Featured Infant Death and Salvation

I have put my full statement back in so my statement can be seen in the context it was given.

And you do not clarify what I ask you to.

What sin is God conscious of in regards to the embryo or infant the womb?

Where we agree or not is irrelevant to my question.

I can't know how it is we agree or disagree if you do not clarify what sin God is conscious of in regards to the babe in the womb.

Again, you are implying that the babe in the womb is in Covenant Relationship with God, which nullifies man's condition. If you could expound on why you take this view and give a Scriptural Basis for it then we have something to discuss.

Again, this nullifies man's condition, whether they are elect or non-elect, because it implies they are not...

...separated from God, which is the resulting condition brought about upon all mankind through one man's sin.

I do not embrace a view that suggests that there is a Covenant Relationship between God and Man which would effectively nullify man's need...to be reconciled.

God was in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself, and apart from the Blood of Christ no man, no woman, and no infant can be saved.

Again, this is my view, and I think I can show from a Scriptural Presentation that we can know that God will be merciful to those that cannot comprehend.

The singular example is of course...the Old Testament Saint. They were saved by the grace of God despite the fact that their understanding of the Gospel of Jesus Christ was non-existent. Abraham did not understand that the Seed was singular, but he trusted God's promise and therefore obeyed God, and his actions, not Christ's, are they by which he was declared righteous. But if we equate that with being justified by the actions of Christ Himself, then we have Abraham truly saved by what he did, not by what Christ did for him.

So too, with the infant in the womb, we know that infant is born separated from God. They have not yet the ability to sin against the revelation of God, and have not had the Ministry of Reconciliation presented to them, so...how can any of them be saved?

The answer lies in the grace of God. That is what has always saved men, and that is what will continue to save men.


God bless.

 

I actually agree with that, but, where we might disagree (as I think we have in the past, if I remember correctly) is in regards to the differing dispensations which show a stark contrast in the disposition of men after physical death.

In other words, I would suggest to you that when the Old Testament Saint died, they did not go into Heaven, because they were as of yet still culpable for their sins on an eternal basis. Nor were they in spiritual union with God on an eternal level.

So we have an entire Old Testament of Saints that were not believing on the Risen Savior, which I agree...is the only means of Eternal Redemption provided to men. If you say that the Old Testament Saint was eternally redeemed through the blood of animals (and this is what you would have to do), and that men being in relationship with God through the preceding Covenants is equable to the New Covenant Relationship (and this is what you would have to do), then you will find yourself in conflict with most of the teachings we have been given in the New Testament concerning relationship with God through the New Covenant.

Here is one contrast between those two Covenants I will start with:


Hebrews 10:26-29

King James Version (KJV)


26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,

27 But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.

28 He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:

29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?


The truth received by Israel was that revealed to them...through the Law. Christ often referred to the Law, and asked...what does it say? Christ has Abraham telling the rich man that Moses and the Prophets were sufficient to keep a man from eternal torment.

Now, his point here is that if one was judged for rejecting the Covenant of Law and the truth it contained, how much sorerr, how much more severe would it be for those who reject...

1. Christ, The Son of God;

2. His Sacrifice (which in this Chapter is constantly contrasted with the sacrifices of the Law, as it is in numerous portions of Hebrews);

3. The New Covenant (contrasted with the Covenant of Law, which is the only covenant spoken of by the Writer because only the Covenant of Law is relevant to Hebrews);

4. The Ministry of the Spirit of God which is distinct to this Age, which we understand through the teachings of the Old Testament (Foundational Doctrine (Hebrews 5:10-6:3).

One of the primary thrusts of the Writer of Hebrews is to convince Hebrews that they are to progress from the Covenant of Law to that which is complete...the New Covenant. They do this through faith in Him. Faith arises through the enlightening of the Spirit of God, Who has a specific ministry in this Age of glorifying Christ to the unbelieving world (John 16:7-9).

So we agree that one cannot come into union with God apart from faith in the Risen Christ, but, that does not mean that men did that in previous Ages.

And the point we can consider, which is the purpose of this thread, is that we know that infants fall under the grace of God. Something as simple as David having an assurance of going to his child could be debated, because I don't think we can give David a position where everything he said was a prophetic utterance inspired by God (though I do think David was correct in this statement). We have no doubts whatsoever that David was a man saved by grace through faith, yet David did not have the Gospel Mystery revealed to him. He did not actively place faith in the Risen Savior, though he prophesied about Him.

David was a man under Law, his relationship with God falls within that framework. And the Covenant of Law was never designed to be a source of salvation, and it never was. It pointed men to Christ, but it did not reveal Christ to them. If it did, then not only would we have at least one statement from one of them (and we cannot even find this from one of Christ's disciples, who were unbelievers in the Resurrection even after Christ arose (Mark 16:9-14)), but we would have to conclude that the Covenant of Law was a source of salvation, if men could in fact, through the Law, come to a saving knowledge of Christ and place their faith in His death, burial, Resurrection, and Ascension.

I agree. And that starts...on the Day of Pentecost.

That is when the Spirit is sent, Who was promised by the Father in the Old Testament, taught of by Christ, and sent on the Day of Pentecost.

That is when men began, in their physical lives, to be born again which is a result of the renesing of the Holy Ghost. That is when God began reconciling men unto Himself. That is when Eternal Redemption began:


Hebrews 9:12-15

King James Version (KJV)


12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.

13 For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh:

14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.

While not stated to myself, I would affirm that physical handicap and underdeveloped minds can not only hinder, but make impossible the comprehension of the Gospel. We can say "Of Course God can make the infant in the womb understand, He is God, after all," but, we do not really need to do that.

Not even the disciples of Christ understood their sin, their condition, and the Remedy for that condition. Peter is clearly seen to be in opposition to the Gospel, and on several occasions does his best to keep Christ from the Cross. He simply did not understand the Gospel, because he could only understand what was revealed to him by God. God revealed to men that Messiah was going to come, and many placed their faith in God for the salvation they expected when He did. THe disciples knew Jesus was the Christ, the Son of the Living God, but, that did not lead them to believe on the Risen Savior (Mark 9-14).

Those who did not have the penalty of sins exacted upon physical death, the Old Testament Saints, are no different from the eternal perspective than the babe in the womb.

Because both are saved by the Grace of God.


God bless.

 

This will be true until I am redeemed physically, because I will always have sin that Christ must continue to cleanse me from.

You, on the other hand, would do well simply to study the Word of God.




God bless.

 

Percho, I am short on time this morning and would like to address this and give it the attention it deserves, but that will likely be tomorrow.


God bless.

 

Great question. But, I will say that we should be able to look at the Grace of God in Scripture and clarify to people that our view that those who are not mentally capable to comprehend are not simply given a pass, we still have to deal with their condition, which is that of being separated from God. We have seen it suggested that babes in the womb are in a "Covenant Relationship with God," which nullifies the condition of fallen man, and makes moot the very purpose of Christ's death. I would suggest that Christ's Death is necessary for every man or woman conceived and born into this world. His righteousness must be imputed even to the infant who has not, in the womb, sinned against God. The absence of personal sin does not remove that condition of separation, which is the very reason why, when an infant is born, and grows up to have comprehension abilities, they will inevitably sin. That personal sin determines the severity of judgment, but, the underlying condition of separation is equal among all men.


God bless.

 

We are not amused.




God bless.

 

lol

Thanks for that Percho, that is without question the funniest post I have seen in a while.


God bless.

 

Agree with all of this.

And that is where we consider that despite the fact that David's child went into Sheol/Hades, he was confident that he would see the child at his own death. Again, while I would not dogmatically state that as a prophetic utterance, I think David can be considered as one that we can consider to be understanding in regards to most things. I can even relate to him at times in his anger, lol.

God bless.

 

No. God is Sovereign in salvation.

That is why I think it important to understand we are saved by grace through faith, rather than how some view it (primarily from a modern Arminian view), That we are saved by faith through grace.

We love God because He first loved us. God has to call us before we can respond. God has always initiated relationship with man, and it is up to us to understand how those relationships worked.

In the general sense I would say yes, though we can see that there are those who will not respond in obedience to the revelation provided to them. God has not withheld the opportunity from any man, but at the same time He does not force men into obedience (though we can see examples where there is an exception to the rule, i.e., Jonah, Paul).

But it is important to distinguish between physical and spiritual death. A couple things to consider is that man comes into the physical realm with physical life, but he is spiritually dead, because he is not in relationship with God. The second thing to point out is that despite being brought into relationship with God and having eternal life through that relationship, that does not cause us to escape physical death (unless we are alive at the time of the Rapture).

In this thread, my hope is to explore the infant in the womb, and consider the reasons why we would believe that God will save them despite the fact they cannot meet the condition of responding to revelation. We do not deny that infants can feel certain emotions at an early stage of development, but that does not equate to comprehension of knowledge.


God bless.

 

That is the focus of the thread, EWF.

And I reject absolutely the position that if one does not hear the Gospel and turn to Christ they cannot in any way ever be saved. The Old Testament is a long history of men being saved yet they were not privy to the Mystery of the Gospel, and they had not placed specific faith in the Risen Christ. Not even one of the disciples can be found to have done that before Christ died, and after He arose...He had to rebuke them for their unbelief:


Mark 16:9-14

King James Version (KJV)


9 Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils.

10 And she went and told them that had been with him, as they mourned and wept.

11 And they, when they had heard that he was alive, and had been seen of her, believed not.

12 After that he appeared in another form unto two of them, as they walked, and went into the country.

13 And they went and told it unto the residue: neither believed they them.

14 Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen.


My position is simple: God has always judged men according to their response to the revelation He has provided them. There are three primary means of revelation, the testimony of Creation, the internal witness provided every man (which because of their spiritual condition, that of not having the Life of God because they are not in relationship to Him), and finally direct revelation, which is seen to occur when God speaks directly to men (i.e., in the Garden, Genesis 18, in the Exodus/Moses) personally, when God speaks to men through men (Prophets), and when God speaks to men through His Written Word.

And in past Ages, the Mystery of the Gospel simply was not revealed (in understanding) to the Saints. Abraham did not even understand that the Seed was singular, nor did Israel. That is why Christ was not viewed as fulfilling the Prophecy by the majority, because He did not meet their expectations, and the thought that the Messiah could die would have been absurd.

So we see grace bestowed upon those who did not have an understanding of Christ's Ministry concerning the sin of the world, yet these men and women (of faith) were justified, and their Eternal Security as secure as our own in this Age.

Why would God change how He deals with mankind in regards to infants? He will judge them according to His righteous standard, and save them by the same grace he bestowed upon the Old Testament Saint.

I actually dealt with this suggestion from another member, and reject it, because it brings us to contradictory conclusions.

The primary problem is that we would have to see conversion while the infant remains physically alive. Do I have a problem with that? Not really, but, if one is going to teach that then we should have more than a "Well I just think that's what happens" to go along with it.

Secondly, we know that all infants, no matter what stage of development they are in, are conceived in separation from God, so, if they die unconverted, we have no recourse but appeal to the grace of God, or, we have to conclude that their condition of separation doesn't really matter. Few would want to pursue that train of thought. It does matter, and the only reasonable explanation I see is to simply look at the general pattern of grace God has since the beginning bestowed on fallen man. The Old Testament Saint died not having confessed the name of Jesus Christ, and, their sins were not redeemed (remitted). The last offering all of them would have offered would have been an animal dying in their place. That is not good enough. Only The Shed Blood of Christ can take away sins on an eternal level, and that same Sacrifice is mercifully applied to those who are judged according to their response to the revelation provided them. The Old Testament Saint that was under Law was not saved by keeping the Law. Abraham was not saved because he offered up his son. They were saved by the same thing we are today...grace.

On the flip side, the one rejecting the revelation provided them...was not. The rich man is a good example, and in that Age it is Moses and the Prophets pointed to for the means of escape from eternal torment, not Christ the Risen Savior. Moses and the Prophets were sufficient to, just as it did with Abraham, create faith in God in man. That did not nullify the commandments given them, though. Circumcision was not optional, even prior to the Law, for example.

So when the infant is judged, I suggest that there is no sin that can be laid to their account. They were not born with the disease sin, as it is popularly taught. Their primary problem is that they are conceived and born separated from God, and when they do become comprehending that problem will lead them to sin.

It can't be found in Scripture.

One has pointed to John the Baptist in the womb, and I will present the Scripture for you to consider:


Luke 1:13-16

King James Version (KJV)


13 But the angel said unto him, Fear not, Zacharias: for thy prayer is heard; and thy wife Elisabeth shall bear thee a son, and thou shalt call his name John.

14 And thou shalt have joy and gladness; and many shall rejoice at his birth.

15 For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb.

16 And many of the children of Israel shall he turn to the Lord their God.

One thing we can discuss is whether "from the womb" would be viewed as limited to the time of the pregnancy.

Another is that we see the Holy Ghost filling men and empowering them for ministry throughout the Old Testament, that is just he ministry He performed in those Ages. This was the case of Christ's Disciples, according to Christ, when He distinguished between the Spirit's ministry in that/those Age/s, and the one He would perform when He was sent as "Another Comforter (John 14:17)."


Luke 1:41-43

King James Version (KJV)


41 And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost:

42 And she spake out with a loud voice, and said, Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb.

43 And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?


Here we have a statement that I think could reasonably be viewed as both the baby himself leaping for joy as well as him reacting to his mother's response. What I do not think can be dogmatically asserted is that the babe had an understanding of Christ as though he understood the Gospel Mystery thus leaped.

We do see John prophesy of Christ, "Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sins of the world," yet, when John was in prison he sent two disciple to inquire...

...if Christ was the One they awaited. When we correlate the fact that the Gospel Mystery was not revealed at this time, it is reconciled in knowing that, again, we have an entire Old Testament full of men filled with the Holy Ghost giving prophetic statements about Christ, and there is nothing wrong with understanding the Prophets foretelling Christ and even giving explicit information about Christ and what He would do apart from their understanding.

Caiaphas, one we would scarcely consider a prophet...did this very thing according to Scripture (John 11:49-50).

So you are right to question that, and that is the purpose of the thread, to look at the various understandings of various believers, who all have had their own study impact the conclusions they have come to.


God bless.

 

Both.

That is why we call Christianity a relationship, which requires two being involved.

For example:


2 Thessalonians 1:7-8

King James Version (KJV)


7 And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels,

8 In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:



Matthew 7:23

King James Version (KJV)


23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

Sometimes it is the seemingly unrelated questions that can generate the best discussion and add to the examination of a topic.

And life and death is simply an underlying issue that has to be understood in this topic.

For example, if we say God saves the infant "for no reason," would that not undermine God's declarations concerning relationship to Himself? Do we view the infant as having the life of Christ in the womb? Can we speculate that God regenerates the child before death in the womb? My view is no reason for God to do that, because He saved every just person in the Old Testament without doing so. They died their sins not forgiven on an eternal basis, nor had they received the Promised Spirit. Their salvation was based solely on the grace of God and righteousness imputed to their account through faith and obedience to the revelation provided them.

Nave's Topical Bible might be what you are looking for. It's a great resource.

That is a long, long...long rabbit trail. Though I would not view it as unrelated. But the amount of issues that have to be dealt with is pretty daunting.

On the surface I would mention that when those born separated from God die physically, they seal their fate. Even from conception they are separated, and as they live, they will inevitably sin. So we have in the natural man a person with physical life who is spiritually dead. When he dies, he is both physically and spiritually dead. In the Resurrection listed in Revelation 20:5 and Revelation 20:12-15 we see the lost raised to physical life again and cast into the Lake of Fire. We know this judgment is eternal, and that the torment is eternal, which suggests strongly that the bodies they are raised in are suited to eternal existence. But lest we make the mistake a recent member made, and confuse this with Eternal Life, we look back to the fact that they...

...never had the Life of God from their very conception.

So we have to look at the spirit of the man, and the Spirit of God, and only in Christ is reconciliation made whereby man is renewed to relationship with God, that relationship lost in Adam is restored, and he can be said to have Eternal Life. As I usually put it, Eternal Life is not a substance poured into a person, it is the Person of God within a person that is the Source of Life. We can only have Eternal Life when He that is Eternal indwells us. And as Christ stated in John 14, that day when we would know He is in the Father, and we in Him, and He in us, has come.


God bless.

 

I'm the guy guy at bat, lol. Not the guy throwing the ball.

And I disagree, it is not enough simply to love the brethren. There is more to love than simply overlooking faults. So look at the exchange, then tell me I am not showing love by telling him to study. There is specificity in the exhortation.


God bless.