HERE is an excellent article for you to read and to consider. It is about as coherent an article that I have ever read on this subject. BUT, and you know what that means, was to much ground yielded in order to make sense of a subject that so little is directly known about?
Consider this quote: "First, the grace, goodness and mercy of God would support the position that God saves all infants who die. This is the strongest argument and perhaps the decisive one. God is love (1 John 4:8) and desires that all be saved (1 Timothy 2:4)."
Now I certainly do not have a problem with that reasoning but is that sound reasoning according to the Calvinistic understanding of Scripture? Many arguments center around the "all" of I Timothy and it seems here that the authors do not have a problem with the fact that God would be desirous that all would be saved. I see an inconsistency here. Does all really mean all? Does all really mean just the elect? OR Does all really mean the elect plus any un-elect infants who die in infancy? I have not written the authors directly and highly doubt that they have any clue who I am or even have the time to interact here on this blog, but the questions I raise I believe are relevant. For if it is conceded by Calvinism that God truly desires that all men(and by that all I certainly mean ALL) be saved, then much of the bickering that exists between Calvinists and Non-Calvinists is a whole lot of smoke and mirrors.
There may be more options but I came up with three.
1. ALL means all of the elect AND non-elect infants.(Non-elect infants go to heaven)
2. All means only, all of the elect.(Non-elect infants go to hell)
3. All means all.(God does not get everything He desires but He does do everything He decrees).
Wow, that last parenthesis ought to raise a few eyebrows.
Great article and I hope bringing attention to it helps you in your own studies.
And that is what I think...