Dovegiven : Hi
According to Apostolic teaching individuals can be elected to eternal life (2 Thess 2: 13; Eph 1: 4 1 Pet 1: 2 John 13: 18).
The closest I can put that is Calvinism Gone Wild, yet the exegesis is too poor to sell that either.
Not Calvinist. ‘Reformed’. The exegesis is not mine but ‘Jamieson Fauset and Brown’s commentary’. You had better take up your complaint with them.
Not one of those references (all taken entirely out of context) has to do with any of your claims, and certainly has nothing to do with the topic.
Election is what being ‘saved’ is all about actually, if any infant or child is ‘elect’ then it is ‘saved’. Your contention that no infant can be ‘elect’ is not supported in scripture, quite the contrary in fact.
I am picturing a great train wreck so bad the only solution is to build a lake over it. I am stunned.
I suggest going back, read at least the chapter around those references, then weigh any conclusions such that there is no conflict with Romans 4: For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, THROUGH THE LAW, but through the righteousness of faith.  For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect:  Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.  Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all,......
As I have tried unsuccessfully to explain to you before, the PROMISE is not through The Law but through the righteousness of FAITH.
The PROMISE still stands and was never abolished with The Law of ordinances.
If what you wrote was true, then that scripture passage is a lie. God doesn't contradict Himself, lying like a man.
God has not contradicted Himself. It is merely your inability to comprehend Paul’s theology that is the root of your incomprehension. Peter foresaw the problems people like yourself might encounter with the teachings of St. Paul.
Try reading through this and gaining some understanding.
Quoted from "Jamieson Fauset and Brown’s Commentary" :
6. Not as though the word of God had taken none effect-- "hath fallen to the ground," that is, failed: compare Lu 16: 17, Greek. for they are not all Israel which are of Israel-- better, "for not all they which are of Israel are Israel." Here the apostle enters upon the profound subject of ELECTION, the treatment of which extends to the end of the eleventh chapter--
"Think not that I mourn over the total loss of Israel; for that would involve the failure of God's word to Abraham; but not all that belong to the natural seed, and go under the name of 'Israel,' are the Israel of God's irrevocable choice."
The difficulties which encompass this subject lie not in the apostle's teaching, which is plain enough, but in the truths themselves, the evidence for which, taken by themselves, is overwhelming, but whose perfect harmony is beyond human comprehension in the present state. The great source of error here lies in hastily inferring (as THOLUCK and others), from the apostle's taking tip, at the close of this chapter, the calling of the Gentiles in connection with the rejection of Israel, and continuing this subject through the two next chapters, that the Election treated of in the body of this chapter is national, not personal Election, and consequently is Election merely to religious advantages, not to eternal salvation.
In that case, the argument of Ro 9: 6, with which the subject of Election opens, would be this: "The choice of Abraham and his seed has not failed; because though Israel has been rejected, the Gentiles have taken their place; and God has a right to choose what nation He will to the privileges of His visible kingdom." But so far from this, the Gentiles are not so much as mentioned at all till towards the close of the chapter; and the argument of this verse is, that "all Israel is not rejected, but only a portion of it, the remainder being the 'Israel' whom God has chosen in the exercise of His sovereign right." And that this is a choice not to mere external privileges, but to eternal salvation, will abundantly appear from what follows.
7- 9. Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children-- "Not in the line of mere fleshly descent from Abraham does the election run; else Ishmael, Hagar's child, and even Keturah's children, would be included, which they were not." but-- the true election are such of Abraham's seed as God unconditionally chooses, as exemplified in that promise. in Isaac shall thy seed be called-- (Ge 21: 12).
10- 13. And not only this; but when Rebecca, &c.-- It might be thought that there was a natural reason for preferring the child of Sarah, as being Abraham's true and first wife, both to the child of Hagar, Sarah's maid, and to the children of Keturah, his second wife. But there could be no such reason in the case of Rebecca, Isaac's only wife; for the choice of her son Jacob was the choice of one of two sons by the same mother and of the younger in preference to the elder, and before either of them was born, and consequently before either had done good or evil to be a ground of preference: and all to show that the sole ground of distinction lay in the unconditional choice of God-- "not of works, but of Him that calleth."
14. What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid-- This is the first of two objections to the foregoing doctrine, that God chooses one and rejects another, not on account of their works, but purely in the exercise of His own good pleasure: "This doctrine is inconsistent with the justice of God." The answer to this objection extends to Ro 9: 19, where we have the second objection.
15. For he saith to Moses-- (Ex 33: 19). I will have mercy on whom I will have-- "on whom I have" mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have-- "on whom I have" compassion-- "There can be no unrighteousness in God's choosing whom He will, for to Moses He expressly claims the right to do so." Yet it is worthy of notice that this is expressed in the positive rather than the negative form: not, "I will have mercy on none but whom I will"; but, "I will have mercy on whomsoever I will."
16. So then it is not of him that willeth-- hath the inward desire nor of him that runneth-- maketh active effort (compare 1Co 9: 24, 26; Php 2: 16; 3: 14). Both these are indispensable to salvation, yet salvation is owing to neither, but is purely "of God that showeth mercy." See on Php 2: 12, 13, "Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling: for it is God which, out of His own good pleasure, worketh in you both to will and to do."
17. For the scripture saith to Pharaoh-- observe here the light in which the Scripture is viewed by the apostle. Even for this same-- "this very" purpose have I raised-- "raised I" thee up, &c.-- The apostle had shown that God claims the right to choose whom He will: here he shows by an example that God punishes whom He will. But "God did not make Pharaoh wicked; He only forbore to make him good, by the exercise of special and altogether unmerited grace" [HODGE]. that I might-- "may" show my power in thee-- It was not that Pharaoh was worse than others that he was so dealt with, but "in order that he might become a monument of the penal justice of God, and it was with a view to this that God provided that the evil which was in him should be manifested in this definite form" [OLSHAUSEN]. and that my name might-- "may" be declared-- "proclaimed" in all the earth-- "This is the principle on which all punishment is inflicted, that the true character of the Divine Lawgiver should be known. This is of all objects, where God is concerned, the highest and most important; in itself the most worthy, and in its results the most beneficent" [HODGE].
18. Therefore hath he-- "So then he hath." The result then is that He hath mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth-- by judicially abandoning them to the hardening influence of sin itself (Ps 81: 11, 12; Ro 1: 24, 26, 28; Heb 3: 8, 13), and of the surrounding incentives to it (Mt 24: 12; 1Co 15: 38; 2Th 2: 17). Second objection to the doctrine of Divine Sovereignty:
19. Thou shalt say then unto me, Why-- "Why then" is the true reading. doth he yet find fault? for who hath resisted-- "Who resisteth" his will?-- that is, "This doctrine is incompatible with human responsibility"; If God chooses and rejects, pardons and punishes, whom He pleases, why are those blamed who, if rejected by Him, cannot help sinning and perishing? This objection shows quite as conclusively as the former the real nature of the doctrine objected to-- that it is Election and Non- election to eternal salvation prior to any difference of personal character; this is the only doctrine that could suggest the objection here stated, and to this doctrine the objection is plausible. What now is the apostle's answer? It is twofold. First: "It is irreverence and presumption in the creature to arraign the Creator."
20, 21. Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made-- "didst thou make" me thus?-- (Isa 45: 9).
21. Hath not the potter power over the clay; of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another to dishonour?-- "The objection is founded on ignorance or misapprehension of the relation between God and His sinful creatures; supposing that He is under obligation to extend His grace to all, whereas He is under obligation to none. All are sinners, and have forfeited every claim to His mercy; it is therefore perfectly competent to God to spare one and not another, to make one vessel to honor and another to dishonor. But it is to be borne in mind that Paul does not here speak of God's right over His creatures as creatures, but as sinful creatures: as he himself clearly intimates in the next verses. It is the cavil of a sinful creature against his Creator that he is answering, and be does so by showing that God is under no obligation to give His grace to any, but is as sovereign as in fashioning the clay" [HODGE]. But, Second: "There is nothing unjust in such sovereignty."
22, 23. What if God, willing to show-- "designing to manifest" his wrath-- His holy displeasure against sin. and to make his power-- to punish it known endured with much long- suffering the vessels of wrath-- that is, "destined to wrath"; just as "vessels of mercy," in Ro 9: 23, mean "vessels destined to mercy"; compare Eph 2: 3, "children of wrath." fitted for destruction-- It is well remarked by STUART that the "difficulties which such statements involve are not to be got rid of by softening the language of one text, while so many others meet us which are of the same tenor; and even if we give up the Bible itself, so long as we acknowledge an omnipotent and omniscient God we cannot abate in the least degree from any of the difficulties which such texts make." Be it observed, however, that if God, as the apostle teaches, expressly "designed to manifest His wrath, and to make His power (in the way of wrath) known," it could only be by punishing some, while He pardons others; and if the choice between the two classes was not to be founded, as our apostle also teaches, on their own doings but on God's good pleasure, the decision behooved ultimately to rest with God. Yet, even in the necessary punishment of the wicked, as HODGE observes, so far from proceeding with undue severity, the apostle would have it remarked that God "endures with much long- suffering" those objects of His righteous displeasure.
23. And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy-- that "glorious exuberance of Divine mercy" which "was manifested in choosing and eternally arranging for the salvation of sinners."
24. even us, whom he hath called, &c.-- rather, "Whom he hath also called, even us," &c., in not only "afore preparing," but in due time effectually "calling us." not of the Jews, &c.-- better, "not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles." Here for the first time in this chapter the calling of the Gentiles is introduced; all before having respect, not to the substitution of the called Gentiles for the rejected Jews, but to the choice of one portion and the rejection of another of the same Israel. Had Israel's rejection been total, God's promise to Abraham would not have been fulfilled by the substitution of the Gentiles in their room; but Israel's rejection being only partial, the preservation of a "remnant," in which the promise was made good, was but "according to the election of grace." And now, for the first time, the apostle tells us that along with this elect remnant of Israel, it is God's purpose to "take out of the Gentiles a people for His name" (Ac 28: 14); and that subject, thus introduced, is now continued to the end of the eleventh chapter.
End Quote :
Therefore, all that theory in your last post is error, exposed by the truth.
All too easily said Dovegiven. By no means so easily proved. I think you still need to clearly show through scripture that my last post was in error. Just saying it is is not enough. Your assertion may be convincing to some in here but not to those who know and understand the scripture.
Paul appeals to the Corinthians as recognizing the principle, that the infants of heathen parents would not be admissible to Christian baptism, 1 Cor. 7:14 because there is no faith on the part of the parents; but where one parent is a believer, the children are regarded as not aliens from, but admissible even in infancy as sharers in, the Christian covenant: for the Church presumes that the believing parent will rear the child in the Christian faith.
Infant baptism tacitly superseded infant circumcision, just as the Christian Lord's day gradually superseded the Jewish sabbath, without our having any express command for, or record of, transference. The setting aside of circumcision and of sabbaths in the case of the Gentiles was indeed expressly commanded by the apostles and Paul, but the substitution of infant baptism and of the Lord's day were tacitly adopted, not expressly enacted.
No explicit mention of it occurs till IRENAEUS in the third century; but no society of Christians that we read of disputed its propriety till fifteen hundred years after Christ.
Anabaptists would have us defer baptism till maturity as the child cannot understand the nature of it. But a child may be made heir of an estate: it is his, though incapable at the time of using or comprehending its advantage; he is not hereafter to acquire the title and claim to it: he will hereafter understand his claim, and be capable of employing his wealth: he will then, moreover, become responsible for the use he makes of it [ARCHBISHOP WHATELY].
: Apr 11, 2012, 8:11 AM