Featured Would this happen at the Rapture?

Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption. 1 Cor 15:50
Hearken, my beloved brethren, Hath not God chosen the poor of this world rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom which he hath promised to them that love him? James 2:5

Is it at the rapture that the heirs become inheritors?

Now relative to babies.

And the angel answered and said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you; therefore, also, that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God. Luke 1:35
And she brought forth her firstborn Son, and wrapped Him in swaddling cloths, and laid Him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn. Luke 2:7
Hebrews 1:1,2 God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds;
Hebrews 2:14 Inasmuch then as the children have partaken of flesh and blood, He Himself likewise shared in the same, that through death He might destroy him who had the power of death, that is, the devil,

? When did the appointed, heir of God, become the inheritor? Was he or was he not flesh and blood? Did Jesus born of Mary inherit the kingdom of God? When?

Does this relate to the OP?

 

Thanks Percho, not sure of your point but our Lord experienced two births according to the scriptures. He was born of God through the virgin into the family of Abraham and later he was born of God at the resurrection. I will give you an example of the scriptures saying each.

Heb 2:16 For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.

Col 1:18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.

Is it your position that babies in the womb will be left here at the rapture because they are in a state of being sinners from conception and need to be born again for that reason?

 

Could you quote the Scripture you feel I am at odds with?

God bless.

 

Hyper election is the position that usually denies grace for the salvation of babies, but if we look at the broader teaching of Scripture we see that God consistently judges men according to the revelation provided to them, and that according to their response. Hebrews 10:26-29 is a comparison between those who rejected the (Covenant of) Law and those rejecting Christ and the New Covenant, as well as the Sacrifice of the New Covenant and the ministry of the Spirit of God within the New Covenant (the Comforter). James warns in James 3:1 that we should not be many teachers, because we shall receive the greater judgment. The reason being that those who lived and died under the Law were not privy to the Gospel Mystery as we are. That is why those rejecting the Gospel will be more severely punished than those rejecting the (Covenant of) Law (Hebrews 10:28).

Again, God consistently judges according to the revelation provided, and the revelation provided to the infant in the womb, the newborn, the very young, and even those with mental incapacities is very limited, and I believe God will also judge them accordingly. That they are so young isn't relevant, it is the spirit of a man or woman that matters.

Here is one point we might disagree on: that God's image is "body and soul." I embrace a dichotomy of man, rather than that he is three parts, body, soul, and spirit. God created man's body and gave him a spirit, and man became a living soul. So I view man as being a soul, rather than having one.

What we do agree on, for the most part, is that people aren't conceived having a disease called sin. I take a simpler approach to why men sin (when they are natural), and that is simply because we are not in the direct fellowship with God that Adam enjoyed before the Fall. Man dies now because he no longer has access to the Tree of Life. Nor is he is not born into relationship with God.

So in that sense, I view Adam as being "dead" spiritually in the same sense we are born dead. "Dead" means "without life, and I do not take the view that Adam "had spiritual life" before he sinned, lost it when he sinned, and now we are trying to get it back. No man had the life of Christ prior to Pentecost when men began to be baptized into Christ. John 3:16 makes it clear that God sent His Son that men might have life. If Adam were in Christ ... that would mean Eternal Life is not eternal after all, lol.

Paul writes in Romans 5:12 that death, not sin, passed to all men.

Agree wholeheartedly with how you define "spiritual death."

And one thing some believe is that spiritual life was something enjoyed by Old Testament Saints. "Original Sin" depends on Adam having it, losing it, and thus plunging man into spiritual death. Adam's relationship was physical, in my view, and being made alive began at Pentecost. No man was in Christ prior to that day. Christ foretells the eternal indwelling of God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost in John 14:15-23.

I look at "the water" of Christ's crucifixion as an evidence that H actually died, rather than viewing it as a spiritual picture of "the water" referenced in relationship to the receiving of Eternal Life. Some of those references refer to the Holy Spirit (John 5:38-39), and some to the Word of God (Ephesians 5:26).

Just out of curiosity, are you pre, mid, or post-trib in regards to the Rapture?

Me too.

I'm not sure what you mean by "...Jesus Christ will be sent to pay for sin." Are you referring to the salvation of individual's?

But here is the primary issue I wanted to respond to, in regards to the justification of the Old Testament Saints: they were justified, but the justification enjoyed was temporal. I do not equate Abraham's justification during his lifetime with the Eternal Justification that he received when Christ died for him.

Because they were justified according to their faith and right response to the revelation provided them, they were in all senses of the word saved. However, it would not be until Christ died in their stead that they would receive Eternal Redemption. This is the Writer's point in Hebrews 11:13 and Hebrews 11:38-39, that they did not receive the promises, and were not made perfect (complete) without us (the Church). In other words, the Law (as well as the sacrifices offered up prior to the Law by Abel, Noah, Abraham, et cetera) and the sacrifices of the Law did bring about remission of sins, but they were not complete. They could not bring about completion in regards to remission of sins. The Sacrifice of Christ did, and does, on an eternal basis (Hebrews 10:1-4; Hebrews 10:10-14).

This is one area I think continues to keep the Church at odds with each other. Many today have exchanged that we are saved by grace through faith with saved by faith through grace. In the minds of many, if not most, that men were justified by faith alone as compared to justified by faith and works is a debate as to whether men are saved by faith alone or by faith and works. James 2 and Romans 4 are, in my view, temporal. In view is justification, not salvation. A salvation context makes it clear, men are saved by grace through faith. A context of Eternal Redemption makes it equally clear men are saved by one thing: the death of Jesus Christ (Hebrews 9:12).

Just bring this up because it is a great topic discussion, and I find few who are willing to discuss it in depth.

And I agree with that. Again, I do not view them as "innocent" in the sense of their relationship with God, they are in the same boat everyone else is born into, and in need of life. However, there is no sin that they can possibly commit in that state, and if we believe God is just, we believe He will judge them accordingly.

To John Calvin I would say, "No, my good sir, there will be no babies in Hell."

God bless.

 

44 For behold, when the voice of thy salutation came into mine ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy. Lu 1

9 But thou art he that took me out of the womb; Thou didst make me trust when I was upon my mother`s breasts. Ps 22

It's called irresistible grace.

...and, if He can do it for babes, He can do it for everyone.

 

Time out. Isn't Psa 22 a prophecy about Jesus Christ and isn't it true that Lk 1 is not addressing the rapture of the church?

 

Sorry, I can see where I did not make that very clear. I was speaking from God's OT point of view. Men are justified by God, and their believing him is imputed to them for righteousness. This would be before they were forgiven their sins. For the most comprehensive description of the doctrine of justification by faith one would need to read Romans 2 and 3. Afterward in Rom 4 God illustrates that justification by faith is the prerogative of God no matter what dispensation one lives in. Hence, illustration 1 in chapter 4 is Abraham before the written law. David illustrates those under the law and says, "blessed is the man to whom God will not impute sin." Then there is us today after the law. Note that it is always God the Father doing the justifying and it is always based on what HE says, even in the church age when believing men are forgiven.

20 He (Abraham) staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God;
21 And being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform.
22 And therefore it (his believing God) was imputed to him for righteousness.

23 Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him;
24 But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him (God the Father) that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead; (See Ga 1:1)
25 Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification.

The difference between justification of those believers before the law, such as Abraham, and those believers under the law, such as David, and us today was there needed to be evidence of their faith by their works. This is not true of NT believers. Jesus Christ did all the work and finished it. All we must do is believe the record that God gave of his son. Unlike the believers of the OT, the NT believers have been given an inner witness, the gift of God the Father, the Holy Ghost.

Ex 34:6 And the LORD passed by before him, and proclaimed, The LORD, The LORD God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abundant in goodness and truth,
7 Keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, and that will by no means clear [the guilty]; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children’s children, unto the third and to the fourth [generation].

I am an independent fundamental pre- mil and pre trib Baptist. Having said that and trying to reconcile all the scriptures dealing with the second coming of Christ and the "day of the Lord" thematic prophecies (mentioned 30 times in 29 verses over a period of about a thousand years by 12 different authors in 17 bible books, including Paul and Peter), I would entertain the possibility that the 3 1/2 year or 42 month long ministry of Jesus Christ, could serve to be the first half of Daniel's seventieth week. If it were true it would mean there is only the GREAT tribulation of 3.5 years left. It is just a thought. It would certainly answer the question of why Jesus warned of woe to the women carrying children and giving suck in those days seeing as how they would be taken away in the rapture. These are the infants and toddlers. ..........but, I am not there yet.

Justification by faith is a bible doctrine beginning at Abel. Salvation from the penalty of sin is a NT doctrine. Jesus Christ by his death and resurrection delivered those who had been justified in the past. You have the washing of regeneration in two verses if you have a KJV bible. Titus 3:5 and Re 1:5

Here are two verses in the NT that deals with OT justified believers.
Rom 3:21 But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;
22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:
23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;

Heb 9:15 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.

The opposite from being innocent is being guilty.

Hey, I enjoy conversing with you and comparing notes and appreciate your insights on the scriptures.

 

The topic seems to be an imagined dilemma. Since the Father is the giver of life, would he not know when a child is conceived or when it to be delivered? Since the very hairs of out head are numbered could he possibly, lose track of whether a woman is pregnant or not, so that this is not an issue. I must conclude that at the rapture, the number will be so small most will not even miss them and there will be no pregnant women in it.

Ky redneck uses the example of John the Baptist leaping in Elizabeth's womb as justification of babies being saved. The problem with that is John the Baptist became an adult and brought forth fruit unto righteousness, something an unborn child at the rapture could not do. Isa 66:9 says, "Shall I bring to the birth (the righteous man) and not cause to bring forth?"

:Christ said in John 15:8 Herein is my father glorified, that ye bring forth much fruit, so shall ye be my disciples. How then can an unborn child glorify the father if they cannot bring forth fruit unto righteousness? If they cannot bring forth fruit unto the Father, how can they be the disciples of Christ.

Christ said in Luke 5:32, "I am not come to call the righteous but sinners to repentance. If the unborn child is sinless as it has been said, then we must conclude from this verse that Christ did not come to call them. What need would they have for a redeemer if they are sinless? What fruit unto repentance could they bring forth if they have no sin? What praise could they give to the Father for something they never needed?

Death reigned from Adam unto Moses because unregenerate man, having fallen in Adam, could not think a single spiritual thought as to the will of the Father or how to be restored to the divine nature. His vain imaginations of the work of God and who the true God was was a continuous source of sin and caused them to go after the gods of their imagination and work of their own hands. Jn 17:3 says, "And this is life eternal (the eternal salvation), that they might know thee the only TRUE God, and/ Jesus Christ whom thou has sent." This is not possible with unregenerate man nor unborn children that are not brought to the birth.

My last point for my sovereign grace brethren is why are you so intent on preaching the elect were ordained to salvation from before the foundation of the world (a truth) but then we have to say all children who die in the womb are saved. it is as if you are saying that if they had come to a certain age they would at least had a chance to accept Christ. Is God righteous to condemn an unrepentant adult sinner to hell then unrighteous to do the same to an unborn child that is not the elect who would become an unrepentant adult? It is as if you are saying if the child is never born they will never have a chance to accept Christ or God is not just in his ways. It is like you are saying they are protected while in the womb but lose that protection (salvation) after they are born. You then desert your own sovereign grace doctrine and go to the armenian camp. If it was ordained before the foundation of the world, what difference does the age make? Is God righteous in one case but not the other? Those predestined to salvation before the foundation of the world will NEVER die in the womb. Again Isa 66:9 Shall I bring to the birth and not cause to come forth?

 

My answer to the question. I am not sure the answer can be determined from the word of God. I do believe God will do what is righteous.

BTW I believe the millennium will be of, flesh and blood humans being governed and educated by those of the first resurrection. Kings and priests without being deceived by the devil yet with a rod of iron and love.

Them babies will be ok.

 

Maybe I was not clear enough. The Father determines if there will be conceptions since he is the giver of life. He knows the exact moment of conception since he ordained it and when he will bring to the birth. I cannot imagine why he would ordain such a situation to happen but would make sure that but if there are no pregnant women in the rapture. If there are no pregnant women in the rapture, how can there be unborn in the womb. If there are no unborn in the womb, then the OP becomes invalid.

The remainder are scriptural reasons why life is not given to unborn who die in the womb or any child in the womb and why they never fulfil the requirements to be the disciples of Christ (in the womb). A disciple of Christ will always come to an age of understanding.

I will gladly expound on any point you did not understand.

 

So as not to derail this thread I am going to start a thread called Temporal Justification, hope you will join. I would just say that I don't see a difference in justification between the Old and the New Testament saints in this sense: both were justified by a right response to the revelation provided to them/us. That is in a context of why one is justified. As to how, I view their (The OT saint) as temporal, and that their justification was based on obedience to that which was not the Gospel Mystery. Their sins were forgiven them on a temporal basis, which is why sacrifice was never-ending. Abraham did not believe on Christ, that He had died in his stead, and that He arose the third day. He believed GOd would give him a son that the world would be blessed through.

As a side note, I do believe Christ preached the Gospel to the Just in Hades while His body lay in the tomb.

I view the "Day of the Lord" to largely refer to (first) the Tribulation, (second) the two judgments on the wicked (the Sheep and Goat judgment and the Great White Throne judgment, and (third) the judgment of the just that accompany those judgments. "The Day of the Lord" usually refers to a time when God Personally interacts with men, but usually in judgment.

As to the 3 1/2 year length of the Tribulation, I would suggest to you that it will be 7 years. Here are a few reasons (and I don't mean to be comprehensive):

1. The Tribulation is Daniel's Seventieth Week and each week is a period of 7 years.

2. The Two Witnessess' ministry is 3 1/2 years, and the Antichrist's "ministry" (lol) is 3 1/2 years. The Two Witnesses are killed by the Antichrist and then his reign of terror begins. That makes 7 years. I would also add that those who think the Rapture can't take place until after because Revelation 20:1-6 states it is "the First Resurrection" forget that the Two Witnesses are raptured in the Middle of the Tribulation. "First" in Revelation 20 is protos, which also has a meaning of "rank," rather than just a sequential meaning. When Christ stated the "first" commandment was to love God He wasn't saying this was the first commandment ever given, He was saying this was the highest in "rank" among commandments. The "first commandment" I see is "Let there be light!." (lol)

3. There is an extended time to the 3 1/2 years after the abomination of desolation is set up:

Daniel 12:6-12 KJV

6 And one said to the man clothed in linen, which was upon the waters of the river, How long shall it be to the end of these wonders?

7 And I heard the man clothed in linen, which was upon the waters of the river, when he held up his right hand and his left hand unto heaven, and sware by him that liveth for ever that it shall be for a time, times, and an half; and when he shall have accomplished to scatter the power of the holy people, all these things shall be finished.

8 And I heard, but I understood not: then said I, O my Lord, what shall be the end of these things?

9 And he said, Go thy way, Daniel: for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end.

10 Many shall be purified, and made white, and tried; but the wicked shall do wickedly: and none of the wicked shall understand; but the wise shall understand.

11 And from the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up, there shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days.

12 Blessed is he that waiteth, and cometh to the thousand three hundred and five and thirty days.


The abomination of desolation is set up in the middle of the week, that is when the daily sacrifice is taken away:

Daniel 9:26-27 KJV

26 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.

27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.


So look again at 12:11-12: there is a thirty day period after the 3 1/2 years, then another forty-five days, bringing a total of 75 days until "the end." I believe it is during this time that the Sheep and Goat gather and judgment takes place. Satan is bound for one thousand years, and this likely takes place at Christ's Return, which means that he will have 75 days to work his mischief at the end of the thousand year reign (the Millennial Kingdom).


Continued...

 

Agreed. He is the second one seen offering sacrifice. God being the first when He clothed Adam and Eve.

I would agree that it was not until Christ began baptizing men into Himself that men were born again, but I do view the Old Testament Saints as being "saved" from an eternal perspective. Like you and I have been born again but await the redemption of our bodies, they were "saved" but awaited Eternal Redemption through Christ's offering of Himself in their stead. In other words they awaited the "completion" of remission of sins taught by the Writer of Hebrews: Hebrews 10:1-4; Hebrews 10:10-14; Hebrews 11:13; Hebrews 11:38-40.

Don't forget these ...

Romans 2 KJV

13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.

14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:

15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another


Some might have a problem with the idea that one could be justified by the Law in those days. But that was the point, really. Obedience to what God said to do.

We look to the internal witness of God in all men to explain why those who did not have the (Covenant of) Law performed the will of God and were thus justified in the sight of God (Romans 1:19-20)

In my view, guilt or innocence isn't the issue. The only issue facing men is separation from God. Babies in the womb are separated from God like as those who are born. That is the malady of man that needs to be rmedied by God. And that remedy (for the Old Testament Saint) became available when Christ died on the Cross. It became available to living men on the Day of Pentecost.

I am enjoying it as well. I hope you will join in on Temporal Justification.

God bless

 

I believe my answer is very evident. I stated very clearly that there will be no pregnant saints at the rapture. This leaves no room for a yes or no answer because without pregnant saints, how can the problem even exist and how can the OP be valid to begin with?

 

This is an interesting position. One that I would say could not be dogmatically supported or rejected. Like Salty, I have never heard this position before, lol.

John was filled with the Spirit of God:

Luke 1:15
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.

I'm sure you understand that the filling of the Spirit is an empowering ministry of God in both the Old and New Testaments. Some view the filling as an equivalent to the eternal indwelling of God promised in the Old Testament but received by believers when the New Covenant was established.

I think the most relevant issue of John's condition in the context of this discussion is that we see that John was, before he was born, a person. He had a conscious understanding:

Luke 1:41
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:

As far as the entirety of your post, the issue that stands out for me is the condition of the babe in the womb from a salvific standpoint: I don't view babes in the womb as "innocent," because they are separated from God just like those who are born. John, in the womb, filled with the Holy Ghost—was separated from God. He was "innocent" in the sense that he had no capacity to commit sin, nor to turn in faith to God or Christ, but his death in the womb would not have been a candidate for Heaven because he never sinned (for that is impossible in the lives of natural men), but rather he would have been judged in the same manner God always judges men throughout Scripture: according to their response to the revelation he has provided to them.

There is a principle set forth in Scripture that God will judge men according to their understanding of the revelation He provides. In Hebrews 10—

Hebrews 10:26-29
King James Version

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 above contrasts the ones rejecting God's will under the (Covenant of) Law with the ones rejecting God's will under the New Covenant. They have rejected ...

1. The Son of God;
2. The Salvation of Christ;
3. His death;
4. His Covenant (promised in the Old Testament);
5. The convicting ministry of the Comforter (the Spirit of Grace).

There is more severe judgment for those rejecting the revealed Gospel of Christ (previously unrevealed in past ages and generations) than for those who rejected "Moses' Law," or, the Covenant of Law. Jame wrote, "Be ye not many masters/teachers, for we shall receive the greater condemnation/judgment."

So I would suggest that babes that die in the womb will be judged according to the consistency of God, Who is just to judge men accordingly, rather than a blanket condemnation among them.


Continued...

 

I view a man's conception as the point of creation by God. God creates the spirit of man within the womb, and that person is not dependent on time and space for who they are in the eternal context.

Consider David's child that died. David was confident he would see the child again, that he would "go to the child." When he did that, after death, I believe that child was just as much a person as those who had lived and grown up to "to glorify God."

Think about Angels: did they procreate? Or were they created as spirits like the spirit of a man is?

As far as "glorifying God," in a temporal context our greatest righteousness is as filthy rags, right?

Consider John again:

Matthew 11:11
Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.

John was a righteous man if there ever was one. Yet the least in the Kingdom is greater than he. I point this out to distinguish between the Old Testament Saint and the New. Those unregenerate when they died, and those who would, not terribly long after the Lord's statement above, be reconciled to God through JEsus Christ. Who would receive eternal life while they yet remained in bodies. Who would have their sins forgiven on an eternal basis. Yes, the least in the Kingdom is greater than John because of these things, but John was still a just man, and the "greatest man among those born among women."

The larger point being this: All Old Testament Saints died not having professed faith in the risen Savior. They were not privy to the Gospel Mystery. Yet we are sure that they will be in Heaven.

Why would God not show that same grace and mercy to the unborn?


Continued...

 

Christ did not come to call the just, but the unjust. Keep in mind that the Lord's Ministry was not to the world, it was specific to the Nation of Israel and related to the fulfillment of prophecy given to them:

Matthew 10:5-7
King James Version

5 These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not:

6 But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

7 And as ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand.


Matthew 15:23-25
King James Version

23 But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us.

24 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

25 Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me.


"The Kingdom" that would have been understood by the first century Jew was the Kingdom promised to them in Prophecy. Their expectation was physical. They expected a King who would be a descendant of David, and that once that kingdom was established Messiah's kingdom would have no end. They expected to see Israel retired to her former glory, and that they would dwell in peace there. Your quote from Isaiah is given in that very context (Isaiah 66:9).

"Lost" above refers to a state of destruction. Israel, like man as a whole, was in a state of destruction. When we speak about people being "lost" today, it is that same state of destruction we refer to. That state of destruction is the state David refers to when he states he was "born in sin."

The point being this: all men, whether born or not, are conceived into a state of destruction, and that is due to their separation from God. That is the malady that has to be remedied. It is remedied when God brings men into relationship with Himself through Christ. We are placed into Christ, and simultaneously God makes His abode in us (John 14:15-23). All Old Testament Saints died not having been reconciled, because their sins had not yet been atoned for, yet we know they were recipients of God's grace.

Again, why would we not expect grace for the unborn babe?

I agree with all of this except that I don't see men as being "restored." Eternal Life became available only after the SOn of God, the WORD, manifested in flesh, died, arose again, returned to Heaven, and sent the Comforter to reveal the Gospel Mystery.

Can one be born again not having received Christ and the life He came to bring. John 3:16 makes it clear that God sent His Son that men might have life. John 3:14 makes it clear that Christ must be lifted up that men might be born again.

The "new creature" is just that, new, not a restored product, lol. Just like the New Covenant is new.


Continued...

 

But why would we think it necessary that a child be brought to birth. That doesn't change who they are. The Law made provision for them:

Exodus 21:22-24 King James Version

22 If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.

23 And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life,

24 Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,


One of the most famous sayings of Scripture, "An eye for an eye—" centers around the life of an unborn child. If a child is prematurely delivered due to (the example given is) a fight, they are till the person. If the child is harmed there is to be an equal recompense. If the child die—the one that caused it forfeits their life.

I don't know that they say "all Children." I haven't met any that do. It's usually a matter, for them, that the non-elect go to Hell, the elect go to Heaven.

I think they will all be judged according to the revelation provided to them.

I disagree with that position as well.

I've never heard them concede any kind of protection for the non-elect. It's a pretty grim position. It is true that God knows who will respond to His calling, and that it's possible that He could leave one He knew would never repent to condemnation, but I see the principle that God will judge every man, born or not, according to their deeds. Even those who are born again believers will be judged according to their deeds (1 Corinthians 3).

That is what I am used to hearing from that camp.

Like I said, this is a new one on me, so thanks for the post. Always on the lookout for positions not normally expressed.

For me, it is a moot issue, because I believe all babies that die, in or out of the womb, will receive the grace of God. Their judgment will be no different than anyone else, and because they have not had opportunity to either sin or turn in faith to God (Old Testament) or Christ (New Testament) they will be saved.

The context of this passage isn't general childbearing, but deal with Jerusalem being retored. One could make an equation, I suppose, but I don't see it as relevant to the issue of whether babies in the womb will go to Heaven at the Rapture. It is an interesting issue to consider, though, and your position got me to rambling in my thoughts, and so I share them with you.

God bless.