Infant Death and Salvation Two

[Darrell C]

Seems as though this topic isn't finished.

The basic question revolves around how we understand salvation for infants that die in the womb. And probably one focal point for me in this is whether they are regenerated prior to death, but, there are numerous issues to look at.

So anyone with any thoughts, feel free to jump in.


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

The following discussion is taken from Here.

Darrell C

Here is the problem DC....You have been answered, you claim you have not been answered because you do not properly process the answers given to you. This is a personal problem you have to wrestle with.
In the other thread...Biblicist laid this out in detail, you reacted and rejected what he said there.
Now you are doing the same thing expecting different results????

Of course I expect different results, lol.

And it is not a problem, so don't worry about that, Iconoclast. I actually live for this. And maybe one day I will get different results, such as honest answers to simple questions, and less responses like these.

So if you don't mind, perhaps you can quote exactly what you feel was "laid out to me" that I didn't understand. Please quote the response to whatever this was as well, and save me a little time in having to address the same things over again.

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.

I stand by this, and actually addressed this same issue. Here it is again: what sin does the child in the womb commit?

Secondly, I addressed your resource, shall I respond to these new posts and see answers to the questions posed to you?

But let's get to a few of these this evening:

here is how I began my response to you, after Annsni, and TC and all the reformed persons offered answers that you reject.

Actually, I didn't disagree with Ann inregards to the topic itself, but in regards to whether we can know of a certainty concerning the disposition of infants that die in the womb.

And I agreed with TCassidy.

And I can only remember one other reformed person specifically who didn't even bother to state his own understanding, but offered a link.

Is that a Reformed thing: quote everything but Scripture?

But the record is clear, I sought to discuss, not simply declare my position from the doctrines of men and then have a tizzy when my own views were not accepted.

Hello DC,
This quote from the 1689 confession of faith I believe to be the perfect answer in that it leaves all of it in God's hands....
Who, and how many persons are elected is up to God entirely from start to finish anyway.
If any person is non elect they will not be in heaven.
That is the only proper answer, regardless of the speculations of men...
Even good men like Spurgeon speaks from emotion rather than scripture on this issue. God is God....we are not;
25 That be far from thee to do after this manner, to slay the righteous with the wicked: and that the righteous should be as the wicked, that be far from thee: Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?

DC.....I trust God and His wisdom...

If he has not elected all men...he has a Holy reason not to do so...

If he has elected all infants dying in infancy He has a holy reason for doing so.

If he has not elected all infants who die in infancy He would also have a Holy reason for doing so

Iconoclast, how is this supposed to be discussion? lol

"If He has, oh well, if He hasn't, oh well."

You imply I do not trust God because I feel we can understand why He saves the infant that dies in the womb.

Oh well.

This speaks to more than omniscience.....it speaks to God's Eternal Decree.[which you deny exists}

Okay, so here is something we can examine.

First, quote me denying God's choosing of the Elect. Just one quote will do.

Secondly, let's look at the Scriptural basis for "God's Eternal Decree."

Third, how does that negate discussion concerning infants that die in the womb? If you don't want to discuss it, why are you participating in a thread about it?

Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

So you start off by denying the response,

Sorry, No.

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.


Doesn't really resemble your recounting of the exchange...

So you start off by denying the response,

I do disagree with some of it, agree with some of it, and open it up for discussion.

But you don't have any intention of discussion, do you. You feel others are to accept what you say and that settles the matter.

Sorry, but you are actually going to have to learn that sometimes, on a debate forum, some people are going to debate your positions. And just because you don't want to discuss it, doesn't mean others can't.

Now, you are quoting me haphazardly and not even getting the order correct. You skip what I did say and create such a mess of the conversation that no-one could be able to follow it.

Is this fair, Iconoclast? Are you doing it this way because you cannot maintain the impression you want to give?

There was nothing in my response that warranted all of the guff that ensued, lol.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

but the core teaching of the bible as revealed to the Church.

You mean the core teaching of the doctrines of men, don't you.

I addressed your resource, and tried to discuss it with you.

9 And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:

10 To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God,

11 According to the eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord:

There is an eternal purpose DC.....you do not like it,

Actually not only do I like it, I am quite grateful for it, lol.

And I have no idea if you posted this or I did, but do you notice that the Eternal Purpose was unknown, a mystery?

So how does that negate the fact that most believe God does not send babies to Hell, yet no-one seems to know why?

Not even the great Reformed Teachers could adequately answer this question in a Q and A session. MacArthur did the best, but, it was clear the question made some of them uncomfortable, and they, like you, did not want to come out and say "Yes, I believe it is God's Eternal Purpose to send some babies to Hell."

So step up, Iconoclast, and just say it.

You might go back and see how the others answered, and understand...they are not in agreement with you or your doctrine.

you reject the godly teachers that have been given to the church......

Some of them, I do, yes. Godly, perhaps, but in regards to their doctrine, not only do I see some godly men teaching error, but I can show you why I believe them to be in error.

That is why I showed you in regards to your resource, which you feel is the end of the discussion, which really, all it did, was open the discussion up more. Pity you have no interest in debating doctrine, Iconoclast. I would have loved to have had a response to that address.

yes...it is just YOU AND YOUR BIBLE....

Better than it being me and the doctrines of men.

When others of us use those links you complain, then decry that we are making it personal, claiming an insult???

First, I have no interest in reading the teachings of men. I am more interested in what people themselves believe. Why do you think I am here, Iconoclast?

Secondly, the insult was not imagined:

http://Your ideas are very similar ...nd you get a reaction....just an observation.
But as I was saying....you state several ideas that many might agree with,but then you assume every reader is following you and then you seemed a bit startled to find you get a reaction....just an observation.']Your ideas are very similar up to a point. You go on though to speculate as many will, trying to re-think or come up with your own unique take on some of the issues......That is what I meant when I said I am not following you down those theological trails.... you are welcome to do what you need to, but I find in viewing your responses;
But as I was saying....you state several ideas that many might agree with,but then you assume every reader is following you and then you seemed a bit startled to find you get a reaction....just an observation.']But as I was saying....you state several ideas that many might agree with,but then you assume every reader is following you and then you seemed a bit startled to find you get a reaction....just an observation.'][some might consider them long, sort of like some puritan writings where they take two pages to say what one paragraph might have said}
But as I was saying....you state several ideas that many might agree with,but then you assume every reader is following you and then you seemed a bit startled to find you get a reaction....just an observation.']But as I was saying....you state several ideas that many might agree with,but then you assume every reader is following you and then you seemed a bit startled to find you get a reaction....just an observation.']Continued...[/QUOTE]
But as I was saying....you state several ideas that many might agree with,but then you assume every reader is following you and then you seemed a bit startled to find you get a reaction....just an observation.


You are not making it personal here? Go back and read my posts, Iconoclast, there was an effort to engage you in discussion, and you make it personal, and insult me.

I am very sorry about this, really. But let's keep it real.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

Now you expect me to go back through the whole thread and explain again what you set aside in the first place????

No, I would expect you to answer the responses to those posts, lol.

And if you won't do that, then address the questions posed to you following that.

Have you stopped to consider that only one member actually agreed with you?

This is exactly what I said would take place and now it has once again......

Interesting. Now tell me, Iconoclast...who is it that you said this too?

I will stop there because I would like to know who your conspirators are.

But thanks for divulging your motive for being in the thread.

And by the way, not too hard to guess who those people are, lol.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

okay....let me go back and show it to you once again-

In post 27 you were given several short answers that you seek to side step;

{Not for me DC..... I just trust God 100% on this.....
There will be no non elect persons in Heaven at all.
This is your thought, not mine. I leave it to God.
I see no clear expression of this in scripture addressing this topic.
your speculation.....we do not see as God does.}

These are not answers, Iconoclast.

Most of us trust God 100%.

Most of us acknowledge the no-brainer that only the elect will be in Heaven.

Identifying my thoughts isn't that hard, as I usually lay it out in detail, and hardly an answer.

That you can't see something in Scripture is no great surprise. You ask me why I believe babies are born with sin when I have been clear that I don't.

That you think my views are speculation doesn't make it so. That you will not openly debate the issues makes it more likely that you question your own embrace of your System of Theology.

Here is the post, presented for you, Iconoclast, not anyone else, I could care less if anyone else reads this. This is a discussion we are having. I want you to answer the questions, that's why I asked them to begin with:



And this is one of the primary points to examine: has God elected all infants that die?
Not for me DC..... I just trust God 100% on this.....



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?
There will be no non elect persons in Heaven at all.




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 is your thought, not mine. I leave it to God.



This would place infants into a category where, though they are separated from God and need that condition remedied through Christ
,

I see no clear expression of this in scripture addressing this topic.



we still see no sin of their own which could be judged,
your speculation.....we do not see as God does.


This is directly quoted from your post.

Your "answers only raise more questions. Such as, it is not your thought that "God judges justly, and judges sin according to it's severity, and the severity of punishment is according to the sin itself?"

Can you really not see I am trying to engage you in a discussion about this, and if you did not want to participate, you were free to leave at any time?

So tell me again...who did you tell "this would happen?" If your only intent was to prove something outside of the scope of the OP, do you really see that as honest participation?


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

I tried not to make it more personal than needed to be.

And it seems you have failed miserably.

Did you tell whoever you spoke to this might happen? I wonder if they thought it might, but didn't care...

your response in part again shows a lack of understanding that would take a different thread to unravel; you said;

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.


We can know ONLY what God reveals for us to know....

What do you think He gave us His Word for, Iconoclast?

Just because you don't see something doesn't mean it isn't there.

we as created beings do not know what an infinite God thinks

Not everything, true, but we should know what it is He has told us.

And He tells us much in how He deals with men.

We can say without controversy that God deals justly with men, that He has from the Garden shown grace and mercy, and that He has always judged men according to their understanding of the revelation He provides them.

we as created beings do not know why God does what he does

Sure we do.

Not sure why you would even say that.

And for the record...

...7 votes against God sending babies to Hell, and zero votes that He does.

And you still do not do what most in the thread do...declare their view of it. And most said no.

So who is rejecting what others have said again?

we do not know the exactness of His holy , righteous judgment.

Sure we do...it will be final.

That is for both the Elect and Non-Elect.

And sorry to swing back to topic but the fact is that there is much to discuss in regards to the infant in the womb.

The one question I would focus on at this point would be...are the Elect infants that die in the womb born again prior to death? What do your resources have to say about that? What you have supplied thus far hasn't addressed it. so perhaps you could look into that and get back to me.

To suggest what you have is folly, you are welcome to it of course, but you go down that road alone.

No, I count at least six people who are on the same path as I am. And only one other than yourself unwilling to admit what they believe.

"We can't know" is not an answer, Iconoclast. If it is...then show me from Scripture why we cannot know that God is just and will show grace to those who do not have specific knowledge of Jesus Christ.

And I hate to disappoint you, but that is all the time I have this evening. I will try to get to the other posts tomorrow.


God bless.

 

[Iconoclast]

"Darrell C,

And it is not a problem, so don't worry about that, Iconoclast. I actually live for this.

Interesting

So if you don't mind, perhaps you can quote exactly what you feel was "laid out to me" that I didn't understand.

Been there, done that....is what the tee shirt says...

Please quote the response to whatever this was as well, and save me a little time in having to address the same things over again.

and yet you expect others to re-hash things over and over.

Secondly, I addressed your resource, shall I respond to these new posts and see answers to the questions posed to you?

that might be amusing...

And I can only remember one other reformed person specifically who didn't even bother to state his own understanding, but offered a link.

Yes....he saw through your charade and saw your post as a cry for help....

Is that a Reformed thing: quote everything but Scripture?

Sometimes those numbers with the link, are scriptures that you should know or look up....they will help you.

But the record is clear, I sought to discuss, not simply declare my position from the doctrines of men and then have a tizzy when my own views were not accepted.

Some of us enjoy the historic and biblical teaching and do not feel the need to re-invent the wheel....

Iconoclast, how is this supposed to be discussion? lol

It is a discussion when both people understand what is offered, not when one party cannot grasp the teaching, and diverts to other ideas off topic,and offers caricatures and out of context ideas that they can then put a spin on.....you know....like you do

"If He has, oh well, if He hasn't, oh well."

If this is the level of understanding you claim from what was posted....as biblicist has posted to you....no progess can be made

Okay, so here is something we can examine.

First, quote me denying God's choosing of the Elect. Just one quote will do.

Sure...... here are you quotes from the closed threads...

Man is separated from God at conception, which is not nullified by some kind of Covenant that we do not find presented in Scripture

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 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?

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

I answered in this way...perhaps you missed it-
We do not have to change this at all. We just have to understand that romans 5..."us"...is speaking of justified elect persons, and those who will be justified and have the peace with God spoken of in 5:1....

Do I have to explain everything to you DC?

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?
And here we have it.......your denial of what is the core teaching of scripture

Let me guess...........your objection is......you do not see the ....words.....Covenant of redemption written out in any verse of scripture....so in your mind...it cannot exist is that it????

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???

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?
The C.O.R . deals with all men who are saved. The topic is about salvation.....and you want to know how this is relevant???
If the C.O.R. deals with all persons who will ever be saved, why would it not deal with elect infants?
And how is this relevant to the infant in the womb?
Why would you exclude them?

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...
it shows you are one confused puppy???

Man is separated from God at conception, which is not nullified by some kind of Covenant that we do not find presented in Scripture
.

Your denial and utter confusion here is the source of your trouble and frustration....look no further....this is most of it!

 

[Iconoclast]

"Darrell C

And it seems you have failed miserably.

maybe to you. I understand. it must be embarassing for you sometimes like in the thread where Biblicist toasted your marshmellows....lol

Did you tell whoever you spoke to this might happen? I wonder if they thought it might, but didn't care...

You spam the board so much, I cannot remember where I posted it...lol
Many do not care to read your long-winded , rambling posts
I think they just skip over them to be honest.
DC.....ironically....i do read your posts, as time permits...i think you do have something to offer when you do not get over involved in doing what you do....I am not certain of a theological word for what you do....but the non theological word we used in High School was....you try and slime a person.....You re-word what they they say ...with an evil slimey twist...that is all from your mind. That is why people do not like to interact with you.... Then you whine about people making it ...PERSONAL ...when they answer YOU...for doing this thing...
Biblicist tried to tell you this ...in a nicer way....but NO, you would not welcome it.

What do you think He gave us His Word for, Iconoclast?

In the previous thread i answered this;
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.

13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

15 But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.

Just because you don't see something doesn't mean it isn't there.

I know you have posted that we can know the mind of God..?But this explains we can know only what He gives to us freely....For you to think you can understand more than what is given is not healthy...

Not everything, true, but we should know what it is He has told us.

Now...here you come back to your senses and admit to it....good for you DC!

And He tells us much in how He deals with men.

yes...He does

The one question I would focus on at this point would be...are the Elect infants that die in the womb born again prior to death? What do your resources have to say about that? What you have supplied thus far hasn't addressed it. so perhaps you could look into that and get back to me.

a proper study of the theology know as the Covenant of redemption answers this which was what i said originally.
When the time comes that you admit this exists,and study it a bit, then we can move forward. Other than that...your carnal speculations do not profit.

No, I count at least six people who are on the same path as I am. And only one other than yourself unwilling to admit what they believe.

and yet...we see no one who supports you by posting so...

"We can't know" is not an answer, Iconoclast.

But...we can know what God has revealed to us....not what you speculate on however.

 

[Iconoclast]

here are other posts you might have missed, or not read carefully;
Darrell C

Here is the problem DC....You have been answered, you claim you have not been answered because you do not properly process the answers given to you. This is a personal problem you have to wrestle with.
In the other thread...Biblicist laid this out in detail, you reacted and rejected what he said there.
Now you are doing the same thing expecting different results????

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.
here is how I began my response to you, after Annsni, and TC and all the reformed persons offered answers that you reject.
Hello DC,
This quote from the 1689 confession of faith I believe to be the perfect answer in that it leaves all of it in God's hands....
Who, and how many persons are elected is up to God entirely from start to finish anyway.
If any person is non elect they will not be in heaven.
That is the only proper answer, regardless of the speculations of men...
Even good men like Spurgeon speaks from emotion rather than scripture on this issue. God is God....we are not;
25 That be far from thee to do after this manner, to slay the righteous with the wicked: and that the righteous should be as the wicked, that be far from thee: Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?
DC.....I trust God and His wisdom...
If he has not elected all men...he has a Holy reason not to do so...

If he has elected all infants dying in infancy He has a holy reason for doing so.

If he has not elected all infants who die in infancy He would also have a Holy reason for doing so

This speaks to more than omniscience.....it speaks to God's Eternal Decree.[which you deny exists}
So you start off by denying the response, but the core teaching of the bible as revealed to the Church.

9 And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:

10 To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God,

11 According to the eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord:

There is an eternal purpose DC.....you do not like it, you reject the godly teachers that have been given to the church......yes...it is just YOU AND YOUR BIBLE....

When others of us use those links you complain, then decry that we are making it personal, claiming an insult???

Now you expect me to go back through the whole thread and explain again what you set aside in the first place???? This is exactly what I said would take place and now it has once again......okay....let me go back and show it to you once again-
In post 27 you were given several short answers that you seek to side step;

{Not for me DC..... I just trust God 100% on this.....
There will be no non elect persons in Heaven at all.
This is your thought, not mine. I leave it to God.
I see no clear expression of this in scripture addressing this topic.
your speculation.....we do not see as God does.}

I tried not to make it more personal than needed to be.

your response in part again shows a lack of understanding that would take a different thread to unravel; you said;
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.

We can know ONLY what God reveals for us to know....

we as created beings do not know what an infinite God thinks

we as created beings do not know why God does what he does

we do not know the exactness of His holy , righteous judgment.

To suggest what you have is folly, you are welcome to it of course, but you go down that road alone.

 

[Iconoclast]

Darrell C,

You mean the core teaching of the doctrines of men, don't you.

No...I mean the core teachings of the scriptures.
Let's examine your objection here....."the core teachings of the doctrines of men"

Guess what....God reveals His doctrine.....TO MEN-....THEY CAN UNDERSTAND IT AND TEACH IT-
16 Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me.

17 If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.

I addressed your resource, and tried to discuss it with you.

you did pick and choose, but you tried.

Actually not only do I like it, I am quite grateful for it, lol.

not really...

And I have no idea if you posted this or I did,

I posted it.

but do you notice that the Eternal Purpose was unknown, a mystery?

lol....you do not understand the passage....the mystery is spoken of in vs3-6
6 That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel:

So how does that negate the fact that most believe God does not send babies to Hell, yet no-one seems to know why?

this is what I spoke of earlier;
an answer is offered
you misunderstand the answer, you mangle it,
then you suggest that the person you are posting to said anything like you suggest???

Your failure to grasp the Covenant of Redemption leads you into unworkable solutions like what you suggest here.....
The C.O.R. is not dependant on your poll or 6 or 7 people who hold an emotional belief that is not bible based.

Not even the great Reformed Teachers could adequately answer this question in a Q and A session. MacArthur did the best, but, it was clear the question made some of them uncomfortable,

I did not hear this conference so I cannot really comment on it. Certainly I cannot take your word on it as I see how you take creative liberties with what other people believe....

and they, like you, did not want to come out and say "Yes, I believe it is God's Eternal Purpose to send some babies to Hell."

This is in your mind..... I have said what I believe and I am not known as one who will not say what is on my mind.

So step up, Iconoclast, and just say it.

I offered the confessional statement and I stand by it. I do not think it can be improved upon.

You might go back and see how the others answered, and understand...they are not in agreement with you or your doctrine.

Others will answer for themselves I suppose. I did not take a poll to see what they are believing. People can claim anything...showing it is a different matter.

That is why I showed you in regards to your resource, which you feel is the end of the discussion, which really, all it did, was open the discussion up more. Pity you have no interest in debating doctrine, Iconoclast. I would have loved to have had a response to that address.

There is a response....you do not understand it yet, but it is there.

First, I have no interest in reading the teachings of men. I am more interested in what people themselves believe. Why do you think I am here, Iconoclast?

If you want to cut yourself off from godly men and their teaching....it is not wise, but you can do what you want.

Secondly, the insult was not imagined:

Sure it was,,,,there is nothing here that is an insult. What is posted here is an accurate observation.

But as I was saying....you state several ideas that many might agree with,but then you assume every reader is following you and then you seemed a bit startled to find you get a reaction....just an observation.']Your ideas are very similar up to a point. You go on though to speculate as many will, trying to re-think or come up with your own unique take on some of the issues......That is what I meant when I said I am not following you down those theological trails.... you are welcome to do what you need to, but I find in viewing your responses;
But as I was saying....you state several ideas that many might agree with,but then you assume every reader is following you and then you seemed a bit startled to find you get a reaction....just an observation.']But as I was saying....you state several ideas that many might agree with,but then you assume every reader is following you and then you seemed a bit startled to find you get a reaction....just an observation.']But as I was saying....you state several ideas that many might agree with,but then you assume every reader is following you and then you seemed a bit startled to find you get a reaction....just an observation.']But as I was saying....you state several ideas that many might agree with,but then you assume every reader is following you and then you seemed a bit startled to find you get a reaction....just an observation.'][some might consider them long, sort of like some puritan writings where they take two pages to say what one paragraph might have said}
But as I was saying....you state several ideas that many might agree with,but then you assume every reader is following you and then you seemed a bit startled to find you get a reaction....just an observation.']But as I was saying....you state several ideas that many might agree with,but then you assume every reader is following you and then you seemed a bit startled to find you get a reaction....just an observation.']But as I was saying....you state several ideas that many might agree with,but then you assume every reader is following you and then you seemed a bit startled to find you get a reaction....just an observation.']But as I was saying....you state several ideas that many might agree with,but then you assume every reader is following you and then you seemed a bit startled to find you get a reaction....just an observation.']Continued...

But as I was saying....you state several ideas that many might agree with,but then you assume every reader is following you and then you seemed a bit startled to find you get a reaction....just an observation. [/QUOTE]

You are not making it personal here? Go back and read my posts, Iconoclast, there was an effort to engage you in discussion, and you make it personal, and insult me.

I am speaking to you...so of course it is personal? You are posting to me, so that is also personal....that is how it works There is nothing here that is an insult....if you think there is you might be a bit thin skinned to post on a message board.

]

 

[Iconoclast]

Darrell C,

These are not answers, Iconoclast.

They were short responses to your posts.

Here is the post, presented for you, Iconoclast, not anyone else, I could care less if anyone else reads this. This is a discussion we are having. I want you to answer the questions, that's why I asked them to begin with:

ok

And this is one of the primary points to examine: has God elected all infants that die?

Not for me DC..... I just trust God 100% on this.....
What I posted here is quite simple DC.....I stay with the confessional statement;
Paragraph 5. Those of mankind that are predestinated to life, God, before the foundation of the world was laid, according to His eternal and immutable purpose, and the secret counsel and good pleasure of His will, hath chosen in Christ unto everlasting glory, out of His mere free grace and love,11 without any other thing in the creature as a condition or cause moving Him thereunto.12
11 Eph. 1:4, 9, 11; Rom. 8:30; 2 Tim. 1:9; I Thess. 5:9
12 Rom. 9:13,16; Eph. 2:5,12
Paragraph 6. As God hath appointed the elect unto glory, so He hath, by the eternal and most free purpose of His will, foreordained all the means thereunto;13 wherefore they who are elected, being fallen in Adam, are redeemed by Christ,14 are effectually called unto faith in Christ, by His Spirit working in due season, are justified, adopted, sanctified,15 and kept by His power through faith unto salvation;16 neither are any other redeemed by Christ, or effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect only.17
13 1 Pet. 1:2; 2; Thess. 2:13
14 1 Thess. 5:9, 10
15 Rom. 8:30; 2 Thess. 2:13
16 1 Pet. 1:5
17 John 10:26, 17:9, 6:64

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?

There will be no non elect persons in Heaven at all.

Meaning just what it says.....no election, no heaven

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 is your thought, not mine. I leave it to God.

You want to narrow the way in which God judges....it is your thought on it....I let God be God and do whatever he thinks best , for His own Holy reasons

This would place infants into a category where, though they are separated from God and need that condition remedied through Christ

I see no clear expression of this in scripture addressing this topic.
You are offering a nebulous idea that only you offer and only you understand what you mean...I do not see it in scripture

we still see no sin of their own which could be judged,

your speculation.....we do not see as God does.
I do know not pretend to know what God see's....you should not claim you have such knowledge.

This is directly quoted from your post.

ok

Your "answers only raise more questions. Such as, it is not your thought that "God judges justly, and judges sin according to it's severity, and the severity of punishment is according to the sin itself?"

I just clarified it for you.

Can you really not see I am trying to engage you in a discussion about this, and if you did not want to participate, you were free to leave at any time?

That is how you see it.....I have a different idea about what you are doing...I do not share your idea.

So tell me again...who did you tell "this would happen?" If your only intent was to prove something outside of the scope of the OP, do you really see that as honest participation?

Here is an example of you trying to "slime Those you post to"

 

[Iconoclast]

Darrell C,

But you don't have any intention of discussion, do you

.
I discuss many things on BB. I like to do so with someone who wants an answer. You avoid the answer so it cannot progress very far.

You feel others are to accept what you say and that settles the matter

.
Another slimy comment....I do not feel that way. About a year ago we had the same kind of discussion. I said...you speak for yourself, I will speak for myself...yet you try and speak for me.....no thanks!

Sorry, but you are actually going to have to learn that sometimes, on a debate forum, some people are going to debate your positions. And just because you don't want to discuss it, doesn't mean others can't.

But...that is not really what you are doing , from what I can see. You chop up what I say, so it is not what I posted.....you did post 5 sentences from my post, but you chopped up the other posts....

Now, you are quoting me haphazardly and not even getting the order correct. You skip what I did say and create such a mess of the conversation that no-one could be able to follow it.

No one is going to re-read your long winded posts. If anything I try and speak to one thing at a time.

Is this fair, Iconoclast?

yes...because of how you post....the other day In responding to one of my posts you offered 18 posts....lol.

Are you doing it this way because you cannot maintain the impression you want to give?

No....I am doing it this way because of how you post.... A coach I had tears ago said you cannot make chicken salad out of chicken poop.....

There was nothing in my response that warranted all of the guff that ensued, lol.

Others feel differently evidently...

 

[Darrell C]

I apologize to anyone that might read this for the lack of proper quotes, but, I can only work with what my antagonists give me, and I just don't have time to track down the original statements in every response.

This is actually one of the dishonest debate tactics employed by those who fear having the original context exposed, because it undermines the chicanery of their responses.

"Darrell C,

And it is not a problem, so don't worry about that, Iconoclast. I actually live for this.
Interesting

Not just interesting...but educational.

It is amazing how much we can learn while we are addressing error.

And I wish I could say that exposing your error was educational, but, because you have not really addressed the topic itself, I am just left dealing with personal comments. But that's okay, I still have hope that this can be educational.

So if you don't mind, perhaps you can quote exactly what you feel was "laid out to me" that I didn't understand.
Been there, done that....is what the tee shirt says...

No, you haven't.

In fact, it should be quite clear to anyone that reads these exchanges you do not even know how to quote. We have discussed this before, Iconoclast.

I have been encouraged in reading some of your more recent posts, because you do actually quote people. Am I just special? lol

Please quote the response to whatever this was as well, and save me a little time in having to address the same things over again.
and yet you expect others to re-hash things over and over.

What rehash? I'm still trying to get you to address this on a doctrinal level.

If you quote me...you will be forced to. At least that is my hope. I guess even then it could be the same thing I am seeing here.

Secondly, I addressed your resource, shall I respond to these new posts and see answers to the questions posed to you?
that might be amusing...

You do understand I was asking if you would actually address my responses, lol.

So there you go, it is indeed...amusing.

I'd still like to actually talk about the doctrine, though.

And I can only remember one other reformed person specifically who didn't even bother to state his own understanding, but offered a link.
Yes....he saw through your charade and saw your post as a cry for help....

So the obvious response to someone we see "crying for help" is...go read Spurgeon, that will set you straight.

Great. Whatever floats your boat.

Doesn't deny that serious discussion that was on topic was being addressed from a doctrinal and Scriptural perspective, not parroted adoption of someone else's faith. Spurgeon's faith is spread quite thin in many people who need to develop a faith of their own by reading the Word of God...not commentaries.

Is that a Reformed thing: quote everything but Scripture?
Sometimes those numbers with the link, are scriptures that you should know or look up....they will help you.

And that's the point, Iconoclast...to discuss the Scriptures themselves and how they relate to the Topic of Infant Death and Salvation.

Not to discuss what Spurgeon has to say about them, nor a creed you present.

And even when I tried to get you to expand on what the resource said, and commented on the irrelevance of the second statement...you refuse to discuss it.

I'm sorry if I offended you by seeing your holy writings as irrelevant, but...they were.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

But the record is clear, I sought to discuss, not simply declare my position from the doctrines of men and then have a tizzy when my own views were not accepted.

Some of us enjoy the historic and biblical teaching and do not feel the need to re-invent the wheel....

That's understandable, but...how does that keep one from discussing the topic?

And why would you, if you are so adamant that what your teachers say cannot be questioned...bother to join in the discussion?

But you have revealed why you did, Iconoclast, because you wanted to try to prove a point to someone.

How is that working out for you?

And when you are challenged to go beyond your conspiratorial agenda...you freeze up. When your holy writings are shown not to be the final word on the topic...you get upset.

Iconoclast, how is this supposed to be discussion? lol

It is a discussion when both people understand what is offered, not when one party cannot grasp the teaching, and diverts to other ideas off topic,and offers caricatures and out of context ideas that they can then put a spin on.....you know....like you do

And just saying your antagonist doesn't understand what you are saying doesn't make it true. I guess if that is good enough for you, okay.

But it is quite apparent that your Calvinist Doctrine takes precedence over some very simple Bible Truths. That is why you cannot explain why it is you imply that God sends babies to Hell, even though you and only one other take that view.

And neither of you have the confidence to publicly vote your opinion.

That is very telling. It speaks of your delusion of having a position that should be just accepted on your word, as well as your lack of confidence in what you believe. You might give that some thought, Iconoclast.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

"If He has, oh well, if He hasn't, oh well."
If this is the level of understanding you claim from what was posted....as biblicist has posted to you....no progess can be made

Its simply the truth: that is what you are saying.

You do not have the courage to come right out and say it...that you believe God sends babies to Hell.

You do not have the courage to discuss issues such as, if men have to be regenerated in order to be saved...when is the infant regenerated? Before or after death?

And that, Iconoclast, is an attempt to return this discussion to the Doctrine and to Scripture.

Would you care to put your Doctrine on the table and provide the Scriptural Basis for it? I am asking you straight out to do that, as I have in every discussion.

We can end right here all this wasted space and time in your personal beef with me, and take this back to a doctrinal level. Or, I can keep fielding the insult and deflection. The choice is yours.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

Okay, so here is something we can examine.

First, quote me denying God's choosing of the Elect. Just one quote will do.

Sure...... here are you quotes from the closed threads...



Man is separated from God at conception, which is not nullified by some kind of Covenant that we do not find presented in Scripture

This does not deny God's choosing of the Elect.

It denies your mythological Covenant of Redemption which is used as a basis to deny the fact that there are differing Dispensations of God that distinguish phases of redemptive ministry.

So again, I ask you to quote me denying God's choosing of the ELect, and secondly...

...how that is relevant to the discussion of Infant Death and Salvation.

Are you saying that we are, if we are born elect...born in relationship with God and saved?

Please answer the question.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

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 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?




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

I answered in this way...perhaps you missed it-
We do not have to change this at all. We just have to understand that romans 5..."us"...is speaking of justified elect persons, and those who will be justified and have the peace with God spoken of in 5:1....

How would I know if I missed it...I have no idea if you even said this because you give no quote that allows me to look at the original conversation. And while I usually take the time to track them down, I shouldn't have to.

Now let's look at the alleged response: it doesn't answer the questions posed to you. There is no justification for this mythological "covenant of redemption" you teach.

Romans 5 makes it clear that there are different dispensations in Redemptive History. For example:


Romans 5:8-10

King James Version (KJV)


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

9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.

10 For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.


Your soteriology has to change Paul's teaching to "We weren't actually in need of Redemption through Christ.


Romans 5:13

King James Version (KJV)

13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.


Do you really not see the distinction Paul makes between the two differing Ages?

Your soteriology has to change Paul's teaching to, "Hey, don't worry folks, you have no need to repent and place your faith in Christ, if you are Elect...everything is covered by the covenant of redemption."

And that is not what Scripture teaches. Scripture makes it clear that salvation in the Eternal Perspective was achieved by Christ on the Cross. And that man must come under obedience to that revelation being Personally delivered directly to the hearts of men today.

Now, to once again try to give this relevance to the Topic...

...lets discuss the infant in the womb.

Does the infant in the womb have to be regenerated while alive...or not?

No man will see nor enter into the Kingdom of God except they be born again (from above, or, born of God).

Is that what happens to the infant, Iconoclast...or are they simply covered by the Covenant of Redemption?

Please answer the question.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

Do I have to explain everything to you DC?

Yes. Are you just now figuring that out?

You have to explain to me what it is you believe about the infants that die, and what Scripture you use as a basis for that belief. I don't want your opinions on Spurgeon, or any Church Father, I want your understanding and the Scriptural Basis for it.

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?
And here we have it.......your denial of what is the core teaching of scripture

Let me guess...........your objection is......you do not see the ....words.....Covenant of redemption written out in any verse of scripture....so in your mind...it cannot exist is that it????

No, Iconoclast, I am quite familiar with the concept of implicit instruction in Scripture, and, I want you to give the Scriptural Basis for that implicit teaching.

You say I deny a core teaching of Scripture but so far Scripture has not been presented. How is something one person believes, who has not offered up anything except those saved are Elect, and has not provided a Scriptural Basis for that...

...a core teaching?

Mormons think a core teaching is that God was once a man. They use the KJV. Your core teaching is as credible as theirs, because neither can be justified by the Word of God.

Now present Scripture, or just admit you have adopted a System of Theology you don't really understand, therefore cannot support it through Scripture.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

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?

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?

The C.O.R . deals with all men who are saved. The topic is about salvation.....and you want to know how this is relevant???

Yes. I've said that several times, and still...you do not give the relevance.

It is a no-brainer, Iconoclast...that those who are saved are among the Elect.

What is more difficult to understand is whether there are those who die in infancy who are not Elect, who go to Hell, despite never having committed the first personal sin, because they simply have no capability to comprehend issues that bring guilt upon them as we are given specific knowledge of in Romans 1-2, for example.

So if you don't mind, please tell me how the covenant of redemption is relevant to whether or not there are non-elect infants that die. Please show from Scripture anything at all that denies that God judges justly based on the response of men to His revealed will.

And I will tell you already...this is the case with the Old Testament Saint: they received of the Grace of God according to their response to His revealed will, and their salvation was secure. As I said in the last thread, this is the same grace I believe, based on the fact that we have precedence and example in the Old TEstament, that God will justly judge infants that die.

Thus my conclusion is that all infants, and anyone that has not been brought to an accountability by the revelation of God provided them...

...are among the Elect of God.

And while I hate to confuse anyone, let me ask you this: how are the Elect Angels chosen, Iconoclast.


Continued...