The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Are those who die young always part of the elect?

Michele,

In regard to Spurgeon and my comment that I believe he is totally inconsistent at this point, I meant that for a Baptist, NO ONE can be saved unless they profess Christ and are then baptized. Baptists adamantly oppose infant baptism because they refuse to believe that an infant can be saved due to the fact that it can't make a profession of faith. But in the particular situation, Spurgeon and all who agree with him as Baptists, totally contradict this belief when they assert that an unborn infant or with many, even infants who are born and die young can be saved. They go so far as to say that ALL who die in infancy or unborn are elect and therefore saved. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/rolleyes2.gif" alt="" />

It is a "stretch" for the same illogical reason that if there are some individuals who are elect, then why not say that all are elect? Karl Barth did... as do all Universalists! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> Your "apples" are give special preference, a special dispensation, or whatever you would like to describe it, over the "oranges". And, for the very last time, there is NO biblical basis for this view whatsoever. . . NONE!!

What we DO know is that ALL are conceived in sin. ALL humans are born guilty before God. ALL are born with a depraved nature. ALL are under the wrath of God and subject to condemnation. We also know that out of the entire human race, there is only a "remnant" that is saved. So the Postmillennialists like Boettner, who are wont to read into such words as "victorious", etc. re: the kingdom, force this to mean quantity rather than quality. That is, the number of saved, according to them, MUST exceed those who are lost if Christ is to be the Victor. Now, to further this erroneous eisogesis, they make all infants who die in infancy elect and saved, and thus they have their larger number. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/igiveup.gif" alt="" />

It's no "stretch" to accept the biblical doctrine of Original Sin, Total Depravity and Unconditional Election and then to read that the vast majority of people on earth have perished in unbelief, knowing that God has elected some to eternal life and the majority to eternal punishment, and knowing that millions of unborn and infants have died (because they are sinners) and some are also elect and some are also reprobate. This is consist with the doctrines of grace and the overall teaching of Scripture. There is no need to dream up some "special grace" for babies, who are no less sinners and which are qualified for hell by virtue of their being part of Adam's race.

No, that's not sentimentalism. That is a distortion of the biblical teaching concerning God's love. What you have done is to take God's general "benevolence" and twisted it so as to make it salvific. There is the general "love" of God, (Titus 3:4 cf. Greek: chrestotes=kindness, goodness; and philanthropia=benevolence) and there is the salvific, particular love for the elect (Jer 31:3; Jh 3:16; 10:14; Rom 5:8; Eph 1:4; 2:4; 2Tim 1:9). There is nothing in either God's benevolence toward all mankind nor in our responsibility to "love our neighbor" or "pray for our enemies" that lends itself to the salvation of infants.

So, it's all yours at this point. I'm done. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

In His Grace,