Featured Infant Death and Salvation Two

And you dance around the issue of "non-elect infants" that die.

What's the problem, Iconoclast, if you think there are non-elect infants that die and go into eternal separation...

...just say so.

It is a familiar doctrine, and embraced by many, so why can't you be open about it?

I am not judging your position, I merely want to discuss it.

I don't, lol.

I guess I could say "Quote me" but I have no expectation that you will actually do that, because you cannot stay in a conversation with direct quotes of what your antagonist states.

You give snide commentary implying I am unfamiliar with implicit teaching, yet you are missing the fact that you are not addressing the issue.

Please tell me, when is the Elect infant that dies regenerated and reconciled to God, and...

...how is this different from the Non-Elect Infant, and...

...what your Scriptural Basis is for both answers.

Again, an attempt to bring this back to the discussion of the OP.


Continued...

 

No, just shows you are more interested in insult than doctrine.

Discuss the Topic of the OP, Iconoclast, place your emotion to the side.

So you do not see the Elect as separated from God at conception?

I am confused because I state a Core Doctrine of Scripture that is supported by the entire New Testament?

Do you have the courage, Iconoclast, to actually discuss my confusion, rather than simply insulting me?

This is relevant to the OP, you know. This is one of the issues discussed with other members.

So show from Scripture what you mean in regards to this covenant of redemption you speak about, and how it is "confusion" to stand on the Basic Bible Principle that mankind is separated from God at conception...

...no exceptions.

Not even for the Elect.

Again, you can turn back to Doctrinal Discussion, Iconoclast, and while you may not get pats on the back your your conspirators, you will, I guarantee it...

...test your Doctrine, and in doing so, be strengthened.

That is my only goal with you, my friend.


Continued...

 

Not sure how this is relevant to anything, other than your intention of encouraging yourself by supposing that you are in agreement with others.

That is the case, but it is on a personal level, not a doctrinal level.

And all I am concerned with is the doctrine, Who is right or wrong has no relevance if there is nothing to view as right or wrong. If there is a point in another thread that you feel shows an antagonist of mine being right about something and I being wrong, I strongly urge you to make that known in the appropriate thread. Then it will be a matter between you and I and we can discuss the doctrine you affirm.

I'll be happy to discuss any of the issues discussed with other members.

How exactly is how much I post have to do with you remembering where your conspiratorial remark, which is apparently back-biting (because you did not make this comment to me)...was posted? lol

Again...you show your character. And it doesn't speak of integrity, my friend.

And you can improve your character if you just keep it doctrinal, and stop trying to bolster the strength of your teaching and posting with support from people that are not truly your friends, because they are not encouraging you to Godly conduct, but satanic conduct.

You are not being a friend to them in your participation in it.

You have got to learn to keep it doctrinal, Iconoclast, and you really need to learn that improper quoting is the devise of cowards. Be bold, my friend, quote exactly what I say, and address it.


Continued...

 

No they don't. If nothing else, I know that pride holds power over the untrained Bible Student.

That is why I usually just stay for a little while, because I try to give antagonists like yourself some room to save face.



The truth is, when one's doctrine is centered on egomaniacal motivation, it soon becomes apparent that there is no challenge. Because when it turns personal, the doctrine is forgotten, and you have to admit, Iconoclast...it is my doctrine that a number of my antagonists despise, lol.

Admit it. That is why you cannot discuss the disposition of Elect and "non-elect infants."

That is why you cannot answer whether an Elect Infant is regenerated before or after death.

I know you do, Iconoclast.

But I wish you would pay attention to the doctrinal aspects of my posts. If you want to engage in discussion about any particular topic, I'd be happy to enter into discussion. There is simply no reason for you and I to be adversarial. Antagonists, yes, but it doesn't have to be hostile. THat choice is yours to make.


Continued...

 

I will admit that sometimes when I parse posts something can be taken out of context. I try very hard not to let that happen, but I know it has in the past. For that, I am sorry, and have no problem in apologizing if it is shown that i have done that.

However, I can only think of a couple of occasions where that was the case.

And when I ask you, or any other antagonist to quote me, the reason is twofold. First, so I can look at the original conversation in it's context, and secondly...

...because the exact opposite is usually the case.

And that is why you do not quote me, Iconoclast. I know you know how to quote, so why do you refuse to do that with mine? Because you cannot make a case you want to present if you actually quote me.

That's just the fact. And that was proven in the last few threads or so.

On the contrary, Iconoclast, it is really quite evident that I do not lack for people who want to interact with me.

Even those with ruffled feathers like yourself.



Burns you up, doesn't it?

Are you seriously going to deny that you are making this personal? lol

And that is not relevant to our discussion.

Why would you think I care what another person has said or thinks? I address those in their respective posts, so if you want to know what I think...its right there in the posts.

This is between you and me, Iconoclast, so stop appealing to other members, they are not involved, and I will no more incorporate what they think of me into our discussion than what they think of you. I am not looking to make friends to support my case against doctrinal positions, I am looking to address the doctrine itself. I do that, you know it, and I suggest you start doing the same.

Keep it doctrinal.

Now, what Scriptural presentation have you to show there are non-elect infants?

How can you, from Scripture, dismantle my position that God bestows grace to those who are not capable of comprehension of revelation, and that culpability is always based on the understanding of the revelation provided?


Continued...

 

And your position remains the same, right?

There are things we cannot know, and we are in error if we think we can.

And my point is just as I responded to one member, not only do I think we are meant to know, but I can show you this from Scripture itself.

So here is a relevant question to the OP: how can the Elect Infant, who is natural and cannot receive the spiritual things of God...be saved?

You admit that the Elect Infant will be saved, but you refuse to address when their salvation takes place.

Reliance on the covenant of redemption you teach does not address the fact that they are conceived natural, and remain natural until they are born again.

When does that happen?


Continued...

 

But it is given to us that God judges justly, and justifies those who come under obedience to His revealed will.

This applies to the Elect before the Law (either Written or Covenant) was established, to both Jew and Gentile after the Law was established, and to those in this current Age.

And we can safely say that during those three separate and distinct Ages there were infants that died.

They all would have to be reconciled to God through Christ and born again.

So one member suggested that God ministers to them in the womb, basing this on John the Baptist being filled with the Spirit from the womb. That was a good point for discussion, so, what would you offer in regards to your belief...we can't know? How would you show that I overstep my bounds by saying we can?

That's where the discussion lies, Iconoclast.

But Iconoclast...this has been my consistent position from the beginning, lol. I have stated fromt he first that I think we can know. that is why I responded to the one member that implied they didn't.

So let's discuss that which is relevant to the OP.

And how can there be a "proper study" if you cannot even provide Scripture for it?

By studying the writings of men?

That is what you have done.

I addressed the Scripture references, and the point made, and not one of them could really be seen as relevant to Infant Death and Salvation. The prior point was, but it only spoke of Elect Infants dying, and was irrelevant to non-elect infant death.

If you want to discuss it in more depth, great. That was precisely what my response was shooting for.


Continued...

 

So start this "proper study," Iconoclast. Present the Scripture that states Elect Infants go to Heaven because they are in Eternal Covenant with God.

You can't do this, because the entirety of Scripture makes it clear that Redemption is through Christ, and that this is the Everlasting Covenant God always intended to establish. And that was established among men some two thousand years ago. That this Redemptive Covenant was Plan A all along does not mean that men were in covenant with God prior to the establishment of the New Covenant.

but you are welcome to show me, through "Proper Study," why you believe that, and why I am in error about this.

On the contrary, as I said, the previous thread has every member stating that God does not send infants that die to Hell, which denies the possibility that there are, in their views, non-elect infants that do.

And only two people who give vague implication that they believe God does.

As to who might be against me in general, my guess would be that the number is far higher, lol. But that's okay, glad to discuss the issues with most of them as well.



And I think that is about all the time I have today, but don't worry, Iconoclast, I won't leave you hanging. I'll try to get to the rest of your posts as I can. Of course, we can actually return to the doctrine and the Topic of the OP, if you like.

That choice has always been yours.


God bless.

 

You haven't given an answer, Iconoclast.

Your very doctrine is denied in the questions posed to you.

If you are so confident in your doctrine, then simply answer one question:

When are Elect Infants that die...regenerated?


God bless.

 

1. I already addressed this;

2. While you might think the "Covenant of Redemption" you teach is implicit in Scripture, you still have to present the Scripture it is implicit in;

3. You still have a burden to address my responses to that which you give as support to your doctrine, and you haven't done that;

4. You are still afraid to answer simple questions.


I'm only asking you one, Iconoclast:

Here it is again without quote code:

When are Elect Infants that die...regenerated?


I know you can't answer this, anyone reading this thread knows, but you, Iconoclast, I haven't yet decided as to whether you honestly don't know or not. My guess is your refusal to answer affirms you know it, but, I will give you the benefit of the doubt.

So answer this one question, and we can return this thread to the doctrine and the focus of the OP.


When are Elect Infants that die...regenerated?


God bless.

 

So how about the non-elect infants, Iconoclast?

Where does the confession speak about them?

And just to cut out more repeats of the same evasive answers, I have already addressed the second portion of the confession you appeal to as an answer, and asked how the infant that is not effectually ministered to by the "Ministry of the Word" is ministered to.

Here are some examples:

Chapter 10: Of Effectual Calling

3._____ Elect infants dying in infancy are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit; who worketh when, and where, and how he pleases; so also are all elect persons, who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.
( John 3:3, 5, 6; John 3:8 )

Again...when does this take place? After death? Before death? Does this apply to the womb?

And how about a clear statement about non-elect infants dying in infancy?

And another issue you can define in these teachings...what exactly is the "Ministry of the Word?" Please explain that.


You haven't answered these questions. If so, give me a post number or a link.

Here are some more questions:


Iconoclast said: ↑


I actually agree with both points, yet we have a couple issues that could be discussed.

First, we still need to address whether there are non-elect infants that go into eternal separation.

here is one example....you say you actually agree with the posted statements......really???


Yes, really.

That's why I said...

I actually agree with both points, yet we have a couple issues that could be discussed.

First, we still need to address whether there are non-elect infants that go into eternal separation.

Second, do we see in point 3 a clear statement that salvation is accomplished by the Spirit separate from the Word of God, the "Ministry of the Word," which we see is normative in salvation for those who are born and grow up.

Third, when does regeneration take place? Every proof-text given refers to the revealed Gospel of this Age. So we can say we have two groups of infants that die in the womb, those in past Ages, and those in this Age. Those who take the position that men have always been regenerated by God prior to Pentecost may not see this distinction, but, the proof-texts above are specific to the Gospel of Christ Post-Cross, so they do not distinguish between the perfection of the Old Testament Saint, and this becomes a non-issue for them. However, we still have to answer the question, when does regeneration take place?


And I will leave those points for discussion. Thanks for the response.


Please answer the questions.


God bless.

 

Okay...so where are they answered? Post # would help.


God bless.