Hello, Harry.

You wrote: "The argument used to support infant salvation and the reasoning
is similar to the arguments used to support paedobaptism."

Au contraire, it is nothing like the paedobaptist argument. The paedobaptist
argument is based on concepts of continuity of covenant characteristics. The
infant salvation argument is based on specific statements of scripture
regarding God's character, the coming judgment, and infants. The two
arguments are not similar in any way.

You asked: "Is the God who created the universe not able to preserve His
elect until their appointed time of calling?"

Of course "he is able," but that is not the question. Is there anything in
scripture that says that God will "preserve His elect" until they hear the
word and exercise faith?  Of course not. This is based on some idea that we
can only be saved by the personal, on-earth exercise of faith. But the
doctrines of sovereign grace say that regeneration comes first, and the
doctrine of infant salvation holds that infants dying in infancy are
regenerated as are those elect who live to the age of faith.

Neither view has a "closer" verse that it can use to shut down the other
argument.

This is why I do not see infant salvation as a doctrine that should be
considered foundational or fundamental. All the positions require us to read
scripture and reach conclusions based on what we understand. It is not a
question that God answered directly. He never said "they all go to hell" or
"they are all elect" or "some go to hell and some are elect," so we must do
our best to determine what we believe.

And, in charity, recognize that other godly people may disagree with us.


James W. Allen
jallen@...