I thought I answered your question. If I didn't I'm sorry about that. I say that they are apples and oranges because God, while He did not impose death, He surely knew it.

I have never, nor did Spurgeon ever say that an infant was not born in sin.. or conceived in sin. No one has ever said that. What is put forth, is that they are elect. In response to another post you wrote, I don't think you understood what Spurgeon was saying. He was saying that if those who believe in infant baptism, believe that it is the baptism that gets the infant saved, that they are grossly mistaken. There is no power in the sprinkles of water that regenerates or saves any. Not even an adult believer.

What I don't understand is that if you believe that there are elect infants.. that somehow they are regenerated in the womb, saved in infance before they die, based on the election of God, then how is it such a stretch that all infants could be saved?

They are apples and oranges because we can 'what if" all we want. Esau did not die in infancy. Neither did Absolom. Any infant that has or will die, has or will die. It's not like we can sit and wonder why God allowed that, or what God has in mind, or what would have happened if they lived. It's what happened and will continue to happen.

But I think what Kalled was saying, about special grace.. I don't think he meant some grace different than ours, I think he meant it the same way anyone would. The same way you mean it when you say an elect infant goes to heaven. There has to be some special way in which an elect infant is saved.. I say the same for all infants who die. I don't see how that is such a stretch.

I also don't see how it is such sentimentalism/emotionalism. Isn't God kind to the ungrateful and evil? That it is the kindness of God that leads us to repentance? Doesn't He say to love our enemies? Call it sentimental or emotional.. but that is bible. That is truth.

Michele