Heaven populated w/out the cross?

Let's just cut to the chase, shall we?

Reformed Theology says that God elects people to believe from before the foundation of the world. Therefore, an unborn baby, in God's frame of reference, is either already elected or is not elected.

Therefore Reformed theology says that unelected babies who die in infancy go to Hell.

Westminster Confession, sec. X, part 3

III. 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 uncapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.

Notice the first two words, "Elect infants". The inescapable conclusion is that there are unelect infants.

So Reformed theology teaches that unelect infants go to Hell.

 

Of course it's the conclusion. Calvinism is based on God's sovereign choice of electing one individual over another for salvation. If God doesn't "pass over" some infants then you are going to have to come up with another petal for your TULIP because saying God saves all infants or "we just can't know" does not fit your system.

 

No, his understanding of where infants go. I wouldn't expect you to get it.

 

Luke, sorry it took so long to get back to you but I have been at school. I really don't like quoting a whole post but I thought it needful. I bolded and enlarged a portion of your reply for emphasis not to shout at you. Just to refresh our memories my question was: Has the law entered babies? and you said:

Will in the end you did answer my question it just took you a while to get there. Thank you

 

Willis, you are correct, this parable shows the prodigal son beginning with his father, but don't expect Luke to get it.
The scriptures say all we like sheep have gone astray. How can you go astray if you were not first in the flock?
The scriptures say we have turned from God to our own way. How can you turn from God if you were not first with him?
And as you pointed out, how can you be alive AGAIN unless you were previously alive?
But don't expect Luke to get it.

 

What is the context of Luke 15? It begins with the Pharisees and scribes of accusing Jesus of receiving and eating with sinners.
He answers with three parables that all show something that began in the possession of the owner that was lost, but then recovered again.
First, a man with a hundred sheep who loses one. It went astray. He searches until he finds it and rejoices. He then shows this represents a sinner who repents.
Second he tells of a woman with ten pieces of silver who loses one. She also searches until she finds it and rejoices. Again, Jesus says this represents a sinner who repents.
Third, he tells of the prodigal son who left his father and falls into sin. He repents and returns to his father who gladly receives him. His father says his son was dead, but now is alive AGAIN.

In all three parables these did not begin lost, but did become lost and were recovered. And Jesus made it clear he was speaking of sinners who become lost that repent.

So, what do you think this shows? Does it show we start out lost, or become so afterward?

 

I'm comfortable with saying I don't know on this particular issue. David's saying is not enough to base a doctrine upon. I just know that all infants are not elect.

The WCoF,Savoy Declaration,the London 1689,the Synod of Dort, and all the rest that make a pronouncement on the topic are wrong to do so in my estimation. There just isn't enough biblical information to make a call one way or the other.

We should deal with issues that are clearly revealed in scripture -- not this subject. What's next ...pontificating on baptism for the dead? The early Mormons ran away with that one.

 

Any point of my post on the Prodigal Son you want to contend with, Bro. Aaron??? There's a saying that the wrestler Scott Hall used to say, "Don't sing it, bring it!!" I am up for a good debate, how 'bout you??

 

Bro. Aaron, please don't take this as me being snotty or hateful. But, if you want to hash about this, please do so. I love a good debate as long as both sides act civil. Just don't "cut'n run", let's hash this thang out!! :thumbs:

 

No, because your basic premises are noncalvinistic, and if what has been posted already, not just in this thread, but in the numerous threads I've seen you kick against the notion, hasn't convinced you of its truth, then we'd just be beating the air.

 

The Agnostic calling out pelagian doctrine. Go figure.

 

Your interpretation fails on so many counts it is hard to know where to begin. First, the Gentiles did not leave home, they never belonged to the home, the scriptures say Gentiles were "strangers" to the Commonwealth of Israel.
Second, if anyone went astray it was the Jews and they remain in this condition today.
Third, in the whole context of Luke 15 Jesus is speaking of individual sinners, not nations or groups of people. In verses 7 and 10 Jesus said there is joy for ONE SINNER THAT REPENTETH.

And you cannot deny he is speaking of those who were once in his possession but afterward were lost. In vs. 4 it says "What man of you HAVING an hundred sheep". In vs. 8 it says "Either what woman HAVING ten pieces of silver", and in vs. 11 it says, "A certain man HAD two sons". So all these verses speak of something that was originally in the possession of the owner but was afterward lost.

I fully understand why you do not like these parables as they clearly refute Total Depravity as you hold it.

That is unfortunate, but what are you going to do?

 

Admit he was wrong? Nah. :tongue3:

 

I agree with this. If this parable were concerning only repentance why even mention the jealousy of the OLDER [FIRST BORN] brother?

Consider this [excerpt from a post of mine made a long time ago] concerning the 'first borns' of scripture:

"If I were to make the statement that it is the second born that is favored by God, I cannot produce as proof a single bible verse that concisely conveys that premise. In fact, in this instance, the scriptures, 'by the letter', could be construed to be contrary to that statement; God claimed the firstborn as being holy to Him, '(as it is written in the law of the Lord, Every male that openeth the womb shall be called holy to the Lord),' [Lu 2:23] I can however produce a history of 'first(borns) vs second (borns)' from throughout the scriptures that indicates otherwise:

It was not Cain's sacrifice that God had respect for, but it was Abel's; 'Cain was of the evil one, and slew his brother....Because his works were evil, and his brother`s righteous.' [1 Jn 3:12]

Shem was the elder brother of Japheth, but, 'God enlarge Japheth, And let him dwell in the tents of Shem...' [Gen 10:21 ASV & 9:27]

It was Ishmael, the firstborn, that was born after the flesh, and he persecuted Isaac, the second born, that was born after the Spirit. Isaac was the child of promise; Ishmael was cast out. [Gal 4:29]

It was said of Esau and Jacob, 'The elder shall serve the younger. Even as it is written, Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.' [Ro 9:12,13]

It was not Leah his first wife that Jacob loved, but it was Rachel his second wife. [Gen 29:30,31]

It was not the first generation of the exodus that entered into the rest of the promised land, it was the second generation; 'But your little ones, that ye said should be a prey, them will I bring in, and they shall know the land which ye have rejected.' [Nu 14:31]

It was not Saul the first king of Israel that would do all of God's will, but it was the second king David that was a man after His heart; '...Saul the son of Kish...when he had removed him, he raised up David to be their king; to whom also he bare witness and said, I have found David the son of Jesse, a man after My heart, who shall do all My will.' [Acts 13:21,22]

It was not the first covenant of the law ( I desire mercy, and not sacrifice) that God had pleasure in, but it was the second covenant of grace; '....a better covenant, which hath been enacted upon better promises. For if that first covenant had been faultless, then would no place have been sought for a second.' [Heb 8:6,7]

Consider 'the first man Adam' vs. 'the last Adam, ' ... that is not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; then that which is spiritual. The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is of heaven.' [1 Cor 15:45-47]

There is not a concise statement from 'the letter' that indicates anything peculiar about the second born, but it can be reasoned from these examples that they do hold a special place in the scriptures. [Incidentally, FYI, there are some astounding allegories of the contrast and enmity between the two covenants contained within the examples listed, particularly of 'that generation' while Christ was upon earth]

The point (of this way off topic post) is that there's not always a single concise statement to be found in scripture to prove something, it has to be reasoned and deduced."