Infant Death and Salvation Two

[Darrell C]

If the C.O.R. deals with all persons who will ever be saved, why would it not deal with elect infants?

And you dance around the issue of "non-elect infants" that die.

What's the problem, Iconoclast, if you think there are non-elect infants that die and go into eternal separation...

...just say so.

It is a familiar doctrine, and embraced by many, so why can't you be open about it?

I am not judging your position, I merely want to discuss it.

And how is this relevant to the infant in the womb?
Why would you exclude them?

I don't, lol.

I guess I could say "Quote me" but I have no expectation that you will actually do that, because you cannot stay in a conversation with direct quotes of what your antagonist states.

You give snide commentary implying I am unfamiliar with implicit teaching, yet you are missing the fact that you are not addressing the issue.

Please tell me, when is the Elect infant that dies regenerated and reconciled to God, and...

...how is this different from the Non-Elect Infant, and...

...what your Scriptural Basis is for both answers.

Again, an attempt to bring this back to the discussion of the OP.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

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???

No, just shows you are more interested in insult than doctrine.

Discuss the Topic of the OP, Iconoclast, place your emotion to the side.

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!

So you do not see the Elect as separated from God at conception?

I am confused because I state a Core Doctrine of Scripture that is supported by the entire New Testament?

Do you have the courage, Iconoclast, to actually discuss my confusion, rather than simply insulting me?

This is relevant to the OP, you know. This is one of the issues discussed with other members.

So show from Scripture what you mean in regards to this covenant of redemption you speak about, and how it is "confusion" to stand on the Basic Bible Principle that mankind is separated from God at conception...

...no exceptions.

Not even for the Elect.

Again, you can turn back to Doctrinal Discussion, Iconoclast, and while you may not get pats on the back your your conspirators, you will, I guarantee it...

...test your Doctrine, and in doing so, be strengthened.

That is my only goal with you, my friend.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

"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

Not sure how this is relevant to anything, other than your intention of encouraging yourself by supposing that you are in agreement with others.

That is the case, but it is on a personal level, not a doctrinal level.

And all I am concerned with is the doctrine, Who is right or wrong has no relevance if there is nothing to view as right or wrong. If there is a point in another thread that you feel shows an antagonist of mine being right about something and I being wrong, I strongly urge you to make that known in the appropriate thread. Then it will be a matter between you and I and we can discuss the doctrine you affirm.

I'll be happy to discuss any of the issues discussed with other members.

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

How exactly is how much I post have to do with you remembering where your conspiratorial remark, which is apparently back-biting (because you did not make this comment to me)...was posted? lol

Again...you show your character. And it doesn't speak of integrity, my friend.

And you can improve your character if you just keep it doctrinal, and stop trying to bolster the strength of your teaching and posting with support from people that are not truly your friends, because they are not encouraging you to Godly conduct, but satanic conduct.

You are not being a friend to them in your participation in it.

You have got to learn to keep it doctrinal, Iconoclast, and you really need to learn that improper quoting is the devise of cowards. Be bold, my friend, quote exactly what I say, and address it.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

Many do not care to read your long-winded , rambling posts
I think they just skip over them to be honest.

No they don't. If nothing else, I know that pride holds power over the untrained Bible Student.

That is why I usually just stay for a little while, because I try to give antagonists like yourself some room to save face.



The truth is, when one's doctrine is centered on egomaniacal motivation, it soon becomes apparent that there is no challenge. Because when it turns personal, the doctrine is forgotten, and you have to admit, Iconoclast...it is my doctrine that a number of my antagonists despise, lol.

Admit it. That is why you cannot discuss the disposition of Elect and "non-elect infants."

That is why you cannot answer whether an Elect Infant is regenerated before or after death.

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.....

I know you do, Iconoclast.

But I wish you would pay attention to the doctrinal aspects of my posts. If you want to engage in discussion about any particular topic, I'd be happy to enter into discussion. There is simply no reason for you and I to be adversarial. Antagonists, yes, but it doesn't have to be hostile. THat choice is yours to make.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

You re-word what they they say ...with an evil slimey twist...that is all from your mind.

I will admit that sometimes when I parse posts something can be taken out of context. I try very hard not to let that happen, but I know it has in the past. For that, I am sorry, and have no problem in apologizing if it is shown that i have done that.

However, I can only think of a couple of occasions where that was the case.

And when I ask you, or any other antagonist to quote me, the reason is twofold. First, so I can look at the original conversation in it's context, and secondly...

...because the exact opposite is usually the case.

And that is why you do not quote me, Iconoclast. I know you know how to quote, so why do you refuse to do that with mine? Because you cannot make a case you want to present if you actually quote me.

That's just the fact. And that was proven in the last few threads or so.

That is why people do not like to interact with you....

On the contrary, Iconoclast, it is really quite evident that I do not lack for people who want to interact with me.

Even those with ruffled feathers like yourself.



Burns you up, doesn't it?

Then you whine about people making it ...PERSONAL ...when they answer YOU...for doing this thing...

Are you seriously going to deny that you are making this personal? lol

Biblicist tried to tell you this ...in a nicer way....but NO, you would not welcome it.

And that is not relevant to our discussion.

Why would you think I care what another person has said or thinks? I address those in their respective posts, so if you want to know what I think...its right there in the posts.

This is between you and me, Iconoclast, so stop appealing to other members, they are not involved, and I will no more incorporate what they think of me into our discussion than what they think of you. I am not looking to make friends to support my case against doctrinal positions, I am looking to address the doctrine itself. I do that, you know it, and I suggest you start doing the same.

Keep it doctrinal.

Now, what Scriptural presentation have you to show there are non-elect infants?

How can you, from Scripture, dismantle my position that God bestows grace to those who are not capable of comprehension of revelation, and that culpability is always based on the understanding of the revelation provided?


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

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.

And your position remains the same, right?

There are things we cannot know, and we are in error if we think we can.

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

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

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

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

When does that happen?


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

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...

But it is given to us that God judges justly, and justifies those who come under obedience to His revealed will.

This applies to the Elect before the Law (either Written or Covenant) was established, to both Jew and Gentile after the Law was established, and to those in this current Age.

And we can safely say that during those three separate and distinct Ages there were infants that died.

They all would have to be reconciled to God through Christ and born again.

So one member suggested that God ministers to them in the womb, basing this on John the Baptist being filled with the Spirit from the womb. That was a good point for discussion, so, what would you offer in regards to your belief...we can't know? How would you show that I overstep my bounds by saying we can?

That's where the discussion lies, Iconoclast.

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!

But Iconoclast...this has been my consistent position from the beginning, lol. I have stated fromt he first that I think we can know. that is why I responded to the one member that implied they didn't.

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

So let's discuss that which is relevant to the OP.

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.

And how can there be a "proper study" if you cannot even provide Scripture for it?

By studying the writings of men?

That is what you have done.

I addressed the Scripture references, and the point made, and not one of them could really be seen as relevant to Infant Death and Salvation. The prior point was, but it only spoke of Elect Infants dying, and was irrelevant to non-elect infant death.

If you want to discuss it in more depth, great. That was precisely what my response was shooting for.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

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.

So start this "proper study," Iconoclast. Present the Scripture that states Elect Infants go to Heaven because they are in Eternal Covenant with God.

You can't do this, because the entirety of Scripture makes it clear that Redemption is through Christ, and that this is the Everlasting Covenant God always intended to establish. And that was established among men some two thousand years ago. That this Redemptive Covenant was Plan A all along does not mean that men were in covenant with God prior to the establishment of the New Covenant.

but you are welcome to show me, through "Proper Study," why you believe that, and why I am in error about this.

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...

On the contrary, as I said, the previous thread has every member stating that God does not send infants that die to Hell, which denies the possibility that there are, in their views, non-elect infants that do.

And only two people who give vague implication that they believe God does.

As to who might be against me in general, my guess would be that the number is far higher, lol. But that's okay, glad to discuss the issues with most of them as well.



And I think that is about all the time I have today, but don't worry, Iconoclast, I won't leave you hanging. I'll try to get to the rest of your posts as I can. Of course, we can actually return to the doctrine and the Topic of the OP, if you like.

That choice has always been yours.


God bless.

 

[Iconoclast]

"Darrell C,

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

This comment demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of The covenant of redemption.
I respect your right to remain ignorant of this core theology.
You are free to exercise your self will and mock theology proper, but do not expect me to join you on your fools errand.
I have stated previously that unless you understand this you cannot speak to the issue .
Your avoiding this and spamming the board does not help you here...
Not only do you demonstrate this ignorance of this whole concept but you then speak of it as being "mythological"...

Then you spam the board protesting that you want to keep the discussion theological

Sure thing.....
Ignore that which supplies the answer and ask for an answer.....brilliant

 

[Darrell C]

"Darrell C,




This comment demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of The covenant of redemption.
I respect your right to remain ignorant of this core theology.
You are free to exercise your self will and mock theology proper, but do not expect me to join you on your fools errand.
I have stated previously that unless you understand this you cannot speak to the issue .
Your avoiding this and spamming the board does not help you here...
Not only do you demonstrate this ignorance of this whole concept but you then speak of it as being "mythological"...

Then you spam the board protesting that you want to keep the discussion theological

Sure thing.....
Ignore that which supplies the answer and ask for an answer.....brilliant

You haven't given an answer, Iconoclast.

Your very doctrine is denied in the questions posed to you.

If you are so confident in your doctrine, then simply answer one question:

When are Elect Infants that die...regenerated?


God bless.

 

[Iconoclast]

You avoid the issue...I answered you this way;
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???

HEY DC,

What sport is described above? Hint, the word is not used in the descriptive parts....Can you describe which sport is being described, or is it a "mythical sport"????

 

[Darrell C]

You avoid the issue...I answered you this way;
Do I have to explain everything to you DC?


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???

HEY DC,

What sport is described above? Hint, the word is not used in the descriptive parts....Can you describe which sport is being described, or is it a "mythical sport"????

1. I already addressed this;

2. While you might think the "Covenant of Redemption" you teach is implicit in Scripture, you still have to present the Scripture it is implicit in;

3. You still have a burden to address my responses to that which you give as support to your doctrine, and you haven't done that;

4. You are still afraid to answer simple questions.


I'm only asking you one, Iconoclast:

When are Elect Infants that die...regenerated?

Here it is again without quote code:

When are Elect Infants that die...regenerated?


I know you can't answer this, anyone reading this thread knows, but you, Iconoclast, I haven't yet decided as to whether you honestly don't know or not. My guess is your refusal to answer affirms you know it, but, I will give you the benefit of the doubt.

So answer this one question, and we can return this thread to the doctrine and the focus of the OP.


When are Elect Infants that die...regenerated?


God bless.

 

[Iconoclast]

Darrell C,

And you dance around the issue of "non-elect infants" that die.

I answered this directly, you ignore it.

What's the problem, Iconoclast, if you think there are non-elect infants that die and go into eternal separation...

...just say so.

I answered this already.

It is a familiar doctrine, and embraced by many, so why can't you be open about it?

And yet you deny it exists or are to lazy to look into it....that sounds like a personal problem for you to come to grips with...

I am not judging your position, I merely want to discuss it.

You can show you want n you actually do. Not skip past it, ignore it , and
bury it under spam posting.

I guess I could say "Quote me" but I have no expectation that you will actually do that, because you cannot stay in a conversation with direct quotes of what your antagonist states.

Nothing to quote...

You give snide commentary implying I am unfamiliar with implicit teaching, yet you are missing the fact that you are not addressing the issue.

Those who understand the posted answers know what is being said. Those like your

Please tell me, when is the Elect infant that dies regenerated and reconciled to God, and...

...how is this different from the Non-Elect Infant, and...

...what your Scriptural Basis is for both answers.

Again, an attempt to bring this back to the discussion of the OP.


Continued...[/QUOTE]

1. I already addressed this;

2. While you might think the "Covenant of Redemption" you teach is implicit in Scripture, you still have to present the Scripture it is implicit in;

3. You still have a burden to address my responses to that which you give as support to your doctrine, and you haven't done that;

4. You are still afraid to answer simple questions.


I'm only asking you one, Iconoclast:





Here it is again without quote code:

When are Elect Infants that die...regenerated?


I know you can't answer this, anyone reading this thread knows, but you, Iconoclast, I haven't yet decided as to whether you honestly don't know or not. My guess is your refusal to answer affirms you know it, but, I will give you the benefit of the doubt.

So answer this one question, and we can return this thread to the doctrine and the focus of the OP.


When are Elect Infants that die...regenerated?


God bless.

You answered nothing.....you have offered nothing but...slime.
What sport was being described...

 

[Iconoclast]

I am pushing to get to Phoenix by Monday morning....so I cannot fully.answer your cry for help until later on tonight...just passed Albuquerque NM.

 

[Iconoclast]

Darrell C,

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

I showed 3 of them which you tried to wiggle out of...
.

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

This shows you are not at all serious. Now you want to put words in my mouth because of your inability to process doctrinal thought offered to you . You show yourself lazy by doing this. So all this whining about returning to doctrine, discussing doctrine is really shown to be vain.

Here is your whining-

No, just shows you are more interested in insult than doctrine.

Again, you can turn back to Doctrinal Discussion, Iconoclast

I will show why once again;
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

and this:
Paragraph 3. Elect infants dying in infancy are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit;10 who works when, and where, and how He pleases;11 so also are all elect persons, who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.
10 John 3:3, 5, 6
11 John 3:8

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?

Elect infants dying in infancy are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit;10 who works when, and where, and how He pleases

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.

At one point you claimed you agreed with the confession. Do you not understand what you say you agree to?

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.

SNIP
I said this and answered this dozens of posts ago....[ I am not going to look it up}
you say;

You do not have the courage to come right out and say it...

that you believe God sends babies to Hell

This is where it will perhaps get embarrassing for you. You claimed you agree, but I will show why I claim you lack understanding and yet seek to chide me instead... stay tuned for pt2

 

[Iconoclast]

Now ...pt2;

I said this and answered this dozens of posts ago....[ I am not going to look it up}
you say;
You do not have the courage to come right out and say it...

that you believe God sends babies to Hell

I answered this way back in post 10-
1]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.


2]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.
3]If any person is non elect they will not be in heaven.
That is the only proper answer, regardless of the speculations of men...

4]DC.....I trust God and His wisdom...
5]If he has not elected all men...he has a Holy reason not to do so...

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

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

8]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....


You try and put words in my mouth and it would not happen if you understood what was offered doctrinally already....
Notice.....the above answers speak of all persons, all ages....I also said several times that no election, no heaven....IS THAT TO HARD A CONCEPT FOR YOU TO GRASP????

Now the part that is really embarrassing for you is this.....let me think out loud for you as you cannot seem to get your mind around this-
Elect infants dying in infancy are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit;10 who works when, and where, and how He pleases
...

Notice...it reads ELECT INFANTS DYING IN INFANCY......
pay attention

It does not say how many infants.....the statement says ...ELECT INFANTS DYING IN INFANCY

It could be 1 elect infant
it could be 724 elect infants
it could be EVERY SINGLE INFANT EVER CONCEIVED THAT GOD HAS ELECTED...
It could be no infant dying in infancy is elect...
It could be children of believers dying in infancy are elected...it could be 219,427,633 infants dying in infancy are elected....

The confession leaves it completely in God's hands......you cannot do that evidently.
I can be content with the wisdom of the Godly men who wrote the confession.....

Now if God has elected all infants who die in infancy.....there would be NONE who go to hell, because of God's mercy.
So you with your slimy comment;

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

have no basis to make such a slimy statement.

If I have clearly said that no election/no heaven...which I have said several times....then why would I or any Christian protest if God for His Holy reasons did not elect every infant? That would be His right to do what His infinite wisdom would purpose to do.

Purpose speaks of God's eternal decree which you call mythological, so I have no need to school you on your unbelief of what the confessing Church believes.....If you want to remain lazy that is on you.

The confession speaks to it directly if understood correctly.

 

[Iconoclast]

Darrell C,

And you dance around the issue of "non-elect infants" that die.

..answered in post 10 and other places

What's the problem, Iconoclast, if you think there are non-elect infants that die and go into eternal separation...

...just say so.

...answered several times

It is a familiar doctrine, and embraced by many, so why can't you be open about it?

....answered

I guess I could say "Quote me" but I have no expectation that you will actually do that, because you cannot stay in a conversation with direct quotes of what your antagonist states.

You give snide commentary implying I am unfamiliar with implicit teaching, yet you are missing the fact that you are not addressing the issue.

Please tell me, when is the Elect infant that dies regenerated and reconciled to God, and...

...how is this different from the Non-Elect Infant, and...

...what your Scriptural Basis is for both answers.

Again, an attempt to bring this back to the discussion of the OP.

answered already...

 

[Darrell C]

Notice...it reads ELECT INFANTS DYING IN INFANCY......
pay attention

It does not say how many infants.....the statement says ...ELECT INFANTS DYING IN INFANCY

It could be 1 elect infant
it could be 724 elect infants
it could be EVERY SINGLE INFANT EVER CONCEIVED THAT GOD HAS ELECTED...
It could be no infant dying in infancy is elect...
It could be children of believers dying in infancy are elected...it could be 219,427,633 infants dying in infancy are elected....

So how about the non-elect infants, Iconoclast?

Where does the confession speak about them?

And just to cut out more repeats of the same evasive answers, I have already addressed the second portion of the confession you appeal to as an answer, and asked how the infant that is not effectually ministered to by the "Ministry of the Word" is ministered to.

Here are some examples:

Chapter 10: Of Effectual Calling

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

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

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

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


You haven't answered these questions. If so, give me a post number or a link.

Here are some more questions:


Iconoclast said: ↑


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

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

here is one example....you say you actually agree with the posted statements......really???


Yes, really.

That's why I said...

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

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

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

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


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


Please answer the questions.


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

Please tell me, when is the Elect infant that dies regenerated and reconciled to God, and...

...how is this different from the Non-Elect Infant, and...

...what your Scriptural Basis is for both answers.

Again, an attempt to bring this back to the discussion of the OP.

answered already...

Okay...so where are they answered? Post # would help.


God bless.

 

[Iconoclast]

Darrell C,

No they don't. If nothing else, I know that pride holds power over the untrained Bible Student.

That is why I usually just stay for a little while, because I try to give antagonists like yourself some room to save face.

So you see antagonists everywhere? save face?....

The truth is, when one's doctrine is centered on egomaniacal motivation, it soon becomes apparent that there is no challenge

Guess we will have to take your word on this...

. Because when it turns personal, the doctrine is forgotten, and you have to admit, Iconoclast...it is my doctrine that a number of my antagonists despise, lol.

It seems to be you...just saying

Admit it. That is why you cannot discuss the disposition of Elect and "non-elect infants."

I have been.....just not into carnal speculation though.

That is why you cannot answer whether an Elect Infant is regenerated before or after death.

Do you know of anyone saved after death? I have no idea where you get these strange thoughts....

But I wish you would pay attention to the doctrinal aspects of my posts

I do not see much in the way of solid doctrine as you try hard to redefine things.

. If you want to engage in discussion about any particular topic, I'd be happy to enter into discussion. There is simply no reason for you and I to be adversarial. Antagonists, yes, but it doesn't have to be hostile. THat choice is yours to make.

Interesting....did you post something about me being influenced by satan? or used by satan?