Infant Death and Salvation

[Darrell C]

All elect sinners are saved the same way. There might be different means employed by God but the same salvation is the result. I see in scripture God dealing with all of His sheep,young or old, rich or poor by means of the Covenant of Redemption being fully accomplished in the cross of the Lord Jesus Christ.
The blood that propitiates the wrath of God is applied as a covering to the elect children;

11 For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one:

for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren,

12 Saying, I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the midst of the church will I sing praise unto thee.

13 And again, I will put my trust in him. And again, Behold I and the children which God hath given me.

14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;

15 And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.

I agree, and consistently teach that believers have always been saved by grace.

The above context is that of men who are born and live lives, the children are believers, and in view is temporal existence. While the infant in the womb has a temporal existence, the sanctification spoken of in Hebrews deals with both temporal and eternal sanctification, eternal clearly taught as accomplished by Christ...

...throughout the entire Book.

While from the eternal persepective infants dying in the womb will be among the brethren in my view, because they are saved by the grace of God according to His righteous judgment, there is no real relevance of this passage to the issue of the infant dying in the womb.

The infant, for example, is not "through fear all their lifetime subject to bondage."

Your ideas are very similar up to a point. You go on though to speculate as many will, trying to re-think or come up with your own unique take on some of the issues......That is what I meant when I said I am not following you down those theological trails.... you are welcome to do what you need to, but I find in viewing your responses;

I have not actually contributed speculation other than to point out views that differ in this discussion.

I am not speculating when I say...

And just to clarify, I am not saying this is reasonable, because I go back to my view that God judges sin based on man's response to the revelation that has shown that person it is sin, whether this is the internal witness God provides for all men, or direct revelation such as we see when God speaks directly to men, to men through Prophets, or through His Word (accompanied by the ministry of the Spirit, which makes it so that they have no excuse (and the internal witness, just to clarify, is a work of the Spirit as well, though it does not equate to eternal indwelling, but the ministry seen throughout Scripture in regards to the revelation of truth by God to man)).

Every statement I make here I can back up with Scripture and have done so frequently, that can be seen in the Public REcord, at least as far back as the Record remains since the new ownership began.

You say...

You go on though to speculate as many will, trying to re-think or come up with your own unique take on some of the issues......That is what I meant when I said I am not following you down those theological trails....


Yet here you are offering your view.

I interpret this as "You are wrong and making things up, what you are saying unbiblical, and I am not going to embrace your teaching, so I will ignore what you actually believe and take this opportunity to teach my own view."

I'm okay with that, Iconoclast, really. But at least understand what I actually believe before saying you reject my position.

[some might consider them long, sort of like some puritan writings where they take two pages to say what one paragraph might have said}
Continued...

Where does this come from?

But as I was saying....you state several ideas that many might agree with,but then you assume every reader is following you and then you seemed a bit startled to find you get a reaction....just an observation.

And where does this come from? lol

I assume every reader is following me? On the contrary, what is evident is that there are a number of members here with ruffled feathers that will take any opportunity to reject and contradict anything I say...because they are mad at me.

So this observation is about as astute as your observation that I believe...

What is your Biblical Basis for the idea that all are sinners at conception?

Now, again, if you do not think it is profitable to look at the focus of the OP...

...why are you participating?


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

I answered to the OP. I offer clarification on that. When the discussion goes off....sometimes I do not feel the need to follow.

But you do not show that I have gone off-topic.

You answered the OP, I answered your response, now you can address my response to that response, if you so choose. Up to you.

But if you are going to interact, please address what I say.

Well yes....what we are given as revealed truths are for us....
29 The secret things belong unto the Lord our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law.

When anyone overthinks these things...it leads to confusion.

And when people don't think it should be thought about...we see a lack of knowledge and wisdom.

I do not see a Biblical Basis for "Let's just leave it in the hands of the Lord," which equates to two things I see in your responses thus far:

1. We don't need to know;

2. I know and you need to just take my word for it.


Well, not all of us simply embrace what men say Scripture means on any given point. Some of us feel God has placed in our hands His Word, and He means for us not to be ignorant of what He has revealed:


Hebrews 5:11-14

King James Version (KJV)


11 Of whom we have many things to say, and hard to be uttered, seeing ye are dull of hearing.

12 For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat.

13 For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe.

14 But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.



2 Timothy 2:14-16

King James Version (KJV)


14 Of these things put them in remembrance, charging them before the Lord that they strive not about words to no profit, but to the subverting of the hearers.

15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

16 But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness.


We have a clear mandate from the Word of God to study the Word of God, that we not be lazy, and that we not be ignorant of things revealed to us. The Writer of Hebrews rebukes his brethren because they are ignorant of the revelation provided them in the Hebrew Scriptures, which makes it difficult for him to expound on the revelation provided to this Age.

And I do not see this topic as something God does not mean for us to understand, and we can understand it quite simply from the pattern God has set forth from the very beginning.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

Any sinner saved....is saved by God's mercy from womb to tomb.

And that is not the point of the OP, Iconoclast.

Probably every member here will agree with your statement, as I do...

...but it doesn't address the focus of the OP.

And you know this, don't you? You will make a definitive statement as we go, despite playing this off as an unknowable issue that remains in mystery.

It is by examining Scripture that we can know all that God has given us on the issue.

The ordinary way God saves is the Spirit using the word.

Okay, this is helpful.

The implication of your statement is that there is a difference between men receiving the Word of God and the Spirit enlightening men to the understanding of the Word and...

...the infant in the womb.

Do I have that correctly assessed?

How God deals with the persons who cannot communicate in normal ways is between Him and that individual person..

It's actually between God and the Bible Student as well, Iconoclast. Because we have definitive statement in regards to a people who had not received the Word of God, or the Covenant of Law:


Romans 2:11-16

King James Version (KJV)


11 For there is no respect of persons with God.

12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;

13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.

14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:

15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another)

16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.


I suggest to you that the infant in the womb can be compared to those Paul refers to here: they have not received direct revelation, but that does not nullify that God provides an internal witness to men apart from direct revelation.

Now, how will these men be judged? Is it not according to their response to this internal witness?


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

consider what is called Ezkiels infant;
Ezekiel 16King James Version (KJV)

16 Again the word of the Lord came unto me, saying,

2 Son of man, cause Jerusalem to know her abominations,

3 And say, Thus saith the Lord God unto Jerusalem; Thy birth and thy nativity is of the land of Canaan; thy father was an Amorite, and thy mother an Hittite.

4 And as for thy nativity, in the day thou wast born thy navel was not cut, neither wast thou washed in water to supple thee; thou wast not salted at all, nor swaddled at all.

5 None eye pitied thee, to do any of these unto thee, to have compassion upon thee; but thou wast cast out in the open field, to the lothing of thy person, in the day that thou wast born.

6 And when I passed by thee, and saw thee polluted in thine own blood, I said unto thee when thou wast in thy blood, Live; yea, I said unto thee when thou wast in thy blood, Live.

7 I have caused thee to multiply as the bud of the field, and thou hast increased and waxen great, and thou art come to excellent ornaments: thy breasts are fashioned, and thine hair is grown, whereas thou wast naked and bare.

8 Now when I passed by thee, and looked upon thee, behold, thy time was the time of love; and I spread my skirt over thee, and covered thy nakedness: yea, I sware unto thee, and entered into a covenant with thee, saith the Lord God, and thou becamest mine.

9 Then washed I thee with water; yea, I throughly washed away thy blood from thee, and I anointed thee with oil.

Not exactly relevant to the OP: this shows birth and progressive growth.

Not an infant that dies in the womb.

God is preaching to Jerusalem and in the first part of this portion of scripture we get a "possible" indication of what might take place with elect infants who die in infancy...

Jerusalem did not die in the womb.

There is no correlation.

.I say that because that is not the point of this message to Israel..[nevertheless you might find it a helpful section to consider}
I offer it, but I am not going to write a book on it if you see what I am saying.

I agree...there is nothing in this passage which we can correlate to "elect infants who die in infancy."


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

All sinned and were condemned in Adam as our federal head, our representative....psalm 51, psalm 58 speak to our condition. All non elect beings will go into second death justly.

Could you show me "federal head" in Scripture?

I agree all "non-elect" will go into the Second Death," because only those who are reconciled to God are Elect, and its just a given.

Yet as we weed through pulpit bred mythologies, such as "Those who have not heard the Gospel of Christ cannot enter Heaven," have to be reconciled with infant death, and while one might speculate that in the womb God presents them with the Gospel and they are regenerated, where is the Biblical Basis for it? Recently John the Baptist was given as an example of salvation in the womb because he is said to be filled with the Holy Ghost from the womb.

Sounds reasonable, but...

1. John the Baptist was not Baptized with the Holy Ghost;

2. John is not equated with "the least in the Kingdom;"

3. John died not being sure that Jesus was the Christ (Matthew 3:11);

4. John was not in relationship with God through the New Covenant (and just to point out, the mythology that the New Covenant is not the Everlasting Covenant, and that the Everlasting Covenant has always been in effect is denied by Scripture);

5. John was not indwelt by the Risen Christ.

6. Many men were filled with the Holy Ghost prior to Pentecost.

These are just a few reasons why John cannot be used as an example of regeneration prior to Pentecost, and, it does not speak to how and why infants, who are conceived in separation from God, are saved despite the fact that they die before they are reconciled to God through Jesus Christ.

The simple answer is that the infant in the womb is judged justly according to their response to the revelation provided them. In the womb we can safely say that infants are not capable of reason, and this allows for the grace of God to be applied to them just it was to the Old Testament Saint, that also died...not having the Mystery of the Gospel of Christ revealed to them.

They were saved by grace through faith...alone. They had a foundational faith in God which was never meant to be the end of God's revelation to man, for the Mystery of Godliness was to be revealed, that God manifested in the flesh that He might stand in the sinner's stead, to make atonement for their sins, and reconcile men to the relationship lost in Adam.

Seems fairly clear to me.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

You can take your pick of many verses, but jn 14:6 will work here. Anyone not found ...IN CHRIST.....is not going to heaven.

So those who show the work of the Law written on their hearts, who do the Law...will not be saved?

It is not faith in the Risen Christ they are commended for, it is obedience to the internal witness of God which guides men according to righteousness.

We still see that Post-Cross in remote cultures who have never heard the Gospel. They know it is wrong to kill, steal, lie, commit adultery.
So what in the world is Paul teaching in Romans 1-2?


Romans 1:19-21

King James Version (KJV)


19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.

20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

Did those in view receive the Gospel of Jesus Christ? How could they possibly...

...when the Gospel was not revealed in past Ages?


Romans 16:24-26

King James Version (KJV)


24 The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.

25 Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began,

26 But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith:

Some try to say this is relevant to Gentile Inclusion only, but its quite clear...it was kept secret since the world began.

It is now made manifest.


Colossians 1:25-27

King James Version (KJV)


25 Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God;

26 Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints:

27 To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory:


Pretty clear: the mystery was hid from Ages and from generations. Not just Gentiles.

It is now made manifest to His Saints.

Are there Saints only in this Age? That is what would have to be the case to say that the Mystery was revealed to men prior to this Age.

Again, seems fairly simple to me, but, I know that popular teachings and Theological Systems must refute acknowledging this simple truth.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

That is why a correct Covenant understanding is essential to understand truth...

And correct Covenant understanding is pretty simple: the New Covenant was always God's plan in regards to redemption. That is the only Covenant that brings remision of sins and reconciliation of man to God...

...through Christ.

The popular teaching "The Old Testament Saints were 'saved on credit' " might sound good, but...it does not represent what Scripture actually teaches, which is that men can only be Eternally Redeemed through Christ, and that Redemption was accomplished by Christ some 2000 years ago. It does not acknowledge that the sins of the Old Testament Saint were redeemed in completion by Christ:


Hebrews 9:12-15

King James Version (KJV)


12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.

13 For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh:

14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.


The Old Testament Saint was not "saved on credit," they were saved by the Grace of God through faith, like as we.

But we, unlike they, are made perfect, complete, in regards to Redemption while we yet live. They, like the infant, died physically apart from that completion. We have received the Promises, they did not.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

CHAPTER TWO

correct...so this is why I do not speculate and in my initial response to you I said....we do not know or think as god does, he reveals some things to us, not everything...I am not certain what His infinite knowledge and wisdom will do, I just trust 100% that it will be consistent with His Holy , righteous character.

We do think as God does, Iconoclast...

...that is the whole reason for Scripture in the first place.

And that is particularly heightened in relevance in this Age, seeing that the Spirit of God is directly teaching us in regards to the Living God.

We not can know what His will is in this issue...we should know, both by implicit and explicit teaching in the Word of God.

It is your statement. like I posted to you...I am not bound by your concepts-

And I never asked you to. All I have asked you for is your view and the Scriptural Basis for it, which is what is asked of anyone that participates.

there are degrees of punishment

I agree.

So what is the varying degree of punishment based on?

This is actually a relevant point I have raised often.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

I do not know all the factors that God takes into consideration. I know those he reveals, I do not know what is not revealed. You are trying[ I do not think on purpose, but trying to speak of God as if he was one of us...He is not;

No, just pointing a Basic Bible Principle: God gave us His Word for the express purpose that we...

...know His will.

And we are given many examples in Scripture that our understanding must come into agreement with His. If you want to make this topic something that falls into the category of mystery not meant to be understood, simply taken on faith, as I said, okay. Doesn't mean I, or any other person has to view it that way.

If I say "That there will be varying degrees of punishment" is something we cannot understand, would that correlate to Scripture? Of course not.

So too, concerning infant death and salvation, I think we have more than enough to know how and why God will save them. And our purpose here is not to discuss me, or my views, it is to examine what in Scripture we might look to in order to say either way.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

In reproving the wicked God reveals this;
15 And call upon me in the day of trouble: I will deliver thee, and thou shalt glorify me.

16 But unto the wicked God saith, What hast thou to do to declare my statutes, or that thou shouldest take my covenant in thy mouth?

17 Seeing thou hatest instruction, and casteth my words behind thee.

18 When thou sawest a thief, then thou consentedst with him, and hast been partaker with adulterers.

19 Thou givest thy mouth to evil, and thy tongue frameth deceit.

20 Thou sittest and speakest against thy brother; thou slanderest thine own mother's son.

21 These things hast thou done, and I kept silence; thou thoughtest that I was altogether such an one as thyself: but I will reprove thee, and set them in order before thine eyes.

22 Now consider this, ye that forget God, lest I tear you in pieces, and there be none to deliver.

23 Whoso offereth praise glorifieth me: and to him that ordereth his conversation aright will I shew the salvation of God.

So I ask again...

...what charge of sin do you ascribe to the infant in the womb?

They are separated from God, yet with no sin that can be reasonably charged to their own actions, so unless we determine why they are saved, we cannot say they are saved because there is no saving revelation they can appeal to.

So what is this sin?

It is not Adam's, that is made clear here:


Romans 5:14

King James Version (KJV)

14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.


In view is culpability for their own sin...

...not Adam's.

And the singular consistency is the condition which arises from Adam's sin...

...separation from God, which means they have...

...no life. They are dead.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

This is another example....all sinners are separated from God...DEAD in Sin. not just infants.

And nothing I have said denies that, but what I have said is...that very thing.

Yet you ask me why I believe all men are born with sin.

I said unless a person views the Covenant nature of redemption, they will not solve the puzzle......

And just making a statement without definition means very little.

The New Covenant is the Covenant in view when God made promise to Abraham, and Israel.

And when we understand the nature of that Covenant relationship, and that this is the only Covenant by which men are reconciled with God, and that this Covenant is everlasting, we do not just solve a puzzle, we simply acknowledge the Mystery that has been revealed to us in the New Testament in regards to the New Covenant. And there are several mysteries revealed.

That is why we are the Ministers of the New Covenant, not ministers of the Old.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

your wording is vague and nebulous here.....[and need that condition remedied through Christ]

Here is the exchange that you describe as "vague and nebulous:"

I see no clear expression of this in scripture addressing this topic.

I said...

This would place infants into a category where, though they are separated from God and need that condition remedied through Christ


You do not view infants as separated from God?

What is "vague and nebulous about a question asking for clarification of the focal point?

Again I ask you...

...you do not view infants as separated from God?

Now that I have clarified, once again, that I do not embrace the view that men are born with sin, and that man's primary problem is that he is conceived/born in separation from God, and this is why he sins...

...can you answer the question?

Nothing vague about it, you have dismissed my view, yet you offer nothing as a positive teaching that also refutes my position.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

YOU IN YOUR IDEA SEEM TO LIMIT THE INFANT TO A CONDITION
,that sounds like a slight illness,,, like they have poison ivy rash, and need calamine lotion to fix the condition.

Nothing I have said has even intimated that I view separation from God as a "slight illness."

And the Public Record will show that I take a consistent view that this is in fact man's primary problem.

I have no idea how you can conclude as you have based on what I have said.

So I do not go there with you, and yet you ask if Infants are not separated.......they are dead in sin, separated from the life of God, unless God has mercy on them.

You are right...you go there alone. The charge you lay is irrelevant to anything I have said.

They are dead because of sin, not in it. Sin is the reason why they are separated from God.

And I have made it clear...infants are separated. If you did not pick up on that, and somehow think my question is asking, then you have not been putting too much into following what I do affirm.

So how do you expect anything you say to mean anything...if it doesn't even reflect what I have said?

Here we are again: me addressing comments directed at me, rather than the two of us discussing the issue from Scripture. Is that really necessary, Iconoclast?


Continued.

 

[Darrell C]

Let me say it very clearly.....{in a fantasy world news flash} a hidden scroll is discovered, [this is not going to happen]

Remarkable.

....but the scroll says'''
thus saith the Lord...I will have mercy on millions who die in the womb, but not all.

Amazing.

words to this effect are found...it is proven to be scripture....

Astounding.

I would trust is God and His wisdom that is was needful ,and righteous as no darkness is in Him.... Would you trust Him??

Not sure how you could question my loyalty to God and His Word.

Will you not admit that I present Scripture as a basis for my views?

I am the one saying we can see in Scripture why God saves infants. You are the one implying it is a mystery we can't understand, so we need to just leave it in God's hands, or we are somehow overstepping our boundaries and speculating.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

Spurgeon seems to suggest he could not worship God if this was so, if I understand him correctly. In his sermon he speaks of a god who is a tyrant which we know is not the biblical God...so I give him some slack,and he is not here to answer me back.

Why would any of this be relevant?

I am not looking for what Spurgeon believed and why he believed it, I am seeking to speak with people in the here and now.

Anyone can parrot a teacher, but only those who have taken time with God in His Word can express understandings of their own. That is what I am looking for: believers that God has spoken to, not dead men God has used in days past. The only dead teachers I view as valid are those who are accepted Writers of Scripture.

I am not the infants judge, God is. So you would need to speak to Him about that.

I do so on a regular basis. Where do you think my views come from?

. I know for sure that baby sinned and died in Adam.

So once again I ask the question no-one who endorses an infant as sinning seems to want to answer: what sin do you lay to the charge of the infant?


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

It is not a matter of how I feel but what scripture says....

It is both a matter of what you feel Scripture teaches (since you stand in a Public Forum as a teacher) as well as a matter of what you feel about what I say...

...which you have not shown to properly understand. The fact that I do not view sin as something men are born "with," but, as something which is the inevitable result due to the condition he is born into, is a significant point in my doctrine. That you did not understand that, and I am here spending quite a bit of time addressing things that are not really relevant takes our focus off the OP and will surely result in an unprofitable discussion.

Let's just focus on the issue, and what Scripture has to say about it.

Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation

14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

And apparently we see this differently. I see it being made clear it is not Adam's sin that the consequence of his sin, death, is imposed on.

There is nothing I see in this verse that teaches "All men are born with sin because of Adam's sin."

Only...all men die because of Adam's sin.

And the death that is ultimattely in view is spiritual death, not physical. So we can say that all men are born to die because of Adam's sin, and this looks to the eternal state of death.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

But I do not see it as speculation, because we have been given enough that we can draw a conclusion. I have seen some speculation in regards to the infant recently that warrants a closer look, hence the thread itself. And for the record, I am challenging my own views as well as those of others.

I think it is speculation...

Okay, so your opinion is the end of the discussion, is that it?

You can show it is speculation on my part by addressing the points raised.

What sin? What sin is laid to the charge of the embryo? The two month old infant? The six month old?
That's just one of the questions.

this is speculation for several reasons.....
you do not know if God has indeed elected all infants dying in infancy.....if he has the question is pointless

But I do know God has elected all infants dying in infancy...based on His Grace.

How is the question pointless...if He has?

if he has not....it is still pointless because one sin is enough to condemn a person to second death,and all sinned in adam at one point in time , rom 3;23

And the question remains...

...what sin do you charge the infant with.

Just answer the question, Iconoclast.

I agree one sin is enough, but, I reject that the one sin the infant is charged with is sin committed by Adam.

Adam's sin resulted in death, this death being spiritual, and that is the condition of the infant in the womb.

Yet just as God showed mercy to the Old Testament Saint, and saved them by grace through faith, even so God shows mercy to the infant.

And the reason is this: because God always judges men according to the response to the revelation He has provided them. God does not hold men accountable for sin which has not been specifically pointed out to them.

It was not sin for Abraham, who was not a Levite...to offer up sacrifice for sin. Why? Because it was not in his day commanded that only those of the Tribe of Levi could do so.


Romans 5:12-14

King James Version (KJV)


12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.



Acts 17:29-31

King James Version (KJV)


29 Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.

30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:

31 Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.


We can take this further, and see the varying degrees of punishment contrasted between those who were under the Covennat of Law and those in this Age who reject Christ, His Sacrifice, the New Covenant, and the ministry of the Spirit:



Hebrews 10:26-29

King James Version (KJV)


26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,

27 But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.

28 He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:

29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?


That is how God judges men, always has, always will.

The point of mentioning that verse is that God is conscious of every sin of every person, even among non covenant nations

And that is irrelevant.

We are talking about infants that die in the womb, not those who are in Covenant Relationship with God.

If you say that infants in the womb are in Covenant Relationship with GOd...

...you nullify the teaching that men are born sinners and separated from God.

Now...clarify your position on this.


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

Why re-invent the wheel?

Brother, did you even read the sermon? I don't much "debate" those who call themselves believers in Christ. I think it can be quite dishonoring to Jesus. However, this subject is an important one and sometimes is used against the Gospel.

Spurgeon begins by showing compassion to parents who have lost their children. I think this shows the great compassion any pastor should have. He is even mindful to those who may not have had such an experience affect them. So, I think the whole sermon is geared to be a comfort to parents who have lost.

I think Spuregon, more soundly than any message I have head on the matter (and there aren't many), addresses this issue:

"Perhaps you will say, "What reasons have we for believing that it is well with the child?" Before I enter upon that I would make one observation. It has been wickedly, lyingly, and slanderously said of Calvinists, that we believe that some little children perish. Those who make the accusation know that their charge is false. I cannot even dare to hope, though I would wish to do so, that they ignorantly misrepresent us."

The sermon then following the lines:

"First, then, this morning, I shall endeavor to explain the way in which we believed infants are saved; secondly, give reasons for do believing; and then, thirdly, seek to bring out a practical use of the subject."

That is pretty comprehensive on a subject that the Scripture is scant.

"On what ground, then, do we believe the child to be saved? We believe it to be as lost on the rest of mankind, and as truly condemned by the sentence which said, "In the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." It is saved because it is elect."

Read the whole sermon and you will see...when you have time of course.

As I said, I am not interested in what Spurgeon believes, but what you believe, and the Scriptural Basis for that belief. If you have adopted Spurgeon's beliefs, great. So now I know, if I want to know what Reformed Baptist believes, I just have to weed through Spurgeons Sermons.

No thanks. I'll simply await members who have beliefs of their own, which arose through study of Scripture, rather than the teachings of men.


God bless.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Let us consider the practical aspect, what do you tell the mother and\or father whose baby\infant\toddler has just died:

• the baby is in Hell.
• the baby is in Heaven.

and on what do you base your remarks.

 

[Darrell C]

Let us consider the practical aspect, what do you tell the mother and\or father whose baby\infant\toddler has just died:

• the baby is in Hell.
• the baby is in Heaven.

and on what do you base your remarks.

That is kind of the focus of the thread, Squire, and so far several have contributed their answer to your question, would you mind answering it yourself?


God bless.