. I believe elect children dying in infancy do. I hold firmly to the WCF.Monday, February 27 at 9:52pm · LikeReply
- Scott Bushey Andrew,You will find that I am consistent. That is exactly what I am doing with you and my brother from another mother up in Disney World.Monday, February 27 at 9:54pm · LikeReply
- Scott Bushey Go to bed Rick!Monday, February 27 at 9:54pm · LikeReply
- Andrew Gunn @Scott- You have been saying that the Reformers, Christ, etc., were speaking covenantally with regard to infants. But now you’re saying you only believe elect infants that die are saved? Question- When David said, “I will go to him,” what was he referring to?Monday, February 27 at 10:08pm via mobile · LikeReply
- Scott Bushey Andrew,You have misunderstood the depth of covenantalism and what the reformed believe. When you say, ‘but now you’re saying…”. This statement says that what I say about covenantalism and my belief and elect infants are at odds. This is not true. All the reformed I am aware of and even the ones that Rick mentions, hold to a covenantal view on infants dying in infancy.Tuesday, February 28 at 6:02am · LikeReply
- Andrew Gunn @Scott- And what is the covenantal view of infants dying in infancy?Tuesday, February 28 at 7:27am · LikeReply
- Scott Bushey According to the standard, i.e. The WCF ch 10III. 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 incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.Tuesday, February 28 at 7:36am · Like · 1Reply
- Andrew Gunn @Scott- Where did David’s son go? And was his son elect?Tuesday, February 28 at 7:39am · LikeReply
- Scott Bushey I will take this up later in the day as I must be about the Lords work.I want to add, Brian C. mentioned something that rings true here. Andrew, I know you hate the doctrine of Presumptive Regeneration_I personally hold to a doctrine of elective regeneration. What you and Rick have done is essentially falll into the PR trap. You are presuming that all infants dying in infancy are saved by Gods mercy and grace-even the child of the devil worshipper. As Brian has mentioned, if this is true and biblical, let us all kill our infants! Surely it is more important that they are rushed into glory in lieu of this putrid life and flesh!Tuesday, February 28 at 8:09am · LikeReply
- Scott Bushey Lets begin:We all reformed agree that man is totally depraved-he is estranged from the womb. In light of the passages presented specifically in regards to Noah and his family-you both do agree that there were children and infants that perished in the flood-correct?Tuesday, February 28 at 11:32am · LikeReply
- Scott Bushey Step up bro…both you and your Aussie pal.Tuesday, February 28 at 11:53am · Like · 1Reply
- Scott Bushey ;)Tuesday, February 28 at 11:55am · Like · 1Reply
- Andrew Gunn @Scott- If there were infants that perished in the flood, they were among the elect. Yes, Noah and his family were saved, but Scripture is silent on the destination of the infants (if any) that were drowned. Good and necessary consequence leads me to this position as well as the analogy of faith.Tuesday, February 28 at 5:01pm via mobile · Like · 1Reply
- Andrew Gunn The argument you are using is akin to that of credobaptism. “The text says only those who believed were baptized” vs. “The text says only Noah’s family were saved.” What about the rest of Scripture? And you still have not answered my question about David’s son.Tuesday, February 28 at 5:06pm via mobile · Like · 1Reply
- Scott Bushey You are not dealing with the scriptures; you are avoiding them. Everyone knows that the ark is an anti type of Christ. Everyone who wasn’t in the Ark did not have any covering nor any justifier.Tuesday, February 28 at 5:24pm · Like · 1Reply
- Andrew Gunn I am trying to deal with Scripture, but you are not answering. What about David’s son? (I ask this for the 4th time now lol)Tuesday, February 28 at 5:33pm via mobile · LikeReply
- Scott Bushey David know the doctrine of total depravity well. He also know hod Gods elective decree works. He also knew well that no one knows the state of anyones position in Christ x for the Lord Himself. If my daughter died today, I would be inclined to believe the best for her, due to covenant and as well as her testimony thus far-is she saved, I don’t really know. What David was referring to was the grave. The camp is split on what david referred to. Anyone who knows their systematic understands that.You ask about the rest of scripture in regards to Noah’s Ark. Everyone knows that everyone in the flood were condemned. The ark was a reflection of the covenant of grace.Good try. that doesn’t float! No one believes that-no one!
Tuesday, February 28 at 5:33pm · LikeReply
- Scott Bushey Wrong. The WCF validates what the reformed held to.Tuesday, February 28 at 5:35pm · LikeReply
- Scott Bushey In the council of many, there is safety.Tuesday, February 28 at 5:35pm · LikeReply
- Andrew Gunn If you survey Reformed literature from the last 400 years since Calvin, you will find that the vast majority of writers contend that infants who die are taken to heaven.Tuesday, February 28 at 5:35pm via mobile · Like · 1Reply
- Scott Bushey You guys are both 4 point Calvinists. You cannot hold to what you believe and say that you believe in total depravity. So now you have presumed regeneration on all infants and the rejection of total depravity.Tuesday, February 28 at 5:37pm · LikeReply
- Andrew Gunn And the WCF does not take either stance. It just says, “elect infants that die are saved.” The question is, WHO are those elect infants? There is no qualification for that.Tuesday, February 28 at 5:37pm via mobile · LikeReply
- Scott Bushey It says clearly,”elect infants dying in infancy…”. That means, only elect infants that die in infancy are regenerated and converted.Tuesday, February 28 at 5:38pm · LikeReply
- Scott Bushey If they wanted it to include all infants, they would have written “infants dying in infancy are considered elect…”Tuesday, February 28 at 5:39pm · LikeReply
- Scott Bushey Thats not what they said….you are pressing both the scriptures and the confession to fit your bill.Tuesday, February 28 at 5:40pm · LikeReply
- Scott Bushey You believe in TD but with a caveat….Tuesday, February 28 at 5:40pm · LikeReply
- Scott Bushey What is it in the infant that gets Gods attention?Tuesday, February 28 at 5:40pm · LikeReply
- Scott Bushey Is it the same thing that was in Mother Theresa? How about the clinical imbecile?Tuesday, February 28 at 5:41pm · LikeReply
- Andrew Gunn Nope. They did not say “all infants” because some divines held to infant salvation, and others didn’t. So they were careful with their wording and said, “elect infants.” It does not say “some infants,” does it? They worded it carefully to give room for both views.Tuesday, February 28 at 5:41pm via mobile · Like · 1Reply
- Scott Bushey There is something in the infant that gets God to change his gears and go to them solelyTuesday, February 28 at 5:42pm · LikeReply
- Scott Bushey ”Elect infants’ totally itemizes the category. Only elect infants…Tuesday, February 28 at 5:43pm · LikeReply
- Andrew Gunn The elect infants refer to all infants that die, in my view.Tuesday, February 28 at 5:43pm via mobile · Like · 1Reply
- Scott Bushey Wrong. Thats not at all what it says and not at all what the reformed hold to. I have a 1000 books on my wall that say that there are infants that are non elect. How you guys have abandoned this is beyond me as it is an easily perceived doctrine.Tuesday, February 28 at 5:44pm · LikeReply
- Andrew Gunn But you have to qualify WHO those elect infants are. Is it all infants that die? Or only some infants that die? There is no qualification given there in the WCF.Tuesday, February 28 at 5:44pm via mobile · Like · 1Reply
- Scott Bushey The reason that there is no qualification is because it says “elect infants”. Everyone, including the divines knows that the term elect is excluding. Geesh.Tuesday, February 28 at 5:46pm · LikeReply
- Scott Bushey The Ark is an anti type of Christ, the scriptures say that everyone else perished. The only ones saved were the 8 and by water.Tuesday, February 28 at 5:47pm · LikeReply
- Scott Bushey Whats the issue.Tuesday, February 28 at 5:47pm · LikeReply
- Scott Bushey I will be faithful to the scripture, even when it comes to my own flesh and blood.Tuesday, February 28 at 5:48pm · LikeReply
- Scott Bushey So help me God!Tuesday, February 28 at 5:48pm · LikeReply
- Andrew Gunn If they meant strictly only “some” or “certain” elect infants that die, it would have been mentioned. But it is not. It just simply says, “elect” and leaves it at that. Many of the divines held to infant salvation. So you are saying they are not Confessional? lol. I just got into work now. Give me a bit. I will present Scripture, quotes, and basic logic shortly and prove that your position is incorrect and that it also leads to presumptive regeneration, even if you only claim to hold to presumptive election.Tuesday, February 28 at 5:55pm via mobile · LikeReply
- Scott Bushey ”3. 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 incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.”You all are bound to include all imbeciles in your theory now as the confession mentions them in the same light as your flawed rationale.Tuesday, February 28 at 5:57pm · LikeReply
- Scott Bushey Here’s where you’re at: Infants that die are elect. Those that cannot hear nor comprehend the word are elect. It’s getting closer to a universalist approach to these groups.Tuesday, February 28 at 5:59pm · LikeReply
- Scott Bushey http://www.christcovenantrpc.org/SiteContent/66/documents/Audio/103110S-P.mp3P103110S – UnknownPwww.christcovenantrpc.org
Tuesday, February 28 at 6:04pm · Like · Reply
- Scott Bushey http://www.puritanboard.com/f15/infants-dying-infancy-35053/index2.htmlInfants, dying in infancy – Page 2www.puritanboard.comOriginally Posted by panta dokimazete . . . What fundamental doctrine have I undermined, my brother? Earlier you said: Again – “by nature
Tuesday, February 28 at 6:04pm · Like · Reply
- Andrew Gunn @Scott- Just real quick. You mentioned that David’s reference to his son was that they’d lie together in the same burial place. That is absurd! That idea certainly isn’t going to make a person want to clean up and have a meal lol (which is what David did after he stopped mourning). David was able to say, “I shall go to him,” because David knew where both he and his infant son were going! And yes, David’s theology was sound. Notice he did not say, “I presume to go to him” or “I may go to him.” He said, “I SHALL go to him” with CERTAINTY. That is clear-cut in the text, my friend. This is not some mere outward covenantal hope doctrine. David holds to the Reformed doctrine of infant salvation.Tuesday, February 28 at 6:18pm via mobile · Like · 1Reply
- Scott Bushey You misunderstood me; What I said was: ” What David was referring to was the grave.”In other words, David was referencing going to the grave, his death. He would die, much like his child. He understood the doctrine of election as well as covenant. There is no way he would presume anything, unless of course his child was a child that bore fruit, confessed… and even then, who is to really know? I believe you are saved, but do I really know?Tuesday, February 28 at 6:25pm · LikeReply
- Andrew Gunn That is the same thing in different words, basically bro. It would make no common sense if David was referring to death. Why would he cease mourning after the baby died? He felt no reason to fast and pray because his sorrow was instantly and completely replaced by CERTAINTY (“I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me”).Tuesday, February 28 at 6:35pm via mobile · Like · 1Reply
- Scott Bushey Please deal with the Ark and the flood. This is a fact you cannot evade.Tuesday, February 28 at 7:09pm · LikeReply
- Scott Bushey 1 Peter 3:20who disobeyed long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through waterMonday, August 27 at 7:54pm · LikeReply
- Scott Bushey ”In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water”It says right here that only eight were saved…..Any argumentation that defies the doctrine of election is faulty. We all know that the doctrine is exclusive and prejudicial. There are the elect and the unregenerate; it has no conscience to groups, races or social setting. To align it with a specific group, i.e. infants is hazardous and flawed.
Gen 6″5The Lord saw how great man’s wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time. 6The Lord was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain. 7So the Lord said, “I will wipe mankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earth—men and animals, and creatures that move along the ground, and birds of the air—for I am grieved that I have made them.” 8But Noah found favor in the eyes of the Lord.
9This is the account of Noah.
Noah was a righteous man, blameless among the people of his time, and he walked with God. 10Noah had three sons: Shem, Ham and Japheth.
11Now the earth was corrupt in God’s sight and was full of violence. 12God saw how corrupt the earth had become, for all the people on earth had corrupted their ways. 13So God said to Noah, “I am going to put an end to all people, for the earth is filled with violence because of them. I am surely going to destroy both them and the earth.”
Original Word: קֵץPart of Speech: Noun MasculineTransliteration: qetsPhonetic Spelling: (kates)Short Definition: end
The word ‘END’, as used above is used in Ezekiel to describe the Day of the Lord:
“1Moreover the word of the LORD came unto me, saying, 2Also, thou son of man, thus saith the Lord GOD unto the land of Israel; An end, the end is come upon the four corners of the land. 3Now is the end come upon thee, and I will send mine anger upon thee, and will judge thee according to thy ways, and will recompense upon thee all thine abominations. 4And mine eye shall not spare thee, neither will I have pity: but I will recompense thy ways upon thee, and thine abominations shall be in the midst of thee: and ye shall know that I am the LORD.”
So many more examples of this Hebrew word.
Tuesday, August 28 at 7:31am · Edited · Like · 1Reply
- Scott Bushey Wrong and you know it.Tuesday, August 28 at 8:39am via mobile · LikeReply
- Scott Bushey was the ark an anti type of Christ or not?Tuesday, August 28 at 8:42am via mobile · LikeReply
- Scott Bushey ”18For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit, 19through whomd also he went and preached to the spirits in prison 20who disobeyed long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water,”Apparently, this verse says that the the people in the day of Noah are in ‘prison’, i.e. hell.Tuesday, August 28 at 2:10pm · LikeReply
- Scott Bushey I just proved it above-from scripture. If the ark is an antitype of Christ, that says that anyone saved must be in the ark (as in Christ). Those outside the ark, were not in the ark-what don’t you get? The passage from 1 Peter also says that christ went and visited and preached to those that perished in the days of Noah. As well, you are irresponsibly restructuring the doctrine of election; You are making it non discriminatory to a group. No group is immune to the doctrine of election. No group are all elect.Tuesday, August 28 at 4:23pm · LikeReply
- Scott Bushey ”Well, you think that because these people died physically that this proves your point but it doesn’t IMO anyways.”But thats where you err. Why? Because you fail to recognize that the inference is spiritual. No one, and I mean no one holds to what I presented as a physical death. Yes, it is physical, but what the scriptures are conveying is people who perish and people who are saved and in the instance of the passage I present, it is obvious. You have the ark, it is an atitype and you have all those outside of the antitype. You believe whatever you want, but it’s wrong and you know it.Tuesday, August 28 at 4:47pm · LikeReply
- Scott Bushey ”Right, and I agree that it has a spiritual reality in Christ for the true elect. But thats just it, its a type of Christ the shadow but its not the reality that it points to. Shadows and types don’t save spiritually, thats a major key to remember.”You’re telling me what the major key to remember in the didactic of this passage? You’re intentionally evading the orthodox understanding of it-intentionally.“Only Christ the reality saves spiritually.”
Thats right, and in this instance, that justification was applied to Noah and his family. Why would you say that in the context of this conversation???
“So while the Ark points to Christ it is still only the type and not the reality”
That is so bizarre! Listen to what you are saying. What does that have to do with anything; Like everyone in this thread as well as those reading this don’t know that. Everyone from Adam to the cross had the “type and not the reality”. That changes nothing in this conversation. Justification by faith alone is as relevant then as it was till now. You intentionally evade the passages. Using your terminology, you have built a straw man and it is blowing in the wind; as I have said before, anyone reading this thread will cringe at your preposterous rationale and treatments of these soteriologic passages.
I’m through with this…..
Reformed Doctrine of Predestination – Christian Classics Ethereal Library
11. INFANT SALVATION Most Calvinistic theologians have held that those who die in infancy are saved. The Scriptures seem to teach plainly enough that the children of believers are saved;
Preview by Yahoo
Are all Infants Elect? (Split from End Times Thread) – P…
Originally Posted by Prufrock Geoff, If I may interject here — What is concerning people is not the assertion of the possibility of all infants going
Preview by Yahoo
Infants of believers dying in infancy
This is an expansion of the thread appearing in paedo answers. Edward made this statement: Since we must make judgments about God’s will from his Word,
Preview by Yahoo
Question On Infants’ Faith
I don’t know if this is the right forum, since I am paedo. Nevertheless, I am looking for answers from credos on this, so I think this is the right
Preview by Yahoo