Infants – “of such is the kingdom of God” [Archive]

IncRus

September 14th 2005, 12:26 PM

smaller

September 15th 2005, 09:59 AM

People believe that "infants or little children" NEED to be "baptized for the remisssion of sin" because of "original sin" which was people believe is "inherited" from Adam.

This is a FALSE belief which stems from MISINTERPRETATION of apostle Paul's letters concerning man's "sinful nature" which was "inherited" from Adam.

The Bible teaches that "sin is TRANSGRESSION of the law" (1 John 3:4). Therefore, "sinful nature" is man's "propensity to TRANSGRESS God's laws." Man, by nature, likes to do what is forbidden for him to do.

And this "sinful nature" is present even in infants or little children.

However, with regards to committing sin itself, infants or little children are free of "original" or committed sin because according to Jesus, "of such (infants or little childen) is the kingdom of heaven" (Luke 18:16,15). And we know that NO sinner can ENTER the kingdom of heaven.

Thus, the practice of BAPTIZING infants is NOT in conformity with Christ's COMMAND to baptize those who HEAR the gospel and BELIEVE (Mark 16:15-16).

Christian Universalism posits that if babies go to heaven when they die then abortion is justified and the Dr.'s performing abortions are the greatest soul savers who have ever lived.

Kill the baby. Save the child from eternal torture in fire. Seems like an excellent tradeoff that most of you should be able to see and uphold, as long as you aren't doing the saving of course.

Thomas2003

September 15th 2005, 12:24 PM

Thomas2003

September 15th 2005, 12:53 PM

People believe that "infants or little children" NEED to be "baptized for the remisssion of sin" because of "original sin" which was people believe is "inherited" from Adam.

This is a FALSE belief which stems from MISINTERPRETATION of apostle Paul's letters concerning man's "sinful nature" which was "inherited" from Adam.

The Bible teaches that "sin is TRANSGRESSION of the law" (1 John 3:4). Therefore, "sinful nature" is man's "propensity to TRANSGRESS God's laws." Man, by nature, likes to do what is forbidden for him to do.

And this "sinful nature" is present even in infants or little children.

However, with regards to committing sin itself, infants or little children are free of "original" or committed sin because according to Jesus, "of such (infants or little childen) is the kingdom of heaven" (Luke 18:16,15). And we know that NO sinner can ENTER the kingdom of heaven.

Thus, the practice of BAPTIZING infants is NOT in conformity with Christ's COMMAND to baptize those who HEAR the gospel and BELIEVE (Mark 16:15-16).

Infants and little children die, this plain fact negates the entirety of your odd reasoning. Romans 6:23

Nang

September 15th 2005, 01:26 PM

One would think that a claim like this is outlandish and incomprehensible on its face. However, a state legislator I once had a meeting with actually held to this view and referred to it as a moral foundation for not opposing abortion.

Abortion was, in his terms, one means of Christian evangelism.

Followin this was the first time I had ever said an imprecatory prayer, it has also been my last.

Heh . . . :smile:

They do slip out easy sometimes.

Enjoy your posts very much.

Nang

Arnold

September 15th 2005, 02:06 PM

IncRus

September 15th 2005, 05:34 PM

People believe that "infants or little children" NEED to be "baptized for the remisssion of sin" because of "original sin" which was people believe is "inherited" from Adam.

This is a FALSE belief which stems from MISINTERPRETATION of apostle Paul's letters concerning man's "sinful nature" which was "inherited" from Adam.

The Bible teaches that "sin is TRANSGRESSION of the law" (1 John 3:4). Therefore, "sinful nature" is man's "propensity to TRANSGRESS God's laws." Man, by nature, likes to do what is forbidden for him to do.

And this "sinful nature" is present even in infants or little children.

However, with regards to committing sin itself, infants or little children are free of "original" or committed sin because according to Jesus, "of such (infants or little childen) is the kingdom of heaven" (Luke 18:16,15). And we know that NO sinner can ENTER the kingdom of heaven.

Thus, the practice of BAPTIZING infants is NOT in conformity with Christ's COMMAND to baptize those who HEAR the gospel and BELIEVE (Mark 16:15-16).
Infants and little children die, this plain fact negates the entirety of your odd reasoning. Romans 6:23

Thomas2003,

Apostle Paul was referring to the "second death at the lake of fire" (Rev. 20:14-15) when he wrote that the "wages of sin is death" (Rom. 6:23).

Infants, little children, old people, young people, ALL men DIE because "it is appointed for men to DIE once, but after this the JUDGMENT" (Heb. 9:27).

BTW Thomas 2003, what is ODD about my reasoning?

IncRus

September 15th 2005, 06:34 PM

Luke 18:17 "I tell you the truth, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it."

It says one must "receive the kingdom of God like a little child". So the child must also receive the kingdom of God. This suggests the decision to believe for both adults and children.

Arnold,

If we compare scripture with scripture like HOW the Holy Spirit teaches (1 Cor. 2:13), we will learn that this is NOT about "making a decision to believe" as you put it.

Jesus said to Nicodemus, "...UNLESS one is born again, he CANNOT see the kingdom of God....UNLESS one is born of water and the Spirit, he CANNOT enter the kingdom of God" (John 3:3,5).

But Jesus said to his disciples, "Let the little children come to me and do not forbid them; for of such is the kingdom of God" (Luke 18:16).

Notice the DIFFERENCE Arnold? Man NEEDS to be "born again of water and the Spirit" in order to "see AND enter the kingdom of God." But little children CAN enter the kingdom of God WITHOUT having to be "born again" because according to Jesus, the kingdom of God BELONGS to them!

Why the DIFFERENCE? HOW is it for men to "receive the kingdom of God like a child?" Why does a MAN need to be "born again" while little children need NOT?

Let's look at how the New King James Version renders Luke 18:17 and Mark 10:15:

Luke 18:17 - "Assuredly, I say to you, whoever does NOT receive the kingdom of God AS a little child will by no means enter it."

Mark 10:15 - "Assuredly, I say to you, whoever does NOT receive the kingdom of God AS a little child will by no means enter it."

How does one "receive the kingdom of God AS a little child?"

An adult has to be "born again" while a little child does NOT need to.

An adult has to HEAR the gospel, BELIEVE the gospel and get BAPTIZED in order to be SAVED (Mark 16:15-16) while a little child does NOT need to.

The Bible does NOT say that the infants and little children that were being brought to Jesus have been "born again" or "baptized," yet, Jesus said that "of such (infants and little children) is the kingdom of God."

HOW do "infants and little children" RECEIVE the kingdom of God?

Matthew 18:3 answers: "Assuredly I say to you, unless you are CONVERTED and become AS little children, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven."

To be "CONVERTED and becoming AS little children" means to be "born again of water and the Spirit" (John 3:3,5), "putting on Christ" (Gal. 3:27), or "putting on the new man which was created according to God (in His IMAGE), in RIGHTEOUSNESS and HOLINESS" (Eph. 4:24).

In other words, "receive the kingdom AS little children" means "become SINLESS (righteous and holy) as little children."

Arnold

September 15th 2005, 07:07 PM

Mt.18.4 Therefore, whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.

One must be humble like a child is humble.

Luke 18:17 "I tell you the truth, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it."

It says one must "receive the kingdom of God like a little child". So the child must also receive the kingdom of God.

And how do they receive the kingdom?

Mt.18.6 But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me

!Fluffy!

September 15th 2005, 07:14 PM

Arnold,

If we compare scripture with scripture like HOW the Holy Spirit teaches (1 Cor. 2:13), we will learn that this is NOT about "making a decision to believe" as you put it.

Jesus said to Nicodemus, "...UNLESS one is born again, he CANNOT see the kingdom of God....UNLESS one is born of water and the Spirit, he CANNOT enter the kingdom of God" (John 3:3,5).

But Jesus said to his disciples, "Let the little children come to me and do not forbid them; for of such is the kingdom of God" (Luke 18:16).

Notice the DIFFERENCE Arnold? Man NEEDS to be "born again of water and the Spirit" in order to "see AND enter the kingdom of God." But little children CAN enter the kingdom of God WITHOUT having to be "born again" because according to Jesus, the kingdom of God BELONGS to them!

Why the DIFFERENCE? HOW is it for men to "receive the kingdom of God like a child?" Why does a MAN need to be "born again" while little children need NOT?

Let's look at how the New King James Version renders Luke 18:17 and Mark 10:15:

Luke 18:17 - "Assuredly, I say to you, whoever does NOT receive the kingdom of God AS a little child will by no means enter it."

Mark 10:15 - "Assuredly, I say to you, whoever does NOT receive the kingdom of God AS a little child will by no means enter it."

How does one "receive the kingdom of God AS a little child?"

An adult has to be "born again" while a little child does NOT need to.

An adult has to HEAR the gospel, BELIEVE the gospel and get BAPTIZED in order to be SAVED (Mark 16:15-16) while a little child does NOT need to.

The Bible does NOT say that the infants and little children that were being brought to Jesus have been "born again" or "baptized," yet, Jesus said that "of such (infants and little children) is the kingdom of God."

HOW do "infants and little children" RECEIVE the kingdom of God?

Matthew 18:3 answers: "Assuredly I say to you, unless you are CONVERTED and become AS little children, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven."

To be "CONVERTED and becoming AS little children" means to be "born again of water and the Spirit" (John 3:3,5), "putting on Christ" (Gal. 3:27), or "putting on the new man which was created according to God (in His IMAGE), in RIGHTEOUSNESS and HOLINESS" (Eph. 4:24).

In other words, "receive the kingdom AS little children" means "become SINLESS (righteous and holy) as little children."

Actually, I believe our Lord was quite clear in His message. It is WE who would confound the simple truth into convoluted meanderings.

Something little children never do.

What obvious quality would one observe in a little child, held before us as an example by the One who created her? That she is sinless? That she is always good and perfect? That she is never naughty or wayward?

No.

It is that she is open, trusting, and without guile. It is that she reaches for the hand of her Father to lead her without trying to second-guess His motives. It is that she returns His love enthusiastically, accepts His admonishments humbly, that she snuggles close to Him and loves Him with all her little heart.

IMHO.

Arnold

September 15th 2005, 07:22 PM

IncRus

September 15th 2005, 11:44 PM

Actually, I believe our Lord was quite clear in His message. It is WE who would confound the simple truth into convoluted meanderings.

Something little children never do.

What obvious quality would one observe in a little child, held before us as an example by the One who created her? That she is sinless? That she is always good and perfect? That she is never naughty or wayward?

No.

It is that she is open, trusting, and without guile. It is that she reaches for the hand of her Father to lead her without trying to second-guess His motives. It is that she returns His love enthusiastically, accepts His admonishments humbly, that she snuggles close to Him and loves Him with all her little heart.

IMHO.

Moon Woman,

I wish you were the savior and it were that easy to ENTER the kingdom of heaven. Unfortunately, you are NOT the savior and anything you say that is NOT found in the Bible can only lead one to eternal damnation.

Biblically speaking, for one to be RECONCILED to God, one NEEDS for his sins to be FORGIVEN because it is SIN that separates man from God (Isaiah 59:2). But WITHOUT the shedding of blood, there can be NO remission (Heb. 9:22). That's why God SENT Jesus to DIE for sinners (Rom. 5:8). That's why Jesus built his CHURCH (Matt.16:18), his "BODY" (Eph. 1:22-23) in order to RECONCILE, Jews and Gentiles alike, to God in one BODY through the cross (Eph. 2:16).

Jesus said that the kingdom of God BELONGS to infants and little children. That means that infants and little children are NOT enemies of God because they do NOT have SIN that separeates them from God. That means that infants and children do NOT need to be RECONCILED to God. The kingdom of God ALREADY belongs to them.

Thus, for one to ENTER the kingdom of God, one must BECOME as an infant and little child, HUMBLE and WIHOUT sin. And yes, trusting, open and without guile, IN ADDITION to having one's SINS forgiven by the REDEMPTIVE power of Christ's blood.

john-philip

September 16th 2005, 12:46 AM

john-philip

September 16th 2005, 12:50 AM

Moon Woman,

I wish you were the savior and it were that easy to ENTER the kingdom of heaven. Unfortunately, you are NOT the savior and anything you say that is NOT found in the Bible can only lead one to eternal damnation.

Biblically speaking, for one to be RECONCILED to God, one NEEDS for his sins to be FORGIVEN because it is SIN that separates man from God (Isaiah 59:2). But WITHOUT the shedding of blood, there can be NO remission (Heb. 9:22). That's why God SENT Jesus to DIE for sinners (Rom. 5:8). That's why Jesus built his CHURCH (Matt.16:18), his "BODY" (Eph. 1:22-23) in order to RECONCILE, Jews and Gentiles alike, to God in one BODY through the cross (Eph. 2:16).

Jesus said that the kingdom of God BELONGS to infants and little children. That means that infants and little children are NOT enemies of God because they do NOT have SIN that separeates them from God. That means that infants and children do NOT need to be RECONCILED to God. The kingdom of God ALREADY belongs to them.

Thus, for one to ENTER the kingdom of God, one must BECOME as an infant and little child, HUMBLE and WIHOUT sin. And yes, trusting, open and without guile, IN ADDITION to having one's SINS forgiven by the REDEMPTIVE power of Christ's blood.
Just some friendly advice, Incrus, the seemingly random capitalization of words can be somewhat distracting from the message and points you are wanting to get across (ironically enough.) :shrug:

smaller

September 16th 2005, 11:00 AM

One would think that a claim like this is outlandish and incomprehensible on its face. However, a state legislator I once had a meeting with actually held to this view and referred to it as a moral foundation for not opposing abortion.

Abortion was, in his terms, one means of Christian evangelism.

Followin this was the first time I had ever said an imprecatory prayer, it has also been my last.

From what I read you are a Calvinist right? And as such you would not allow "unsaved" babies into heaven either, but rather invoke them to eternal human torture without recourse.

john-philip

September 16th 2005, 11:03 AM

From what I read you are a Calvinist right? And as such you would not allow "unsaved" babies into heaven either, but rather invoke them to eternal human torture without recourse.

No, calvinists hold to various stances on the issue, IIRC. And even if they don't, they certainly can and still be consistent with whatever the rest of calvinism may entail.

Thomas2003

September 16th 2005, 12:44 PM

Thomas2003,

Apostle Paul was referring to the "second death at the lake of fire" (Rev. 20:14-15) when he wrote that the "wages of sin is death" (Rom. 6:23).

Infants, little children, old people, young people, ALL men DIE because "it is appointed for men to DIE once, but after this the JUDGMENT" (Heb. 9:27).

BTW Thomas 2003, what is ODD about my reasoning?

It's greek - you assert the nature-grace dialetic pretty much consistently, from what I've seen. Hence, you conlcude that the Church is not only the ministry of Grace but all of life must be comprehended by and through it - outside of it there is no salvation. It's just a reassertion of the old Greek form-matter dialetic is Christian terminology.

Thomas2003

September 16th 2005, 12:51 PM

smaller

September 16th 2005, 01:01 PM

No, calvinists hold to various stances on the issue, IIRC. And even if they don't, they certainly can and still be consistent with whatever the rest of calvinism may entail.

The observation then remains, that if some Calvinists prescribe babies to heaven then these babies should be killed to spare them eternal conscious torment.

And for the Calvinist that prescibes "unbaptised" (or whatever performance measure is used to determine babies salvation status) babies who have died to eternal conscious torment, well excuse me but that is more than revolting and another fine criticism for Calvinism.

And it leaves an even larger difficulty for freewillers. Under the freewill doctrines no person should be allowed to reach the age of "95% guaranteed eternal conscious torment."

Thomas2003

September 16th 2005, 01:11 PM

From what I read you are a Calvinist right?

Yes.

And as such you would not allow "unsaved" babies into heaven either, but rather invoke them to eternal human torture without recourse.

No.

john-philip

September 16th 2005, 01:16 PM

The observation then remains, that if some Calvinists prescribe babies to heaven then these babies should be killed to spare them eternal conscious torment.

And for the Calvinist that prescibes "unbaptised" (or whatever performance measure is used to determine babies salvation status) babies who have died to eternal conscious torment, well excuse me but that is more than revolting and another fine criticism for Calvinism.

And it leaves an even larger difficulty for freewillers. Under the freewill doctrines no person should be allowed to reach the age of "95% guaranteed eternal conscious torment."

Wrong on both accounts. :smile:

If calvinists hold the "in between" position that some babies go to hell and some to heaven, then surely killing them would be an awful decision, since they can't know for sure.

As for "freewillers", (which I take as a derogatory term for those who believe in libertarian free will :glare: ) they can hold to the position I stated earlier: babies who die in infancy or earlier are saved based on how they would have chosen had they lived.

smaller

September 16th 2005, 02:01 PM

Wrong on both accounts. :smile:

If calvinists hold the "in between" position that some babies go to hell and some to heaven, then surely killing them would be an awful decision, since they can't know for sure.

"Some" Calvinists will certainly ascribe salvation of babies to certain performances and to say that Performer A is saved and Non-Performer B is condemned is not a "I don't know" position.

I suspect that most believers in eternal conscious human torture will mealy mouth on this position anyway...;)

As for "freewillers", (which I take as a derogatory term for those who believe in libertarian free will :glare: ) they can hold to the position I stated earlier: babies who die in infancy or earlier are saved based on how they would have chosen had they lived.

Another glaring contradiction arises. "Saved by the possibility of a choice that would never be made prior to physical death."

heh heh heh

You guys are a hoot.

smaller

September 16th 2005, 02:13 PM

Yes.

No.

So your position is that all babies are saved or I don't know except the ones who are baptised under the Calvin flag are saved and I don't know on the balance?

The scales weigh in somewhere and if the scale is "I don't know" that's certainly a better view than "not possible" they are burning alive presently.

Thomas2003

September 16th 2005, 02:23 PM

So your position is that all babies are saved or I don't know except the ones who are baptised under the Calvin flag are saved and I don't know on the balance?

The scales weigh in somewhere and if the scale is "I don't know" that's certainly a better view than "not possible" they are burning alive presently.

Well, you didn't ask me what my position was, but stated: "as such you would not allow "unsaved" babies into heaven either, but rather invoke them to eternal human torture without recourse."

You would be correct to presume I see children guilty of sin, but I derive that from Scripture. There eternal disposition I have a theory upon, but it is derived merely from logical inference - as Scripture doesn't reveal it. Either side on that is merely conjecture, so it's not a "doctrine" to me, but appears to be to you.

I think what you first have to deal with is your presuppositions and figure out why and the justness of why these babies die.

smaller

September 16th 2005, 02:42 PM

Well, you didn't ask me what my position was, but stated: "as such you would not allow "unsaved" babies into heaven either, but rather invoke them to eternal human torture without recourse."

You forgot the big ? at the end of that statement...

You would be correct to presume I see children guilty of sin, but I derive that from Scripture. There eternal disposition I have a theory upon, but it is derived merely from logical inference - as Scripture doesn't reveal it.

Your unofficial doctrinal position is then...what?

Either side on that is merely conjecture, so it's not a "doctrine" to me, but appears to be to you.

So you are firmly in the camp of "I don't know but I have a guess that is only a guess and it's impossible to say from the scriptures?"

I think what you first have to deal with is your presuppositions and figure out why and the justness of why these babies die.

I have presumed nothing upon your positions but a ? mark.

As to the justness of babies death what can I say. We all die, it's just a question of timing.

Thomas2003

September 16th 2005, 02:59 PM

You forgot the big ? at the end of that statement...

Your unofficial doctrinal position is then...what?

Don't have one on that subject.

So you are firmly in the camp of "I don't know but I have a guess that is only a guess and it's impossible to say from the scriptures?"

Pretty much I guess, I don't see where it is an issue. Anymore than the disposition of people who never heard the Gospel. The Old Testament is filled with entire races that were wiped off the face of the earth and this was never an issue, then or now. I guess, in my view, you have to deal with the disposition of the Amorites, the Philistines &c.

The Gospel simply isn't based or derived from an equalitarianism and this seems to be the faith you are asserting and requiring the Gospel to conform to.

I have presumed nothing upon your positions but a ? mark.

As to the justness of babies death what can I say. We all die, it's just a question of timing.

It sure didn't seem that way to me. But avoidance of the problem, just avoids dealing with the presupposition you hold. Which is fine, doesn't matter to me. But you certainly seem to be accusative when you presume others don't hold to your presupposition.

smaller

September 16th 2005, 03:09 PM

Don't have one on that subject.

Pretty much I guess, I don't see where it is an issue. Anymore than the disposition of people who never heard the Gospel. The Old Testament is filled with entire races that were wiped off the face of the earth and this was never an issue, then or now. I guess, in my view, you have to deal with the disposition of the Amorites, the Philistines &c.

You can mask your views if it suits you, but of course kniowing your disposition as a Calvinist on the eternal fates of the Amorites and the Philistines as your correlation to child salvation, there is certainly no dispute about the fates of these former in Calvinism is there-->? Is this also an "I don't know" position or a predestination issue-->?"

The Gospel simply isn't based or derived from an equalitarianism and this seems to be the faith you are asserting and requiring the Gospel to conform to.

I have never ascribed any equalitarianism to people in this present life in any way.

Those who suppose post physical death eternal damnation to enemies of the Gospel do have some dilemas to pass in the scriptures for this understanding IMHO.

It sure didn't seem that way to me.

As previously noted you do have a bottom line somewhere along the bottom line. Masking the bottom line doesn't suit you but you can only turn the tab on a can of beans for so long before the lid comes off...;)

But avoidance of the problem, just avoids dealing with the presupposition you hold.

Who's avoiding?

Which is fine, doesn't matter to me. But you certainly seem to be accusative when you presume others don't hold to your presupposition.

When did question marks become accusations?

??

john-philip

September 16th 2005, 03:24 PM

"Some" Calvinists will certainly ascribe salvation of babies to certain performances and to say that Performer A is saved and Non-Performer B is condemned is not a "I don't know" position.

I suspect that most believers in eternal conscious human torture will mealy mouth on this position anyway...;)

This really went over my head. :huh: Is your first sentence here an interpretation of what you think I was saying? Why are we talking about "performances" and an "I don't know" position?

My point was that some calvinists may say that God chooses to elect some babies and not elect others. The purpose of my response was to show that calvinists do not need to take the position to either extreme that you are pushing them into.

Another glaring contradiction arises. "Saved by the possibility of a choice that would never be made prior to physical death."

Would you like to point out the "glaring contradiction" along with where I said that babies are saved by "the possibility of a choice"? I said that it might be the case that God saves unborn babies according to how they would choose if they lived. That's more than just how it is possible for them to choose - it is how they would choose. What you seem to want to deny is that such a circumstance (the baby living) is impossible, but hey, that rests upon your shoulders to show, not mine.

Can you succinctly spell out this contradiction?

smaller

September 16th 2005, 03:44 PM

This really went over my head. :huh: Is your first sentence here an interpretation of what you think I was saying? Why are we talking about "performances" and an "I don't know" position?

If you are saying that Calvinists are spread across the board on this subject I'd probably agree, but I would also say that most of them are not as spread as you present and that most of them will probably fall along the party line of unbaptised babies in hell when pressed.

My point was that some calvinists may say that God chooses to elect some babies and not elect others. The purpose of my response was to show that calvinists do not need to take the position to either extreme that you are pushing them into.

And I say they just hide their real position under the flag of I don't know.

Would you like to point out the "glaring contradiction" along with where I said that babies are saved by "the possibility of a choice"?

"Saved by the possibility of choice that was never made" is a new one to me that was somewhat humorous. Would you say this possibility of salvation via a choice not made but possibly made could apply to someone past the age of accountability? You don't have to step into my trap...;)

I said that it might be the case that God saves unborn babies according to how they would choose if they lived. That's more than just how it is possible for them to choose - it is how they would choose.

OK. Let's say there was a chance that everyone would make an affirmative choice at some point (not actually made.) Is this on your possibility radar screen?

What you seem to want to deny is that such a circumstance (the baby living) is impossible, but hey, that rests upon your shoulders to show, not mine.

My point was that IF there is an age of accountability or a CHANCE of salvation as opposed to a guarantee WHY let that happen? Many "freewill" mothers have arrived at this conclusion when they murdered their children to spare them from eternal torture. It's a kind act under that doctrine.

Can you succinctly spell out this contradiction?

Let's elaborate on it first. I am rather fascinated in the possibility of being saved by an affirmative choice that could have been made but was not...;)

john-philip

September 16th 2005, 04:11 PM

Hi Smaller.

If you are saying that Calvinists are spread across the board on this subject I'd probably agree, but I would also say that most of them are not as spread as you present and that most of them will probably fall along the party line of unbaptised babies in hell when pressed.

Well, that's not been my personal experience with calvinists, but ultimately it doesn't matter. My main point was that "calvinism" itself (or the TULIP, if you will) does not necessitate one particular view on the salvation of unborn children.

And I say they just hide their real position under the flag of I don't know.

Possibly, but I don't see what the intellectual benefit of doing so would be. Why would they not want to defend what they actually believe?

"Saved by the possibility of choice that was never made" is a new one to me that was somewhat humorous. Would you say this possibility of salvation via a choice not made but possibly made could apply to someone past the age of accountability? You don't have to step into my trap...;)

I'm not entirely sure what you are asking. You have a really long way of asking what I'm suspecting is a simple question, and I also suspect you are doing this in order to strawman the position I'm defending and make it sound like philosophical nonsense. I also think you are bringing up a red herring - how those passed the age of accountability would choose if they lived longer may not be considered, especially when they've already had the chance to make a decision. That is, those passed the age of accountability have already made a choice for which they are responsible, whereas babies and infants have not.

OK. Let's say there was a chance that everyone would make an affirmative choice at some point (not actually made.) Is this on your possibility radar screen?

I think you're assuming that the position extends to those passed the age of accountability - it does not. BTW, to be clear, it's not just based on whether the baby would have a chance to choose Christ, but whether it is true that the baby, in fact, would choose Christ. So, even if it was possible for all those who die in infancy, or before, to choose Christ if they had lived, there is no way for us to know, if it is true that they would.

My point was that IF there is an age of accountability or a CHANCE of salvation as opposed to a guarantee WHY let that happen? Many "freewill" mothers have arrived at this conclusion when they murdered their children to spare them from eternal torture. It's a kind act under that doctrine.

Not under my "doctrine." It would be just the same as killing your friend when you don't know if they've accepted Christ.

Let's elaborate on it first. I am rather fascinated in the possibility of being saved by an affirmative choice that could have been made but was not...;)

That's cool. It's AKA the truth-value of a metaphysically possible counterfactal of creaturely freedom.

IncRus

September 16th 2005, 04:26 PM

IncRus

September 16th 2005, 04:31 PM

Arnold

September 16th 2005, 04:33 PM

Arnold,

Does this mean you THINK Jesus was WRONG in saying, "...Let the little children come to me and do not forbid them; for of such is the kingdom of God" (Luke 18:16)?No - I think you are wrong. You missed (skipped?) one of my posts...

IncRus

September 16th 2005, 04:53 PM

In The Only Wise God William Lane Craig discusses how one of his colleagues asserted that infants who pass away might be judged on how they would have chosen if they had lived. I find this interesting, because it avoids two 'problems' (at opposite ends) that seem to arise. One, the level of responsibility of an infant (or unborn child) in (not) being able to choose Christ and being condemned to hell, and two, the problem of an infant or unborn child not being responsible, and thus being saved because they could not choose (the problem being killing a baby effectively saves him.) Just another reason to accept middle knowledge. :wink:

john-philip,

What could that "middle knowledge be?" Jesus is clear about this. He said, "...Let the little children come to me and do not forbid them; for of such is the kingdom of God" (Luke 18:16).

Thus, if infants or little children die at such stage in their life, they are assured of salvation on the day of judgment.

The Bible does not say that "infants who pass away might be judged on how they would have chosen if they had lived." This is pure speculation.

Jesus has said that "of such is the kingdom of God." There is no more judgment if they die at such stage. Hence, there are no problems attendant to the death of infants and little children.

john-philip

September 16th 2005, 05:46 PM

john-philip,

What could that "middle knowledge be?" Jesus is clear about this. He said, "...Let the little children come to me and do not forbid them; for of such is the kingdom of God" (Luke 18:16).

Thus, if infants or little children die at such stage in their life, they are assured of salvation on the day of judgment.

The Bible does not say that "infants who pass away might be judged on how they would have chosen if they had lived." This is pure speculation.

Jesus has said that "of such is the kingdom of God." There is no more judgment if they die at such stage. Hence, there are no problems attendant to the death of infants and little children.
It is also pure speculation to insist that the passage you are quoting unequivocally supports your position. Maybe you could give a deductive argument that shows how it does.

smaller

September 16th 2005, 06:04 PM

smaller,

Of course, "Christian Universalism" is WRONG! What Jesus said about "the kingdom of God belonging to infants and little children" (Luke 18:16) should NOT be used to JUSTIFY abortion. In the eyes of God, abortion is CONTRARY to His command NOT to kill.

You miss the point (as usual.) Abortion is justified IF those babies are spared eternal conscious torment in hell and THAT is why your position is phony.

smaller

September 16th 2005, 06:10 PM

Hi Smaller.

I'm not entirely sure what you are asking. You have a really long way of asking what I'm suspecting is a simple question, and I also suspect you are doing this in order to strawman the position I'm defending and make it sound like philosophical nonsense. I also think you are bringing up a red herring -

Protests of what you think I may do? hmmm? Moving on...

how those passed the age of accountability would choose if they lived longer may not be considered, especially when they've already had the chance to make a decision.

So once their chance is had they no longer have a chance, even if they may have made an affirmative decision later? Is this your final answer? God already knows who will answer affirmatively and who will not in any case.

That is, those passed the age of accountability have already made a choice for which they are responsible, whereas babies and infants have not.

Hence my prior observation.

You are guessing that God sorts out the pieces for babies, saves those who would have made an affirmative decision, and does in fact probably burn most of them alive in conscious torment for all of eternity based on any reasonable assement of percentages.

I think you're assuming that the position extends to those passed the age of accountability - it does not. BTW, to be clear, it's not just based on whether the baby would have a chance to choose Christ, but whether it is true that the baby, in fact, would choose Christ. So, even if it was possible for all those who die in infancy, or before, to choose Christ if they had lived, there is no way for us to know, if it is true that they would.

Not under my "doctrine." It would be just the same as killing your friend when you don't know if they've accepted Christ.

That's cool. It's AKA the truth-value of a metaphysically possible counterfactal of creaturely freedom.

I'll have to think about that one for awhile...;)

Thomas2003

September 17th 2005, 11:28 AM

You can mask your views if it suits you, but of course kniowing your disposition as a Calvinist on the eternal fates of the Amorites and the Philistines as your correlation to child salvation, there is certainly no dispute about the fates of these former in Calvinism is there-->? Is this also an "I don't know" position or a predestination issue-->?"

Apparently not, and no intention to mask anything exists in anything I said. I don't know the disposition of the souls of infants, the Scripture doesn't reveal it. David speaks as to the election of his son. I presume my children are elect, but there isn't anything I can do about it - I have no control over the grave, can't prevent my own death let alone anyone elses nor does formulating a belief have any effect on the disposition of souls.

But again, it's not a doctrine - no where are we instructed to preach the disposition of the souls of infants, or to even draw a doctrine upon it. The thread originated from the concept the Arminianism does draw a doctrine upon it and one manifestation of that doctrine is psuedo-christian support for abortion, which I personally experienced.

Even if a Calvinist held that all infants were predestinated to hell, an argument which could be made from it's presupposition, they would never advocate abortion as the means of grace.

I have never ascribed any equalitarianism to people in this present life in any way.

The posture and general hostile tone of your posts leads me to presume that. You have a general air of hostility in your approach, tone, structure of words, and method of delivery. A lot can be read into and from that and necessarily so - because a lot is intended by it, but it is harder to properly interepret from posts than in person.

Those who suppose post physical death eternal damnation to enemies of the Gospel do have some dilemas to pass in the scriptures for this understanding IMHO.

If you'd like to discuss those that would be fine.

As previously noted you do have a bottom line somewhere along the bottom line. Masking the bottom line doesn't suit you but you can only turn the tab on a can of beans for so long before the lid comes off...;)

I don't understand what that means.

Who's avoiding?

I asked a specific question that would require some consideration, becaue you seem to presuppose some innocence in children, yet they suffer the Judgment of death - you just avoided it as an entirety.

When did question marks become accusations?

It's the general tone of your posts, they are colored with contempt.

smaller

September 17th 2005, 12:15 PM

Apparently not, and no intention to mask anything exists in anything I said. I don't know the disposition of the souls of infants, the Scripture doesn't reveal it.

Oh?

Perhaps this scripture only applies to "children" of Israel?

Ezekiel 18:4
Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine

hmmm. I wonder what God is going to do with His "souls?"

David speaks as to the election of his son. I presume my children are elect, but there isn't anything I can do about it - I have no control over the grave, can't prevent my own death let alone anyone elses nor does formulating a belief have any effect on the disposition of souls.

Can we believe God's Words in hope for all?

But again, it's not a doctrine - no where are we instructed to preach the disposition of the souls of infants, or to even draw a doctrine upon it. The thread originated from the concept the Arminianism does draw a doctrine upon it and one manifestation of that doctrine is psuedo-christian support for abortion, which I personally experienced.

I understand the conflict contained there. The preferential camp in this matter from both sides seems to be the I don't know version.

Which leaves me with only ONE conclusion from either camp and that is that God burns "some if not most" babies alive in conscious torment when they die.

Even if a Calvinist held that all infants were predestinated to hell, an argument which could be made from it's presupposition, they would never advocate abortion as the means of grace.

Under Calvinism it would not matter. It is not possible to lose a "real" member of the elect and it's not possible to save a non-elect.

The posture and general hostile tone of your posts leads me to presume that.

If you sense that I have a general distaste for the promotion of eternal human torture, particularly in regards to babies, you would have a correct assumption.

You have a general air of hostility in your approach, tone, structure of words, and method of delivery.

Indeed. There are certain things in men that I detest. What is the worst thing one man could vaunt against another?

Now compare what you think to what I think and a difference may arise. No matter how hostile I may appear to your mind the detesting of someones promotions would pale in comparision to "yours." Nothing I could do will equal the amount of vile hatred that is generated by one man saying another man will burn alive forever.

A lot can be read into and from that and necessarily so - because a lot is intended by it, but it is harder to properly interepret from posts than in person.

Yeah, those people who believe that God is Love to all men, that Love never fails, does no ill, keeps no records of wrongs are a genuine threat.

If you'd like to discuss those that would be fine.

I am referring specifically to Romans 11:25-31 wherein enemies of the Gospel are saved.

I don't understand what that means.

What it means is that logically speaking in terms of percentages of the elect as an expression of the general populace and only the elect are saved to say one does not know the disposition of the eternal fates of babies could be somewhat disingenuous as theoretically it be no different than that of the general populace so logic would be speaking to you somewhere along the line.

I asked a specific question that would require some consideration, becaue you seem to presuppose some innocence in children, yet they suffer the Judgment of death - you just avoided it as an entirety.

I see separation between mankind who are all God's offspring (Acts 17:25-30) and the sin indwelling the flesh of mankind (Romans 7:17,20-21 and others) so it is conceivable to hold to eternal damnation and the salvation of all men. It's a legitimate approach to the text IMHO.

It's the general tone of your posts, they are colored with contempt.

Rightfully so. Eternal human torture in the name of Love is quite a conundrum and I am more than suspicious of it for a multitude of reasons. But of course I have had at least one Calvinist here admit that God will burn His Own offspring alive forever. I just find any substantiation of that position either by a single named example or by a general statement. On that basis (among others) I am rather distrustful of what men may have come up with to manipulate their fellow man. go figure.

And remember, no matter how much hostility you may sense from me (that which is in you does indeed sense it) my most vile act would never compare to the hell you hold in your heart to your fellow man whom you have been commanded to love, baby status notwithstanding.

enjoy!

smaller

Thomas2003

September 17th 2005, 11:26 PM

Oh?

Perhaps this scripture only applies to "children" of Israel?

Ezekiel 18:4
Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine

hmmm. I wonder what God is going to do with His "souls?"

Well, sir, I never denied the Lord doesn't claim ownership of all His creation, you may wish to reference Psalms 24:1 as well.

Can we believe God's Words in hope for all?

Do you mean can we believe in a universal atonement?

I understand the conflict contained there. The preferential camp in this matter from both sides seems to be the I don't know version.

Which leaves me with only ONE conclusion from either camp and that is that God burns "some if not most" babies alive in conscious torment when they die.

I think Arminians believe all children are innocent and don't need salvation.

Under Calvinism it would not matter. It is not possible to lose a "real" member of the elect and it's not possible to save a non-elect.

Yes, salvation is a creative act of God.

If you sense that I have a general distaste for the promotion of eternal human torture, particularly in regards to babies, you would have a correct assumption.

Why, what difference does it make? I can see having a problem with promoting abortion - but I have no problem with Arminians general belief that all children are saved, most would never carry that out - it is a fringe element that does so.

Indeed. There are certain things in men that I detest. What is the worst thing one man could vaunt against another?

Now compare what you think to what I think and a difference may arise. No matter how hostile I may appear to your mind the detesting of someones promotions would pale in comparision to "yours." Nothing I could do will equal the amount of vile hatred that is generated by one man saying another man will burn alive forever.

Oh, nonsense. God is the Judge, He is the one who created hell and judges men, not other men.

Yeah, those people who believe that God is Love to all men, that Love never fails, does no ill, keeps no records of wrongs are a genuine threat.

Can you explain what you are talking about?

I am referring specifically to Romans 11:25-31 wherein enemies of the Gospel are saved.

OK

What it means is that logically speaking in terms of percentages of the elect as an expression of the general populace and only the elect are saved to say one does not know the disposition of the eternal fates of babies could be somewhat disingenuous as theoretically it be no different than that of the general populace so logic would be speaking to you somewhere along the line.

As I stated, one can generally only obtain logical references. However, it could also be a premise of election to insure Covenantal standing as your Scriptural reference may be read - that some are held in unbelief on behalf of others. Nevertheless, it is God who justifies.

I see separation between mankind who are all God's offspring (Acts 17:25-30) and the sin indwelling the flesh of mankind (Romans 7:17,20-21 and others) so it is conceivable to hold to eternal damnation and the salvation of all men. It's a legitimate approach to the text IMHO.

I approach the texts from the presupposition of the Incarnation of Christ. But universalism is a logical and consistent conclusion of Arminianism, generally though and thankfully, most Arminians are not consistent.

Rightfully so. Eternal human torture in the name of Love is quite a conundrum and I am more than suspicious of it for a multitude of reasons.

Well, you were saying that all you did was ask a question, now you are affirming that your intent was contemptious. Hell isn't premised upon love.

But of course I have had at least one Calvinist here admit that God will burn His Own offspring alive forever. I just find any substantiation of that position either by a single named example or by a general statement. On that basis (among others) I am rather distrustful of what men may have come up with to manipulate their fellow man. go figure.

Really, in what context was that discussed?

And remember, no matter how much hostility you may sense from me (that which is in you does indeed sense it) my most vile act would never compare to the hell you hold in your heart to your fellow man whom you have been commanded to love, baby status notwithstanding.

Well, there you go again with your baseless accusations. Your statements are really weird...."vile act....hell you hold in your heart..." blah, bunch of pious gush.

Owen

September 18th 2005, 11:18 PM

Another verse I think that needs to be placed into the realm of discussion is Romans 7:7-12:
What shall we say then? Is the Law sin? May it never be! On the contrary, I would not have come to know sin except through the Law; for I would not have known about coveting if the Law had not said, "YOU SHALL NOT COVET." But sin, taking opportunity through the commandment, produced in me coveting of every kind; for apart from the Law sin is dead. I was once alive apart from the Law; but when the commandment came, sin became alive and I died; and this commandment, which was to result in life, proved to result in death for me; for sin, taking an opportunity through the commandment, deceived me and through it killed me. So then, the Law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good.

Paul spoke of a time before the Law came (and assumably, where he understood the Law) and that he was alive beforehand. This alludes to a time before sin kills a man.

So from this verse in conjunction of the rest of the verses, I would conclude that all children that who have not really understood what sin is (or more basic, wrong) are saved, because sin is not imputed where there is no law (Romans 5:13). However, once they sin after understanding what sin is, they die spiritually and must become born again in order to have eternal life.

They die physically because their flesh is corrupted by sin, thus they must die physically. However, the spirit at conception until first knowledgable sin is pure and undefiled, like the spirit of a born again person. At the first knowledgeable sin however, the child dies spiritually and thus needs to be born again spiriturally.

As for the argument that if infants will go to heaven then abortion is justified, that is fallacious thinking. By that thinking, it would be fine to kill a born again person, because he would then be guaranteed eternal life (of course I believe a person can fall from salvation). The argument has no real merit.

john-philip

September 19th 2005, 01:14 AM

Protests of what you think I may do? hmmm? Moving on...

:lol: Nice one!

To be sure, no, I was speculating on what you may be doing (presently) not what you may do (in the future.)

So once their chance is had they no longer have a chance, even if they may have made an affirmative decision later? Is this your final answer? God already knows who will answer affirmatively and who will not in any case.

That would be a bit of a strawman. What I am saying is that God holds us responsible for the decisions we make. In the case that we have not made a decision, He might hold us responsible for how we would choose, if we were placed in that circumstance.

You are guessing that God sorts out the pieces for babies, saves those who would have made an affirmative decision, and does in fact probably burn most of them alive in conscious torment for all of eternity based on any reasonable assement of percentages.

That's not my position at all, I'm afraid. My positions is that since it might be possible that God judges unborn babies and children who die in infancy according to how they would choose, it is entirely unreasonable, (to say the very least!) to kill a baby in order to bring "salvation" to that baby.

john-philip

September 19th 2005, 01:19 AM

Another verse I think that needs to be placed into the realm of discussion is Romans 7:7-12:

Paul spoke of a time before the Law came (and assumably, where he understood the Law) and that he was alive beforehand. This alludes to a time before sin kills a man.

So from this verse in conjunction of the rest of the verses, I would conclude that all children that who have not really understood what sin is (or more basic, wrong) are saved, because sin is not imputed where there is no law (Romans 5:13). However, once they sin after understanding what sin is, they die spiritually and must become born again in order to have eternal life.

They die physically because their flesh is corrupted by sin, thus they must die physically. However, the spirit at conception until first knowledgable sin is pure and undefiled, like the spirit of a born again person. At the first knowledgeable sin however, the child dies spiritually and thus needs to be born again spiriturally.

As for the argument that if infants will go to heaven then abortion is justified, that is fallacious thinking. By that thinking, it would be fine to kill a born again person, because he would then be guaranteed eternal life (of course I believe a person can fall from salvation). The argument has no real merit.

I think you may have a point there with respect to your last paragraph. Except, your defense (or your specefic example) will not go over in the OSAS crowd. Anyway, I like your point, and I would love to see it get fleshed out a bit more.

brother vinny

September 19th 2005, 01:20 AM

Does this mean you THINK Jesus was WRONG in saying, "...Let the little children come to me and do not forbid them; for of such is the kingdom of God" (Luke 18:16)?

No, but your interpretation is off. Jesus was saying if you still suck your thumb and crap your pants, you're elligible for acceptance into the kingdom.

betzerg

September 19th 2005, 01:25 AM

Christian Universalism posits that if babies go to heaven when they die then abortion is justified and the Dr.'s performing abortions are the greatest soul savers who have ever lived.

Kill the baby. Save the child from eternal torture in fire. Seems like an excellent tradeoff that most of you should be able to see and uphold, as long as you aren't doing the saving of course.

So, let me understand this correctly. THis mentality would promote killing people immediately after repentence....and it would be o.k.??????Accept jesus...be killed...go to heaven...right?

The issue in abortion is NOT what G-d decides to do with the children. The issue in abortion is .....do we MURDER G-d's creation? Do we lower our respect for life so low as to kill another human being. This is the issue of abortion....not weither the children go to "heaven".

And if the statement is NOT true...if original sin DOES condemn children to eternal hell fire....then thousands of aborted babies are now toast.

Come on guys, think!!!!!! We are given information about G-d,...HIS JUSTICE, HIS MERCY....does this seem just to you?

Shalom,

BETZER

betzerg

September 19th 2005, 01:29 AM

No, but your interpretation is off. Jesus was saying if you still suck your thumb and crap your pants, you're elligible for acceptance into the kingdom.

According to judaism a child reaches the age of Torah understanding...he is bar mitzvah's and then become accountable for his choices. This age is thirteen.

Even psychological studies confirm the fact that children develop conceptual learning after the age of 7 or 8...and that moral developement may take longer. The issue is KNOWING right from wrong. IT is on THAT day that "you shall surely die"....as we see told to adam and eve.

And....even more riduculous is YOUR interpretation. The disciples were repremanding a group of CHILDREN that came to see Jesus. DUH

Shalom,

BETZER

betzerg

September 19th 2005, 01:33 AM

brother vinny

September 19th 2005, 01:34 AM

According to judaism a child reaches the age of Torah understanding...he is bar mitzvah's and then become accountable for his choices. This age is thirteen.

Even psychological studies confirm the fact that children develop conceptual learning after the age of 7 or 8...and that moral developement may take longer. The issue is KNOWING right from wrong. IT is on THAT day that "you shall surely die"....as we see told to adam and eve.

And....even more riduculous is YOUR interpretation. The disciples were repremanding a group of CHILDREN that came to see Jesus. DUH

Shalom,

BETZER

My "interpretation" was a joke.

Kind of like, "A priest, a minister, and a rabbi walk into a bar. . .," you know?

betzerg

September 19th 2005, 01:37 AM

betzerg

September 19th 2005, 01:51 AM

Smaller makes an excellent point. If children are saved at conception why would any loving mother wish to place their child on the roulette wheel of supposed eternal damnation? Better to kill the child to guarantee its salvation for eternity rather than selfishly allow it to grow into a fallen state it may supposedly never escape from, just for a few decades of temporal relationship.

You guys just don't have a clue. You don't get it, do you? The value of life, the grace of G-d, the beauty of humanity. If G-d is not a just G-d then the world is futile, without meaning and certainly worthy of death upon conception.

But the problem is that the world is GOOD, and men are good and have the very wonderous ability to choose to aspire to be like G-d and bring healing to the earth...or to choose to violate G-d's laws. But, though it is always a struggle...G-d will judge each man according to his works. It is the JOY of G-d to have men struggle to become like HIM, to love HIM, to stand in AWE at his majesty. How would a child killed at conception understand these things?

To christians it ALL ABOUT HEAVEN....but judaism teaches that it is selfish to follow the laws of G-d simply to get a reward. WE follow G-d because...even if we were to never see HIM...He is WORTHY of our adoration and praise!!!!Even if we are tortured on earth...and never given a place in the world to come....G-d is STILL worthy of our praise...BEcause G-d has created LIFE! HE is the giver of LIFE!!!

It's really not about US...it's all about G-d...and it is G-d who has decided to given each man the gift of LIFE...because we are existentially connected to G-d. WE can actually bring JOY to G-d...and we can actually exalt HIM!!!
This is the duty of man....Dead infants can't know this! ( I think you can find this same reasoning in the Psalms.)

Shalom,

BETZER

john-philip

September 19th 2005, 02:04 AM

That's not my position at all, I'm afraid. My positions is that since it might be possible that God judges unborn babies and children who die in infancy according to how they would choose, it is entirely unreasonable, (to say the very least!) to kill a baby in order to bring "salvation" to that baby

MY GOSHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!! What kind of idiotic thinking is this...I'm appalled! I sickened!!!! Do you really understand who G-d is? or are you so wrapped up in "theoligical debate' that you fail to be HUMAN?

Hi Betzerg. I appreciate the loving reminder to follow God over my pressuposed theological thinking. I think you may have misunderstood my point. Perhaps you could restate to me what you think I said. If you'll have read my other posts you'll notice I am not holding dogmatically to any position and am most certainly willing to learn. Probably not from childish name callers, but....we'll see...:shrug:

john-philip

September 19th 2005, 02:06 AM

betzerg

September 19th 2005, 02:08 AM

Hi Betzerg. I appreciate the loving reminder to follow God over my pressuposed theological thinking. I think you may have misunderstood my point. Perhaps you could restate to me what you think I said. If you'll have read my other posts you'll notice I am not holding dogmatically to any position and am most certainly willing to learn. Probably not from childish name callers, but....we'll see...:shrug:

The fact that you would CONSIDER it POSSIBLE that G-d would judge an infant according to what he WOULD HAVE chosen. To even consider this as a possiblity is both unbiblical...and against the very nature of G-d.

I guess my problem is with the entire thread...not just you...and those who view G-d's justice as arbitrary. Let me eternally torment a baby? IS THIS EVER a POSSIBLITY? That's my problem...that it would even be considered.

shalom,

BETZER

betzerg

September 19th 2005, 02:13 AM

BTW, betzerg, the idea from my position (which I do now dogmatically hold to) comes from William Lane Craig's book, in which he mentions the idea. Do you know who William Lane Craig is? Do you suppose he is an appaling idiotic thinker, also?

IF William Lane Craig believes that G-d abitrarily choses some enfants to burn in hell eternally....a G-d of tyranny and not of justice...then yes, he is an idiotic thinKer. And I am appalled!

john-philip

September 19th 2005, 02:18 AM

The fact that you would CONSIDER it POSSIBLE that G-d would judge an infant according to what he WOULD HAVE chosen. To even consider this as a possiblity is both unbiblical...and against the very nature of G-d.

Okay, why don't you establish the Biblical precedence for your position. That would be a good way to enter the thread, don't you think? I'm willing to consider truth, and I'm willing for us to reason together, but so far you haven't shown a desire to reason with me - just judge my entire thinking off of one or two posts, shout out how awful you think I am, and then leave me with nothing to glean from except your insults and dogmatic assertion.

I guess my problem is with the entire thread...not just you...and those who view G-d's justice as arbitrary.

Then perhaps you can try to keep the inflammatory personal insults to a minimum. I know I don't appreciate it. They certainly are not edifying and will quickly put me off to anything I might have been able to learn from you.

Let me eternally torment a baby? IS THIS EVER a POSSIBLITY? That's my problem...that it would even be considered.

But that is not my position. And yet you base your whole judgment of me off of it. You could at least inquire it of me, first.

shalom

Right :ahem:

Arnold

September 19th 2005, 02:18 AM

You guys just don't have a clue. You don't get it, do you? The value of life, the grace of G-d, the beauty of humanity. If G-d is not a just G-d then the world is futile, without meaning and certainly worthy of death upon conception.

But the problem is that the world is GOOD, and men are good and have the very wonderous ability to choose to aspire to be like G-d and bring healing to the earth...or to choose to violate G-d's laws. But, though it is always a struggle...G-d will judge each man according to his works. It is the JOY of G-d to have men struggle to become like HIM, to love HIM, to stand in AWE at his majesty. How would a child killed at conception understand these things?

To christians it ALL ABOUT HEAVEN....but judaism teaches that it is selfish to follow the laws of G-d simply to get a reward. WE follow G-d because...even if we were to never see HIM...He is WORTHY of our adoration and praise!!!!Even if we are tortured on earth...and never given a place in the world to come....G-d is STILL worthy of our praise...BEcause G-d has created LIFE! HE is the giver of LIFE!!!

It's really not about US...it's all about G-d...and it is G-d who has decided to given each man the gift of LIFE...because we are existentially connected to G-d. WE can actually bring JOY to G-d...and we can actually exalt HIM!!!
This is the duty of man....Dead infants can't know this! ( I think you can find this same reasoning in the Psalms.)

Shalom,

BETZERYou better go reread my post.

Hint - look for the words "supposed" and "supposedly"

john-philip

September 19th 2005, 02:19 AM

IF William Lane Craig believes that G-d abitrarily choses some enfants to burn in hell eternally....a G-d of tyranny and not of justice...then yes, he is an idiotic thinKer. And I am appalled!

If you think that is even close to what either of us are asserting, you need to get your facts straight, and get your head out of the world of burning straw.

betzerg

September 19th 2005, 02:24 AM

IF William Lane Craig believes that G-d abitrarily choses some enfants to burn in hell eternally....a G-d of tyranny and not of justice...then yes, he is an idiotic thinKer. And I am appalled!

Is he Catholic? I really don't study theology much...just scripture. THis entire thread reminds me of the pograms of the catholic church. Force conversion on the jews and muslems and then immediately kill them so they will go to heaven. It's the entire, miscontrued thinking process ....G-d doesn't really know what He is doing...so we have to help HIM out. Let our theology condemn to hell those who refuse to say the sinners prayer...and when they do, then we MURDER them...to "make sure they make it". Playing G-d is an abominable thing! Attributing to G-d some kind of arbitrary roullette wheel by which to chose ETERNAL LIFE....a kind of "eeny, meeny miny moe"...you made it! mentality. This is what calvinism teaches..and I actually dispise the idea that G-d's ability to judge the world based on HIS OWN SYSTEM of reaping and sowing is negated in this christian theology web.

Shalom,

BETZER

betzerg

September 19th 2005, 02:35 AM

If you think that is even close to what either of us are asserting, you need to get your facts straight, and get your head out of the world of burning straw.

"IF"...you notice. I don't agree with "original sin" "election" or "predestination" in the sense that G-d forces moral decisions on his own creatures and that we are JUDGED according to adams sin. YES ADAM did bring sin into the world...but we are held accountable for our own sins...and not the sin of another. Please read Ezekiel 18.

All souls are MINE, as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is Mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die. If a man be just an do that which is right....he shall surely live.

read the entire chapter...there are many more reference to personal responsiblity for sin.

Shalom,

BETZER

john-philip

September 19th 2005, 02:51 AM

"IF"...you notice. I don't agree with "original sin" "election" or "predestination" in the sense that G-d forces moral decisions on his own creatures and that we are JUDGED according to adams sin. YES ADAM did bring sin into the world...but we are held accountable for our own sins...and not the sin of another. Please read Ezekiel 18.

All souls are MINE, as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is Mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die. If a man be just an do that which is right....he shall surely live.

read the entire chapter...there are many more reference to personal responsiblity for sin.

Shalom,

BETZER

Great, so we agree on all this for the most part. I don't have the desire tonight, but maybe later I'll respond on where my disagreement with your assesment of my position lies. Maybe.

Owen

September 19th 2005, 08:34 AM

I think you may have a point there with respect to your last paragraph. Except, your defense (or your specefic example) will not go over in the OSAS crowd. Anyway, I like your point, and I would love to see it get fleshed out a bit more.

Well. I actually meant it to show the invalidness of the abortion argument. I have never seen the argument against conditional security that says if it is true then killing a man who becomes born again is actually a good thing. No one says it because they know it would recieve no credibility whatsoever. If it wouldn't apply in that argument, why should it apply in regards to infants?

Owen

September 19th 2005, 08:49 AM

john-philip:

I think the idea that God will judge infants based upon what they would have done if they had lived has a few problems within it.

Would God judge a 30 year old who died on the basis of a choice he would have made had he lived another 30 years? If not, what distinguishes the 30 year old from an infant?

Are infants from conception or birth condemnable? If so, then would God condemn a Christian who, if he had lived longer, would have fallen away? (I am guessing you hold NOSAS by your previous reply to me. If not, then ignore this question)

Finally, the big one, what verses in the Bible teaches that God will judge infants on the basis of what they would have done given further life? Not that an absence of a verse disproves it, but it does mark a blow against it. And if there are verses that teach something contradictory, then it would then show it wrong.

smaller

September 19th 2005, 11:31 AM

So, let me understand this correctly. THis mentality would promote killing people immediately after repentence....and it would be o.k.??????Accept jesus...be killed...go to heaven...right?

Logic and heartfelt consideration for the eternal destiny of another person would dictate this, yes. Why take a chance at letting someone burn alive forever when that fate could be avoided.

You have been blowing your "freewill" trumpet for awhile now. Here is a consequence of same. Why allow someone to have "freewill" if the outcome of same is perhaps a 95% chance of being burned alive forever?

The issue in abortion is NOT what G-d decides to do with the children. The issue in abortion is .....do we MURDER G-d's creation?

If the tradeoff is avoiding a much worse fate, yes.

Do we lower our respect for life so low as to kill another human being. This is the issue of abortion....not weither the children go to "heaven".

The issue is IF eternal consicous torment can be avoided for any then it should be so. Murder is justified in these cases every single time.

And if the statement is NOT true...if original sin DOES condemn children to eternal hell fire....then thousands of aborted babies are now toast.

Come on guys, think!!!!!! We are given information about G-d,...HIS JUSTICE, HIS MERCY....does this seem just to you?

What is your theological justification for this situation?

I made this observation to you prior without response. God created and uses evil. God also raised up enemies against Israel to destroy them and to test them. These raised up enemies were made enemies at God's Will.

enjoy the dilema

smaller

IncRus

September 19th 2005, 06:37 PM

john-philip,

What could that "middle knowledge be?" Jesus is clear about this. He said, "...Let the little children come to me and do not forbid them; for of such is the kingdom of God" (Luke 18:16).

Thus, if infants or little children die at such stage in their life, they are assured of salvation on the day of judgment.

The Bible does not say that "infants who pass away might be judged on how they would have chosen if they had lived." This is pure speculation.

Jesus has said that "of such is the kingdom of God." There is no more judgment if they die at such stage. Hence, there are no problems attendant to the death of infants and little children.

It is also pure speculation to insist thatthe passage you are quoting unequivocally supports your position. Maybe you could give a deductive argument that shows how it does.

john-philip,

My position is, the kingdom of God BELONGS to infants and little children, just like what our Lord Jesus says.

Jesus says he is the way, the TRUTH and the life. Whoever BELIEVES in him shall have everlasting life.

Do I still need to give you a "deductive argument" that shows how the kingdom of God belongs to infants and little children?

betzerg

September 20th 2005, 01:29 AM

Logic and heartfelt consideration for the eternal destiny of another person would dictate this, yes. Why take a chance at letting someone burn alive forever when that fate could be avoided.

You have been blowing your "freewill" trumpet for awhile now. Here is a consequence of same. Why allow someone to have "freewill" if the outcome of same is perhaps a 95% chance of being burned alive forever?

If the tradeoff is avoiding a much worse fate, yes.

The issue is IF eternal consicous torment can be avoided for any then it should be so. Murder is justified in these cases every single time.

What is your theological justification for this situation?

I made this observation to you prior without response. God created and uses evil. God also raised up enemies against Israel to destroy them and to test them. These raised up enemies were made enemies at God's Will.

enjoy the dilema

smaller

Do you know the ridiculous conclusion to the statements you have just made? G-d is EVIL for letting men live. G-d doesn't know what he is doing and is a cruel and sadistic task master...watching the agony and deprevation of HIS creation when HE could just NOT LET US NOT BE BORN AND NOT HAVE TO GO THROUGH ANYTHING.

Why the hell are we here? What value is humanity and life? As I"ve said several times before...the creation of the world and all that is has become was known by G-d before it's creation. AND YET HE CHOSE TO CREATE US.....to give us LIFE, to give US HIS VERY BREATH...to create us in his own image. WHY? Because there is something miraculous about the entire process of our existence that brings meaning to G-d, that defines G-d, that creates a people who will LOVE G-D...because they have come to know good from evil..and may now eat of the tree of life FREELY! YOU gotta live to be able to do that.

Shalom,

BETZER

betzerg

September 20th 2005, 01:42 AM

Why allow someone to have "freewill" if the outcome of same is perhaps a 95% chance of being burned alive forever?[/b]

smaller

And why predistined only a certain "number" of your creation to find LIFE and throw 95% of them into an eternally burning, pitfully painful HELL that LASTS FOREVER? MY GOSH!!!!This is such ridiculous logic I can't believe it!!!

Free will means that G-d gave man the ability to make moral decisions..and will then judge them by the decisons they make. NOTHING unjust about that.

NO free will means that G-d wants over what...billions...of people to burn eternally in hell because they didn't get picked. What kind of G-d is this?

no shalom for you,

BETZER

smaller

September 20th 2005, 10:07 AM

And why predistined only a certain "number" of your creation to find LIFE and throw 95% of them into an eternally burning, pitfully painful HELL that LASTS FOREVER? MY GOSH!!!!This is such ridiculous logic I can't believe it!!!

I don't believe that at all Betzer. Neither do or did the Jews.

Free will means that G-d gave man the ability to make moral decisions..and will then judge them by the decisons they make. NOTHING unjust about that.

Note my observation of this prior. IF God raised enemies against Israel those enemies did not raise themselves out of their "freewill." They were raised IN YOUR BEHALF at GOD'S WILL.

NO free will means that G-d wants over what...billions...of people to burn eternally in hell because they didn't get picked. What kind of G-d is this?

Whether God burns people alive via freewill or predestination doesn't matter one whit. You should know as a purported Jew that all people are God's offspring and as such God will not burn them alive in conscious torment for all of eternity AND this includes infants as well.

no shalom for you,

BETZER

I never expect peace from resistors of same.

enjoy!

smaller

corgan

September 20th 2005, 10:23 AM

Whether God burns people alive via freewill or predestination doesn't matter one whit. You should know as a purported Jew that all people are God's offspring and as such God will not burn them alive in conscious torment for all of eternity AND this includes infants as well.
I'll be the first one to respect anybodies religion and background, but after the statement you just posted a question ran through the back of my mind and I need to ask you it. If you believe that everyone goes to Heaven, then what is the purpose of Hell and why do you think Jesus died for us?

Just a question

smaller

September 20th 2005, 10:52 AM

I'll be the first one to respect anybodies religion and background, but after the statement you just posted a question ran through the back of my mind and I need to ask you it. If you believe that everyone goes to Heaven, then what is the purpose of Hell and why do you think Jesus died for us?

Just a question

All of mankind is bound together presently with "disobedience." This does not make all of mankind the "same as" the resistance we are all bound with.

The flesh has "sin indwelling" it that is not THE SAME AS US.

Jesus came to destroy the works of the devil and the fires are prepared for the devil and his messengers, NOT mankind,

but of course in THE WAYS OF DECEPTION satan has most believers thinking that what is meant for HIM is for US.

Therein lies the dilema of understandings.

All people are God's offspring and as such they are already Perfect

BUT

just as God has a firm grip on GOOD AND EVIL, so His offspring must likewise be "exposed."

Hope you enjoy another perspective. It's legit. God is Love.

smaller

corgan

September 20th 2005, 04:45 PM

Howdy smaller, :smile:

Well again, I'm certainly open to new understandings about religion, but to me yours doesn't seem to make all that sense to me. The way I look at it is that God created Heaven for all those who choose Him into their life. It seems very odd to claim that we all go to Heaven expecially when Jesus came to save us from sin when he died on the cross for us. In Matthew chapter 8 verses 11 through 12 it tells us that Heaven isn't for everyone and that many will be cast into darkness (I'm guessing that's Hell, right?)

I tell you, many will come from east and west and will eat with Abraham and Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven, while the heirs of the kingdom will be thrown into the outer darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

I'm not getting on you, and I'm certainly not angry, I'd just like to see from your standpoint where you're coming from...

smaller

September 20th 2005, 05:57 PM

Howdy smaller, :smile:

Well again, I'm certainly open to new understandings about religion, but to me yours doesn't seem to make all that sense to me. The way I look at it is that God created Heaven for all those who choose Him into their life.

Sorry corgan, but I don't believe in a God who is activated or effectuated by men. The other way around is much more likely.

It seems very odd to claim that we all go to Heaven expecially when Jesus came to save us from sin when he died on the cross for us.

Jesus is the Saviour of The World. Love never fails. The real question you should ask yourself is "what does US consist of?" If it were only you in your flesh then you'd have a point. Jesus did come to destroy the devil and his works, but then where do you find the devil but in MEN?

In Matthew chapter 8 verses 11 through 12 it tells us that Heaven isn't for everyone and that many will be cast into darkness (I'm guessing that's Hell, right?)

I fully accept every eternal torment scripture and these are fully applicable to the devil and his messengers whom God also happened to MAKE and He prepared The Lake for THEM. In the end these temporal things serve His Purposes. When He is finished using them for judgment they will be set aside in the Lake. When you read the Gospels you will find nothing less than overwhelming evidence that their habiation is IN MANKIND so it is easy to see why people have mistaken what is applicable to them to be applicable for mankind, and in particular their "unsaved neighbors."

It is very foolish to overlook this fact when assessing judgment. The scriptures are set up to make the judgment of mankind very difficult without condemning yourself in the process (or more accurately those things IN YOU who do that type of judgment.)

With proper separations between mankind and the devil and his messengers who also abide in the flesh it's a pleasant dance through the Word, and the scriptures make perfect sense.

"I tell you, many will come from east and west and will eat with Abraham and Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven, while the heirs of the kingdom will be thrown into the outer darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth."

And even moreso where people who look like they are doing God's Work are advised that Jesus did not know them. Do you really think He was speaking to His offspring or to the devils in these people? Same with the Pharisees where they are called children of the devil. "click?"

I'm not getting on you, and I'm certainly not angry, I'd just like to see from your standpoint where you're coming from...

I don't know if you'll be able to see the position or not corgan. You too have the condition of sin indwelling that Paul called "no longer I" and these "things" blind men to the Gospel.

I have no use to blame mankind for the work of the devil and I take delight in mocking the devil in mankind with the Truth of God's Word.

All people are God's offspring. (Acts 17:25-31)

enjoy!

smaller