Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Is the what a Calvinist teaches? I am trying to find out what a Calvinist believes. I know Calvinism teaches that by Gods eternal decree of election and reprobation, some are elect to go to heaven, and some are damned. If this baby was one of the elect, does he go to heaven even though he has not trusted on Christ? If he was not one of the elect, is he in hell?
Is the what a Calvinist teaches? I am trying to find out what a Calvinist believes. I know Calvinism teaches that by Gods eternal decree of election and reprobation, some are elect to go to heaven, and some are damned. If this baby was one of the elect, does he go to heaven even though he has not trusted on Christ? If he was not one of the elect, is he in hell?
As far as the 1Cor. 7 passage goes the Presbyterian, those who hold to Covenant Theology and baptism in the use of infant baptism, will use this as an argument for such a view. Since I do not, I understand it to mean that the unbelieving husband/wife and children are legitimate.I have a question for any more traditional Calvinists who are reading this thread. I believe I've given the usual Calvinist answer in post 6. But it seems to me that there's an exegetical problem. If passages like Mat 19:14 and 1 Cor 7:14 actually support this idea, then it seems to me that they would support the idea that all infants are saved. Not just a few elect ones, but all. After all, the children in Mat 19:14 are alive, and there's no reason to expect that they will die in infancy.
But the idea that all infants are saved would present a problem. In Reformed theology, one can only be saved through regeneration. But as far as I know, Calvinism normally considers regeneration to happen only to the elect. I'm not aware of any concept that one can be regenerated and then fall away. That would seem to contradict perseverance of the saints.
That why I said in post 6 that the Calvinist position is not that all infants are saved, only that those who die in infancy are. There's no logical problem with this position, but I doubt that the Biblical passages brought forward to support it actually do. I think if anything they would support salvation of all infants. I don't have any specific alternative to suggest. I do assume that those dying in infancy are saved.
Personally, I believe all who die without faith in Jesus Christ will go to hell. This includes those who did not hear the Gospel because they were born in the wrong time or place, and those who did not live long enough to hear the Gospel and believe.
Whether I am wrong about this, or the preponderance of Christians are wrong, it should give us humility that apart from God’s grace giving us wisdom, we know absolutely nothing. Our hearts are hard like stone and the most obvious of things is utterly incomprehensible apart from God’s grace.
As God asks us to pray for wisdom so that He may grant it, let’s all pray for wisdom for this matter.
For God has shut up all in disobedience except babies so that He may show mercy to all. (Rom 11:32)
Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest, except babies. (Eph 2:3)
the intent of man’s heart, except babies, is evil from his youth (Gen 8:21)
There is none righteous, not even one, except babies; There is none who understands, except babies,There is none who seeks for God, except babies; All have turned aside, except babies, together they have become useless, except the babies; (Rom 3:10-12)
Now we know that whatever the Law says, it speaks to those who are under the Law, so that every mouth, except babies, may be closed and all the world, except babies, may become accountable to God (Rom 3:19)
for all, except babies, have sinned and fall short of the glory of God (Rom 3:23)
Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all, except babies, sinned (Rom 5:12)
So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, except babies, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men. (Rom 5:18)
for “Whoever will call on the name of the Lord, except babies, will be saved.” How then will they call on Him in whom they have not believed? How will they believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how will they hear without a preacher? (Rom 10:13-14)
Two things stick out to me. First, unless we go out of our way to add “except babies” to each of those statements, it seems to me the statements sufficiently address all ages in the same way. Second, for those that say that supposedly elect babies have faith put in their hearts by God that no one can see, wouldn’t that contradict that faith comes from hearing a preacher, as it says in Romans 10:14? Obviously, infants cannot believe by being preached to.
I think Calvinists have a problem here. They have no problem with the doctrine of predestination, which essentially says that God deliberately saves some and not others. They base this doctrine upon the clear word of Scripture and rightly so. They also uphold the doctrines of original sin and total depravity, and rightly so, it puts all under condemnation so that God may have grace on all. Also, the more informed Calvinists will note that there will be fewer people in heaven than in hell, because the Scripture clearly says this as well.
So, if we can accept all these things, why are babies the stumbling point? Romans 9 specifically discusses how God created men (like Esau, whom He “hated”that He would not save and in fact destine for destruction, so that His grace would be magnified. Why not make a single argument from silence, instead of several, and just presume that babies would be like anyone else who did not accept the Gospel and are apparently not predestined to be saved?
In order to ignore this simple logic, preachers like John MacArthur make brash assumptions: “Because God is by nature a savior and desires that all men come to repentance, and since God would have all men to be saved (!), there’s every reason to believe just from that alone, that a caring God that created that life to begin with, who superintends and guards that life, who knows intimately everything about that life, should that life perish physically in its infancy there would be every reason from that Psalm [139] alone to trust the nature of God that is by nature a savior on behalf of that life.”
What MacArthur said amounts to two things: infant universalism and a radically misinterpreted view of Psalm 139. I speculate, if MacArthur’s reason is sound, why wouldn’t God save all men after they die, regardless of age? Why does Romans 10:14 become untrue for the sake of his speculations?
Now, let’s look at Psalm 139:2-4, 13-17
You know when I sit down and when I rise up;
You understand my thought from afar.
You scrutinize my path and my lying down,
And are intimately acquainted with all my ways.
Even before there is a word on my tongue,
Behold, O Lord, You know it all. (…
For You formed my inward parts;
You wove me in my mother’s womb.
I will give thanks to You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made;
Wonderful are Your works,
And my soul knows it very well.
My frame was not hidden from You,
When I was made in secret,
And skillfully wrought in the depths of the earth;
Your eyes have seen my unformed substance;
And in Your book were all written
The days that were ordained for me,
When as yet there was not one of them.
How precious also are Your thoughts to me, O God!
How vast is the sum of them!
The message of the Psalm is simple. God knows everything we are going to say and do, for our whole lives, before we do them. David invokes his time in the womb to say that even then, God knew his future. To take this Psalm and say that this means infants are assured salvation takes several logical leaps and the ignoring of all the Scriptures I quoted above.
R.C. Sproul Jr. takes a more tempered view: “I don’t know [if babies are saved]. The Bible doesn’t say. It is certainly possible that they do. It is also possible that they don’t…Our emotions, however, should not lead us to add to the Bible, nor to muddy the precious saving waters of the work of Christ given to us by faith.”
My view? The Scripture teaches that God has shut up all in disobedience, including babies. Being that the Bible describes no means for non-believers to be saved, the presumption should always be that they are not. Anything else muddies the precious saving waters of the Work of Christ given to us by faith.
As far as the 1Cor. 7 passage goes the Presbyterian, those who hold to Covenant Theology and baptism in the use of infant baptism, will use this as an argument for such a view. Since I do not, I understand it to mean that the unbelieving husband/wife and children are legitimate.
The Matt. passage is simply our Master teaching us that we are to be as children in faith.
I don't think either passage in its context has any application to whether infants are saved.
I believe you got it right in post #12. It's just a lot of traditional argumentative baggage attached to this passage and it takes time to unwrap it.
I understand, but then the link tries to offer an interpretation that is supposedly correct, but I honestly don't understand it. I take the passage to mean that the family is blessed by association with a Christian, but not "saved" by such an association.
The one critical commentary I have on 1 Cor (Thiselton) agrees with you, and so does Calvin. Thiselton's parting comment on the verse:
'Commonsense exegesis comes from Calvin: The godliness of the one does more to sanctify the marriage than the ungodliness of the other to make it unclean. Accordingly a believer can live with an unbeliever [not in the contracting of marriages but in maintaining those already entered into] with a clear conscience.'
Remember that the question is not salvation, but whether the Christian spouse can remain in the marriage. Paul's answer is yes. The marriage is still blessed. Thiselton says (after lots of complex linguistic analysis) that this is in part because Paul has confidence that the Christian spouse will set the tone more than the non-Christian one, as long as the non-Christian agrees to continue.
As to the child, I would argue that growing up in a Christian home is a very significant means of grace. But that certainly doesn't overrule the need for the child to meet normal criteria for salvation (whatever your soteriology says they are).
Thanks a lot. I did not gather that this was the explanation from JM's link, did you read it and if so, understand it?
This is a good, succinct explanation.“If your marriage were impure, then the children that are the fruit of it would be impure; but they are holy; hence the marriage also is holy. As, then, the ungodliness of one of the parents does not hinder the children that are born from being holy, so neither does it hinder the marriage from being pure.”
This is a very good, succinct description of how covenant theology works for infant baptism. Where does the Scripture say we are still under the Old Testament Law and that it is applicable in this sense? Seems like convoluted reasoning.However Calvin makes what I think is a fairly remarkable statement about the children. He believes that being within the covenant, the curse of original sin is by God’s grace removed from them, as it was from Abraham’s progeny. I find this interesting in light of previous discussions about regeneration. He seems to see what I would have called regeneration as a consequence of membership in the covenant, with no requirement of personal faith or individual election.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?