Where do Babies Go When they Die - Continued

[webdog]

Actually, MOST of the time "saved" is used it is NOT talking eternal redemption. Interesting that we, with our spiritual jargon, have myopia when looking at certain words and think we know what they must mean.

Jailer in Philippi knew his life was forfeit if even one prisoner in his charge escaped. Into the dark ruins he came, hearing Paul comfort him by saying that they were all still there. He called for a lantern and confronted Paul asking, "What can be done so that I will be delivered?" NOTHING to do with salvation of his soul.

But Paul, ever the alert ambassador, did a play on words and shifted from the physical "saved" to the spiritual "saved". I like that and often try to do the same in my witnessing of God's Grace to others.

And like Paul, the only way we humans can "quantify" the inward regenerating work of the holy Spirit, is to see the outward manifestations of repentance and faith (that come, of course, AFTER regeneration). Asking if someone believes is a natural way for us to judge [as best we can] the activity of the heart.

BTW, just to be sure to tie this to the op, NO BABY "BELIEVES". So if they go to heaven, it is by the grace of God along WITHOUT faith or repentance or anything.

Talk about eisegesis! After hearing Paul and Silas sing hymns all night, witnessing the earthquake, he only wanted to know how to get out of his predicament?!? He already had the answer to that...he was going to commit suicide. Paul stopped him (a shock to the jailer, as why would any prisoner stick around), and the jailer repented, and took them out and asked how to be saved.

 

[kyredneck]

But all those who are born from above will manifest faith at some point in time.

HankD

Absolutely, but that may not be manifested in the form you may expect it to be, i.e., faith in an xyz formula for eternal life that nearly all denominations peddle these days.

 

[Amy.G]

Talk about eisegesis! After hearing Paul and Silas sing hymns all night, witnessing the earthquake, he only wanted to know how to get our of his predicament?!?

That is the truth WB. Good grief. How can a pastor have such a goofy interpretation?

The earthquake had passed, everyone was accounted for, so exactly what did the jailer want to be "delivered" from?? Everything was fine at that point.

Unbelievable.

 

[webdog]

Absolutely, but that may not be manifested in the form you may expect it to be, i.e., faith in an xyz formula for eternal life that nearly all denominations peddle these days.

We expect it to be faith. Scripture gives us a clear understanding of what faith is. Unfortunately, you are wrong. It is sequential from our viewpoint. Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God is most definitely "xyz".

 

[glfredrick]

I've been tied up and unable to participate so far, but I was one of the ones posting in the other thread.

I've just skimmed what is here, and most of it is a re-hash of similar arguments with neither "side" willing to give an ounce. That is rather sad, for many of the arguments here are not truly biblical, but rather of the heart. That is okay in a sense, for the subject of babies dying is a heart matter. When my own 2nd son died in our arms, we certainly cried out to God to make it different, but the son was dead nonetheless. Can we be "assured" that our son is, as we engraved on his tombstone, "Safe in the arms of Jesus"? I sincerely do not know and after searching the Scriptures over and over again for a truly satisfying answer, I still don't know.

What I do know FOR SURE is that an ALL-GOOD, ALL-MERCIFUL, ALL-GRACIOUS, PERFECT JUDGE, God will do the perfect and right thing in the case of infants who die, and if I could see and understand things from God's perspective (which I assume that one day, I will when I enter God's presence) that I would completely and totally agree with God's sovereign decision whichever way He moves.

I, like many others, anticipate from the hints given us in Scripture that God has some form of special grace for babies, but I cannot prove that and neither can anyone else. To make a special pleading on behalf of infants also starts a slippery slope argument, where we then need to discern at which point the child is no longer covered by God's special grace. Is it when they first cry because they don't get their way (their first outright sin), or when they say "no" the first time? When?

Because we cannot hold that babies are born innocent, all (ALL) people being born in sin, we rightly understand that God must make salvific provision for even infants. How He does that, or if He does that we cannot say. and we are right back to trusting by faith that an all-good God will do the all-good thing, and that we will agree with Him when we know.

For what it is worth, the position taken here on the board by Amy is not even Arminian, it is Pelagian. The Pelagian theological position is more human-centered than even the Arminian position, and it is often considered heretical. I am not making a point of attack here, but rather laying out a position according to what I see written in various responses as defined by various theological positions.

The Pelagian position is one that states that humans are born "neutral" and it is the actions of sin that condemn, exactly the position taken by some in this debate. The Pelagian position does not hold to the doctrine of original sin. We are capable (responsible) for only the sins (or lack of asking for salvation) that we as humans do. A "neutral" position is neither universally salvific, nor universally damned. It is just neutral, and the ACTIONS of the human dictate the way God responds.

The Arminian position is not quite so human-centered. It rightly understands that we are born in original sin, and that some remedy needs to be provided by God for that original sin, and because that remedy is needed, yet there is a desire to hold to a human free exercise of will position, a new grace of God was theorized called previnient grace. Previnient grace dictates that we are given just enough "spark of life" to respond to God, who will then, noting our response, act (because "all who ask are saved"). Many here on the board adopt this position.

Here is the problem for both the Pelagian and Arminian positions when it comes to salvation of infants. Both REQUIRE that humans DO some action (at the bare minimum, have faith), and in the case of infants there is NO action that they can do. Because they cannot believe, cannot have faith, cannot express their desire for salvation, and neither does either position trust in God's sovereign election, there is ultimate NO hope for infants who die because there is no means for a human response in infants.

Without entering the realm of hysterics, I do not think for one moment that anyone in any camp wishes for that to be true in the case of infants, but yet many argue from one of the positions outlined above without truly understanding what it is that they are arguing! Somehow, as the argument goes, "God just saves babies because to us that seems the best thing (and implied: I could never trust a God who would not save babies)."

 

[kyredneck]

We expect it to be faith. Scripture gives us a clear understanding of what faith is. Unfortunately, you are wrong. It is sequential from our viewpoint. Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God is most definitely "xyz".

Excerpt from another thread:

"....because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.", so you must know that Jesus is God, and that he was raised from the dead.
I don't think that he realizes that he is leaving things out and that many of the people he has lead to Christ may not be saved......."

Do you believe this? (I dare say it is the popular view) What if one has the misfortune of following a flawed formula, instead of xyz it's bxlytz? Or xry? Bound for hell?

 

[Tom Butler]

Dr Bob,

You and I are usually on the same page, but your take on the Philippian jailer's question and Paul's answer is a new interpretation for me. I have never heard that view before and I'm having trouble with it.

I would welcome further explanation how you arrived at that position.

 

[webdog]

Excerpt from another thread:



Do you believe this? (I dare say it is the popular view) What if one has the misfortune of following a flawed formula, instead of xyz it's bxlytz? Or xry? Bound for hell?

Can you clarify, I'm not real clear on what you are asking. Thanks.

 

[webdog]

For what it is worth, the position taken here on the board by Amy is not even Arminian, it is Pelagian. The Pelagian theological position is more human-centered than even the Arminian position, and it is often considered heretical. I am not making a point of attack here, but rather laying out a position according to what I see written in various responses as defined by various theological positions.

The Pelagian position is one that states that humans are born "neutral" and it is the actions of sin that condemn, exactly the position taken by some in this debate. The Pelagian position does not hold to the doctrine of original sin. We are capable (responsible) for only the sins (or lack of asking for salvation) that we as humans do. A "neutral" position is neither universally salvific, nor universally damned. It is just neutral, and the ACTIONS of the human dictate the way God responds

Completely wrong. Pelagianism teaches that man can come to God APART from any working of God. Nobody on this thread (including Amy who you targeted in your "non attack") has even hinted as such. The Roman Catholic position hold to Augustinian original sin...does that mean you are labeled a Roman Catholic?

Also, are you aware there is a difference between being innocent and not guilty?

 

[kyredneck]

Can you clarify, I'm not real clear on what you are asking. Thanks.

I assume you are convinced that the Baptist Church you attend, or are a member of, carries the 'correct' formula to be born from above and thereby obtain eternal life-xyz.

Then there's the COC with a [flawed] formula-xbylzt, or the RCC with rxajydz, or the COG with xryz, etc., etc.

Can/does a flawed formula send one to hell? And them all the while believing they're bound for heaven?

What if they've never had the good fortune to have been offered the correct formula to be born from above and thereby obtain eternal life? To me, these folks are just as handicapped as the infant.

 

[webdog]

Can/does a flawed formula send one to hell? And them all the while believing they're bound for heaven?

If they deny we are saved by grace through faith, of course.

Can/does a flawed formula send one to hell? And them all the while believing they're bound for heaven?

Rejecting Christ sends one to hell, afterall even calvinists have a flawed formula and I believe they are brothers and sisters in Christ (even if some moderators and administrators here don't feel the same about non-cal's)

What if they've never had the good fortune to have been offered the correct formula to be born from above and thereby obtain eternal life? To me, these folks are just as handicapped as the infant.

Impossible according to Acts 17:26-27. We have all been placed in the exact location and place in history that is most beneficial to do just that.

 

[percho]

There is a reason this verse is in the word of God and where it is stated it is written it's probably there twice.

As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

The reason is two verses before: (For [the children] being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;)

If I go to heaven or hell is because when I get to the fork in the road and one fork says I believe and the other says I don't believe and I choose one is that him that calleth choosing or me? Did God make the choice of did Jacob and Esau?

Kyredneck is correct it is God doing the impregnating and causing birth not we.

I ask again, does the word of God teach dying and going to heaven or being born into the kingdom of God? There is a difference in dying and being born isn't it?

It is not a question of where a baby goes when it dies. That which is born of the flesh is flesh. By the way there is no mention of sin in that statement. Marvel not that I say ye must be born again. Paul says flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God. Why does Paul say flesh and blood? Lev. 17:14 For [it is] the life of all flesh; the blood of it [is] for the life thereof: therefore I said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall eat the blood of no manner of flesh: for the life of all flesh [is] the blood thereof: whosoever eateth it shall be cut off. Life here is the word soul. Flesh and blood. The soul of man is the blood, that is where your life is. Ye must be born again, in a moment in the twinkling of an eye at the last trump.
The corruptible flesh must put on incorruption and blood the mortal soul must put on immortality.

By the way the Word was made flesh and blood just as we are in order to die.
He really did die for us. His soul (blood) was poured out for us

This should answer the question about babies and also the thread of
Where was Jesus. Men [and] brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead (life in the blood, soul) and buried,(flesh that saw corruption see Acts 13) and his sepulchre is with us unto this day. He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption.

The resurrection of the Christ = 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.



If there are any comments, please comment on all do not pick at it.

 

[percho]

By the way the context of hearing Jesus say well done faithful servant is when he comes again. See Luke 19 and Matthew 25 Not when we die and go somewhere.

 

[webdog]

I ask again, does the word of God teach dying and going to heaven or being born into the kingdom of God? There is a difference in dying and being born isn't it?

It teaches it has been appointed unto man ONCE to die. Spiritual death is the second death, so if what you are saying is correct where men are created "dead" (an oxymoron) spiritually you have quite the contradiction.

Can it be in the BB rules that the "Jacob I loved, Esau I hated..." be put in it's correct context? I get so tired of reading this "proof text" of God's arbitrary hate of the "non elect". When you see "as it is written..." please go back to see as it is written.

 

[percho]

It teaches it has been appointed unto man ONCE to die. Spiritual death is the second death, so if what you are saying is correct where men are created "dead" (an oxymoron) spiritually you have quite the contradiction.

Can it be in the BB rules that the "Jacob I loved, Esau I hated..." be put in it's correct context? I get so tired of reading this "proof text" of God's arbitrary hate of the "non elect". When you see "as it is written..." please go back to see as it is written.

Well I see you did not read the last sentence. If there are any comments, please comment on all do not pick at it.

Is the word hate in bold or the purpose of God according to election? No one is using anything. Please comment on the total message. I believe it relates and works together. If not please let me know.

It is either one or the other, dying and going to heaven or being
born into the kingdom of God.

 

[Luke2427]

I have to constantly change my belief to believe God. The Spirit of God constantly teaches my very soul.

One seed came Israel to a tree. This is what was chosen before the foundation of the world. There is one’s who was cut out not because they were not chosen but for unbelief. Jesus said if you disown me I will disown you. Now we Gentiles have been included when we heard the Gospel of our salvation having believed.

God said that He will keep the meek and humble who trust in the name of the Lord. This is the lost He came to find. These are the one who are His. These are the one's the Father will draw and He will hide the truth from the wise and learned. Trust in Jesus is the only way and to God it is not work or does it take away from the grace of God.

But there are no meek and humble within the ranks of the unregenerate human race.

Meekness and humility would be good. It would drive men to seek after God.

Romans 3 teaches that there are none that doeth good. None that seeketh after God.

Furthermore, if one expects that his meekness is so great that it qualified him to become God's elect- he is the very opposite of meek- he is arrogant beyond measure.

Your doctrine would cause a man to boast before God and say- "Few men are as meek as me. That's why I am here!"

 

[Luke2427]

Faith is an act of the spirit, not of the mind, so you have no real basis for this statement. Don't forget that John the Baptist leapt in his mother's womb at the sound of Mary's greeting.

Two things:

Where do you get that from? Faith is a spiritual work for certain, but where do you get that it is not of the mind?

Secondly, if what you say is true, then man has nothing to do with his salvation before regeneration since he is dead spiritually. If faith is solely an act of the spirit then man's dead spirit must be made alive before his spirit can do anything regarding faith.

Aaron- allow me to be the first to welcome you to the good side of the Force!:applause:

 

[psalms109:31]

truth

But there are no meek and humble within the ranks of the unregenerate human race.

Meekness and humility would be good. It would drive men to seek after God.

Romans 3 teaches that there are none that doeth good. None that seeketh after God.

Furthermore, if one expects that his meekness is so great that it qualified him to become God's elect- he is the very opposite of meek- he is arrogant beyond measure.

Your doctrine would cause a man to boast before God and say- "Few men are as meek as me. That's why I am here!"

Zephaniah 3:12
But I will leave within you the meek and humble, who trust in the name of the LORD.

Proverbs 3:
5 Trust in the LORD with all your heart
and lean not on your own understanding;
6 in all your ways acknowledge him,
and he will make your paths straight. [Or will direct your paths]
7 Do not be wise in your own eyes;
fear the LORD and shun evil.
Luke 10:21
At that time Jesus, full of joy through the Holy Spirit, said, "I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children. Yes, Father, for this was your good pleasure.

Romans 11:17If some of the branches have been broken off, and you, though a wild olive shoot, have been grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing sap from the olive root, 18do not boast over those branches. If you do, consider this: You do not support the root, but the root supports you. 19You will say then, "Branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in." 20Granted. But they were broken off because of unbelief, and you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but be afraid. 21For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either.
22Consider therefore the kindness and sternness of God: sternness to those who fell, but kindness to you, provided that you continue in his kindness. Otherwise, you also will be cut off.

No one who is meek and humble will do as you say that is building a strawmen.

The word of Jesus that we are ministers of is Spirit and life to a dead men who does no good, only the word of Jesus can regenerate and make him alive and change them. If we spend more time studying the scripture instead of men's idea we can spread the message that God intended. Following a crowd does not mean anyone is drawn by the Father.

Mark 16:
15He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation. 16Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

 

[annsni]

I've been tied up and unable to participate so far, but I was one of the ones posting in the other thread.

I've just skimmed what is here, and most of it is a re-hash of similar arguments with neither "side" willing to give an ounce. That is rather sad, for many of the arguments here are not truly biblical, but rather of the heart. That is okay in a sense, for the subject of babies dying is a heart matter. When my own 2nd son died in our arms, we certainly cried out to God to make it different, but the son was dead nonetheless. Can we be "assured" that our son is, as we engraved on his tombstone, "Safe in the arms of Jesus"? I sincerely do not know and after searching the Scriptures over and over again for a truly satisfying answer, I still don't know.

What I do know FOR SURE is that an ALL-GOOD, ALL-MERCIFUL, ALL-GRACIOUS, PERFECT JUDGE, God will do the perfect and right thing in the case of infants who die, and if I could see and understand things from God's perspective (which I assume that one day, I will when I enter God's presence) that I would completely and totally agree with God's sovereign decision whichever way He moves.

I, like many others, anticipate from the hints given us in Scripture that God has some form of special grace for babies, but I cannot prove that and neither can anyone else. To make a special pleading on behalf of infants also starts a slippery slope argument, where we then need to discern at which point the child is no longer covered by God's special grace. Is it when they first cry because they don't get their way (their first outright sin), or when they say "no" the first time? When?

Because we cannot hold that babies are born innocent, all (ALL) people being born in sin, we rightly understand that God must make salvific provision for even infants. How He does that, or if He does that we cannot say. and we are right back to trusting by faith that an all-good God will do the all-good thing, and that we will agree with Him when we know.

For what it is worth, the position taken here on the board by Amy is not even Arminian, it is Pelagian. The Pelagian theological position is more human-centered than even the Arminian position, and it is often considered heretical. I am not making a point of attack here, but rather laying out a position according to what I see written in various responses as defined by various theological positions.

The Pelagian position is one that states that humans are born "neutral" and it is the actions of sin that condemn, exactly the position taken by some in this debate. The Pelagian position does not hold to the doctrine of original sin. We are capable (responsible) for only the sins (or lack of asking for salvation) that we as humans do. A "neutral" position is neither universally salvific, nor universally damned. It is just neutral, and the ACTIONS of the human dictate the way God responds.

The Arminian position is not quite so human-centered. It rightly understands that we are born in original sin, and that some remedy needs to be provided by God for that original sin, and because that remedy is needed, yet there is a desire to hold to a human free exercise of will position, a new grace of God was theorized called previnient grace. Previnient grace dictates that we are given just enough "spark of life" to respond to God, who will then, noting our response, act (because "all who ask are saved"). Many here on the board adopt this position.

Here is the problem for both the Pelagian and Arminian positions when it comes to salvation of infants. Both REQUIRE that humans DO some action (at the bare minimum, have faith), and in the case of infants there is NO action that they can do. Because they cannot believe, cannot have faith, cannot express their desire for salvation, and neither does either position trust in God's sovereign election, there is ultimate NO hope for infants who die because there is no means for a human response in infants.

Without entering the realm of hysterics, I do not think for one moment that anyone in any camp wishes for that to be true in the case of infants, but yet many argue from one of the positions outlined above without truly understanding what it is that they are arguing! Somehow, as the argument goes, "God just saves babies because to us that seems the best thing (and implied: I could never trust a God who would not save babies)."

Amen. :applause:

 

[Aaron]

Two things:

Where do you get that from? Faith is a spiritual work for certain, but where do you get that it is not of the mind?

But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.

But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.

For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.

Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.

1 Cor. 2:9-12