Who goes to Heaven?

Yes, this is an emotional issue, but not in the way you think it is. It is not my emotions that make me want to pretend God sends all babies to heaven. It is my love for a loving and merciful God that gets me emotional when people trample upon His character and name by claiming that His offer of salvation is selective. For degrading Him to some dicatator who plays with us like pawns on a chessboard. I get emotional when half the Bible is ignored and changed in order to allow this defamation of character appear to be correct.

Even if the potter expects you to be more loving and merciful then He is Himself?

We are to love our enemies, bless those that curse us, do good to those that despitefully use us. We are to show love and mercy, and yet He has no mercy for anyone he hasn't chosen!

You have no problem with that because you consider yourself one of the lucky ones. Keep praising God for damning people to hell, I will praise mine for saving any and all who believe! I will praise mine for letting those who are too young to know good from bad, enter the land!

~Lorelei

 

Lorelei:

"Yes, this is an emotional issue, but not in the way you think it is. It is not my emotions that make me want to pretend God sends all babies to heaven. It is my love for a loving and merciful God that gets me emotional when people trample upon His character and name by claiming that His offer of salvation is selective. For degrading Him to some dicatator who plays with us like pawns on a chessboard. I get emotional when half the Bible is ignored and changed in order to allow this defamation of character appear to be correct."

You are reacting against (and offfended by) Calvanism then. And misrepresenting it in the process. Well, I imagine that a God so small that His hands are tied, unable to save a single person until that individual decides of his own free will to believe requires such...

"Even if the potter expects you to be more loving and merciful then He is Himself?"

Now it is you who impugn the character of the Almighty...

"We are to love our enemies, bless those that curse us, do good to those that despitefully use us. We are to show love and mercy, and yet He has no mercy for anyone he hasn't chosen!"

You misconstrue grace then. God is God and God is good even if no one were saved. And grace is grace even if extended to only one person. Remember that grace is unmeritted favour. God does nothing wrong in allowing people to go to Hell. Hell is what we deserve. Our going to Hell would be justice for that reason. The Cross is God's Wisdom finding a way for God's Love to satisfy God's Wrath without compromising God's Justice. (John Piper said something very like that.)

And really there is the rub. You're God does not seem to be a God of Justice and Wrath. Now that is what happens "when half the Bible is ignored and changed." You may think you do not defame His character, but you do truncate it.

"You have no problem with that because you consider yourself one of the lucky ones. Keep praising God for damning people to hell, I will praise mine for saving any and all who believe! I will praise mine for letting those who are too young to know good from bad, enter the land!"

I certainly am lucky. I don't deserve what I have and what I am in the slightest. God did not owe me (nor you, nor infants) anything. By His grace I am what I am.

I don't praise God for damning people to Hell. People go to Hell because that is what they deserve. The wages of sin is death. All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. That's reality.

And I do believe tha God saves all who believe. I simply acknowledge that it is God who grants that faith. We don't have it in us to work it up.

I have already addressed the deficiency ion our use of Exodus to make your point. You cling to it anyway. I undersatnd. You can't help believing that way. It was predestined.

 

I have got to type fast my connection is acting freaky so here goes.
#1 the heart of God 2 Peter 3:9 not willing for any to perish. Eph 2:4 Gods rich mercy

#2 the law of God Rom 3:23 and :23 Sin brings death yes but look also at Rom 7:6 and 2 Cor 3:6 the law is death but the spirit is life. Also consider 2 cor 3:5 we are not even sufficent to think anything it all comes from God he invented this salvation. He can save

#3 back to david Psalm 32 tells us in vs 1 and 2 how merciful God is but in vs 5,6 he tells us how he attained this mercy , by confessing sin to God and it says all godly people will Pray to God in a time when he can be found. Now my point is that if necessary God can draw near to an infant soul and speak peace to it's spirit. God can handle the details. Trust in Him Isiah tells us in 55:6 that God can Save he is more than able.
Murph

 

Pinoy Baptist thanks for mentioning me but next time please reread my words before quoting. I did not call this mess a mudpile but a mudpie. I really had no reason for this other than the fact that I feel it is a mess, but following your feelings about my reasoning I suppose I could be by mudpie saying that those who oppose this truth are like kids playing, not hogs, hogs show more faith than some who must have every point written out before they accept God's heart.
Murph

 

#1- But some do perish (2Peter 2:7). So God's character does not mean universalism (contra eg. Barclay) So this cannot be used to prove that all ing=fants go to heaven. Indeed it cannot be used to support such without supporting universalism. (Yet again I note the way the two ideas dovetail.)

- God is indeed rich in mercy. But look at who Paul is talking to: "us". Believers. To look at Epph. 2:4 without noting that the context includes vv. 7,8 is a bad idea IMO.

#2- Ro. 3:23 is not in conflict with Romans 7:6. For one thing Paul is again addressing CHRISTIANS. He can say that they have been set free from the power of sin. But only Christians can say that. no one else.

- Intersting that you think we can't understand salvation yet you seem to think you do sufficiently well to say dogmatically that all babies go to heaven. Even more interesting that you do so using a verse that affirms God's sovereignty.

#3- "Now my point is that if necessary God can draw near to an infant soul and speak peace to it's spirit. God can handle the details. Trust in Him Isiah tells us in 55:6 that God can Save he is more than able."

Who has denied that God is able? No one. You're beating a dead horse; a straw man. I affirm that God can save whomever he wills. But there is no evidence to suggest that all infants go to heaven.

Please Murph, no one is saying that infants CANNOT go to Heaven. No one. So why act as if someone has said this? Such behaviour does not further the discussion.

 

Murph said:

"I in no way want to seem harsh here but where do you plan on holding this reunion, if at the great white throne you may be right but I see no direct scriptural evidence that Christians will view that scene let alone interact with the wicked dead. Actually my question to you is since you claim no evidence either way why not trust God's heart as I do, what harm can it do. On the otherhand I see your opinion causing a great deal of harm."

First let me say tha I accept that you mean no harm or offfense with your words.

Now let me say your post is not clear. Are you asking when if ever I would be reunited with Morgan assuming that Morgan is elected for salvation? Well, if we are with the Lord forever (as indicted in (for example) 1Thes. 4:17, then I will be with Morgan as well in that case. The rest is details, and I believe those are best lef to God as someoe said...

Finally let me say that you have misunderstood. I did not say that I find no evidence either way. I do find evidence to say that it is impossible to say that all babies go to Heaven, since I do find evidence that shows that ALL people, including babies fall short of the glory of God and therefore reap the wages of sin. That being the case, to believe otherwise would be to go against God's revelation. That's a no-can-do.

What I will say is that it is impossible to know in any specific circumstance whether a child is in heaven apart from the kind of assurance that David was granted. So why not just believe they are? If I don't know, then I don't know. I won't presume. I can offer hope that it is possible. But I won't prejudice the matter. And to say that I don't trust the Lord's heart is simply incorrect. I do trust His heart. But I know that His heart is full of love AND justice. I know that He does right whether a baby is in Hell or Heaven. He is God.

 

Dear Latreia,

Did you have a chance to read Spurgeon's sermon on the link I posted? As a Calvinist, he had more assurance than you do on this issue.

Karen

 

If you read this thread, you would know the answer to this question. I have been entirely consistent with my beliefs.

They "will not" come. YOu do not understand what we believe. Man is not kept out of heaven against his will. All who are willing can and do come.

Christ died effectively for the elect but sufficiently for all. There are numerous Scriptures that testify to this point. I daresay you have never understood what the issues are and what the Scritpure say. I know what Helen said. As I told Helen when she originally said that, such an expression is completely and totally inappropriate and it is simply wrong. We do not trivialize hell by using it as an object of a preposition.

It is offered. Anyone who will may come.

They can make any choice they want to. We are consistent in that.

But they have no desire but to sin. What leads you to think these people want something different?? Rom is clear: They do not seek God (Rom 3) and they cannot please God (Rom 8). That is a word of ability. Rom 3 is a word of desire.

Your post here simply shows how much you do not understand what we believe. That is unfortunate. YOu should at least understand. I can handle when people disagree. But to not even know the issues??? That is truly unfortunate. If you are going to refute our position, then refute our position. Do not make up some position and then refute it as if it is what we believe.

 

Latrai I meant what if your baby is not saved how then do you see the possibility of reunion?
Murph

As to your total rejection of my thoughts that is your privilage but I will stick with All babies do go to be with Jesus.

 

Karen,

Yes. I've read Spurgeon. He's entitled to his opinion. It is not "Calvanist Orthodoxy" on the question.

Murph,

I didn;t say Morgan is not elected to salvation. I said I don't know. I have no assurance either way at this point.

But this I know: whatever God's decision it will be a just one. Being God He can do no other.

 

Oh, and Murph?

I don't totally reject yor thoughts. In fact I have interacted significantly with them. (I cannot say you have done the same with the evidence I have provided.) But I have been given no sound basis on which to accept them as correct.

You've posted some scriptures without regard to context. made some non sequitur remarks, done some question begging. You have not dealt with Original Sin at all. You have made your assertions without showing how they fit into Original Sin or dealing with the contradictions both with the doctrine and the biblical basis for that doctrine which your position inevitably produces. You have to this point provided no exegetically and logically sound basis for your conclusions.

Those of us with a more rigorously logical and exegetical cast of mind will always find such presentations to be somewhat less than compelling. (This is not to impugn your own intelligence of course. I'm just a bit anal when it comes to such things.) You are obviously welcome to your opinions. I do not seek to change your mind. But I won't say you have a good basis for your belief until I am satisfid that you've produced one.

And just so you kow, I CAN do that: admit that there is a sound basis for differing opinions.

 

You will, Yardane! God bless you.

 

I used my own quote to point out that you have still not answered my question, i'm just curious so please explain. Now to your comment that I haven't produced enough evidence(I can't remember exactly) let me say you are correct and thank God I don't have to produce the evidence God already has. Atleast that is what I think.
Murph

 

The reason individuals can believe that infants go to Hell is that they don't even have a grasp what causes a person to go to Hell in the first place. It is not sin that sends a person to Hell it is the Rejection of the Gospel. It is not original sin that sends anyone to Hell. The whole concept of original sin is to tell mankind that they were born with the sin nature. Man is not born a sinner he is born with the sin nature and that is a different thing. You cannot be a sinner until you sin and just being born is not a sin.

Stop and think about what David said. David's son was conceived in adultery with the stench of murder surrounding his conception. Was this a hope that David had. NO. He did not hope to see his child he knew for a fact he would see him.

I am so glad that I have never bought into Calvinism. I am glad that I have common sense to know that men are not predestined for Heaven or Hell but it is a free choice. I am glad that my God is the real God and not the God that some of you believe in. You don't believe in the God of the Bible but a God created by a man who was a great sinner.

 

Amen, hrhema

 

Murph,

Question asked and answered. I never said Morgan is not elect. I said I don't know one way or the other. Next question.

"let me say you are correct and thank God I don't have to produce the evidence God already has. Atleast that is what I think."

Yes, it is what YOU think. You have shown nothing to say that it is what God thinks.That is what I meant, and I think you know it. Cease the shallow sophistry if you please. I have produced ample scriptural evidence to support my position and other that refutes your own. To equate your opinion with God's in the face of that is irrational. But that is your prerogative.

hrhema,

" The reason individuals can believe that infants go to Hell is that they don't even have a grasp what causes a person to go to Hell in the first place. It is not sin that sends a person to Hell it is the Rejection of the Gospel."

A very popular misconception but a misconception nonetheless. Roamsn 1 refutes it soundly. People are destined for Hell because of their rejection of God, not necessarily the Gospel, which many never heard. If it were therejecting the gospel that sent one to Hell then thoe who never hear are destined fro Heaven. Why then evanelise since that would actually decrease their odds of heaven? In the case you propose, ignorance really is bliss. but it is not biblical.

"t is not original sin that sends anyone to Hell. The whole concept of original sin is to tell mankind that they were born with the sin nature. Man is not born a sinner he is born with the sin nature and that is a different thing. You cannot be a sinner until you sin and just being born is not a sin."

Then you don't understand the doctrine. Original sin does far more than tell us we have a sin nature. We are not sinners because we sin. We sin because we are sinners. All have sinned. No one is without excuse.

 

Paul wrote in Romans 1:14 "But god shows his anger from heaven against all SINFUL, wicked people who push the truth away from themselves.
For the truth about God is known to them instictively.

Now a baby is not sinful and wicked and a baby sure cannot push the truth away and a baby sure does not know the truth about God until it grows up. This is what Paul said in Romans 1. Quit quoting something that he did not say. The next chapter he talks about God dealing with sin. It says he punishes those who sin. A baby does not sin. No where does it say he punishes a person because they were born with the sin nature.

I think some of you writers on this thread need to use a little horse sense before writing the things you write.

When Jesus gathered the children around him and declared that unless we become like a little child what was he talking about. He was talking about a childs faith. A childs ability to forgive. A childs innocent.

 

"Now a baby is not sinful and wicked and a baby sure cannot push the truth away and a baby sure does not know the truth about God until it grows up. This is what Paul said in Romans 1. Quit quoting something that he did not say. The next chapter he talks about God dealing with sin. It says he punishes those who sin. A baby does not sin. No where does it say he punishes a person because they were born with the sin nature."

But this is exactly the opposite of ewhat Pail is saying in the Scripture you quote. Check the context. Paul is arguing for th universality of sin. Not selectivity. Please read the whole thing. you are completely undermining Paul's argument in the first 3 chapters of Romans.

"I think some of you writers on this thread need to use a little horse sense before writing the things you write."

I use Biblcial sense. When was the last time you saw a horse that understood Scripture?

"When Jesus gathered the children around him and declared that unless we become like a little child what was he talking about. He was talking about a childs faith. A childs ability to forgive. A childs innocent."

Was jesus saying that all children have faith? No. Do all children beleive? No.

Was Jesus even making a staement about the salvation of infants (who are not even capapble according to you of the very faith you say saves chldre)? No.

Such misuse of Scripture is quite irresponsible.