Featured Infant Death and Salvation

I agree with all of this, but, it doesn't really address the issue. We could not, in my view, address the aborted infant as "wicked" thus judged for their wickedness by God. We do see that the sin of Adam has it's consequences on all conceived/born, but, do we not also see that because God is just in His judgment, that He will righteously judge sin?

And truly we seek to set emotion and personal conviction to the side and just examine the issue from Scripture.

And this is one of the primary points to examine: has God elected all infants that die? Or, would we view the death of the non-elect as infants as a consequence of sin which does not change the status of the non-elect?

I take the position that God judges justly, and judges sin according to it's severity, and the severity of punishment is according to the sin itself. This would place infants into a category where, though they are separated from God and need that condition remedied through Christ, we still see no sin of their own which could be judged, and we do not see the same pattern for men who are born, meaning, they are judged according to their response to the revelation provided them.

I give Paul's statements in Romans as a basis for my own view, that they will benefit from the grace of God in judgment:



Romans 1:18-21

King James Version (KJV)


18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;

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.



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.


And while we would not negate the possibility, and probability of God's interaction with the babe in the womb, we still have two different scenarios to deal with: the infant/child that may have the internal witness and knowledge of God, but has not had opportunity to respond with their own actions, and those who grow up and respond according to the separated nature they are conceived/born with.

The question is...does that make any difference?

This speaks to those who have been born and grown up. And, we also have the distinction of the revelation in view, which is the Gospel of Christ (as opposed to revelation provided to men in prior Ages, i.e., the Law). The proof-text of John 6, for example, deals primarily with the Incarnation and this Chapter distinguishes between the provision of the Law and the Provision of Christ. Manna sustained physical life, whereas the True Bread provides eternal life. Neither would have been relevant to the infant that died.

Now here is a question that I think gets us to the heart of the issue: if we allow that God ministers to the unborn child, and that the child receives revelation, understands it, and is saved through that ministry, is this while the child is yet alive? Or, is the quickening that takes place made a reality after they physically perish?

And I will withhold further comment until you address that issue.

I am a little pressed for time this morning so will just post this from the reference given:


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 )

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 )

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.


God bless.

 

Just wanted to comment on this. This is an issue that I think deserves examination, because I would agree that there is a general calling given to all men, first by internal witness, secondly through those evidences God gives within the Creation, and finally through direct revelation. But I do not take a position that there is an "ineffectual calling" in the sense that God desires for one to be saved and despite His best efforts it is to no avail. I think we see more a pattern of God calling and this is effectual 100%, even when those called kick at the goads (Jonah, for example, which gives a picture of God's will imposed on an unwilling hearer, which from my own position has to be distinguished from a salvific experience, it is just an example of someone rebelling against God's will and that rebellion being over-ridden).

I think the distinction made, "the Ministry of the Word," which looks to the temporal aspect of the conveyance of the Gospel, could very well have the aspect of "ineffectual." It is not until the Spirit of God ministers directly in the heart in relationship to the Word being preached that we step into the realm of effectual calling, in my view.


God bless.

 

I think he expressed some general truths about God that we can affirm, but he doesn't really present something that we can think about in regards to the issue. Its just kind of...fluff, in my opinion.

I think the grieving parents deserve a little more than that, because most will reconcile their grief with the truth that God is good, and will make provision for babies.

I think we can see in Scripture a pattern set forth by God Himself that gives us a more definitive understanding of why God will make provision for babies.

Mankind stands above animals, for example, and the fact that God may provide food for the most detestable beast is irrelevant. Two entirely different issues. That God does not want to see a mother bird die in the nest...? It happens. Doesn't impact God's dealings with men.

Short on time this morning, so will not post examples from the statement of Spurgeon. That is contrary to the purpose of the OP, which is to see the understanding of the members, not the understanding of those which influences their understanding. So I have the understanding of Spurgeon, but I do not have the understanding of some of the members, or the Biblical Basis for that understanding. Its easy to adopt the understanding of another, and that is probably typical for many believers.

God bless.

 

And that's okay. If the matter is settled for you, great.

And that is one of the issues I would like to discuss.

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

Secondly, if this is the case, then how is it that the Elect that die as infants...are saved?

And I will set this by itself because this is one of the key issues of the OP.

And I will also, to make sure I am not misunderstood, declare my own position: men are not born with sin as though it is a disease, they are born separated from God which is the reason why, when they reach an age of comprehension...they sin. Also to clarify, I am not speaking about the extrabiblical "age of accountability," because I believe this is various among men, and is dependent on their experience. For example, a child growing up in a war torn country can be a murderer by the age of eight, whereas another eight year old, who has never been exposed to very much, can be bereft of knowledge which might bring about a guilt for such intent.


Continued...

 

But I don't think we view it the same way. I see Adam as casting the entire human race into separation from God, and that is man's primary problem. Because of this, he will inevitably sin.

I use to take the position that men were "born with sin," as though this was a genetic trait passed down through the Ages.

You can share your own view.

But here's the thing, Iconoclast...God has given us His Word so we can know what He thinks. While it is true that men take differing views as to what that is on any given issue, wouldn't you agree that we can conclude on most issues based on what He has given us, His Word?

I don't see this particular issue as any different. We should be able to conclude dogmatically in regards to man's condition in the womb.

But that is not what I hope to do in this thread. I hope to examine the relevant Scripture and the Biblical basis for the differing views.


Continued...

 

If its "not for you," why are you participating?

I too trust God on this, as well as His Word, which I think gives us definitive basis for our understanding.

That's a given. Not any different than saying "There will not be anyone lost in the Eternal State. The question is...

...are infants saved by the grace of God despite the fact that in their physical lives they never came to know Christ through the Gospel?

If so...why?

If not, or, if it is believed that some among infants that die are non-elect and go into eternal separation...why?

What is the Biblical Basis for either view?

And I will throw in that after physical death we are dealing with the spirit of that child, not an embryo, not an infant in early development, so technically I don't think we would view the non-elect infant that dies as going into eternal separation in the physical form they had while alive here on earth, so it doesn't have to be a concept of an infant being cast into the Lake of Fire.

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)).

Continued...

 

So you think that this...

I take the position that God judges justly, and judges sin according to it's severity, and the severity of punishment is according to the sin itself.

...is not a valid statement?

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?

So what sin would you lay to the charge of the infant?

Or is it a matter that you feel all are charged with Adam's sin, and that is the sin they "have." Lot of people take this position, which is one of the issues I hope to examine.

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.

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.

Sure, in a general application of the term, but, the Amorite, just as the Fourth Generation, did, has come and gone, lol.


God bless.

 

Perhaps you could place this statement in a context of the OP, and share your own views on what you have found Scripture to teach on the subject?


God bless.

 

Do we leave what a sound Gospel message is to be in God's hands? Is it okay for believers to present an "I don't know exactly what Scripture teaches regarding the Gospel of Christ, so I will just leave it in His hands...?"

But again, if this is your perspective, why are you interacting in this thread? Why not just sit back and shake your head at the absurdity of those who want to discuss this and examine what we can conclude from Scripture?

Not sure how you could not understand my position, even if it has been limited thus far, that others might present their own:

Now, so far you have missed the position I actually take, so now, having clarified that, will you admit that perhaps your response is from a perspective that is missing an important understanding?


Continued...

 

Now, the question here is, do I address these posts in detail, and be rebuked for loooonnnnggggg posts, or, do I cherry pick what is actually relevant, and be rebuked for "not answering" my antagonists, or, do I addresss each point in detail and be rebuked for parsing and using "dishonest debate tactics", or, do I do it in block form and be rebuked for not asnwering my antagonists?

Well, darned if I do, darned if I don't, lol, so...

...I will stick with my typical responsive methods.


God bless.