Which is it David: is it a mystery or are you certain of a developmental threshold?
Mystery and development do not need to be at odds. I do not think God is required to do anything. The only things God cannot do is what is contrary to his own nature, including the breaking of any covenantal promises. The point of this thread was to deal with infant death and not with children’s salvation at large in relation to their developmental process. I am not a Gnostic and therefore I cannot say I have hidden knowledge in regards to the mind of God in relation to salvation and judgment towards children at large. I can only speculate and have faith that God will judge all fairly in accordance to his own nature, for his glory, and for our good. I see development as being a means so that the free offer of the gospel can be understood, so that the child will be saved by the same normal means as you and I in receiving the gospel in faith.
Are you basing your certainty on philosophical reasoning on what you believe God would be required to do given a requirement for cognition or do you have Scripture that links lack of cognitive ability to God's application of Christ's righteousness?
My main grounding for my position is based on two things: First, the free offer of the Gospel. Secondly, human suppression of the truth of God in creation and in special revelation. In the fall, Adam was not only changed from a state of righteousness to that of a sinner (and thus compounds the judgment against him with additional sin), but also there is a marring of the cognitive ability by original sin. Which is then why we must renew are minds with the word of God and his Holy Spirit. However this noetic effect of the fall is not the ground in which people refuse to submit to the gospel, but is instead a heart rebellion against the gospel that they hear. The only way in which people receive Christ is through the changing of the heart by the Spirit of God. Now faith comes by hearing and hearing the word of God (Romans 10, and yes I know of the variant here which has Christ instead of God). The reasoning why the cognitive aspect is important, for it was not completely destroyed by the fall, is so that one can understand the words faith so that they may respond to it based on the quickening power of the Spirit. The issue with infants is that they cannot understand the message of salvation, which puts them in slightly a different position with a nonbeliever. They not only cannot understand special revelation like you or I, but they do not have the ability to make a judgment pro or con against it; therefore you would not see an infant say that the cross is foolishness. The child would not have that category yet in their development, because they lack the tools to even make such a judgment. Therefore they cannot by their own ability knowable reject God and the Gospel, even though they still sin actively in Adam. Nor do infants reject God on the basis of creation. They do not know what a star is, they have no understanding of a tree when they are born, in fact infants when they are born are quite limited in what they know and what they initially experience. Therefore they are not in the same state as those talked about in Romans 1, who refuse to acknowledge God (v.28) and must be seen in light of a nuanced category because they do have an excuse ( in contrary to v. 20-1). Noticed I said nuanced, because I still technically classify them as an enemy of God, but only because of Adam. Just like we all at one point were enemies of God (Romans 5:8-10). Now I am actually reminded of Deut. 1:35-9, whereby God says to the older knowingly rebellious generation that they will not see “the good land,” but he describes their children as little ones who “have no knowledge of good and evil” and that they will process the land forever. So the rebels can never enter in, but their little ones who have no knowledge of good and evil can enter. A promised land that represents the entered Sabbath rest of God (Hebrews 4:8-9). Also notice that these little ones are not judged accordingly to the sins of their parents in Deut. 1, based on the fact that they can enter into the promise land. Now God is rich in mercy and full of compassion as seen for the allowance of children to come unto him for blessing (relating Ps. 145:8, Joel 2:13, Eph. 2:4 and Ps. 78:38, 116.5 to Mark 10). In fact Jesus wished to blessed them, and so he did, and I would instill again that we do not know the condition of the souls of the parents that offered up their children for blessing; for not much has changed under the sun for we find today parents who desire for their children to be blessed and yet have no desire in themselves to repent and believe. For if it is the nature of God to show such compassion towards little ones, infants, then would it not be reasonable for God based upon his own nature and the weak and helpless nature of a child, who has no or little understanding of the world (let alone God), to receive grace from God. And prior to the death of the infant be united to Christ by the Spirit in his great mercy towards such a helpless creature. For an infant is not like Adam in regards with the ability of understanding or communicating (before or after the fall), and does not rebel in the child’s heart towards the gospel like the neighbor by the street or the coworker who can understand the facts of the gospel, but still desires to rebel. The conditions of the infant and the conditions of older children and adults in relation to response to the gospel is not the same nor can it be the same with a miracle of knowledge and development.
God justifies and regenerates us by his Spirit by his own will despite that we were once his enemy. And infants, even though they are technically are the enemies of God, I think God is understanding to their nature and just like he is understanding to ours in relating the gospel and truth of himself to us by analogy.
If left to mystery, why may not any parent reason that their child has not crossed this threshold at some cognitive level of accountability?
I have indicated this before that God being the fair judge will do what is right within his own judgment and parents should take comfort in the fair judge of God. Realistically that is the only comfort a parent could receive. Even though if a parent does not try to teach their child the gospel, then I do not think they should be comforted because they failed in their parental responsibility to teach the child the ways of the faith
You had utilized, in a previous argument, that the Lord's condemnation against passing a children through the fire is to be used (by GNC) that God spares infants from the punishments of Hell. I'm asking you why, in the case of Jericho this is not, likewise, a typological case to the contrary?
In regards to the destruction of Jericho, children were not killed by a religious fire, but instead by the sword, like the rest of the men, the women, and the animals present (which by the way I do not think anyone here would say animals go to heaven or hell). God spared infants from flames of death, but not from the purging of the land; because if they survived then later they may become an enemy of the people of God. And likewise today, God does not spare children from the fate of physical death in Adam and can suffer the consequences of their parents’ sin. The purging of the land by the sword and the child religious sacrifice are distinctly different, for the child sacrifices was one of the reasons for the destruction of Jericho as I have said already above ( like with comparing Gen.15:16 to Deut 18:10 as seen in post 19), instead of a contrary analogy. Besides God alone has right over life and death and has given in his law why a child should die, and it is not so that it can be offered to demons (including Satan), who punishment will one day be the Lake of Fire.
I think that should be everything. I have Greek text I need to translate, so until next time, see you all later.
