The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum What happens to the unborn dead ?

Brad,

Thanks for answering the way you did for no other reason that it makes my case all the more firm. Why? Because you illustrate your emotive bias by using the word "preferable", which I have consistently insisted is the reason behind the view that all infants dying in infancy are saved. There simply is not even a hint that God has decreed that such individuals are saved. The main reason for people holding this view is one of personal "preference", i.e., there is some underlying emotional weight that says unborn babies are for some reason, of which I suspect there are many, are "deserving" of salvation. That is why I admittedly baited you by using the term "deserving" before, hoping that you would utter an objection, which you did. You are 100% correct that neither mercy nor grace are deserving whatsoever.

Now, let me jump into your shoes and thereby use your same "logic" (preference) by proposing that all black females who die at age 13 have been elected by God. There is no biblical evidence that would forbid my making this claim. Thirteen year-old black females are no less needful of salvation than anyone else, correct? So why would God not save them vs. unborn infants? Do you now see that if you try to argue that unborn infants are to be "preferred" elect more than any other human being, you are finding something in the creature which is commendable over that of any others which in essence contradicts UNconditional election for it presumes that God must have some reason for electing this special group of humans over and above others.

Hmmmmm, isn't this the same reasoning that semi-Pelagians, Arminians and in fact nearly all non-Calvinists use to bolster their case for universal atonement and/or salvation? They insist that the foremost attribute of God by which all others are to be understood is "love".... God is love, they insist and therefore would never condemn anyone to a fiery hell unless they reject Christ, or for some hell is therefore proved to be fiction. However, I do not find that God is PRIMARILY a God of love and mercy and therefore unborn infants succeed in moving God's heart more than any other sinner. What I find and which historic Calvinism, when consistently held, believes is that is primarily HOLY... thrice-holy. Thus God's love is a holy love. God's anger is a holy anger, etc. This is the same God who said,

Exodus 20:4-6 (ASV) Thou shalt not make unto thee a graven image, nor any likeness [of any thing] that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. Thou shalt not bow down thyself unto them, nor serve them, for I Jehovah thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, upon the third and upon the fourth generation of them that hate me, and showing lovingkindness unto thousands of them that love me and keep my commandments.

Once again I must press the truth that ALL human beings at conception possess Original Sin and thus ALL are by virtue of their very existence under the just wrath and condemnation of God. Thus it must be shown that unborn infants dying in infancy are specifically elected as a group in contradistinction from every other human being. The only thing which I can see that makes them differ is the age in which God removes their earthly life. Is there something about dying unborn that is commendable in regard to salvation being given? I dare say no one has or ever will be able to make a case for this view based upon explicit biblical reference nor even sound reasoning. The fact that ANY.... even ONE single human being is saved is incomprehensible when one has come to realize the holiness of God and the heinousness of the human race. "Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated" most profoundly describes the love of God which escapes the ability of the human mind to grasp. It is NOT how could God hate Esau, but rather how could God ever love Jacob. Likewise and consistently so, it is not how could God condemn poor little precious unborn infants to an eternal hell, but rather, how could God find it within Himself to even consider saving wretched, sinful, rebellious unborn infants?

Okay, I'll briefly try to deal with MacArthur's "defense" of his/your view (preference) by commenting upon each of the points which I think are worth responding to:

I've already commented on this above and offered that God's alleged character and dealings of men is equally and even more so condemnatory since only a remnant are to be saved out of the entire human race. God is first and foremost HOLY and therefore just in condemning every single human being that He has foreordained into existence. If God had elected but one person out of the entirety of humanity, IMHO, His grace and love would be no less than should He have predestined every single human being to salvation. That God should have mercy on any is utterly amazing and incomprehensible to my mind. If it were not for the testimony of Scripture, knowing what I do about God, I could not accept that salvation was even possible.

Although a popular interpretation of this passage, I find no warrant for it to be understood as teaching or even inferring that David's child was in heaven. What the text, read in context is saying is that David understood the nature of physical death which separates loved ones for a time but eventually all are joined together, i.e., they all go to the grave. To see "heaven" in this text is eisogesis and not exegesis. Further, to use your argument, David's child was in fact born and not still in the womb, so to be fair, the passage is irrelevant to the issue of the unborn dying in infancy.

So, here we find that God has a "special place in Heart" for children over and above any other group of humans? Surely MacArthur cannot be serious. We read that Jesus (God) loved the "rich young ruler" after he rejected His counsel and walked away. We read that Jesus mourned over entire cities, loved many..... all who were adults. Must we not then conclude that all of these individuals whom Jesus loved, took pity upon, healed, etc.. were all elect? God's demonstration of love toward men is not equivalent to salvation, nor any inclination of God to save them. God's salvific love is demonstrated in the giving of His Son to die for all those whom He has predestined to be united to Christ by grace through faith. In short, and once again I say, God is NOT predisposed to save ANY.... never mind a specific and particular group on human beings, which in this case would be infants dying in infancy.

Already answered above re: God's attributes and the salvation of a remnant of the human race.

I would refer you to my first contention that holding to this view violates/contradicts at least 3 or the 5 Points of Calvinism. Here we have a classic example where an otherwise solid Calvinist allows his passion overrule his head. The Scripture clearly teaches that all men are under condemnation by nature.... they are ALL under sin and thus condemnation due to Original Sin. If MacArthur was consistent, then he would have to agree with the majority of evan-jelly-cals and Roman Catholics that there are those who have never heard the Gospel who will be saved because they have never had the "chance" to reject Christ or accept Him. Paul is crystal clear on this point where he wrote: ". . . and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest:--" (Ephesians 2:3) {cf. Gen 6:5; 8:21, et al which teach Total Depravity; the fruit of Original Sin}

No comment is really necessary on his last point as he argues against himself by showing his bias (preference/emotions) over that which he openly confesses the Bible teaches concerning Original Sin and all mankind's natural condemnation before God.

In His grace,