It is God who gives life and when the child is born, it is that first breath that begins it as a individual person. See elsewhere that same expression is used as it is in Gen.2:7 (Gen.7:22,1Ki.17:17,Job.27:3,33:4,Isa.2:22 etc) However,I do not have a problem with someone thinking otherwise.
Again, I don't understand the application to Rom. 5:8 except to say that maybe this means those who died unborn before Jesus went to hell and those after go to Heaven. That of course, if this is what you meant, also needs some explaining to me.
I do not understand. What you are thinking I said about Rom.5:18? The verse is explaining that being in Adam makes us savable since the Second Adam's grace was greater then the 1st Adam's sin. We need only accept the free gift (Jn.1:12,Rom.23)
See 2Sam.12:23 22 And he said, While the child was yet alive, I fasted and wept: for I said, Who can tell whether GOD will be gracious to me, that the child may live? 23 But now he is dead, wherefore should I fast? can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me. Now, this is very convincing if in fact this is what David is saying and if what he is assuming is true. It would be interesting to know, from Jewish history perhaps, what the Jews believed about infant mortality and the soul. But in my limited knowledge of the meaning of this passage, I could also point out that David may in fact have been saying that it was useless for him to mourn because he will never be able to see the child again. "I shall go to him" may simply mean that he can cry for the child and "but he will not return to me" may mean that the child is not comming back.
I have heard that explanation but what comfort would that be?
But I would not have you be ignorant brethren, concerning them which are asleep, that ye sorrow not even as other which have no hope.(1Thes.4:13)
This is were, IMO, a Calvinist (which I am not) can argue that some of these unborn will go to heaven and some will not; some are elect and some are not.
Yes, that is what even Calvin addmitted was a 'horrible dictum' of the Sovereign Decree
That is where infant baptism comes in, to stop that from happening. As a Baptist I totally reject infant baptism.
You are NOT a Baptist.
The European AnaBaptists and the English Baptists were Calvinist to the core, throughout the middle ages (in the case of the European AnaBaptists) and from the beginning of their denomination (in the case of the English Baptists).
Are you a Baptist according to the expressly-Calvinist creeds of the Baptist Confession of 1644? No? I thought not.
Are you a Baptist according to the expressly-Calvinist creeds of the Baptist Confession of 1689? No? I thought not.
You are NO BAPTIST. Contrary to the claims of post-modernist Clintonist word-parsing, words mean things, and the word "Baptist" means, among other things, Calvinist. Sovereign Grace. Absolute Predestination.
This is what "Baptist" means.
Why do you think that Calvinist Baptists were called "OLD SCHOOL Baptists", and Arminians were called "NEW SCHOOL Baptists"?!
News Flash, FTD, the terminology itself -- "old-school", "new-school" -- ought to give you a hint.
You are NOT a Baptist.
You are an immersionist Romanist -- one who believes in Immersion, but affirms the Romanist Gospel.
THIS is the Romanist Gospel: Resistible Grace + Free Will.
THIS is the Baptist Gospel: Irresistible Grace creates New Will.
You are no "Baptist", but a schismatic Romanist who claims the name of "baptist", and so to the Baptists who are threshing that part of the Lord's vineyard, I will leave you.