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

Brad,

You are correct in understanding my position; re: the Scriptures are clear that not all infants who die in infancy are elect/saved. Now, you might not have appreciated the import of the Rom 9:11-13 text, which I am assuming . from your reply. But the fact that both men grew to manhood is irrelevant to the issue at hand. The point I was hoping to make from that passage was simply an affirmation of UNconditional Election from eternity. Election has no bearing upon the individuals themselves since their election or reprobation was based upon reasons ONLY within God and His purposes to exemplify His glory and justice among men.

IF, as some have reasoned, all infants dying in infancy are elect, then several of the infamous "5 Points" are assailed and contradicted.

1) Total Depravity: ALL of mankind is under the curse of God which was rendered upon Adam our Federal Head in the Garden of Eden, aka: Original Sin. ALL of mankind possesses: 1) an imputed guilt and 2) an inherited corruption of nature. The consequence of these two elements is that ALL are children of wrath and liable to judgment UNLESS God in His mercy regenerates and unites the individual to Christ resulting in reconciliation. So, on this point, there is again NOTHING that would commend the unborn to God any more than one who is born, infant, child nor adult.

2) Unconditional Election: God, in His infinite wisdom and mercy chose to elect some, a remnant of Adam's fallen race to be redeemed in Christ. The reason for His choice is only to be found within Himself and nothing within man nor anything which man might possibly do, e.g., believe on Christ if given the "chance", etc. Are the unborn more deserving of God's grace more than any who are actually born? If one should answer, Yes, then Unconditional Election is violated. Are the unborn any less guilty and worthy of condemnation than those who are born? Certainly not, for "All have sinned are guilty before God." and "All are children of wrath. . .".

3) Definite Atonement: Christ procured the redemption for all those for whom the Father gave Him . . . before the foundation of the world. Thus, once again, there is no possible reason to be found in a person, unborn or born, which would effect this great salvation other than that which was determined in eternity; aka: Covenant of Redemption/Peace" which covenant was determined only among the 3 persons of the Godhead.

It may sound cold to say, but truly I see human emotions coming into play more than biblical truth by those who would hold that all unborn infants are elect. This would of course mean that all the children of all the pagan civilizations who died in the womb are saved. It would mean that ALL the children of Sodom and Gomorrah who perished in those cities destruction by the very hand of God were saved. So, again I have to ask, on what basis were any of those unborn infants saved and not those who were born, e.g., those who were but hours old? 2 months old? 1 year old?

Is an unborn infant worthy of God's mercy and grace due to the simple fact that it is unborn? I say, that human emotions are far more an influence in people's answer than anything else. For example, I have too often heard people respond, How could God not save an innocent unborn child? Why, it would be contrary to all that God is, i.e., love, merciful and full of grace if an unborn child was condemned to eternal damnation. It seems that all that the Scriptures teach about God's nature, i.e., His attributes are thrown out the door when this question is brought to the forefront.

Okay.... I'll let you mull over this much and respond if you so choose.

In His grace,

Oh yes Pilgrim I choose, I choose – and “mull” – and not because I think I’m right but because I want to be [sic.]. And you are right, my “human emotions” are very much at play here. I have learned to discipline them by reason, the Word of God, and even the great consensual teachings of the Church – those things that have, in St. Vincent of Lerins’ words, been believed “everywhere, always, by everyone" - but they are still very much at work, and I don't think that is necessarily a bad thing. The "compassion" and "love" that the incarnate Christ "felt" during His earthly sojourn were real and basic - they were not "based" upon something more real and basic, such as a proposition or syllogism about those for whom He felt those emotions (though He certainly knew the truth about them and their condition). Our emotions are part of our human nature that is fallen, but also that is being renewed and redeemed, along with our "mind."

I fully accept that we are all – born and unborn, very young and very old alike – totally depraved and fully deserving of God’s punishment and wrath. On the basis of our “imputed guilt” and “corrupt nature” we are all equally deserving of condemnation by and eternal separation from God, and the reconciliation and redemption of anyone is only upon the basis of His grace and mercy. BUT, some are more deserving of greater condemnation than others – this is precisely why there are degrees of punishment in hell (and degrees of reward in heaven). God is not blind nor is He indifferent to the sins we ourselves commit deliberately in the flesh (Genesis 18:25), nor to our acts of love and obedience which flow from a regenerated heart (2 Corinthians 5:10); after all, He ordained these "good works" that we should "walk in them" (Ephesians 2:10). In this sense, I believe that most Reformed thinkers would agree that unborn and very young children (and perhaps also the severely mentally handicapped) are at least on the lower degree of punishment end of the scale. God certainly does everything to “exemplify His glory and justice among men,” but also His love and mercy, and a great part of His glory consists in this.

I do not believe that my view “assails,” “contradicts,” or “violates” either the doctrine of total depravity, unconditional election, or definite atonement. I agree that the reason for God’s choice or election of some and passing over of others “is only to be found within Himself and nothing within man nor anything which man might possibly do, e.g., believe on Christ if given the ‘chance,’ etc.” But, I believe that God does ordain that the reprobate “store up wrath” for themselves (Romans 2:5; Genesis 15:16) to demonstrate His justice (Psalm 98:1-9) and clearly show that they are “without excuse” (Romans 1:20). I think that you are right that there is nothing “positive” that “commends the unborn to God any more than one who is born, infant, child, nor adult” (and if you’ll notice, I have not restricted my comments to unborn children); but, I do believe that there is less to condemn them – and, I believe that this is by God’s sovereign design and decree.


I agree with this wholeheartedly. My contention is not that God’s election was based upon the forseen fact that person x would die in infancy or before he was born; rather, it is that death in infancy or before birth is a sign or evidence that a child was elect, just as confessing faith is for those who live to an age to repent and believe the gospel. Both are ordained by God and are signs of God's love and mercy.


Now Pilgrim, are you implying that the unborn children of Sodom and Gomorrah were less deserving of mercy and more deserving of wrath than those of Geneva or Toronto or somewhere else? I know that can’t be what you mean. I see their deaths, and the deaths of the children of Jericho and the other Canaanite cities the Israelites destroyed as possibly an act of great and rich mercy on the part of God. They were saved from a life of wickedness and idolatry, not because they were better or more virtuous than others (they had not yet committed any real acts of virtue or character); but because God chose them as vessels of unmerited mercy.


I realize that the title of this thread is "What happens to the unborn dead; but, I have not restricted what I have said to the unborn, but basically to any who are mentally unable to comprehend or understand the gospel of Christ, or the nature of sin; the difference between right and wrong, good and evil.

Brad,

Okay... now we are down to the nitty gritty, so to speak. You contend that an infant dying in infancy is "a sign or evidence that a child was elect". I am compelled to press you on this point to provide Scriptural warrant for the claim. Where in Scripture does it even imply that the unborn are automatically elect due to their dying in the womb? .

My response is that Scripture clearly and unequivocally teaches that ALL of mankind are under God's judgment due to Original Sin. Again, Romans 9:11-13 reveals that Esau was reprobate before he was born, having done neither good nor evil. Should Esau have died in the womb I would have to conclude that he would still be reprobate since his reprobation was determined in eternity, without any reference whatsoever to his potential life after birth.

Secondly, Rom 5:12; 1Cor 15:21 teach that death is the natural end of ALL because ALL are sinners by nature; and not as the Arminians like to propose that we are sinners because we sin. Contrariwise, all men sin because they are sinners; they being the progeny of Adam. The fact that the unborn die as do all men, shows that they are under the curse and worthy of condemnation. And even though they have not committed any overt sin, their judgment must be seen as being an infinite affront to God since there is no temporary hell. Their suffering will surely be less than an reprobate adult, but we are speaking here only of degrees of suffering and not the length of the suffering nor one which could be deemed "bearable".

Thirdly, ALL are candidates for God's mercy since all are helplessly and hopelessly lost due to Original Sin. I certainly agree that those who live after birth continue to increase their condemnation as their depravity expresses itself. If I therefore use your argument in this case, those who live after birth and as their years increase, mercy is even more necessary and "deserving" since their minds, hearts and deeds are all the more sinful. Thus where sin increased, grace abounded all the more. Catch my drift here? .

Again, I find nothing that would commend an unborn child to God any more than any other human being. The only thing which I can conclude in regard to this topic is one's emotive element dominating one's mind. Could God deem all infants who die in infancy elect? Surely!! But no less He could also deem all such infants who die in infancy as reprobate. The question is, Is there biblical support to warrant a view that says ALL infants dying in infancy are elect? Or, as in some Reformed circles, all "covenant children" who die in infancy are elect. Obviously, my answer is a resounding, No.

In His grace,

Pilgrim,

Thank you for your patient indulgence of my thick-headedness. . This will probably be another one of those occasions where I go away suspecting that you are right, but not understanding why.


Well "warrant" or "support" is all that I can attempt to provide, since I do not believe one can "prove" this matter from Scripture alone either way. You obviously appear to believe that the case of Jacob and Esau "clearly and unequivocally" illustrates that some infants are elect and others reprobate, and that this has no "reference" or relation to whether or not they live past infancy. I agree with you that it illustrates the fact that "Esau was reprobate before he was born, having done neither good nor evil," and it follows from this that every reprobate adult was once a reprobate child. But I cannot move so easily to the hypothetical case you raise (about Esau dying in his mother's womb) since that was obviously not God's plan for Esau, and He certainly does not leave such things as life and death to chance. To me, this seems like raising the question, "If God has ordained that Jim gets saved through Bill proclaiming the gospel to him, and Bill doesn't proclaim the gospel to Jim, then how will Jim get saved?" Such a question presupposes or assumes that if God has decreed that Bill will do something, it is possible that Bill will not do it. It's true that if Bill doesn't proclaim the gospel Jim might not get saved (especially if God - mistakenly thinking himself omniscient and omnipotent - doesn't have or hasn't decreed a back-up plan). But let me assure you (not that you or anyone on this board needs such assurance) that if God has decreed that Bill will preach the gospel to Jim and he will get saved, then Bill will preach the gospel to Jim and he will get saved. In the same way, if God has decreed that all infants are elect (which is both possible and preferable, and in my opinion not contradicted by Scripture), and Esau is not among the elect, then God has decreed that Esau will live past infancy and he will (and did).

The only way we know what God's decrees are is if He tells us what they are or if they have already come to pass. If Esau had died in infancy, and verses 11-13 still read just as they do, I would concede this argument to you immediately and completely; in fact, I would have never offered an alternative perspective on this issue at all. It would be a very "hard saying" but what am I gonna do? Judge God? Tell Him He's unjust? God forbid! But until I see the matter as clearly as you and some of the others on this board do, I will cling to this hope.


I would agree that in this case mercy is even more "necessary" and I might even say more extraordinary (i.e., displays the riches and depths of God's love even more), but I would not say they are more "deserving" of God's mercy. Mercy is not deserved or earned, but when we do talk about desert, we generally think that the hardened career criminal or sinner "deserves" less mercy than the first-time offender, though the hardened criminal probably "needs" it more since his penalties are justly greater. But I'm uncomfortable with such language when talking about grace or mercy - they are undeserved and tell us more about the One who bestows them than the one upon whom they are bestowed. I have never claimed that God "owes" infants anything other than the judgment their sins "deserve."

You asked for warrant or support for my "hope" (I dare not call it a belief or a view at this point). Since it does not come from any one passage but from an understanding of the nature and character of God as revealed throughout Scripture (or rather, an inference from such an understanding), let me offer a summary from someone who has thought about and studied this matter far more than me. It's by John MacArthur, and I find it very compelling (of course, I want to find it compelling), so perhaps I'll fare better if you tell me what you disagree with or where you think he goes astray. It's much clearer than anything I've written so far. I think the last two paragraphs in particular may reveal the real crux of the matter.

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,

No problem. I have made no effort to conceal my “emotive bias” and I still contend that there is nothing particularly wrong about this bias in and of itself. I realize that you believe it has led me (and perhaps others) to outrageous forms of eisigesis, presumption and speculation. And I would agree with you about this if I was dogmatically asserting that my very rough and very emerging views on this subject are clearly and plainly taught in Scripture. I am not. I am saying there are tentative grounds for hope; perhaps “clues” or “indications” that God will not finally condemn those who are unable to know or respond to the truths that He has revealed about Himself in nature and in the gospel (Romans 1:19-2:10).

I am still, however, unpersuaded by the examples and illustrations that you have cited. I do not believe they make your case that the Bible clearly and plainly teaches that some infants are elect and others are not. What you and I have together succeeded in doing is showing that I have to do a lot more reflecting on this matter before I say anything else. I intend to read Nash’s and MacArthur’s books and get back to you (and everyone reading this) some time in the future. If you’d care to recommend some classical text defending the position you hold I’d like to read that as well. And I’ve said it before but I obviously need to say it again in bold: I HAVE NOT RESTRICTED WHAT I HAVE SAID TO UNBORN CHILDREN – FROM THE BEGINNING I HAVE SPOKEN OF ALL CHILDREN WHO ARE TOO YOUNG TO KNOWINGLY AND CONSCIOUSLY SIN OR RESPOND TO THE REVELATION OF GOD IN NATURE OR THE GOSPEL. Would it help if I said “age of discretion” or “age of responsibility” or “age of accountability”? Yes, I have avoided those terms so far for fear that Jonathan Edwards would rise from the grave and stone me; but, there it is.

Unlike some who embrace this idea, I do not reject the teaching that we are all born sinful and worthy of judgment on account of Adam’s sin (Romans 5:12-21; Psalm 51:5), and that we are all, therefore, “by nature children of wrath” (Ephesians 2:3): “The wicked go astray from the womb, they err from their birth (Psalm 58:3). The unborn, very young children, and mental incompetents are not saved on the basis of their “innocence” or anything meritorious in them – they are guilty of Adam’s sin and sinful by nature – they are saved, like everyone else, on the basis of Christ’s redemptive work and the regenerating power of the Holy Spirit (John 3:1-12, 14:6; Acts 4:12; 1 John 5:12).


Again, what I am contending is not that babies “deserve” mercy or salvation; nor am I saying that they do not deserve judgment. What I am saying is that they are less deserving of judgment than the rest of mankind. Adam’s sin puts us all on a level playing field – we all deserve eternal punishment and separation from God: “There is none righteous, no, not one" (Romans 3:10). And God is certainly under no obligation to save or have mercy on anyone. But He is not blind to distinctions, differences, and degrees of sin. These little ones have not knowingly and consciously rebelled against God or rejected His revelation; therefore, they are guilty of much less sin. While there is a profound sense in which they are guilty, there is also a legitimate sense in which it is correct to say that, in comparison with older children and adults, they are innocent – they have not knowingly or consciously sinned or rejected or suppressed the knowledge of God. In terms of their legal standing before God they are as guilty as anyone else. One sin, Adam’s sin, is sufficient to destroy the legal standing of the entire human race before God. This is important, but it is not the whole story. The Bible still speaks of and distinguishes between “greater and “lesser” sins (Ezekiel 8:6, 13, 15; John 19:11), sins committed “unknowingly” or “unwittingly” (Leviticus 4:2, 13, 22; 5:17), “lesser” commandments and “weightier” matters of the law (Mattthew 5:19; 23:23), and greater penalties and degrees of divine displeasure resulting from these (Numbers 15:30; Matthew 11:20-24, 12:31-32; Luke 12:41-48; Hebrews 10:26-31). This kind of distinction is the reason why Scripture enjoins capital punishment but forbids abortion. Unborn children are “legally” guilty before God; but, they are innocent of deliberate conscious sin and the greater guilt that it imparts. God is under no obligation nor does He have a duty to show mercy to these little ones since they are legally guilty and legally deserving of condemnation; but again I believe there are “clues” that God will treat them differently and show them greater mercy.

For example, there is the case in Deuteronomy 1 where God swears that all those who refused to take possession of the land of Canaan shall not enter therein, but also declares that their children, “who today have no knowledge of good or evil” shall go therein and “possess the land” (Deuteronomy 1:34-40). Although God did not have to show such mercy to the children of the men of that “evil generation,” He did, and I believe this demonstrates that it is consistent with His character to distinguish between those who “have knowledge of good and evil” and those who do not, and to reward, punish, or have mercy upon the basis of this; not because he owes them anything, but for His fame and glory.

Another indication is Romans 1:18-21, where Paul says that those who know God but do not honor Him or give Him thanks are “without excuse.” This implies that if someone were physically or mentally unable (not merely unwilling) to “know” or “perceive” or respond to what can be known about God, then he or she would have a legitimate “excuse” when “God’s righteous judgment is revealed” (Romans 2:5). Mentally competent adults such as ourselves have no excuse; but, I believe that this passage implies that very young children and the severely mentally handicapped do. Again, God is under no obligation to accept or recognize this “excuse,” but if He did it would reveal both great justice and rich mercy.


The difference between black females who die at age thirteen and black females who die in infancy (or anyone else who dies in infancy) is that by the age of thirteen most of them have “suppressed the truth” of what can be known about God that has been revealed to them. By that point most of them have already consciously sinned thousands of times and are conscious of their sinfulness – some responding in faith and repentance to the gospel and some acquiescing in their sinful nature. In your illustration or proposal, the distinctions of age and race are completely insignificant, irrelevant, and arbitrary; whereas, in the case of infants and the severely mentally handicapped, there is a valid and meaningful distinction – a real difference – between them and the rest of the human race, a difference that I believe is significant and meaningful to God. No verse that I am aware of clearly, plainly, and directly says that He will take that difference into consideration, at least with respect to one's final condemnation; but there are several that imply or suggest that He will.



Perhaps I am wrong, but I have never taken UNconditional election to mean that God has no reasons for electing some over others. I have always taken it to mean that God has reasons, but they are His reasons, part of His hidden eternal counsel and will, unknown, mysterious, and unfathomable to us - quite frankly, none of our business or concern. One of the reasons appears to be to show or demonstrate that He is loving and merciful. Many different things can manifest this, just as many can manifest His justice and holiness. My contention is that God’s justice is more evident and clearly seen when He allows those who are reprobate to live past infancy and display or demonstrate their sinfulness, and that His love, mercy, and compassion are more evident and clearly displayed when those who do not have the capacity or ability to see, embrace, or understand Him or His will are forgiven and absolved of the guilt of Adam. Again, this is not something that I believe is directly or clearly and plainly taught in Scripture (therefore, I would never “teach” it); but, I believe the grounds for believing it are as strong as those for believing that some infants are elect and others are not, especially since I do not find your interpretation of the Jacob/Esau illustration to be a compelling defeater. Of course, finding an argument or illustration compelling or cogent is subjective and person-relative; it has nothing to do with whether or not it is true, valid, or accurate. You may well be right and what you assert true; but, I cannot see it at this time. I also think if I have a conscious emotive bias towards “mercy” it’s at least possible that you may have an unconscious emotive bias towards “judgment” – a desire to not be “soft” or “wishy-washy” or play to this sinful generation's overwhelming desire to be comforted and coddled. I’m not saying I know this to be true (though I confess I have wondered about it), but I would ask you to consider whether or not it is possible, and if it might be influencing how “convincing” or "obvious" you think your case is, since many Godly men and "otherwise solid Calvinists" have held an opposing position. Anyway, you can respond to this post and I’ll certainly read it and possibly respond if I think it would be enlightening or fruitful; but I probably won’t post anything else on this until I’ve done some more reading. I think I've reached the limits of what I can say that might be constructive or illuminating. Thank you for your insight, input, patience, grace and charity. .

Dear Brad,

It seems that Paul reached this conclusion in Romans 9:14 and continues to motivate for the Potter's power to do as He wishes. If it were not so them we should all be annihilated as Sodom and Gommorrah. His choice, His choice, His choice, grants that a remnant, a seed, be saved.

It is a very hard fact to accept, that God can and will do exactly as He pleases. This we cannot twist away from no matter how we argue. This point is clear throughout Scripture.

Sincerely,

I don't believe our God is sentimental or emotive when it comes to His justice. I know that you nor I or any other reformed believer would have this any other way. The fact is that it is you that is making this issue your "business and concern", when the fact is the Scripture is nearly silent (explicit or implicit) about what happens to certain individual unborn. When you tell an unbeliever that you "believe" (outside of the Scripture) that all of the unborn are elect, what happens to the authority of your witness that you "believe" Jesus died for our sins?

The Lord's wisdom in this is higher than ours! The danger is that to attempt to force your view (wish) that all unborn children are elect upon the Scripture will destroy or negate doctrines that we know to be true, for instance the doctrine of Total Depravity. Total Depravity is a doctrine of fact not sentiment and applies to all of the children of Adam.


BTW, please also note that my respect for much of what Dr. Clark has written does not have application for the issue at hand.

Denny

Romans 3:22-24

Straw,

What have I said that would indicate to you that I deny that it is "His choice, His choice, His choice"? If you think the quote that you included in your reply does, then I'm afraid you have completely misunderstood my meaning.

Denny,

I think I have hedged what I have said adequately. There are all kinds of issues about which the Scriptures are "'nearly silent' (implicit or explicit)" (such as the baptism or nonbaptism of infants, the salvation of Arminians, the finer points of eschatology, etc.), about which we venture interpretations, and offer what we "believe." Without a Magisterium, we usually fall back of some confessional document (e.g., the Westminster Confession of Faith), or the interpretations offered by theologians and biblical scholars whose integrity and wisdom we respect. I think as long as we adequately qualify what we say, there is nothing wrong or presumtptuous in saying, "this is what I believe, and I think there are indications in Scripture that it is true." And, what leads me to believe it in the first place is not just what I want or wish, but what I believe I have learned about God through His Word and a life lived in fellowship and union with Him. If I understand you correctly (and I probably don't), the only correct answer is "nobody knows - it is pure mystery." I'm okay with that. What I am not okay with is saying that it is "obvious" that the Bible teaches that some infants are elect and others are not. It's just not that obvious. And anyone who says that (Pilgrim and perhaps yourself) is making this just as much his "business and concern" as the person who says what I am saying. We are saying what we believe based upon our understanding and interpretation of Scripture. I claim no more. The thing that seems to have some people in an uproar is that I am being brutally honest about my desires and emotions. I am saying quite clearly that they are not definitive. But I am denying that they are completely irrelevant. And I believe they influence even the most hardcore rationalist more than he cares to admit.


How am I "forcing" my "view (wish)" upon the Scripture? I am saying that in the absence of definitive evidence either way, all other things being equal, I'll choose the interpretation that manifests greater mercy. I make no pretence that I KNOW it is correct, and I am open to counterevidence. This is precisely how I came to believe the doctrines of grace in the first place. Initially, not everything was as clear to me as it is today. I held tentative positions on all five points for some time before I was able to say, "I think this is clearly taught by Scripture." Of course, there are a lot more passages dealing with these issues directly than with the case of the salvation of infants; but I think the principle is similar.

Also, I have not now nor have I ever denied total depravity. Did you read my last post?

You have indeed "hedged" but I don't know about the "adequate" part. Lets agree not to beat a dead horse until we have both read and prayed more about this?

From our PMs, you know that I love and respect my Christian Brothers, the same as you do me.

In Him

Denny

Romans 3:22-24

Ya, originally I was just asking if anyone was familiar with the position that all infants are elect - I never thought I'd be sucked into defending the position - which I myself have not examined that closely yet.

Oh, and with respect to "beating a dead horse," here's a graemlin for your collection that I picked up from President Edwards:

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,

Dear Brad and Pilgrim,
I seem to have interrupted the gentle pond of correspondence between you both. I am sorry for that. It is my fault for firstly discussing my rather wierd dream about a little girl who informed me that her Mommies baby had died in the womb and how I had attempted to comfort her first by saying that the little one is safe with Jesus, and then having a pinch of conscience (while dreaming) and attempting to correct my idea but ending up just mumbling because though I knew God has made His choices long before we even existed, it is hard to say such things to those who are suffering and hope that it offers consolation. However, in retrospect, if one can explain such matters simply and sensitively, the grieving child or mother may be able to accept that God has perhaps sent the unborn child to one of two places. It is my belief that this is true, however there is a matter or whether or not one is entitled to say so or not, that has me personally a little backed off. So I agree yes, let's wait upon the Lord. As to Him speaking about this matter, I was convinced that the content of Romans 9 was full, but I wonder now, I wonder perhaps there is not real answer to this question, at least not one that serves any purpose at all.

I still wonder about the other part to the dream where the voice of a yet unborn one spoke to me wanting to be born. It was such a voice that it made me weep terribly, I was so sad. (I think this little one spoke twice.) I am happy to let this rest now.

Brad, I am really sorry that I chipped in like that it was a most unneccessary chirp. Your thoughts have been so illuminating, both yours and Pilgrim. Yes, it is good to stop this one and wait on the Lord.

His orphan,

By no means Straw - you started the whole conversation. And I thank you for it. I also hope that you do not mind that I expanded the conversation somewhat to include very young children and the mentally incompetent (hey, no jokes about me!). Being a relatively young man who has not yet been blessed with children of my own (though I have many beloved nieces and nephews), and not being a pastor, I have never really felt compelled to come up with an answer to this question, leaving it solely to the perfect justice and mercy of God (where of course I still leave it). But this whole exchange, which was well under way before I chimed in, has encouraged me to try to come to a more solid understanding of the matter. I do appreciate that nobody pounced on me for voicing my hesitating dissent.


No problem. Obviously you are not alone in thinking that my views, or at least the way that I have stated them, in some way compromise God's sovereignty and aseity. Of course, I do not think that they do, but it would be an unloving and uncaring brother who did not try to point such an error out if he believed that he discerned it.


I think Pilgrim's have - I think my own have illumined only my own uncertainty and confusion; but if they have stimulated genuine and pious reflection, then I am grateful.