Featured Infant Death and Salvation Two

That's funny, because what you post as supposedly a given answer...

...isn't in the original post.

This is what you said in that post:


Darrell C,

And your position remains the same, right?
There are things we cannot know, and we are in error if we think we can.

When scripture says we can know what God reveals to us, freely....that is what it means;
I believe what scripture says here....you believe you can go beyond what is revealed....
1 cor2
12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.

And my point is just as I responded to one member, not only do I think we are meant to know, but I can show you this from Scripture itself.


No you cannot...

So here is a relevant question to the OP: how can the Elect Infant, who is natural and cannot receive the spiritual things of God...be saved?

By God's mercy It can be born from above


You admit that the Elect Infant will be saved, but you refuse to address when their salvation takes place.


Okay...you forced me to reveal it.....elect infants get saved at 2:37 am....that is the time slot allotted for elect infants....can you prove it is not?
The confession put it this way however;
Elect infants dying in infancy are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit;10 who works when, and where, and how He pleases


Reliance on the covenant of redemption you teach does not address the fact that they are conceived natural, and remain natural until they are born again.

When does that happen?


This shows you still have no idea what you are even speaking about.


Continued...

 

Now lets look at what you include in your statement as though you said this before:

Darrell C said: ↑
Here it is:






The conclusion is drawn from your own statement.
The conclusion you draw is from not understanding my statement.

I said man is conceived natural, and remain natural until they are born again, and you say...


This shows you still have no idea what you are even speaking about.


So are you now going to affirm what I said?









Darrell C,



Just give straight answers.

If you are trying to teach the elect are in this covenant of redemption and therefore are not born natural and remain natural until regenerated, say so. If you are not...say so.

If your doctrine is too embarrassing to teach, don't you think you might want to rethink it?



The only thing embarrassing here is your obtuse behavior and your stubborn ignorance of theology that you in fact boast in.....
The Covenant of Redemption was made in eternity past before the world was.....
It was made among the persons of the Godhead alone....
Your repeated mocking and boasting of false knowledge indicates a proud spirit which is considered the province of a foolish person. Why not check that at the door;
Read and learn, or remain in your ignorant error and proud boasting;
https://www.biblicaltraining.org/library/covenant-redemption/systematic-theology/louis-berkhof
II. The Covenant of Redemption
A. SEPARATE DISCUSSION OF THIS DESIRABLE.
There are different representations respecting the parties in the covenant of grace. Some consider them to be the triune God and man, either without qualification, or qualified in some way, as “the sinner,” “the elect,” or “man in Christ”; others, God the Father, as representing the Trinity, and Christ as representing the elect;[Westm. Larger Cat., Q. 31.] and still others, since the days of Coccejus, distinguish two covenants, namely, the covenant of redemption (pactum salutis) between the Father and the Son, and, as based on this, the covenant of grace between the triune God and the elect, or the elect sinner. The second of these representations has a certain advantage from a systematic point of view. It may claim the support of such passages as Rom. 5:12-21 and I Cor. 15:21,22,47-49, and stresses the inseparable connection between the pactum salutis and the covenant of grace. It brings out the unity of the covenant in Christ, and is advocated among others by Boston, Gib, Dick, A. Kuyper Sr., H. Kuyper, and A. Kuyper, Jr. The third representation is more perspicuous, however, is easier to understand, and is therefore more serviceable in a practical discussion of the doctrine of the covenant. It escapes a great deal of confusion that is incidental to the other view, and is followed by the majority of Reformed theologians, such as Mastricht, à Marck, Turretin, Witsius, Heppe, the Hodges, Shedd, Vos, Bavinck, and Honig. There is no essential difference between these two representations. Says Dr. Hodge: “There is no doctrinal difference between those who prefer the one statement and those who prefer the other; between those who comprise all the facts of Scripture relating to the subject under one covenant between God and Christ as the representative of His people, and those who distribute them under two.”[Syst. Theol. II, p. 358; cf. also Dabney, Lect. on Theol., p. 432; Bavinck, Geref. Dogm. III, p. 240] This being the case, the third mode of representing the whole matter undoubtedly deserves the preference. But in following it we should bear in mind what Shedd says: “Though this distinction (between the covenant of redemption and the covenant of grace) is favored by Scripture statements, it does not follow that there are two separate and independent covenants antithetic to the covenant of works. The covenant of grace and redemption are two modes or phases of the one evangelical covenant of mercy.”[Dogm. Theol. II, p. 360.]

B. SCRIPTURAL DATA FOR THE COVENANT OF REDEMPTION.
The name “counsel of peace” is derived from Zech. 6:13. Coccejus and others found in this passage a reference to an agreement between the Father and the Son. This was clearly a mistake, for the words refer to the union of the kingly and priestly offices in the Messiah. The Scriptural character of the name cannot be maintained, but this, of course, does not detract from the reality of the counsel of peace. The doctrine of this eternal counsel rests on the following Scriptural basis.

1. Scripture clearly points to the fact that the plan of redemption was included in the eternal decree or counsel of God, Eph. 1:4 ff.; 3:11; II Thess. 2:13; II Tim. 1:9; Jas. 2:5; I Pet. 1:2, etc. Now we find that in the economy of redemption there is, in a sense, a division of labor: the Father is the originator, the Son the executor, and the Holy Spirit the applier. This can only be the result of a voluntary agreement among the persons of the Trinity, so that their internal relations assume the form of a covenant life. In fact, it is exactly in the trinitarian life that we find the archetype of the historical covenants, a covenant in the proper and fullest sense of the word, the parties meeting on a footing of equality, a true suntheke.

2. There are passages of Scripture which not only point to the fact that the plan of God for the salvation of sinners was eternal, Eph. 1:4; 3:9,11, but also indicate that it was of the nature of a covenant. Christ speaks of promises made to Him before his advent, and repeatedly refers to a commission which He had received from the Father, John 5:30,43; 6:38-40; 17:4-12. And in Rom. 5:12-21 and I Cor. 15:22 He is clearly regarded as a representative head, that is, as the head of a covenant.

3. Wherever we have the essential elements of a covenant, namely, contracting parties, a promise or promises, and a condition, there we have a covenant. In Ps. 2:7-9 the parties are mentioned and a promise is indicated. The Messianic character of this passage is guaranteed by Acts 13:33; Heb. 1:5; 5:5. Again, in Ps. 40:7-9, also attested as Messianic by the New Testament (Heb. 10:5-7), the Messiah expresses His readiness to do the Father’s will in becoming a sacrifice for sin. Christ repeatedly speaks of a task which the Father has entrusted to Him, John 6:38,39; 10:18; 17:4. The statement in Luke 22:29 is particularly significant: “I appoint unto you a kingdom, even as my Father appointed unto me.” The verb used here is diatithemi, the word from which diatheke is derived, which means to appoint by will, testament or covenant. Moreover, in John 17:5 Christ claims a reward, and in John 17:6,9,24 (cf. also Phil. 2:9-11) He refers to His people and His future glory as a reward given Him by the Father.

4. There are two Old Testament passages which connect up the idea of the covenant immediately with the Messiah, namely, Ps. 89:3, which is based on II Sam. 7:12-14, and is proved to be a Messianic passage by Heb. 1:5; and Isa. 42:6, where the person referred to is the Servant of the Lord. The connection clearly shows that this Servant is not merely Israel. Moreover, there are passages in which the Messiah speaks of God as His God, thus using covenant language, namely, Ps. 22:1, 2, and Ps. 40:8.

Would you mind giving the post number where this was stated? My statement comes from Post #46.

You so cluster the posts and refuse to give links and direct quotes that you might seem to be actually contending, lol, but the truth is...this is simply dishonest debate tactic.

The above is new to the discussion to my knowledge, yet you post it as though you already gave this in this discussion. Give me a post number, Iconoclast.


God bless.

 

The Doctrines of men. If you have Scripture that is relevant to the topic, and an understanding of your own through study, please present that.

I am not going to waste time addressing your holy writings of men.


God bless.

 

The Doctrines of men. If you have Scripture that is relevant to the topic, and an understanding of your own through study, please present that.

I am not going to waste time addressing your holy writings of men.


God bless.

 

The Doctrines of men. If you have Scripture that is relevant to the topic, and an understanding of your own through study, please present that.

I am not going to waste time addressing your holy writings of men.


God bless.

 

This example of the Doctrines of Men makes the point that "This is the only tenable position, for: (a) Old Testament believers received full justification or forgiveness, though the knowledge of it was not as full and clear as it is in the New Testament dispensation."

Let's compare that with Scripture:


Hebrews 10:1-4

King James Version (KJV)


1 For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.

2 For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins.

3 But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year.

4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.


The above speaks to the state of those under Law, the Covenant that was God-ordained.

This...



Hebrews 10:10-14

King James Version (KJV)


10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

11 And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:

12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;

13 From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool.

14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.


...contrasts those in relationship with God through the Promised New Covenant which those in relationship with God looked forward to based on God's Promise. It is the New Covenant, not some mythical "covenant of redemption" outside of time, that men are reconciled to God through.

The state of the Old Testament Saint was not one of...

"...Old Testament believers received full justification or forgiveness, though the knowledge of it was not as full and clear as it is in the New Testament dispensation."

...but one of expectation of redemption through Christ.

And, to swing this back to the Topic of the OP, we can consider that the infant that dies in the womb is identical in condition to that of the Old Testament Saint, for God can declare just and show mercy to those of an understanding that He fully understands because He Himself is the One that gives the relevant revelation by which men can be saved. And He is just not to charge sin where sin is not deserved.

The Doctrines of Men can seem plausible, but, when we see that the conclusions are based on premises that conflict with what Scripture actually teaches, we can begin to see the error of their doctrine.

And the real reason for these doctrines? To support Systematic Theologies.

This is why we have people too afraid to publicly declare what they believe. Because they know their doctrine conflicts and that people, even the unregenerate, are going to see their doctrine as conflicting with simple truths revealed by God.

That is why they must appeal to the Doctrines of men, and give vague references to the Word of God, because if someone actually looked at the Scripture they give as proof-texts, it will be quickly revealed the Word of God doe not teach what they do.


God bless.

 

Well, any cop-out will do, I reckon.

But if you ever get around to sharing this great understanding you have with me, Iconoclast, I will still ask that you show from Scripture this Covenant of Redemption, and perhaps a straightforward answer as to whether you think God sends babies to Hell or not.

Your words, if you don't mind. I've already told you I am not interested in the doctrines of men, nor what they have to say about it.

So perhaps I am a fool, a dog, and a simpleton as you imply here, but...

...at least I can speak for myself and I do not have to tell people I believe something because my System demands it of me.


God bless.

 

And I addressed your confession, asked questions, and pointed out that the Scripture in the second part was irrelevant to Infant Death and Salvation.

So your doctrines of men do not even apply.

Here are my responses to your post:

Iconoclast said: ↑

I do not think anyone can say it better than what was written here;
Chapter 10: Of Effectual Calling
1._____ Those whom God hath predestinated unto life, he is pleased in his appointed, and accepted time, effectually to call, by his Word and Spirit, out of that state of sin and death in which they are by nature, to grace and salvation by Jesus Christ; enlightening their minds spiritually and savingly to understand the things of God; taking away their heart of stone, and giving unto them a heart of flesh; renewing their wills, and by his almighty power determining them to that which is good, and effectually drawing them to Jesus Christ; yet so as they come most freely, being made willing by his grace.
( Romans 8:30; Romans 11:7; Ephesians 1:10, 11; 2 Thessalonians 2:13, 14; Ephesians 2:1-6; Acts 26:18; Ephesians 1:17, 18; Ezekiel 36:26; Deuteronomy 30:6; Ezekiel 36:27; Ephesians 1:19; Psalm 110:3; Song of Solomon 1:4 )

Now here is the interesting thing that might be discussed: regeneration primarily refers to the spiritual resurrection God effects in the physical life of a believer. Now my own position, that men were not regenerated under Old Testament Economies, allows that the Old Testament Saint was made perfect (complete in regards to Atonement and thus reconciled to God) which can be, I think, seen paralleled in this issue.

So here is the question: when is the infant's separation from God removed? While yet alive? or at death?

Secondly, we do not really see the opportunity for the infant to receive revelation (some babies are aborted, for example, in very early stages of development, which many of us would still recognize as an individual human being), so do we not see God's Grace at it's greatest in the instance of the aborted child?



Iconoclast said: ↑

2._____ This effectual call is of God's free and special grace alone, not from anything at all foreseen in man, nor from any power or agency in the creature, being wholly passive therein, being dead in sins and trespasses, until being quickened and renewed by the Holy Spirit; he is thereby enabled to answer this call, and to embrace the grace offered and conveyed in it, and that by no less power than that which raised up Christ from the dead.
( 2 Timothy 1:9; Ephesians 2:8; 1 Corinthians 2:14; Ephesians 2:5; John 5:25; Ephesians 1:19, 20 )


Agree with that entirely.


Iconoclast said: ↑

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 )

I agree with that too, however, that is going to generate a question for some, if we make it a matter of Election (which has for some the counterpart, the non-elect), which is the question of the OP: are there non-elect babies that do not benefit from the Grace of God?

I think most of us would say no, but as I said in the OP, several very well known Reformed teachers could not really answer the question, and those who did, did so poorly (but you know how critical I am, lol). I think that for some of them, they would have answered "Yes, babies that are non-elect go to Hell," had they answered it. I'm going to listen to that again, because I seem to remember one of them giving the implication.



Iconoclast said: ↑

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: much less can men that receive not the Christian religion be saved; be they never so diligent to frame their lives according to the light of nature and the law of that religion they do profess.
( Matthew 22:14; Matthew 13:20, 21; Hebrews 6:4, 5; John 6:44, 45, 65; 1 John 2:24, 25; Acts 4:12; John 4:22; John 17:3 )

This is an interesting statement: it implies, in my view, that there is a calling that is not effectual.

Where is this taken from?


God bless.


In all of this...you do not offer the first Scripture to support what little you have had to contribute to this discussion. You have wasted the entire thread...talking about me.

What in the above is said that offends you? There is not a single thing. But, since you showed your hand and have made it clear your only goal was to show "this would happen," I guess my only recourse is either continued showing you examples from the conversation and hope someone else might want to join the conversation despite your disruption.

This is a debate forum, Iconoclast, and it is ironic you charge me with trolling and spam when I am not the one simply copy and pasting and trying to work in insults. That's your only contribution that actually comes from you.

And your confession has problems itself.

For example...it does not make a positive statement about non-elect infants.

I mean really, if you are going to copy and paste...find something relevant to the questions posed to you.

And only you would see it that way. It is my response that has angered you, and apparently you are still upset with me. I am truly sorry for that, but, it is not my responsibility to make you like me, that something you have deal with internally.


Continued...

 

I did respond:


Iconoclast said: ↑

I can have some fun with this-

If I am reading the sports page and read an article that discusses and mentions the following items;
the strike zone
a stolen base
the pitchers mound
two doubles
a balk
a single
a grand slam
an earned run average
a batting average
the foul pole
the plate umpire

Would you struggle mightily to grasp what sport the article was speaking about?
Would you deny that sport exists because it was not mentioned by the name of it ?
If everyone other than you knew exactly what sport was being spoken about would you dismiss all of them?
If you denied the sport existed after reading all the elements and descriptions....do you think anyone should take you seriously after such objections???




So far your participation has been exposed, by yourself, as a conspiratorial attempt to prove that only argment will ensue, and...that you are here to have fun.

Iconoclast...I actually want to discuss the topic of the OP.

That is why the first thread was started, and that is why this thread has been started, because the other was closed before too many presented their views.

Seven people stated God does not send babies to Hell and voted in the poll. Two people implied they believed God sends babies to Hell, but did not have the gumption or courage to publicly state their doctrine. Is that how Christians hold to doctrine, Iconoclast? Secretively?

Or do we boldly declare our beliefs and why we believe them?

Again, you think there is implicit teaching concerning the Covenant of Redemption (which is really what you want to talk about, you have no interest in the topic of the OP), so where is the Scripture?


It's simply amazing, really. It boggles the mind to think that this kind of posting could be considered debate.

I've talked to you about this before, Iconoclast. Your posts are sloppy, and you do not properly quote your Antagonists.

You have been asked for Scripture for a basis for this covenant of redemption you speak of, and if you have, I apologize, because I have lost interest in anything you have to say, really. I will address the next post and highlight what is relevant to the discussion.


God bless.

 

Well, no emphasis on my part, because there is absolutely nothing that actually speaks to the topic.

Now will you please make a public statement concerning infants that die in the womb, whether all shall be saved, or not all, and fill in the gaps in your holy writings which are silent on non-elect infants?

Does God send non-elect infants to Hell, Iconoclast?


God bless.

 

Gosh, guess I am just going to have to yield to your wit, Iconoclast. Just no way to debate someone like you.


God bless.