-
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!
For those who believe in a pre-trib
- Thread starter ktn4eg
- Start date
Hello KT, I would suggest that the child would be, like all that fall under the provision of God because they cannot understand, glorified.
Now here is question for you: if the Church is raptured at the end of the Tribulation...who populates the Millennial Kingdom?
God bless.
David said that he would go to his child (2Sam. 12:23). I guess the next two questions would be, was the child still in Bathsheba's womb? And the next question: Where would David go to him? Would it be the partition of Sheol that the elect went to when they died? Or would it be just that they would both go to Sheol; David in the partition of the elect, and his child, in the partition of that rich man (Luke 16:23), who suffered torments?
If they were both elect (cp. Rom. 9:11), they would both be in that elect partition.
I guess the answer to your question, KT, could be dependent on whether or not the child in the womb at the rapture is elect or not.
Last edited by a moderator:
canadyjd
Well-Known Member
I disagree. Adam was made whole, not a baby. Everything started at once with Adam....his heart started, his brain started, his lungs started, all of his organs began at the same time...Adam moved for the first time when God breathed into him. The lump of clay that was "Adam" became "flesh" and therefore alive, and with a "spirit", for the first time when God breathed into him.
Not so with babies in the womb. They are alive, they are moving, they are living....they have a spirit.
A baby's organs are functioning long before it is born. The brain is functioning, the heart is functioning, the kidneys, the lungs are functioning.
The baby "breathes" in the womb,...it breathes in the fluid...which helps soften the lung tissue in preparation for the air.
A baby's life begins at conception and God puts their spirit into them just like DNA.
beameup
Member
As do all mammals.
convicted1
Guest
I think I am smelling some "ruckmanism" cookin' on the stove.....
Quite possibly the shortest Rapture thread I have ever seen, lol.
Concerning the replies made, for the sake of discussion, I would point out that Adam's body was formed, life was breathed into him, and he became a living soul, rather than received a soul. Most of the uses of "soul" in scripture can be seen as a reference to man in totality, rather than the immaterial aspect of his existence. This "soul," like Adam, has a body and a spirit (his life, basically).
And I agree with the member that mentioned life begins at conception, wholeheartedly.
But back to the OP: if an unbelieving mother was pregnant at the time of the Rapture, I think it a good probability that the child would remain in her womb. I have to change my previous answer somewhat (sorry), because I did not take the time to consider this question as it should have been. I will say that while the mother lived, the child would remain in her womb. If the mother dies, and the child as well, after the Rapture takes place, then I would still lean to the child falling under the provision of God, but, I do not think the child would at that point be glorified. This would take place if the mother was raptured, I believe, but, I did not take into consideration the mother being an unbeliever. So the question should take into consideration the standing of the mother, whether she be a believer or not, bringing two answers possible for the question.
Make sense?
God bless.
Concerning the replies made, for the sake of discussion, I would point out that Adam's body was formed, life was breathed into him, and he became a living soul, rather than received a soul. Most of the uses of "soul" in scripture can be seen as a reference to man in totality, rather than the immaterial aspect of his existence. This "soul," like Adam, has a body and a spirit (his life, basically).
And I agree with the member that mentioned life begins at conception, wholeheartedly.
But back to the OP: if an unbelieving mother was pregnant at the time of the Rapture, I think it a good probability that the child would remain in her womb. I have to change my previous answer somewhat (sorry), because I did not take the time to consider this question as it should have been. I will say that while the mother lived, the child would remain in her womb. If the mother dies, and the child as well, after the Rapture takes place, then I would still lean to the child falling under the provision of God, but, I do not think the child would at that point be glorified. This would take place if the mother was raptured, I believe, but, I did not take into consideration the mother being an unbeliever. So the question should take into consideration the standing of the mother, whether she be a believer or not, bringing two answers possible for the question.
Make sense?
God bless.
THe Bible does not say! So anything would be an assumption or an opinion.
Hello Awaken, I agree with your statement, but I think that there is enough that we might give a reasonable assumption. For example (and of course these assumptions fall into the theology we hold concerning the Tribulation and Millennial Kingdom, so we each present these assumptions according to beliefs of endtime events), if we hold to a view that the Church is raptured, the Tribulation ensues, Christ returns at the end and establishes the promised Kingdom...then we can remove certain assumptions from the beginning, such as the babe in the womb of one who does not enter into that Kingdom.
The Church is gone, and the Lord, at the Sheep and Goat Judgment, decides who enters. If an unsaved woman were to endure through the Tribulation to arrive at this judgment, we know that she goes into judgment, but, the child would not. Given the serious nature of events in the Tribulation, it would not be unreasonable to think that there may be a lack of pregnancies in that time, seeing that circumstances will be hostile to life in that time. When it starts, I think we can safely say there will be babies...
Matthew 24:19
King James Version (KJV)
19 And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days!
I think this verse represents the beginning of the Great Tribulation, as we call it these days, so if this is correct, we see pregnancy and infants mid-trib.
But as the OP asks, in view is the time of the Rapture itself, which I take a pre-trib view, and see that there will be pregnancy at that time, which is not an assumption, as we see pregnancy and infants during the Tribulation.
I wouldn't think that it would be an assumption that if a believing mother was raptured that her child would also be glorified at this time, either, but, as you say, and I agree, we do not have a dogmatic statement, so technically it could be called assumption.
And have to go, but thanks for the response.
God bless.
Good response.........I am not sure that I think that the child of an un-regenerate mother would go on to glory. I guess I would assume that if the mother were un-regenerate, there is no reason to assume the child would go on to glory (mass mis-carriage). That is, if I understand your assertion correctly, maybe I don't.
With you, I would argue, that if the mother were raptured, so also would the child, and thus on to glory. Depends on mommy's status I think.
Is the following verse relative to the OP?
Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and [of] the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. John 3:5
Also just what is a miscarriage? How is it different from an abortion, relative to being, born of the flesh is flesh? Could being born of the spirit is spirit have a relative term to miscarriage?
Why did Jesus use the word, born, γεγεννημένον, and is that word inclusive of conception and being brought forth?
Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and [of] the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. John 3:5
Also just what is a miscarriage? How is it different from an abortion, relative to being, born of the flesh is flesh? Could being born of the spirit is spirit have a relative term to miscarriage?
Why did Jesus use the word, born, γεγεννημένον, and is that word inclusive of conception and being brought forth?
I guess there is a division as to whether babies that die go to Heaven or Hell, I myself lean heavily that they do. This belief could be called an assumption as well, but I find it difficult to believe that those who are incapable of understanding (and those mentally incapacitated would be another example) would be held guilty and thus have eternal judgment imposed on them.
As I said before, during the Tribulation conditions will be hostile, and life itself will be a precarious affair for even the fit, so it is not unreasonable to think that by the time of the end of the Tribulation, pregnancy may have come to a halt.
God bless.
Hello Percho, I believe it is related, in fact, when the Lord spoke to Nicodemus I take the view that it was the earthly Kingdom which was primarily in view.
In other words, one must be born again in order to enter that Kingdom, as well as the spiritual realm and rule of God. There is debate that at this time there will be a reversion to an Old Testament economy concerning the Spirit's ministry among men, and as you know, I hold to a view that men were not born again in the New Testament sense as they are today in this age. All of this is based on, as one member stated, assumptions on my part, such as the Restrainer being the Comforter within the Body of Christ, and being taken out of the way with the Rapture of the Church.
And the difference between a miscarriage and an abortion is that most miscarriages are not the result of intentional murder of the child. Big difference. I do not see a relation to being born of the Spirit and miscarriage.
The proposed concept is that if an unsaved woman is pregnant, her physical body dies at the Sheep and Goat Judgment, and when her body dies, so too would her child. There would be no difference between an infant in the womb dying and going to be with the Lord than a ten year old being buried under a rockslide...their physical location is irrelevant, and their spirit would, at this point (at the end of the Tribulation) not be glorified. I have to take the view that there are two resurrection spoken of in scripture, the resurrection unto life (also called the First Resurrection in Revelation 20), and the resurrection unto damnation. For the First Resurrection we will see several resurrections. The Lord's is the first, then those raptured, we see another one in Revelation 11 with the Two Witnesses (which could be debated and indicates, if they are glorified at this point, that some at least that die in the Tribulation will be glorified, though if these two are in fact historical figures such as Enoch, Elijah, or Moses, that could explain this post-rapture resurrection), and then finally, we have those that enter the Kingdom (who will live extended lives, at least, their offspring will) which I believe are not glorified until the final resurrection which takes place at the Great White Throne.
Having said that, when the Kingdom is established, entering into that Kingdom will be those that have physically survived the Tribulation. They will live physically in this kingdom and when they die, I believe they are not at this time resurrected unto glory, but await the end of the Kingdom and the GWT, but I am not overly dogmatic on this point...they may be instantaneously glorified.
So according to what I have concluded through my study, a work in progress to be sure, the unsaved woman at the end of the Tribulation, and thus the time when people will literally "enter the Kingdom of God," if she is with child, will die physically causing her child to die physically, she going to judgment and the child going to be with the Lord in spirit, freed from sin in the physical sense at the death of their body.
So in conclusion, no-one enters that Kingdom, nor the abode of God in their natural state, and it would seem to me that both scenarios fulfill the requirement to be born again while physical, and freed from sin at the death of the body. I take the view that God will judge based upon man's knowledge of Him, and the child cannot be held responsible if they have not been given revelation which leads to repentance. In other words...babies do not go to Hell in my opinion.
And given the difficult nature of eschatological matters, all of this can be thrown into the category of assumption and opinion without hurting my feelings. :smilewinkgrin:
Sorry this is rushed, but have to get going and just wanted to get in a response which I hope may lead to good conversation.
God bless.