Saved at birth? Part 2

Infant Salvation

The salvation of infants will always be a difficult theological issue. Those I have interacted with on this subject all concede this. We also concede that the Bible is not altogether clear on the subject. So, we are ultimately left in somewhat of a quandary as to whether or not all infants who die in infancy are damned or are saved. We can’t know this for sure, and must not be dogmatic about it. It is a good discussion, but we should not devote a great deal of time and energy to it.

We have some clue as to what the actual destiny of an infant is when Jesus said to allow the little children to come to Him for of such is the Kingdom of Heaven. “But when Jesus saw it, He was much displeased,, and said to them, Suffer the little children to come unto Me; and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God,” (Mark 10:14).

My personal position is that infants who die in infancy go immediately into the presence of God in Heaven. I also include those who are severely mentally retarded, aborted babies who are murdered in the womb by the hand of the abortionist, miscarried babies, even babies in the wombs of their Christian mothers at the rapture.

I can share much more on this, but I trust this has been helpful.


LM

 

I still don't believe you know what pelagianism is. It entails much more than "If I ought, I can" (wherever you got this from). Your catchy tag line doesn't apply to me anyway, nor every "free will system".

 

Webdog...

it is my guess you have never read the man....but I could be wrong.

Do you remember saying this webdog?

and other statements like this, over the years.

well...."If I ought, I can"

Also....
building upon this statement he denied man was a sinner until he sinned....

Have you ever said anything like this webdog? Nearly every week. This too is against Bible truth and is pelagianism.

how am I doing so far?

It seems Charles Hodges agrees.

Do you agree with this statement?

 

where do we start?

Eph. 1:4
Please observe the subject of the choice is "us", which are the believers, not the people of the world. Also the object or goal is predestination, "unto the adoption of children". He was talking about the saved. He did not say, "according as He has chosen some to be saved before the foundation of the world". The salvation of the soul is not mentioned. Before the foundation of the world God chose that the believers in Christ should be without blame.

2 Thess. 2:13
First of all the word "chosen" used here is not the common word for election or predestination. In the context we see the principle that unbelievers perish because they receive not the love of the truth (vs 10) and neither do they believe it (vs12); but the other group called brethren predicated upon the belief of the truth (vs13).
Then notice the chosing is not of the unsaved to become believers, but of the brethren to obtain certain aspect of salvation....to obtain the Glory of the Lord Jesus Christ. One more thing, "from the beginning" here has the idea of being the "first fruits". Rev. 17:14 - "they that are with Him are called, and chosen, and faithful." Now when is the chosing? After the calling. That's God's order of events. It's the same in 2 Peter 1:10, you have the calling before the election. So we see here that God's people are called, and when they respond, they are chosen, and then they are faithful and glorified.

 

please see below...

 

(VS10) - in this statement, it is assumed, that no man ever exercises choice when coming to God or embracing His salvation.
It speaks of the fool and of those who have corrupted their way upon the earth. Here in Romans it is used to give weight to the fact that man in his condition is sin.
Since there are so many places in the Bible that speak to those who do seek God, and there are others that show that man should seek God, this statement is to be understood that there are none who seek God as much as they should.
Is. 55:6
Jer. 29:13
Acts 17:27
Heb. 11:6
Surely the Lord does not tell man to do something which he cannot do?

 

The same as always...which is not saying much of anything at all. The denial of augustinian original sin DOES NOT MAKE ONE PELAGIAN, but since you have a seared conscience, and only like to hear yourself talk, I know I'm only wasting my time.

 

As Non-Calvinist PK, I disagree with your 'interpretation' here with specific regard to the above.

That is a disortion of the scirpture given. What it discribes is man in his natural state without the intervening of God toward man, and NOT that man isn't seeking God as much as he should. Man in his sin will NOT seek after and THAT is the reason God has to FIRST come to man. If it were not for God reaching out and revealing Himself and His truth TO man, man would stay in his sin and condemnation forever. Why? Because there is none that seek after God for ALL have turned aside and do no meritorious good. We are in sin and our 'good' is filthy rags and therefore having no salvic aspect to it.

 

I agree with Allan. "No one seeks God" are the fools that have already rejected the truth and righteousness.

 

WD : You need to seriously evaluate the appropriateness of charging James of having " a seared conscience ." If you care to use Scripture with any semblance of integrity you will not accuse a brother in the Lord with that allegation . Look at the context : " Now the Spirit explicitly says some will depart from the faith , paying attention to deceitful spirits and the teachings of demons , through the hypocrisy of liars whose consciences are seared." ( 1 Timothy 4:1,2 HCSB ) . Straighten-up and fly right . No , I am not confusing you with SP , but the same advice applies to him also .

 

I just wanted to post this number.

It may come in handy later

 

Don't tell me what do do. I'm not your son or your dog, so don't talk to me like either one.

I don't recall quoting that ENTIRE verse, so no, my application of what I stated does not have to fall under how you want to define it. I stand by what I stated.

 

edited...not worth it...

 

Lets go to scripture to see if the Lord tells man to do something which he cannot do.
Matt. 5:48. "Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

Are you perfect yet?

 

Colossians 2:28

Vs27) "To whom God would make known what is the riches of His glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory:
Vs28) Whom we preach, warning every man, and teaching every man in all wisdom; that we present every man perfect in Christ Jesus:

I would have to say, in God's eyes I am perfect through Christ and the work of the cross. Sorry to give such a simple answer.

 

We are justified... but not perfect. How about the Law? Didn't God give us the law and tell us to obey it? Could we? No. Therefore He did tell us to do something we could not do.... hense the need for Christ. The use of the word perfect is also mature. We are not fully mature are we? We may be on the way, but I don't know about you... but I have a way to go.

 

The passage being referred to is 1 Timothy 4:1,2 . Webdog charged James with having "a seared conscience ." I thought that was an uncalled for remark since the context of the phrase deals with reprobates , not believers in our Lord . Now WD says he doesn't appreciate my admonishment . WD , you said a brother in our Lord has a seared conscience . Then you try to mitigate that by saying you didn't quote the entire passage . Do you think it's right to use Scripture for your purposes and then divorce content from the context when it suits you ? Do not cite a phrase from the Bible then run from its ramifications when you are caught .

How about if someone said your "destiny is destruction" -- Philippians 3:19 ?

How about if someone said you have "a form of godliness"-- 2 Timothy 3:5 ?

How about if someone said that you believe another gospel -- Galatians 1:8,9 & 2 Corinthians 11:4 ?

How about if someone said you "are secretly introducing destructive heresies " -- 2 Peter 2:1 ?

When the shoe is on the other foot you may cry "FOUL !" , huh ? You need to be reproved for your actions . Your hurt feelings are a minor consideration when it is taken into account the downright evil things you have said about a brother in the Lord . I disagree with some here on the BB . I have called some pompous and arrogant . But I have never ( to my knowledge ) called a brother or sister in the Lord such despicable things as you have from God's Holy Word when the references clearly apply only to reprobates . It's shameful .

 

Lou,

Allow me to respond in general and not personally. I believe the Bible is clear, the problem I am certain is not with the Bible but the immaturity of the related arguments (again I say this generally). Most arguments begin with the belief that the Bible is not "really" clear and certainties regarding infants and those volitionally incapable and their salvation is vague at best.

The reason I believe it is held as an unclear is because it requires doctrinal conclusions, a task that is not for the novice or a person that begins with an agenda. Also, we have such a large body of spiritually infantile or at best adolescent believers today, due to pulpits being manned by such, that most beliefs are reduced to direct statements in the Bible.

To them, if there isn't a direct statement then it doesn't exist and no authoritative conclusion can be made. That reflects the mind of a child. Adults, spiritual adults, reflect the ability to recognize conclusions, to construct arguments from implications and prescriptive examination. Most believers, even those claiming to be really good teachers can't and don't do this.

So I will state why the volitionally incapable are saved, automatically.

The Advocacy of Jesus Christ:
1 John 2:1-2

There is only one acceptable advocate that the court of heaven accepts to represent each human being, Jesus Christ. He and He alone is the advocate that is acceptable to God that can present us spotless.

The alternative of course is that you advocate for yourself and the clear result of that is a judgment of unrighteous from Heaven's Judge.

The court acts in the interest of the person who cannot, by reason of volitional incapacitation, to assign an advocate FOR THEM (the principles and boundaries of the court of heaven abound in Scripture and if one wishes, those practices, rules, regulations and boundaries are revealed, not in total but in enough detail that we can and do recognize the divine court structure and its policies and practices ).

An infant cannot decide, hence because Jesus is the Advocate (the only one recognized by the court) as stated here, He is by default, assigned to be the representative of those who cannot exercise their volition.

This is a doctrinal conclusion based on what is both understood and stated. While for some it may be difficult, for others it will be quite clear and for some it will be met with violent protest.

I will be clear. This is not in anyway a THOROUGH treatment of the subject by me, but is intended to provoke further investigation and debate.

 

When all else fails...play the martyr card.