Infant Death and Salvation Two

[Iconoclast]

Darrell C

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.

Actually...This is the doctrine that God has revealed to men.

You say;"if you have scripture that is relevant to the topic" as if all these passages are to be ignored...let's see what you want to ignore;

pt3;
D. REQUIREMENTS AND PROMISES IN THE COVENANT OF REDEMPTION.
1. REQUIREMENTS. The Father required of the Son, who appeared in this covenant as the Surety and Head of His people, and as the last Adam, that He should make amends for the sin of Adam and of those whom the Father had given Him, and should do what Adam failed to do by keeping the law and thus securing eternal life for all His spiritual progeny. This requirement included the following particulars:

a. That He should assume human nature by being born of a woman, and thus enter into temporal relations; and that He should assume this nature with its present infirmities, though without sin, Gal. 4:4,5; Heb. 2:10,11,14,15; 4:15. It was absolutely essential that He should become one of the human race.

b. That He, who as the Son of God was superior to the law, should place Himself under the law; that He should enter, not merely into the natural, but also into the penal and federal relation to the law, in order to pay the penalty for sin and to merit everlasting life for the elect, Ps. 40:8; Matt. 5:17,18; John 8:28,29; Gal. 4:4,5; Phil. 2:6-8.

c. That He, after having merited forgiveness of sins and eternal life for His own, should apply to them the fruits of His merits: complete pardon, and the renewal of their lives through the powerful operation of the Holy Spirit. By doing this He would render it absolutely certain that believers would consecrate their lives to God, John 10:16; John 16:14,15; 17:12,19-22; Heb. 2: 10-13; 7:25.

2. PROMISES. The promises of the Father were in keeping with His requirements. He promised the Son all that was required for the performance of His great and comprehensive task, thereby excluding all uncertainty in the operation of this covenant. These promises included the following:

a. That He would prepare the Son a body, which would be a fit tabernacle for him; a body in part prepared by the immediate agency of God and uncontaminated by sin, Luke 1:35; Heb. 10:5.

b. That He would endow Him with the necessary gifts and graces for the performance of His task, and particularly would anoint Him for the Messianic offices by giving Him the Spirit without measure, a promise that was fulfilled especially at the time of His baptism, Isa. 42:1,2; 61:1; John 3:31.

c. That He would support Him in the performance of His work, would deliver Him from the power of death, and would thus enable Him to destroy the dominion of Satan and to establish the Kingdom of God, Isa. 42:1-7; 49:8; Ps. 16:8-11; Acts 2:25-28.

d. That He would enable Him, as a reward for His accomplished work, to send out the Holy Spirit for the formation of His spiritual body, and for the instruction, guidance, and protection of the Church, John 14:26; 15:26; 16:13, 14; Acts 2:33.

e. That He would give unto Him a numerous seed in reward for His accomplished work, a seed so numerous that it would be a multitude which no man could number, so that ultimately the Kingdom of the Messiah would embrace the people of all nations and tongues, Ps. 22:27; 72:17.

f. That He would commit to Him all power in heaven and on earth for the government of the world and of His Church, Matt. 28:18; Eph. 1:20-22; Phil. 2:9-11; Heb. 2:5-9; and would finally reward Him as Mediator with the glory which He as the Son of God had with the Father before the world was, John 17:5.


there are roughly 69 verses offered which you want to ignore.....These verses are God given..... Your claim to wanting to discuss doctrine seems to not be accurate as you dismiss all these verses offered.

What doctrine do you want to discuss? teaching from the book of Mormon?
Do you prefer these instead?
1 And now I, Nephi, proceed to give an account upon these plates of my proceedings, and my reign and ministry; wherefore, to proceed with mine account, I must speak somewhat of the things of my father, and also of my brethren.

2 For behold, it came to pass after my father had made an end of speaking the words of his dream, and also of exhorting them to all diligence, he spake unto them concerning the Jews—

3 That after they should be destroyed, even that great city Jerusalem, and many be carried away captive into Babylon, according to the own due time of the Lord, they should return again, yea, even be brought back out of captivity; and after they should be brought back out of captivity they should possess again the land of their inheritance.

 

[Iconoclast]

Dc posted;

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

...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.

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?

In post 62 you were answered here;
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

C. THE SON IN THE COVENANT OF REDEMPTION.
1. THE OFFICIAL POSITION OF CHRIST IN THIS COVENANT. The position of Christ in the covenant of redemption is twofold. In the first place He is Surety (Gr. egguos), a word that is used only in Heb. 7:22. The derivation of this word is uncertain, and therefore cannot aid us in establishing its meaning. But the meaning is not doubtful. A surety is one who engages to become responsible for it that the legal obligations of another will be met. In the covenant of redemption Christ undertook to atone for the sins of His people by bearing the necessary punishment, and to meet the demands of the law for them. And by taking the place of delinquent man He became the last Adam, and is as such also the Head of the covenant, the Representative of all those whom the Father has given Him. In the covenant of redemption, then, Christ is both Surety and Head. He took upon Himself the responsibilities of His people. He is also their Surety in the covenant of grace, which develops out of the covenant of redemption. The question has been raised, whether the suretyship of Christ in the counsel of peace was conditional or unconditional. Roman jurisprudence recognizes two kinds of suretyship, the one designated fidejussor, and the other expromissor. The former is conditional, and the latter unconditional. The former is a surety who undertakes to pay for another, provided this person does not himself render satisfaction. The burden of guilt remains on the guilty party until the time of payment. The latter, however, is a surety who takes upon himself unconditionally to pay for another, thus relieving the guilty party of his responsibility at once. Coccejus and his school maintained that in the counsel of peace Christ became a fidejussor, and that consequently Old Testament believers enjoyed no complete forgiveness of sins. From Rom. 3:25 they inferred that for those saints there was only a paresis, an overlooking of sin, and no aphesis or complete forgiveness, until Christ really made atonement for sin. Their opponents asserted, however, that Christ took upon Himself unconditionally to render satisfaction for His people, and therefore became a surety in the specific sense of an expromissor. 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. There was no essential difference between the status of the Old, and that of the New Testament believers, Ps. 32:1,2,5; 51:1-3, 9-11; 103:3,12; Isa. 43:25; Rom. 3:3,6-16; Gal. 3:6-9. The position of Coccejus reminds one of that of the Roman Catholics with their Limbus Patrum. (b) Coccejus’ theory makes the work of God in making provision for the redemption of sinners dependent on the uncertain obedience of man in an entirely unwarranted way.

There is no sense in saying that Christ became a conditional surety, as if it were still possible that the sinner should pay for himself. God’s provision for the redemption of sinners is absolute.

This is not the same as saying that He does not treat and address the sinner as personally guilty until he is justified by faith, for this is exactly what God does do. (c) In Rom. 3:25, the passage to which Coccejus appeals, the apostle uses the word paresis (overlooking or passing over), not because the individual believers in the Old Testament did not receive full pardon of sin, but because during the old dispensation the forgiveness of sin assumed the form of a paresis, as long as sin had not been adequately punished in Christ, and the absolute righteousness of Christ had not been revealed in the cross.

2. THE CHARACTER THIS COVENANT ASSUMED FOR CHRIST. Though the covenant of redemption is the eternal basis of the covenant of grace, and, as far as sinners are concerned, also its eternal prototype, it was for Christ a covenant of works rather than a covenant of grace. For Him the law of the original covenant applied, namely, that eternal life could only be obtained by meeting the demands of the law. As the last Adam Christ obtains eternal life for sinners in reward for faithful obedience, and not at all as an unmerited gift of grace. And what He has done as the Representative and Surety of all His people, they are no more in duty bound to do. The work has been done, the reward is merited, and believers are made partakers of the fruits of Christ’s accomplished work through grace.

3. CHRIST’S WORK IN THE COVENANT LIMITED BY THE DECREE OF ELECTION. Some have identified the covenant of redemption and election; but this is clearly a mistake. Election has reference to the selection of the persons destined to be the heirs of everlasting glory in Christ. The counsel of redemption, on the other hand, refers to the way in which and the means by which grace and glory are prepared for sinners. Election, indeed, also has reference to Christ and reckons with Christ, for believers are said to be elected in Him. Christ Himself is, in a sense, the object of election, but in the counsel of redemption He is one of the contracting parties. The Father deals with Christ as the Surety of His people. Logically, election precedes the counsel of redemption, because the suretyship of Christ, like His atonement, is particular. If there were no preceding election, it would necessarily be universal. Moreover, to turn this around would be equivalent to making the suretyship of Christ the ground of election, while Scripture bases election entirely on the good pleasure of God.

 

[Iconoclast]

I see ALL Elect persons In saving UNION with the Divine surety;

Heb7;
22 By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament.

23 And they truly were many priests, because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death:

24 But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood.

25 Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them

 

[Darrell C]

I see ALL Elect persons In saving UNION with the Divine surety;

Heb7;
22 By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament.

23 And they truly were many priests, because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death:

24 But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood.

25 Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them

So what happens to non-elect infants that die?


God bless.

 

[Iconoclast]

So what happens to non-elect infants that die?


God bless.

Where do you find them?
How many are there?

 

[Iconoclast]

Also......who would be a non elect person that gets saved?
How do not elect persons get saved?

 

[Darrell C]

Where do you find them?
How many are there?

As I pointed out several times, your confession speaks only about the Elect infants that die, but there is nothing on non-elect infants.

You do believe there are non-elect infants that die, don't you?

Doesn't the confession imply this? And I addressed that, asking how it is the infant benefits from the Ministry of the Word.

Also......who would be a non elect person that gets saved?
How do not elect persons get saved?

That is completely irrelevant. We have already concluded concerning what the confession states about Elect infants.

Now deal with the same thing you have dodged from the beginning of this discussion, when I addressed the absence of a clear statement about non-elect infants that die.

If you have something you can copy and paste, great, but I'd rather have your own words and Scripture that speaks to non-elect infants. I do not have a burden to show where we find them, because I have been clear...I do not view there to be any "non-elect infants."

All infants that die will share in the same grace bestowed to the Old Testament Saints, who died without being regenerated.

I am not sure if it is because your position embarrasses you, or because you know that ceding the point denies the doctrine of those you copy and paste.

Which is it? You can answer this easily by simply stating if you believe there are non-elect infants that die...and what happens to them.


God bless.

 

[Iconoclast]

I have shown the biblical position on this.

I have stated clearly that no non elect person will be in heaven.
It is your carnal speculation that speculates.....not my view.

You suggest here that something wonderful can happen to non elect persons who are under the wrath of God.
You mentioned them not me, so it is up to you to explain how they avoid God's wrath with no High Priest and no propitiation.

 

[Iconoclast]

Darrell C,

As I pointed out several times, your confession speaks only about the Elect infants that die, but there is nothing on non-elect infants.

this is a careless reading of the confession....which speaks of 3 kind of persons, elect infants, mentally handicapped, and normal persons who can hear the word ministered.

You do believe there are non-elect infants that die, don't you?

i leave it totally to God

Doesn't the confession imply this?

no...it leaves it to God,

And I addressed that, asking how it is the infant benefits from the Ministry of the Word.

yes you did revealing your shallow reading of the document.

I asked you; How do non elect persons get saved-you said-

That is completely irrelevant. We have already concluded concerning what the confession states about Elect infants.

Now deal with the same thing you have dodged from the beginning of this discussion, when I addressed the absence of a clear statement about non-elect infants that die.

The confession speaks of non elect persons who die under the wrath of God.

If you have something you can copy and paste, great,

I have posted several things....they work better if you read them however.

but I'd rather have your own words and Scripture that speaks to non-elect infants.

It seems as if you would like to bait me into saying something you can slime me with....

I do not have a burden to show where we find them, because I have been clear...I do not view there to be any "non-elect infants."

if you keep asking about them, you need to tell me who you are talking about.

All infants that die will share in the same grace bestowed to the Old Testament Saints, who died without being regenerated.

you are mistaken here...your view of ot saints is off.

I am not sure if it is because your position embarrasses you, or because you know that ceding the point denies the doctrine of those you copy and paste.

Actually...it is I believe in the Covenant of Redemption and Grace, and understand the treaching, but you see it as mythology so you miss it.

Which is it? You can answer this easily by simply stating if you believe there are non-elect infants that die...and what happens to them.

more bait

 

[Darrell C]

I have shown the biblical position on this.

No, you have copy and pasted the writings and beliefs of other men.

And refused to publicly address your view on non-elect infants that die in the womb, whether you believe there are non-elect infants or not, and whether you think they can be saved by the Grace of God.

Everyone participating in the original thread, except you and one other...confirmed faith in the view that God will show grace to all infants.

I tried to show why I believe this to be true, and yet here we are still waiting for a specific statement from you.

As I said before, if your beliefs are too embarrassing to make a public statement...you might want to reconsider those beliefs.


God bless.

 

[Iconoclast]

Darrell C

No, you have copy and pasted the writings and beliefs of other men.

Do not give what is holy to dogs - If someone isn’t open to listen to you, there’s no reason to continue speaking.

And refused to publicly address your view on non-elect infants that die in the womb, whether you believe there are non-elect infants or not, and whether you think they can be saved by the Grace of God.

There are some holy enjoyments, some gracious experiences, some deep doctrines of the Word of God, which it would be out of place to speak of before certain profane and unclean persons. They would only make a jest of them; perhaps they might persecute you on account of them.
No; holy things are for holy men; and as of old the crier in the Grecian temple was wont to say, before the mysteries were performed, “&Far hence, ye profane!&” so sometimes, before we enter into the innermost circle of Christian converse, it would be well for us to notice who is listening.
Everyone participating in the original thread, except you and one other...confirmed faith in the view that God will show grace to all infants.

I tried to show why I believe this to be true, and yet here we are still waiting for a specific statement from you.

There are some holy enjoyments, some gracious experiences, some deep doctrines of the Word of God, which it would be out of place to speak of before certain profane and unclean persons. They would only make a jest of them; perhaps they might persecute you on account of them.
No; holy things are for holy men; and as of old the crier in the Grecian temple was wont to say, before the mysteries were performed, “&Far hence, ye profane!&” so sometimes, before we enter into the innermost circle of Christian converse, it would be well for us to notice who is listening.

As I said before, if your beliefs are too embarrassing to make a public statement...you might want to reconsider those beliefs.

Do not reprove (Hebrew word yakach includes ideas of education, discipline, teaching and admonishing) a scoffer (speaks words showing no respect for the reprover), lest he hate you. Reprove a wise man, and he will love you. (Proverbs 9:8) (Reproof is wasted on a "scoffer" because the more shallow and foolish the person is, the less willing he is to listen to wise, godly counsel)


but when they avow themselves to be such, or by their conduct act as if they were such, do not put occasions in their way for displaying their evil character.

Saints are not to be simpletons; they are not to be judges, but, also, they are not to be fools.

So.....have a nice day