Mark,
You wrote:
Quote:
We do not say an infant cannot have faith in Christ nor a handicapped/disabled person who is devoid of comprehending simple words.
How dare we say such a thing, knowing full well that God is the author of salvation.
I must say you appear to have an esoteric definition of faith, unknown to even the Apostles.
Hebrews 11:1; "Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see."
Sorry Homer, but it appears you may be the one who is being esoteric.
You demand that
some persons, in this case, Infants etc must have certain knowledge, otherwise they cannot be saved.
That is Gnostic in nature when it comes right down to it.
http://www.carm.org/heresy/gnosticism.htm
We have no right to place this Gnostic idea before God who can save whomever, whenever He desires.
The idea that a small infant trusting in the Lord, would be as ridiculous as a small infant recognising the voice and presence of it’s mother, which we know an infant certainly does. Think about it.
If a mother can have this effect upon an infant,
I am reasonable sure God can do likewise. Please remember, my position is that
Salvation is of the Lord not man.
These may not be able
to articulate the kind of Gnosis that you demand,
but God is not limited by such human wisdom.
You mention faith in the context of scripture which mentions faith in what we do not see.
How do you know an infant or a retarded person cannot have faith.
You are the one perhaps not “seeing”, because your presuppositions regarding faith preceding regeneration are blinding you to the very nature of salvation.
So you imagine infants have hope and certainty regarding the testimony of the gospel? The errors of Calvinism lead from one error to another.
How you could actually biblically defend such a thing I find astounding. I only have to show the example of John in the womb to disprove your view, and then your view collapses.
I believe dying infants go to heaven because they are innocent: they are not guilty of Adam's sin.
That is utterly erroneous and in fact is Pelagianism.
A denial of original sin!
Dare I mention that word Heresy again!
All people including infants are born in sin, hence not innocent.
Your position leads to denying important truth Homer.
Now, having said that. I believe Infants go to Heaven too, but
not on the basis of so called innocence, but rather by grace according to God’s mercy. They are saved the same way all are saved.
I have no dogmatic and clear scripture for that belief, but have come to that view based upon a few scriptures, and at the end of the day, the goodness of God and the grace of God,
but in no way because Infants are some how innocent.
One of us has scripture to back our theology and one of us does not.
Psa 51:5 Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.
Psa 58:3 The wicked are estranged from the womb; they go astray from the womb, speaking lies.
You might want to review Ezekial 18. Interestingly, the early church fathers seemed to all believe in the innocence of infants.
We can talk about children “as innocent” in the sense that they have little actual sin as in they have not yet lived long enough to be judged as a bad tree bearing bad fruit, but only time will reveal that outcome more clearly.
Why anyone would want to argue that children are innocent before God I find simply incredible in light of scripture. (Rom. 5:12-23) (Eph. 2:3)
I find little evidence of the early Church teaching that Infants are innocent before God.
Quote:
(Not that there are Non elect Infants who die and go to Hell, which is so often the charge! Most reformed believers have always believed that Infants that die go to Heaven)
Yes, and one of Calvinism's best and brightest, N. L. Rice, argued that only elect infants die! The non-elect infants are immortal! A completely unbiblical idea that leads to an absurdity.
I have no clue as to who you are referring to, but that aside,
if you could stick to the reformed creeds and confessions, we can discuss these matters from a historical reformed view, and not individuals.
Quote:
Your charge is a misunderstanding of reformed theology.
In other words, you are making the assertion that Infants are incapable of faith, and therefore concluding that the WCF is teaching that unbelievers can be regenerated.
What is this I read? I thought your doctrine teaches that men must be regenerated prior to faith; they can not believe without first being regenerated, thus all are regenerated in a state of unbelief. We are getting more and more abstruse.
I meant to say “can’t”
not can. Simple mistake.
Please answer
what was otherwise clear in what I was saying.
If you were following what I was saying you would have picked up this simple mistake. The fact you did not and then use it to present me as being “abstruse” I find ungracious to say the least.
Perhaps you cannot follow an argument, or perhaps you have little desire to follow the argument because what you are looking for is any point you can pick fault with, then attack it.
Please try and interact better with those whom you disagree with.
If I was following your argument,
I would have immediately picked up your simple mistake and never would have responded the way you chose to do. Why do that? I do not understand.
Maybe you are really being “abstruse” Homer?
Quote:
Leading to the inescapable conclusion that all infants who die are not saved. Same with disabled/mentally retarded etc.
Also, how on earth could John the Baptist have been saved in the womb as an Arminian?
See Ezekial 18.
No, explain it please, from an Arminian point of view, but given your views rejecting Original sin, then Arminian would be too generous a label for you Homer.
Arminianism affirms Original sin and does not teach the innocence of children. Not historical Arminianism at least, which everyone knows was more robust and biblical than modern evangelical Arminianism.
Classical Arminians affirm with Calvinists the doctrine of total depravity. The differences come in the understanding of how God remedies this depravity.
Mark
Mark
