Thread: Anyone know the source of Edward's Quote?

Nope, that was meant to apply only to those who have made a choice to sin, which doesnt include infants who die in a state of innocense.

Originally Posted by FunFromOz

But isn't that the only consequence of the Colonel's statement that:

believe = saved
disbelieve = not saved

?


Perhaps that's why we've had a softening of the free-will Gospel message over the last four decades. Telling a group of free standing 20ish year olds that they are under the wrath of God and that as sinners they, of themselves, of their own choise, must repent and believe or go to hell is one thing; but when they pair off, marry and have children, and unfortunatley there are miscarrages and some even die young the "they (the babies), of themselves, of their own choise, must repent and believe or go to hell" message becomes a burden, to those receiving it and so to the preacher.

Originally Posted by Colonel

Nope, that was meant to apply only to those who have made a choice to sin, which doesnt include infants who die in a state of innocense.

Who therefore (as they haven't sinned) don't need Jesus but get to heaven on their own righeousness.

Originally Posted by FunFromOz

Who therefore (as they haven't sinned) don't need Jesus but get to heaven on their own righeousness.

I discussed that in the other thread.

John Calvin did address "non elect infants" in his "Institutes..."

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/institutes.v.xxiv.html

In the "Decree of God" he consigned non elect infants to eternal death. "I again ask how it is that the fall of Adam involves so many nations with their infant children in eternal death without remedy, unless that it so seemed meet to God? ... The decree I admit is dreadful and yet it is impossible to deny that God foreknew what the end of man was to be before he made him and foreknew because he had so ordained by his decree."
Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 23, Section 7

Originally Posted by Ari

John Calvin did address "non elect infants" in his "Institutes..."

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/institutes.v.xxiv.html

In the "Decree of God" he consigned non elect infants to eternal death. "I again ask how it is that the fall of Adam involves so many nations with their infant children in eternal death without remedy, unless that it so seemed meet to God? ... The decree I admit is dreadful and yet it is impossible to deny that God foreknew what the end of man was to be before he made him and foreknew because he had so ordained by his decree."
Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 23, Section 7

Which is different to believing that all infants who die before being regenerated into believers go to hell, as Bookman's acquaintance thinks. Also, he doesn't wallow in it like the alleged quotes render them as doing.

Originally Posted by Ari

John Calvin did address "non elect infants" in his "Institutes..."

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/institutes.v.xxiv.html

In the "Decree of God" he consigned non elect infants to eternal death. "I again ask how it is that the fall of Adam involves so many nations with their infant children in eternal death without remedy, unless that it so seemed meet to God? ... The decree I admit is dreadful and yet it is impossible to deny that God foreknew what the end of man was to be before he made him and foreknew because he had so ordained by his decree."
Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 23, Section 7

I am sure many of Calvin persuasion dismiss that belief although logically it fits..if God elected some and not others then those others, whether infants or elderly have no redemption...

Originally Posted by Quest

I am sure many of Calvin persuasion dismiss that belief although logically it fits..if God elected some and not others then those others, whether infants or elderly have no redemption...

A Calvinist doesnt necessarily believe in equal distribution when it comes to election. He would say that there are more Americans who are elect than Saudi Arabians. Likewise, there could be more elect babies than elect adults. Even that all of them are. It all comes down to God's choice and that is up to him. Technically that means that all of them could be nonelect as well but the Calvinist is unlikely to entertain that possibility for very long.

Originally Posted by Colonel

Technically that means that all of them could be nonelect as well but the Calvinist is unlikely to entertain that possibility for very long.

If the person is born again than they know that the "all of them" is incorrect and they're not going to entertain the possibility of the impossible are they?

Originally Posted by FunFromOz

If the person is born again than they know that the "all of them" is incorrect and they're not going to entertain the possibility of the impossible are they?

We're discussing people who died as infants. Why did they die before they came to believe, is that because they are all nonelect ? That is the sort of question Calvinists ask themselves.

Originally Posted by Quest

if God elected some and not others then those others, whether infants or elderly have no redemption

Correct, if A then not B.

As we see said in Isaiah 43

But now, thus says the Lord, your Creator, O Jacob,
And He who formed you, O Israel,
"Do not fear, for I have redeemed you;
I have called you by name; you are Mine!

...

"For I am the Lord your God,
The Holy One of Israel, your Savior;
I have given Egypt as your ransom,
Cush and Seba in your place.

"Since you are precious in My sight,
Since you are honored and I love you,
I will give other men in your place and other peoples in exchange for your life.