You can't really conclude that. If you believe in the concept of the elect then the thief who repented on the cross was elect despite the fact that no part of his life until his dying moments looked even remotely righteous. It would seem to me that "the elect", if it exists as an objectively defined group in this manner, is just as likely to include the stillborn baby, the child who died of leukemia aged 3 and the adult who repented on their deathbed as it is to include the priest and the person who gave their life to Jesus aged 7 and lived a Christian life until they died in their 90s.
Tango, I was prepared to read a careful rebuttal to what I had written...but what you have said here is not that.
First, I clearly wrote that what an onlooker might have is a "hunch," not something proven, not a solid conclusion. I stand behind that. Yes, if a person lives a virtuous life, is a believing Christian, etc. there is a reason to guess that he is likely to be among the Elect...but it is not guaranteed.
Whether any onlooker suspects that the subject is among the Elect--or, on the other hand, is
not--it is a guess. But it is not as though it is a guess made in the dark without any evidence and minus all logic.
Second, you have mentioned a few exceptions. These are clearly not the norm--children who die in the first several years, deathbed conversions, and so on. What you have done there is attempt to show that NOT EVERY person can be sized up by an onlooker and classified as Elect or Reprobate.
But no one is attempting to do that--classify every person who comes into the world. Nor was that the idea I was responding to in my post.
The issue concerned whether a believer in Election might have an opinion about whether he (or someone else he observes), is likely to be among the Elect.
.
