It is quite clear that the scriptures appeal to a man's intellect and his ability to reason (2 Tim 3:15). He is dead in trespasses and sin yet God commands ALL MEN EVERYWHERE (without exception) to repentance (Acts 17:30).
How are the scriptures able to make one "Wise unto salvation?" Is such a possibility if the preacher is using the King James Bible and the hearer does not understand a single word of English? Why is it necessary to translate the Word of God into common languages which are used today and why did men such as Wycliffe and Tyndale do so at the peril of their own lives?
Do tell me how the spirit of an infant can comprehend anything its newborn mind cannot. Chapter and verse please!
Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. And also, cognition is no advantage, so you should stop appealing to it. The things of God are spiritually discerned. You presume that the spirit of the infant is undiscerning, and you have no basis for such a presumption.
I believe I have made a pretty solid case. I cannot help if you are lacking in understanding. The natural man understands what the scriptures say, he just will not RECEIVE it (1 Cor 2:14). He understands the word of God sufficiently to be accountable to God for rejecting it on the day of judgment (Jn 12:48).
You are right that I do not have sufficient basis for a dogmatic position but neither do you!
As I stated, it is not the understanding of the Gospel whereby one may be SAVED but whether God provides sufficient understanding through his "General Revelation" and "Common Grace" (Things that are "Clearly Seen") to an infant or pre-born child whereby he may be considered guilty before God and WITHOUT EXCUSE? RC Sproul makes this case and poses this dilemma and his ultimate conclusion was "I DON'T KNOW" and I would have to state the same! Why would I presume ANY CHILD who dies in infancy or through miscarriage to be "Non-Elect?" Do you wish to spout off such to a grieving family? What exactly would you hope to accomplish? I would hope there would be some sizable men around to handle the child's father who may fly off in a blind rage and inflict serious bodily harm! And no, I wish you no ill, just emphasizing my point!
Why was David able to be so "Presumptuous" regarding his child with Bathsheba who died shortly after birth (2 Sam 12:23)? How could he know for sure and why would God allow such to be recorded in his inspired word if such were not true?
I have seen lots of women in the family way sitting in church. And the child is present when the mother prays, and sings, and reads, and also when the father is singing, praying and reading with his wife.
What does this have to do with anything? It simply means he had a good childhood and was raised in the fear of the Lord! Have you ever seen an infant child publicly profess Christ? Presuming that an infant child "Comes to saving faith" before he is able to sufficiently speak or understand is based upon what?
There are also plenty of children raised in such an atmosphere who ultimately repudiate the Gospel message and blaspheme God in their unbelief so such proves absolutely nothing.
Infants aren't unaware of what is happening outside the womb. Elisabeth testified that her child leapt for joy at the sound of Mary's greeting when Christ was in her womb.
You are going to base you position on Luke 1:41? The only thing the passage says for certain is that the babe "Leaped" in Elizabeth's womb. Nothing implies the Child knew that the baby Mary was carrying was "the Son of God." Perhaps he did but you cannot make the assumption based upon what has been written. Perhaps God caused the babe to leap in Elizabeth's womb as confirmation to her and the others around that what was told came from God and was true? I believe this to be the only certain conclusion we may reach.
I said nothing that would lead one to such a ridiculous conclusion.
You have said enough for me to realize perhaps our resident "Average Joe" may be justified in his often harsh criticism of you!
