Hmmmm, then how could they possibly be saved? Life snuffs them out before they could make a decision.
That is the focus of the thread, EWF.
And I reject absolutely the position that if one does not hear the Gospel and turn to Christ they cannot in any way ever be saved. The Old Testament is a long history of men being saved yet they were not privy to the Mystery of the Gospel, and they had not placed specific faith in the Risen Christ. Not even one of the disciples can be found to have done that before Christ died, and after He arose...He had to rebuke them for their unbelief:
Mark 16:9-14
King James Version (KJV)
9 Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils.
10 And she went and told them that had been with him, as they mourned and wept.
11 And they, when they had heard that he was alive, and had been seen of her, believed not.
12 After that he appeared in another form unto two of them, as they walked, and went into the country.
13 And they went and told it unto the residue: neither believed they them.
14 Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen.
My position is simple: God has always judged men according to their response to the revelation He has provided them. There are three primary means of revelation, the testimony of Creation, the internal witness provided every man (which because of their spiritual condition, that of not having the Life of God because they are not in relationship to Him), and finally direct revelation, which is seen to occur when God speaks directly to men (i.e., in the Garden, Genesis 18, in the Exodus/Moses) personally, when God speaks to men through men (Prophets), and when God speaks to men through His Written Word.
And in past Ages, the Mystery of the Gospel simply was not revealed (in understanding) to the Saints. Abraham did not even understand that the Seed was singular, nor did Israel. That is why Christ was not viewed as fulfilling the Prophecy by the majority, because He did not meet their expectations, and the thought that the Messiah could die would have been absurd.
So we see grace bestowed upon those who did not have an understanding of Christ's Ministry concerning the sin of the world, yet these men and women (of faith) were justified, and their Eternal Security as secure as our own in this Age.
Why would God change how He deals with mankind in regards to infants? He will judge them according to His righteous standard, and save them by the same grace he bestowed upon the Old Testament Saint.
Or are you saying that there is a miraculous change in the individual in their inner being......
I actually dealt with this suggestion from another member, and reject it, because it brings us to contradictory conclusions.
The primary problem is that we would have to see conversion while the infant remains physically alive. Do I have a problem with that? Not really, but, if one is going to teach that then we should have more than a "Well I just think that's what happens" to go along with it.
Secondly, we know that all infants, no matter what stage of development they are in, are conceived in separation from God, so, if they die unconverted, we have no recourse but appeal to the grace of God, or, we have to conclude that their condition of separation doesn't really matter. Few would want to pursue that train of thought. It does matter, and the only reasonable explanation I see is to simply look at the general pattern of grace God has since the beginning bestowed on fallen man. The Old Testament Saint died not having confessed the name of Jesus Christ, and, their sins were not redeemed (remitted). The last offering all of them would have offered would have been an animal dying in their place. That is not good enough. Only The Shed Blood of Christ can take away sins on an eternal level, and that same Sacrifice is mercifully applied to those who are judged according to their response to the revelation provided them. The Old Testament Saint that was under Law was not saved by keeping the Law. Abraham was not saved because he offered up his son. They were saved by the same thing we are today...grace.
On the flip side, the one rejecting the revelation provided them...was not. The rich man is a good example, and in that Age it is Moses and the Prophets pointed to for the means of escape from eternal torment, not Christ the Risen Savior. Moses and the Prophets were sufficient to, just as it did with Abraham, create faith in God in man. That did not nullify the commandments given them, though. Circumcision was not optional, even prior to the Law, for example.
So when the infant is judged, I suggest that there is no sin that can be laid to their account. They were not born with the disease sin, as it is popularly taught. Their primary problem is that they are conceived and born separated from God, and when they do become comprehending that problem will lead them to sin.
and then if so, where would you find that in scripture?
It can't be found in Scripture.
One has pointed to John the Baptist in the womb, and I will present the Scripture for you to consider:
Luke 1:13-16
King James Version (KJV)
13 But the angel said unto him, Fear not, Zacharias: for thy prayer is heard; and thy wife Elisabeth shall bear thee a son, and thou shalt call his name John.
14 And thou shalt have joy and gladness; and many shall rejoice at his birth.
15 For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb.
16 And many of the children of Israel shall he turn to the Lord their God.
One thing we can discuss is whether "from the womb" would be viewed as limited to the time of the pregnancy.
Another is that we see the Holy Ghost filling men and empowering them for ministry throughout the Old Testament, that is just he ministry He performed in those Ages. This was the case of Christ's Disciples, according to Christ, when He distinguished between the Spirit's ministry in that/those Age/s, and the one He would perform when He was sent as "Another Comforter (John 14:17)."
Luke 1:41-43
King James Version (KJV)
41 And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost:
42 And she spake out with a loud voice, and said, Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb.
43 And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?
Here we have a statement that I think could reasonably be viewed as both the baby himself leaping for joy as well as him reacting to his mother's response. What I do not think can be dogmatically asserted is that the babe had an understanding of Christ as though he understood the Gospel Mystery thus leaped.
We do see John prophesy of Christ, "Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sins of the world," yet, when John was in prison he sent two disciple to inquire...
...if Christ was the One they awaited. When we correlate the fact that the Gospel Mystery was not revealed at this time, it is reconciled in knowing that, again, we have an entire Old Testament full of men filled with the Holy Ghost giving prophetic statements about Christ, and there is nothing wrong with understanding the Prophets foretelling Christ and even giving explicit information about Christ and what He would do apart from their understanding.
Caiaphas, one we would scarcely consider a prophet...did this very thing according to Scripture (John 11:49-50).
So you are right to question that, and that is the purpose of the thread, to look at the various understandings of various believers, who all have had their own study impact the conclusions they have come to.
God bless.