Is God angry with sin , and was sin the Sovereign plan of God ?

[illinoisguy]

I think it’s pretty universally held among Christians that baptism doesn’t save, but perhaps I’m incorrect in this assumption.

Generally speaking, Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Anglicans, Lutherans, Campbellites (Churches of Christ) and a lot of other groups believe that baptism saves. Here is the Lutheran teaching on the subject - this is from the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod, a conservative group, but it is representative of what all Lutherans are supposed to believe:

"Most American Protestant Christians have views of Baptism different from Lutherans. Some see Baptism as little more than a dedication ceremony where the parents are promising to raise their child as a Christian. They don’t think Baptism has the power to do anything. Others think infants should not be baptized. Still others believe that Baptism is something believers do to show their commitment to God. They turn Baptism from gospel into law.

"That is not how true Lutherans view Baptism because that’s not what the Bible teaches. In his Small Catechism, Martin Luther wrote that 'baptism works forgiveness of sins, delivers from death and the devil, and gives eternal salvation to all who believe this.' He could say this because the Bible says that in Baptism God forgives our sins (Acts 2:38; Acts 22:16) and saves us (1 Peter 3:20,21; Mark 16:16). Luther wrote that Baptism is 'a gracious water of life and a washing of rebirth by the Holy Spirit.' He could say that because the Bible says that the Holy Spirit is given in Baptism (Acts 2:38) and that through Baptism the Spirit works rebirth and renewal (Titus 3:5)."

What it means to be truly Lutheran: Baptism

Joel D. Otto Most American Protestant Christians have views of Baptism different from Lutherans. Some see Baptism as little more than a dedication ceremony where the parents are promising to raise their child as a Christian. They don’t think Bapti

wels.net

 

[FSSL]

Why do people assert that babies who die are non elect?

 

[abcaines]

Why do people assert that babies who die are non elect?

I don't.

 

[biscuit1953]

There is no "age of accountability" before which a person is not culpable for their sins: "The wicked are estranged from the womb; they go astray from birth, speaking lies" (Psa. 58:3).

All that verse shows is the sinful nature of the entire human race. This is proven in that 100% of mankind without exception will break God's laws even after they understand what sin is. That doesn't nullify the fact that infants and little children have no record to follow them on judgment day.

 

[Ransom]

There is no "age of accountability" before which a person is not culpable for their sins: "The wicked are estranged from the womb; they go astray from birth, speaking lies" (Psa. 58:3).

All that verse shows is the sinful nature of the entire human race.

Aren't babies part of the entire human race?

This is proven in that 100% of mankind without exception* will break God's laws even after they understand what sin is.

*some exceptions apply

 

[Ransom]

My understanding is that the practice of infant baptism is symbolic, equivalent to the Baptist practice of “baby dedication” in front of a congregation. I think it’s pretty universally held among Christians that baptism doesn’t save, but perhaps I’m incorrect in this assumption.

Amongst evangelical Protestants in the Reformed traditions, yes (Baptists, Presbyterians, Pentecostals, etc.) Lutherans believe in baptismal regeneration, and so do Anglicans.

That's beside the point though. The rest of us agree that baptism is a symbol rather than the efficacious thing itself (see that discussion we had a few weeks ago about what Calvin believed concerning baptism). But what's it a symbol of? It represents the washing away of sin, and the cleansing of the infant from the guilt of original sin. Which still raises the question, if those infants are not guilty of Adam's sin, why do they need to be washed clean of it?

R. C. Sproul uses an anecdote fairly well in Chosen by God to illustrate this:

Fallen man, as the Bible declares, is born in sin. He is “under” sin. By nature we are children of wrath. We are not born in a state of innocence (see Psalm 51:5; Ephesians 2:3).

[Psalm 51, rather than 58, was the text I was thinking of in my other post.]

John Gerstner was once invited to preach at a local Presbyterian church.... [O]ne of the elders explained a special tradition of the church. He asked Dr. Gerstner to present a white rose to each infant’s parents before the baptism. Dr. Gerstner inquired about the meaning of the white rose. The elder replied, "We present the white rose as a symbol of the infant’s innocence before God."

"I see," replied Dr. Gerstner. "And what does the water symbolize?"

Imagine the consternation of the elder when he tried to explain the symbolic purpose of washing away the sin of innocent babies.
​

Plenty of Calvinist-minded theologians make an indirect, though pretty persuasive, case for infant salvation (e.g. Spurgeon, MacArthur, Piper, others). They don't base their argument on any supposed lack of culpability, but on the will of God to bring his chosen people to himself. I've examined their case and still can't say with any sort of certainty which way a given baby goes.

 

[abcaines]

So... are unborn children who die either by disease or murder aka abortion consigned to hell?

 

[Ransom]

So... are unborn children who die either by disease or murder aka abortion consigned to hell?

Agnosticism concerning universal infant salvation doesn't entail belief in universal infant damnation. "I don't know" means "I don't know."

 

[abcaines]

Agnosticism concerning universal infant salvation doesn't entail belief in universal infant damnation. "I don't know" means "I don't know."

I get where you're coming from... the best we can do is speculate. Yet we know God is full of grace and He judges rightly. Though tainted by sin, our sense of justice was given by God (part of the witness we all receive so that all are without excuse) and cringes at the thought of judgement for these little ones. "I don't know" is valid. But for us who are believers, we must never allow ourselves to trade what do know for what we don't know.

 

[Ekklesian]

Do you hold to the Seminal or Federal view of imputation?

The Seminal view holds that all of mankind was present IN ADAM when Adam fell into sin resulting in man's culpability for Adam's sin as if he himself committed this very sin.

Are we sinners by nature or by fiat? If we're sinners by nature, which is the overwhelming implication of the Scriptures even if it weren't stated explicitly, then it would seem that what is called the Seminal doctrine is the true doctrine.

This position renders a man guilty before God and dead in sin...

True.

...to the extent...

There's no almost dead in sin.

...that EVERY infant including those who die due to miscarriage will end up in Hell.

There's a big presupposition tucked away in there, and that is that one's cognitive abilities are a help to his faith.

The only way around such a predicament is through infant baptism and the acceptance of baptismal regeneration.

Not necessarily. Once one understands that faith is an operation of the spirit, and not of the flesh, then the view does nothing to "relegate every one that dies in infancy to the judgment of God." In this world, God can and does get His gospel to all His elect.

An all too common notion needs to be abandoned, and that is the thinking that the spirits of infants are infantile themselves. There is no reason, other than superstition, to think that the spirit of an infant is an innocent and helpless cherubic entity bewildered if it finds itself facing judgment.

No one believes that in the Resurrection, those who died as infants will be raised as such...well...no orthodox believer anyway. Why would we think their spirits part as infants? In the earth, certainly there is an age of accountability, depending upon the offense, when it comes to breaches of civil law. But out of this world, there is no mystery. There is no bewilderment. All those who died in their sin, even in ignorance thereof, will confess the justice and righteousness of God in His judgement of them, for it is their sin though it is very old, and they love their sin.

But once one stops thinking of the spirit of an infant as infantile itself, or as even young, then a lot of the difficulty evaporates.

We understand that EVERY MAN is given "General Revelation" according to this passage but at what point is one able to acknowledge these things which are "Clearly Seen" and what do we do with it. At what point does a man have the ability to comprehend such things which are "Clearly Seen" and at what point does God hold such a man accountable?

And part of that general revelation is what one can perceive in his own heart, which is part of "the things that are made." Jacob and Esau strove in the womb. I have no doubt, that for Esau at least, now that his perception is not limited by his flesh, he has a full and complete memory of that strife, and of the thoughts and intents of his heart, though he were in the womb.

 

[Ekklesian]

The question is not whether or how an infant comes to faith in Christ and receives pardon for sin. It is universally understood by all that such is an absolute impossibility.

That's not true at all, for reasons stated above.

 

[Dr. Huk-N-Duck]

Plenty of Calvinist-minded theologians make an indirect, though pretty persuasive, case for infant salvation (e.g. Spurgeon, MacArthur, Piper, others). They don't base their argument on any supposed lack of culpability, but on the will of God to bring his chosen people to himself. I've examined their case and still can't say with any sort of certainty which way a given baby goes.

I suppose if Aquinas and Augustine couldn’t come to an agreement on this issue, none of us on the FF are going to figure it out. Still, in matters that have no clear conclusion, I’ll default with the stance of the Catholic Church simply due to its historicity.

 

[Ransom]

Still, in matters that have no clear conclusion, I’ll default with the stance of the Catholic Church simply due to its historicity.

The Catholic Church's stance, also,is "we don't know."

As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,"64 allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism. (Catechism of the Catholic Church 1261)​

The unofficial doctrine of infant Limbo is the abode of those infants that die blameless of their own sins, but unbaptized and hence not freed from the guilt of original sin. It's a hypothetical fate, acknowledging the tension between two unknowable alternatives--and hence, again, "we don't know." Which is why Augustine fell on the side of infants experiencing the mildest of eternal punishments, and Aquinas on the side of mild eternal happiness.

 

[Dr. Huk-N-Duck]

The Catholic Church's stance, also,is "we don't know."

Exactly—and that’s the position I’d take as well.

 

[Ekklesian]

Agnosticism concerning universal infant salvation doesn't entail belief in universal infant damnation. "I don't know" means "I don't know."

Lol. There's that awkward term again.

But we aren't ignorant of universal infant salvation. Were infants drowned in the Flood?

Slain by the Angel in Egypt?

Dashed against stones during the conquest of Canaan?

A blessing pronounced upon their executors?

It's not that we don't know. It's that we're afraid to say.

 

[Ransom]

It's not that we don't know. It's that we're afraid to say.

Yes. I noticed you're afraid to say plainly what you mean.

 

[Ekklesian]

Yes. I noticed you're afraid to say plainly what you mean

Allow me to rephrase then:

It's not that you don't know, it's that you're afraid to say.

 

[Dr. Huk-N-Duck]

Allow me to rephrase then:

It's not that you don't know, it's that you're afraid to say.

St. Augustine and Aquinas couldn’t come to a conclusive answer, but you expect us to believe you have?

 

[Ekklesian]

St. Augustine and Aquinas couldn’t come to a conclusive answer, but you expect us to believe you have?

I know the way into the fold. And so do you. It's through the Door by grace through faith. There is no other way. Not for the Jew, or the gentile, or any infant thereof.

 

[Dr. Huk-N-Duck]

I know the way into the fold. And so do you. It's through the Door by grace through faith. There is no other way. Not for the Jew, or the gentile, or any infant thereof.

How would an infant go about in order to “have faith”?