-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Babies in Hell?
- Thread starter SuperBaptist
- Start date
You, (mankind) only sees the death of a child, God "SEES" another soul "in heaven".
God made Man from "DUST", (flesh) then told satan he would eat "DUST".
"FLESH" is "Satan's "bread of life" in the same sense "Jesus's body" is our "Bread of life".
This is why Satan, as a roaring lion, "DEVOURS" flesh.
The "FLESH" doesn't mean anything to God, like the earth, it is only "Temporal", but "SOULS" live "forever", and it's that "FOREVER" that God is concerned about. </font>[/QUOTE]Me4Him, our flesh does not give life to Satan, and the flesh does mean something to God since He created our bodies. I hope you know about the resurrection of our bodies (see 1 Cor 15).
Also, per your previous post, not all aborted babies have unsaved parents. </font>[/QUOTE]This a "Spiritual concept", we don't "literally" eat Jesus's flesh and drink his blood either, but through the death of Jesus's body it became our "Bread of life".
And thru the "Lust of the flesh" sin prevails, keeping Satan/sin alive.
Do ya "get it"???
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
Surely you are not contending that man's sin is responsible for keeping Satan alive? Unbelievable! Well considering the source perhaps not!Originally posted by Me4Him:
And thru the "Lust of the flesh" sin prevails, keeping Satan/sin alive.
Do ya "get it"???
Marcia
Active Member
Me4Him, check out the bible. Lust is not the only cause of sin! Pride is a big one and it does not necessarily have anything to do with the physical.
I think you are getting the concept of "flesh" when used to refer to the fallen nature mixed up with all physical form. The body is not evil -- that is a gnostic view.
It is true we are not redeemed physically yet - our bodies still decay -- but we will be one day. Just as Jesus bodily resurrected (remember that Thomas could see the scars -- it was the same body Jesus had before death), so will we.
Sin does not reside in the body but is part of our nature as humans and can manifest in many ways.
I think you are getting the concept of "flesh" when used to refer to the fallen nature mixed up with all physical form. The body is not evil -- that is a gnostic view.
It is true we are not redeemed physically yet - our bodies still decay -- but we will be one day. Just as Jesus bodily resurrected (remember that Thomas could see the scars -- it was the same body Jesus had before death), so will we.
Sin does not reside in the body but is part of our nature as humans and can manifest in many ways.
Brother Bob
New Member
The flesh was without sin until Adam sinned.
Romans, chapter 8
"11": But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.
The flesh will live again also, how could there be a ressurection if the flesh did not raise from the ground as Jesus did. The flesh is something too, it is enough that Jesus was willing to die for it.
Psalms, psalm 116
"15": Precious in the sight of the LORD is the death of his saints.
If you don't believe the flesh will raise then what about Jesus raising from the dead.
1 Corinthians, chapter 15
11": Therefore whether it were I or they, so we preach, and so ye believed.
"12": Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead?
"13": But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen:
"14": And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.
"15": Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not.
"16": For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised:
"17": And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.
"18": Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished.
"19": If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable.
"20": But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.
Raising from the dead is the whole meaning of salvation both soul and body. It says satan is seeking whom he may devour but he don't devour the Christians!! No flesh would be saved except those days were shortened (Trib)
Romans, chapter 8
"11": But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.
The flesh will live again also, how could there be a ressurection if the flesh did not raise from the ground as Jesus did. The flesh is something too, it is enough that Jesus was willing to die for it.
Psalms, psalm 116
"15": Precious in the sight of the LORD is the death of his saints.
If you don't believe the flesh will raise then what about Jesus raising from the dead.
1 Corinthians, chapter 15
11": Therefore whether it were I or they, so we preach, and so ye believed.
"12": Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead?
"13": But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen:
"14": And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.
"15": Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not.
"16": For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised:
"17": And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.
"18": Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished.
"19": If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable.
"20": But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.
Raising from the dead is the whole meaning of salvation both soul and body. It says satan is seeking whom he may devour but he don't devour the Christians!! No flesh would be saved except those days were shortened (Trib)
Jas 1:15 Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.
It's the "LUST" (will) of the flesh that caused/still causing sin.
Ga 5:17 For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.
Jesus came to "Purge our conscience" (will of the flesh) from sin.
We "crucify the "old man" of flesh when we're saved.
Flesh dies for it sins, that the "once to die" appointed to man, the second death, (soul) isn't appointed to anyone.
Jesus didn't die for the sins of the flesh, only the soul, this is why we can live in a "body still sinful" yet have a "soul free from sin".
This is why OSAS is the correct doctrine.
Ro 7:24 O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?
25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.
Satan feeds off the flesh and it sin.
Surely you are not contending that man's sin is responsible for keeping Satan alive? Unbelievable! Well considering the source perhaps not!
Safe in the Arms of God by John MacArthur can be purchased at amazon.com.
It comes highly recommended by many as a Biblical examination of what happens to babies when they die.
He joins Spurgeon, Mohler, and many other Calvinists in saying that the Bible clearly teaches that babies go to Heaven.
From this thread, we have a clear picture that Calvinists do not agree with each other on many issues, any more than they agree with other Christians on many issues.
A number of Calvinists on this thread have stated that the Bible says NOTHING about the fate of infants. That they believe infants go to Heaven, but it is "just" a belief.
It is an intensely important issue to millions of parents. So I would commend the above book to those Calvinists who think the Bible says nothing about the issue. We should not speak where the Bible is silent. But on many issues, sometimes we individually have not studied as much as we think we have. It behooves pastors to not be more silent than the Bible.
Karen
It comes highly recommended by many as a Biblical examination of what happens to babies when they die.
He joins Spurgeon, Mohler, and many other Calvinists in saying that the Bible clearly teaches that babies go to Heaven.
From this thread, we have a clear picture that Calvinists do not agree with each other on many issues, any more than they agree with other Christians on many issues.
A number of Calvinists on this thread have stated that the Bible says NOTHING about the fate of infants. That they believe infants go to Heaven, but it is "just" a belief.
It is an intensely important issue to millions of parents. So I would commend the above book to those Calvinists who think the Bible says nothing about the issue. We should not speak where the Bible is silent. But on many issues, sometimes we individually have not studied as much as we think we have. It behooves pastors to not be more silent than the Bible.
Karen
Thank you for informing us ignorant calvinists that there are various views of infant salvation amongst ourselves. And we don't agree with each other on every detail?? You're kidding!
And of course we know that arminians, biblicists, fundamentalists, Southern Baptist, et al, are in PERFECT UNITY. Oh that we calvinist could be as smart as they...
Brother Bob
New Member
J.D.
Sorry, J.D.
I wasn't trying to insult you.
This is a worldwide discussion board.
What we assume others know is not always what others know.
I HAD thought until not so long ago that there was ONE view of infant salvation among Calvinists, and that it was expressed by Gerstner. Quite contrary to MacArthur's view.
Also, I was primarily responding to the concept in this thread, stated by several, that the Bible has nothing clear to say about infant salvation.
Guess I travel in different circles than you do.
Because I am around a number of Calvinists from time to time who present their view as the only Calvinist view.
Please don't take an attempt at a general discussion as a pointed insult.
Karen
I wasn't trying to insult you.
This is a worldwide discussion board.
What we assume others know is not always what others know.
I HAD thought until not so long ago that there was ONE view of infant salvation among Calvinists, and that it was expressed by Gerstner. Quite contrary to MacArthur's view.
Also, I was primarily responding to the concept in this thread, stated by several, that the Bible has nothing clear to say about infant salvation.
Guess I travel in different circles than you do.
Because I am around a number of Calvinists from time to time who present their view as the only Calvinist view.
Please don't take an attempt at a general discussion as a pointed insult.
Karen
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
Surely you are not contending that man's sin is responsible for keeping Satan alive? Unbelievable! Well considering the source perhaps not!
Lets see, man's sin keeps Satan alive. It follows that sin created Satan. Then who tempted Eve. I know! It was a snake!
Calvibaptist
New Member
I have read this book. I respect Dr. MacArthur, and have been listening to him for over 20 years. I disagree with the interpretation of the passages he uses. The book is very sentimental, but not very good exegesis.
I believe that babies who die go to heaven. I don't think the Bible clearly teaches this. I base my belief on the Sovereignty and the Justice and Grace of God.
Calvibaptist
New Member
I am totally with Helen on this one. I am so tired of being labeled by Calvinists just because I don't precisely agree with their views or language.
The Bible does not divide believers up this way. </font>[/QUOTE]Marcia,
I respectfully disagree with you on this one. The New Testament is full of Paul labelling people and calling people out for variant views, whether it involve the resurrection, the second coming, communion, the gospel, church leadership, immorality, food offered to idols, circumcision, shall I go on?
Church leaders are commanded to correct those whom we believe to be in error. If we see error and fail to attempt to correct, we are facing greater condemnation.
Marcia
Active Member
I am totally with Helen on this one. I am so tired of being labeled by Calvinists just because I don't precisely agree with their views or language.
The Bible does not divide believers up this way. </font>[/QUOTE]Marcia,
I respectfully disagree with you on this one. The New Testament is full of Paul labelling people and calling people out for variant views, whether it involve the resurrection, the second coming, communion, the gospel, church leadership, immorality, food offered to idols, circumcision, shall I go on?
Church leaders are commanded to correct those whom we believe to be in error. If we see error and fail to attempt to correct, we are facing greater condemnation. </font>[/QUOTE]You are so out of line on this one! Paul called people out for serious error and heresy! I have not expressed any view that is serious error or could be proved to be against the Bible as held by the historic Christian faith. I am not worshiping idols, being a legalist, or anything else that Paul called people on and I highly resent your implication of this.
There are people who disagree with Calvinism who are believers and abide by the Bible. Calvinism is a teaching that believers can disagree on but should not divide over. Some Calvinists are divisive and this is what riles me.
Are you saying that if we disagree with you, we are not believers or are heretics?
Calvibaptist
New Member
Marcia, I have not called you out on anything. You made the claim that Calvinists divide and that the Bible never separates people like Calvinists do. I listed several examples where Paul did just that. It had absolutely nothing to do with you. BTW, Paul called Peter out for something that was practical, not a heretical belief. And he did it in front of everyone and then wrote about it in a letter.
I agree with everything in this paragraph, but would add that in modern Christianity, it is the non-calvinists that are divisive. Check out what is going on in the SBC, where non-calvinist church leaders and denominational leaders are calling calvinists heretics and saying that it is the worst possible evangelism killer out there.
I never said such a thing. Are you assuming that is what I believe? What I have said is that statements that were made by two people on this board were heretical. They were, and I can't change what they believe or what they have said.
David Lamb
Well-Known Member
I would have welcomed another choice on the poll: "Don't know" or "Other", for the simple reason that I do not know. I wonder if God has wisely hidden the answer to this from us, to prevent us trying to choose a "lower age-limit" for the necessity of believing on the Lord Jesus Christ to be saved? (And I stress that I am merely wondering, not putting this forward as biblical truth).SuperBaptist said:
As for Roman Catholics, it was nothing to do with babies not "accepting Christ as their Saviour". It rather had to do with what they call baptism. They said that if a baby died before it had been "baptised", it went to a place called "Limbo", or "Lumbus Infantium", which, according to the "Catholic Encyclopedia," is:
the permanent place or state of those unbaptized children and others who, dying without grievous personal sin, are excluded from the beatific vision on account of original sin alone.
That is why in Roman Catholic families, if a baby looked as if it was not going to survive very long, an "emergency baptism" would be performed.
Last year, the Vatican's International Theological Commission published a report in which it said:
There are good reasons to hope that babies who die without being baptized go to heaven.
In a document published April 20, the commission said the traditional concept of limbo -- as a place where unbaptized infants spend eternity but without communion with God -- seemed to reflect an "unduly restrictive view of salvation."
I have not heard of Roman Catholics saying there is no Purgatory. Indeed, earlier this year Pope called heaven, hell, and purgatory:In a document published April 20, the commission said the traditional concept of limbo -- as a place where unbaptized infants spend eternity but without communion with God -- seemed to reflect an "unduly restrictive view of salvation."
fundamental themes that unfortunately appear rarely in our preaching.
(Full story here: http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=11749 )
(Sorry - I have just noticed that this thread is over 2 years old, and that the writer of the OP is banned, so at least parts of my reply may not be relevant).
Last edited by a moderator: