Featured Is Grace Irresistible?

One day I hope to meet the son I never had the opportunity to hold, and I have this hope based on God's revealed nature (not excluding election). I believe you are correct (but I don't see enough biblical support in those verses). I also leave this in God's hands.

 

I agree, Brother, that the full numbered of the elect will be saved and regenerated. I also agree that this is the unseen work of God (the work of the Spirit). My concern (where I questioned the relevance of a passage) is another topic and I apologize for bringing it up here as it diverts from the OP and is not really a topic I desire to explore (I don't see a benefit in the topic). I agree with you that although men resist God, He accomplishes His will in each of our lives....which is why I prefer the term efficacious grace (it also helps avoid the strawmen argument that we all at one time resist God).

 

I am aware of the theories of children who die in infancy. David will go to the child but the child will not return to him. This is not evidence, brother, that the child was elect (David could equally have been speaking of a shared fate in Sheol, not looking for a reunion in Heaven). So while I agree with you in terms of the fate of these children, I also disagree to an extent as there is not enough biblical evidence to build a doctrine for children that die in infancy. But this issue has no impact on the subject of the OP.

So again, I agree with you and Icon regarding the fate of these children, but I disagree that there is enough biblical evidence to form a doctrine on children who die in infancy. This is in God's hands. He is sovereign and those those who perish as children do not do so apart from His will. As doctrine, I think this is enough.

I agree that the elect will be saved (all of the elect will be saved) because this is a work of God and not of man. I also agree that some misrepresent irresistible grace (although the term itself can be misleading) in order to defeat it. So I am not arguing against your (or Icon's) conclusions - only that I do not think the biblical evidence is enough to dogmatically hold to a doctrine for children who die in infancy. Within this thread it was used as an illustration of the invisible work of the Spirit. I agree with the topic, just not the illustration. Insofar as defending efficacious grace, there are far stronger arguments than 2 Samuel 12:23, and I believe that we need to stick with the firmer ground.

 

I suspect you don't understand what sola fide means in the context of soteriology. "Faith alone" means faith without any admixture of works.

 

Big difference between being justified in the sight of God and being justified in the sight of men.

Faith saves us in the sight of God.

Works confirm our salvation in the sight of men.

 

Really? What is "hard believism?"

 

Romans 4:2 For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not toward God.
3 For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.”
4 Now to him who works, the reward is not counted as grace, but as something owed.
5 But to him who doesn’t work, but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness.
6 Even as David also pronounces blessing on the man to whom God counts righteousness apart from works,
7 “Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, whose sins are covered.
8 Blessed is the man whom the Lord will by no means charge with sin.”

Romans 11:5 Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.
6 And if by grace, then it is no longer of works; otherwise grace is no longer grace. But if it is of works, it is no longer grace; otherwise work is no longer work.

 

I agree with Meadows. Spurgeon uses Mt. 19:14 in the same manner others use the passage to justify paedobaptism, but the passage itself supports neither. My objection is not against the belief that these children will be saved (that is my belief as well), but I question the handling of Scripture. Likewise, John 3:3-8 explains how one enters the Kingdom, not who enters. To apply this passage to infants is to carry into the text the presupposition that infants are indeed saved. While I believe that these infants and children are saved (and if they are, then they are included in the redeemed as well), it would be eisegesis to interpret the passage as proof text for my belief.

I believe that children who die in infancy are reconciled to God in Christ, based on God's own nature and sovereign will. I therefore believe that these are among those for whom Christ died to redeem, that they are purchased and numbered among the elect. But I cannot with good conscious state that this is the clear teachings of Scripture, because it is not. These children are in God's hands, in His will, and will serve to glorify His holy name. I don't understand the need to go further than that with this issue.