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

Brad,

Excuse me for replying to you here rather in the several other responses you have written to Denny... but just chock it up to laziness on my part.

The issue comes down to these elements, IMHO:

1. While affirming Total Depravity and Unconditional election, you insist presume that there is a specific group which possess both the inherent guilt and corruption of Adam and the election of God. This group, which I thought was initially restricted to unborn infants who die in infancy, you have later expanded to include all children who are not of some arbitrary "age of accountability" or whatever term you choose to describe it. Your defense of your view is based almost entirely upon sentiment and dangerously borders upon a denial of the doctrines you profess to hold, e.g., total depravity. Yes, yes.... I know this will make your hair bristle to read that but unfortunately, that's how it logically pans out from my perspective. Although you say none are "innocent", they are "less deserving" of judgment which logically is the same thing as saying they are "more deserving" of mercy.
2. The Scriptures ARE incontrovertibly clear about the spiritual state of ALL of mankind. They are ALL guilty before God and at conception they possess a corruption of nature, both of which are more than sufficient to warrant their eternal condemnation. You seem to want to affirm these truths but then diminish them to one degree or another in order to justify God's election of them. The problem again, is that the Scripture is CLEAR concerning ALL of mankind's guilt, corruption and worthiness of judgment, (Heb 9:27) but it is silent in regard to this group of unborn/children you want to believe is elect by default. In short, you are imposing your "wishes" upon that which is revealed in order to justify it where there is no biblical warrant to do so. As I failed to illustrate, one could just as easily substitute some other "group" as being elect since the Scriptures do not speak against it. The only thing you accomplished, at least for me, in your defense of unborn infants and "under-age" children is to increasingly expose your propensity to find these individuals as being more "deserving", an exception, special, etc. in regard to God's righteous judgment. It is surely a crass thing to say, but if your view is correct, why not abort all the unborn and murder all young children which would then guarantee an eternity of incomprehensible bliss with the Lord?
3. Just a quick remark, re: Uncondtional Election. The doctrine as held by historic Calvinism is that God's reasons for determining who is elect and who is reprobate are to be found ONLY within Himself and not in regard to ANYTHING with the creature. In short, NOTHING about an individual was a factor in choosing or rejecting them. To intimate that one's unborn state was taken into account is to undermine the very definition of the doctrine; UNconditional Election. Most any of the respected theologians of the past and/or present will confirm this, e.g., Calvin, Edwards, Owen, Hodge, Warfield, Gerstner, et al.
4. Despite your reluctance to acknowledge that the Scriptures are not vague nor silent concerning the judgment of God and the sinfulness of ALL mankind and their sure end unless God the Spirit sovereignly regenerates them, calls them inwardly and they are united to Christ, such is the truth which the historic Church has consistently affirmed. And it is upon these truths which I am justified in likewise affirming... not presuming that unless there is evidence to the contrary, there is NO GROUP of individuals who are exempted from God's judgment. The punishment which will be meted out will certainly vary, but the term of that punishment does not vary according to whether or not someone has committed an overt sin, lived outside the womb or for xx number of years.
5. Lastly, I do believe that Jonathan Edwards was correct in his assessment of little children (little vipers in diapers) and that his grandfather Stoddard was woefully wrong in his views concerning the "Halfway Covenant", which is applicable to this topic, IMHO. I KNOW that only a "remnant" will be saved. I do NOT KNOW anything of unborn infants dying in infancy nor young children are de facto included in that remnant. That some are I may assume since God's salvation by grace is said to include EVERY tongue, tribe, nation, etc... And I do know that even within families, some are called and some are not. My evidence may not be convincing to you personally, nor to Boettner, nor MacArthur, et al. And I am sure that your view is far more palatable and deemed to be far more "Christian" than mine. But the same has always been said about Calvinism in general, eh? The truth is never attractive to us by nature.

Sooooo, at this stage methinks we are going to have to agree to disagree. I've enjoyed the exchange and look forward to many more.

In His grace,