Featured Infant Death and Salvation

I received your answer, "God is omniscient and aware of all man's sin," and find it...no answer to the question I posed to you, or the OP.

You are presenting a position that has men saved before they are saved, which essentially nullifies the Redemption of Christ.

So non-elect infants go to Hell.

Okay, I get that. At least that is the only reasonable conclusion I would draw from your statements so far. And I notice that no-one has chosen that option in the poll.

Now, where in Scripture do you justify this?

And let's look at the confession:


Chapter 10: Of Effectual Calling

3._____ Elect infants dying in infancy are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit; who worketh when, and where, and how he pleases; so also are all elect persons, who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.
( John 3:3, 5, 6; John 3:8 )

Again...when does this take place? After death? Before death? Does this apply to the womb?

And how about a clear statement about non-elect infants dying in infancy?

And another issue you can define in these teachings...what exactly is the "Ministry of the Word?" Please explain that.


Continued...

 

On the contrary, I have consistently had to force you back to the topic. You are once again coming into the discussion with insult and even made direct statement that there is no need to discuss this, and I have asked you, I think twice already...why are you even participating?

I have no interest in your personal beef with men, Iconoclast, you need to get over that. You need to try to focus on the topic of discussion itself. There is no need to cluster this thread with posts having to deal with personal statements towards myself.

The Topic is Infant Death and Salvation, so decide if you want to discuss this from Scripture or not. If all you have is copy and paste from the teachings of men, and cannot bring your own perspective to the table, I don't have a problem with that, But at least try to stick to the topic.


Continued...

 

It does nullify man's condition.


Romans 5:8

King James Version (KJV)

8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.


We have to change this to "While some of us were yet sinners...Christ died for some of us."

And I will be glad to look at the Scripture that teaches a "Covenant of Redemption" is not the New Covenant. Where do we find that in Scripture, Iconoclast?

Where do we find justification for your statement, "Election is based upon a person being in the Covenant of redemption," and how this is relevant to the topic of discussion?

And how is this relevant to the infant in the womb? There is a relevance, but, this verse is a long way from justifying "Election is based upon a person being in the Covenant of redemption," and in fact goes against what you are teaching, because it shows...

...a universal application in convicting all of sin...not just some.

And I agree with that, I have consistently adhered to that simple principle in everything I have said.

Man is separated from God at conception, which is not nullified by some kind of Covenant that we do not find presented in Scripture. The only logical conclusion is that men are not held culpable until they reach an age where they can comprehend and then respond to what has been revealed to them. I reject "Age of Accountability, all men are, upon conception, separated from God, and that has to be dealt with. God does not just give the elect a pass in regards to their condition.

And the only Remedy for that condition is through God reconciling all who will be saved to Himself.

So the burden is on you to give a Scriptural Presentation that affirms that "Election is based upon a person being in the Covenant of redemption." I apready have an idea of what you will appeal to, but, I can tell you this, keep in mind the nullification of man's condition before you present the "From before the foundation of the World" passages. You are not going to deny the clear teachings that all men have to be reconciled to God, and while you won't yet acknowledge the simple truth that this did not take place prior to the Cross and Pentecost, that is precisely what Scripture teaches.


Continued...

 

God preached the Gospel to all of Israel throughout the Kingdom years...and not one of them, including the Prophets...

...understood the Gospel.

It was a Mystery not yet revealed:


1 Peter 1:10-12

King James Version (KJV)


10 Of which salvation the prophets have enquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you:

11 Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow.

12 Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister the things, which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the gospel unto you with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven; which things the angels desire to look into.


The revelation of the Gospel Mystery, the Hidden Wisdom of God...is through the Comforter in this Age.

Noah, Abraham, Moses, and even David...did not understand the Promise/s, and they did not receive the promise/s.

Let me re-emphasize this verse:


Hebrews 11

13 These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth.

We have received the Promises/s of God, they are not afar off, they are realized in New Covenant Relationship.

You are welcome to show the Covenant of Redemption you speak of from Scripture.

You are welcome to show the contradictions, and what you see as making my statement here invalid.

Here is the original statement:


Iconoclast said: ↑

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.


So where is the contradiction, Iconoclast. You will not even post the timestamps in what you post because you know that your responses do not address the issues involved in the OP. You know it will be seen that you are trying to change the topic from Infant Death and SAlavation to your doctrine concerning Covenants. Go start a thread to discuss that if you like, but in this thread please try to stay on topic. I am not interested in your opinion of me, I am only interested in the Doctrine.

Both of your statements are...false allegations that not only can't be justified, but can be exposed as untrue.

You quote me even once where my doctrine denies that all sinners are separated from God...dead in sin. My position is...

...infants are as well.

Your position is...elect infants are not. That is the only logical conclusion. They are already in Covenant Relationship with God and are therefore safe. And that you stipulate only the elect infants are only makes it that much more interesting. You still need to clarify this from Scripture, because the commentaries of men are just not cutting it.

And I would rather not have this thread wasted with personal issues, so lets keep this doctrinal. If you think your doctrine is sound and can be justified by Scripture...great! That is the intent. If you have knowledge that can set the record straight, or at least help towards that goal...great. That is the intent of the Thread.


Continued...

 

I too believe that infants are saved by Christ through the Spirit, though I believe all infants are, not just the Elect. Its just a given, all who are saved...are the Elect.

So this has already been addressed, not much more I can say until you actually respond to that address.

This does not address the issue because the Scripture provided deals with men who have been born and can receive or reject the revelation of God.

Yes, really.

That's why I said...

I actually agree with both points, yet we have a couple issues that could be discussed.

First, we still need to address whether there are non-elect infants that go into eternal separation.

Second, do we see in point 3 a clear statement that salvation is accomplished by the Spirit separate from the Word of God, the "Ministry of the Word," which we see is normative in salvation for those who are born and grow up.

Third, when does regeneration take place? Every proof-text given refers to the revealed Gospel of this Age. So we can say we have two groups of infants that die in the womb, those in past Ages, and those in this Age. Those who take the position that men have always been regenerated by God prior to Pentecost may not see this distinction, but, the proof-texts above are specific to the Gospel of Christ Post-Cross, so they do not distinguish between the perfection of the Old Testament Saint, and this becomes a non-issue for them. However, we still have to answer the question, when does regeneration take place?


And I will leave those points for discussion. Thanks for the response.


I give you opportunity to discuss the topic, and this is what I get...

Yes. And your example does not deny that.


Continued...

 

It would if you incorporated what I have already said.

Let's look at it:

It doesn't cover all being discussed, Iconoclast, it simply makes a general statement concerning the elect that die in infancy, which presupposes a valid doctrine of non-elect infants going to Hell.

Secondly, would you explain to me exactly how an infant responds to...

...the Ministry of the Word?

It's not for me to answer this question, Iconoclast...the burden is on you.

I made three points of discussion which distinguishes my agreement and points left for discussion which need to be ironed out.

Here it is again:


I actually agree with both points, yet we have a couple issues that could be discussed.

First, we still need to address whether there are non-elect infants that go into eternal separation.

Second, do we see in point 3 a clear statement that salvation is accomplished by the Spirit separate from the Word of God, the "Ministry of the Word," which we see is normative in salvation for those who are born and grow up.

Third, when does regeneration take place? Every proof-text given refers to the revealed Gospel of this Age. So we can say we have two groups of infants that die in the womb, those in past Ages, and those in this Age. Those who take the position that men have always been regenerated by God prior to Pentecost may not see this distinction, but, the proof-texts above are specific to the Gospel of Christ Post-Cross, so they do not distinguish between the perfection of the Old Testament Saint, and this becomes a non-issue for them. However, we still have to answer the question, when does regeneration take place?


Do you want to discuss these issues and find out why I agree with the two points? If so, great. If not, again, I ask...why are you even participating in the thread?

Here is the statement again:


in 10:4-Others not elected, although they may be called by the ministry of the Word, and may have some common operations of the Spirit, yet not being effectually drawn by the Father, they neither will nor can truly come to Christ, and therefore cannot be saved...


I fully agree that those that are called (and there are many that be called) receive of the Ministry of the Comforter, Which is first and foremost a Ministry to the unbelieving world population:


John 16:7-9

King James Version (KJV)


7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.

8 And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment:

9 Of sin, because they believe not on me;


That is just an incontrovertible statement of Truth directly from Christ Himself.

So the statement is correct in that regards, but, only so far as it applies to those who can receive of the Ministry of the Word.

To place that into a context of this discussion is absurd, because it implies that...

1. God ministers the Word to the infant in the womb, and...

2. ...fails.


Absolutely inadequate commentary that is not relevant to the topic itself.

So I will ask you again, please stay on topic, no sense in disrupting the thread with personal issues.

Keep it Doctrinal, Iconoclast.


God bless.

 

I hardly consider back-biting comments to be persecution, EWF.

I simply pointed out to you that my response was not throwing something at someone, it was actually dealing with what was thrown at me.

He wants to make it personal and tell me I need to repent because my doctrine is rejected, and he doesn't like the way I interact. Great. Again, I suggest he study Scripture so he can see why his insult is off-base (I'm beginning to sense a theme here, lol).

So I will field them as they come.

Appreciated, EWF, but I spend very little time in books by men these days.

Secondly, your judgment of my character is not received as appropriate, though it may be well intentioned, even as the exhortation to repent may have been.

Third, give me a break, will ya? I can yank chains if I want to. lol

If you, or any other member has an issue with how I post, report it to Moderation...please.

May I suggest a chapter a day in the Book of Hebrews, for about a month.

I'm serious. Not trying to be a wise guy.

And can I ask, how much time do you spend in the Bible a day? Could you answer that for me?

Again, I am really happy for you, and I guess whatever works for you is fine. Me, I am always going to suggest commentaries are to be supplemental in our studies, not primary sources of "enlightenment." While I would agree there are some books that can help certain believers come to an understanding of issues not understood, or help them deal with character flaws and issues, I will tell you...

...the Word of God does it better.

God is our Teacher, my friend, and He wants to fellowship with us in His Word. I know this.

Now if you don't mind, please try to address the topic. I am not the focus of discussion, lol.


God bless.

 

Scripture?

I disagree: all of mankind is held accountable for their condition, that condition is not given a pass for anyone.

Their condition will be remedied through Christ in the same manner everyone else who is saved has their condition remedied.

Babies do not get a pass because they are innocent, they are covered, like the Old Testament Saint...

I agree. So that brings us back to the infant in the womb. When are they born again and brought into union with God?

True, He does that now. However, when does that take place throughout redemptive history?

Here are three options presented so far in the thread:


1. In eternity past;

2. In the womb;

3. After death.


Which is it, and what is the Scripture which is presented to justify the opotion chosen.


God bless.

 

Nice.

Well, at least you admit I think.





God bless.

 

But Iconoclast, I am on topic in Post #126. The point there is that the resource you presented doesn't really speak to the issue of infant death and salvation completely. It only speaks to one side from a Systematic Doctrinal Position. It has to be assumed that non-elect infants that die are not saved, which presupposes...non-elect infants that die.


in 10:4-Others not elected, although they may be called by the ministry of the Word, and may have some common operations of the Spirit, yet not being effectually drawn by the Father, they neither will nor can truly come to Christ, and therefore cannot be saved...


How does this speak to infant death? As I said before, this implies God ministers to the infant in the womb (and only He could actually do that) and...fails.

The non-elect in view here are clearly those who have been born and reached a level of growth in which they can understand both the Ministry of the Word and the Convicting Ministry of the Holy Ghost/Comforter (the "common operations of the Spirit" mentioned here).

That is the reason John 16:7-9 was quoted.

So I ask you, if infant death and salvation is addressed by this statement, would it not imply God fails in His efforts? The effort is implied in the statement.


God bless.