Who goes to Heaven?

[Bible-belted]

Lorelei,

To help you out I thought I'd post some scriptures which, while not exhausting the evidence for the "oter 4 pts of Calvanism" ( I won't deal with unlimited atonement since, as an Arminian, you accept that, though you do not use it in your theology as 4 pointers do), nevertheless better reflects teh depth and breadth of the Scritural support for it. I also include a brief definition of each point.

Total Deparvity:

This does NOT mean that: 1) unregenerate people are morally or conscientiously insensitive or have no sense of right and wrong.; 2) people are as sinful as they can be or 3) that they commit eevery sin possible

It does mean that:

A) Sin affects the whle person, body (Ro. 6:6, 12; 7:24; 8:10,13), mind (Ro. 1:21; 2Cor. 3:14,15; 4:4), heart (Ro. 1:26,27; Gal. 5:24; 2Tim. 3:2-4), and will (Ro. 6:17; 2Tim. 2:25,26).

B) There is no such thing as altruism. There is always an impure motive to every action. The pharisees who did much good nevertheles had no real love for God (Jn. 5: 39-42), and were called to account by Chroist fro ther hypocrisy often.

C) man is unable to relive his sinful condition. (Jn. 6:44; Eph. 2: 1-3, 5, 8,9; Col. 2:13; Heb. 6:1; 9:14; 2Cor. 4:3,4; Ro. 3:1-23 and the psalm it quotes, along with psalm 14:3; 53:3).

Unconditional Election

Generally speaking lection is God's choice of cetain persons for special favour. Specifically Cavanists hold that God has chosen, based on his sovereignty, some people to receive eternal life. (see Eph. 1:4-5; Jn. 15:16; Jn. 6:37, 44, 65; Acts 13:48).

That this election is unconditional is taught most clearly in Romans 9 especially 9:15,16.

The key things to remember about election froma calvanist perspective are: 1) it is a function of God's soveregnty. it is based on God's free choice, not ours. Election is the cause, not the result, of faith. 2) election is always effective. thos who are elected inevitably believe. Related to this is the belef that they will inevitably coninue to believe (perseverance). 3) It is from eternmity. Election does not happen after we are made. Election is a function of God's eternal purpose. 4) it is unconditional. there is no action a person must undertake, nor any condition he must fulfill. 5) It is irrevocable. God does not change his mind.

At this pont I will fill you in about double predestination, that little prdestining to hell thing you keep attributing to me. I don't hold ot it. Double predestination holds that God actively shooses people to go to hell in the sam sense that he chooses some for heaven. I don't buy that. I hold that God simply allows those not chosen for salvation to receive the due penalty for their sin. The lostness of the non-elect then is attributable not to God but to the individual. People go to hell as it were by God's choice by omission, (not including them in the elect for heaven), not comission (choosing them actively for hell). I hope that clears a few things up and ensures I don't have to answer certain questions anymore.

Effectual Calling (I prefer this to "Irresistable grace"):

Calvanists distinguish betwen God's general calling (as in matt 11: 28 for example) and his special callilng. Special calling is what God uses to enable the elect to respond with repentance and faith. Some Scriptures: Ro. 1:7; 8:30; 11:29; Lk. 14:23; 1Cor. 1:23-24, 26; Eph. 1:18; Phil. 3:14; 1Thess. 2:12; 2Thess. 2:14; 2Tim. 1:9; Heb. 3:1; 2Peter 1:10.

It should be noted that effctual calling is not that different from the Arminian concept of prevenient grace. Arminians differ only on the extent and efocay of the call of God. IOW Arminians don't distinguish between a general and special call (the distinction is biblical: Matt. 4:18-22; Mk. 1:16-20; John 1: 35-51; Acts 9: 1-19) and don't see the call as inevitably effectual.

Perseverance of the saints:

First let me say that Calvanists and Arminians agree that salvation is not earned nor kept by human good works. it is the Spirit who does the work. Both groups affirm that the Spirit works in al believers, and affirm that God provides full and complete salvation, and that the believer can know that he or she is presently saved.

The differences sart where Calvanism is, well, calvanist. Since it is God who elects some to receive eternal life, and those so elected will necessarily receive that eternal life, it follows that thse so elected will continue in their election and will thus persevere in their faith. If salvation could be lost, then election would not be effctual. But God enables people to persever in their faith. Biblical basis for the belief: 1Pet. 1:3-5; Ro. 8:26, 31-39; Ro. 14:4; 1Co. 10:13; Phil. 1:6; Heb. 7:25; Jn. 10: 27-30; 11:42; 2Tim. 1:12.

There are other Scriptures which can be presented
for these beliefs, but these should give you a fair start. I hope it helps you understand if not agre, and I hope that an improved understanding for the bilical foundation for Calvanism will help yo repesent it more accurately in the future.

 

[Lorelei]

Originally posted by Latreia:

There are other Scriptures which can be presented
for these beliefs, but these should give you a fair start. I hope it helps you understand if not agre, and I hope that an improved understanding for the bilical foundation for Calvanism will help yo repesent it more accurately in the future.

I understand Calvinism just as much now as I did before you posted. I still don't agree.

I do thank you for at least attempting to finally discuss the issue.

Originally posted by Latreia:
At this pont I will fill you in about double predestination, that little prdestining to hell thing you keep attributing to me. I don't hold ot it. Double predestination holds that God actively shooses people to go to hell in the sam sense that he chooses some for heaven. I don't buy that. I hold that God simply allows those not chosen for salvation to receive the due penalty for their sin. The lostness of the non-elect then is attributable not to God but to the individual. People go to hell as it were by God's choice by omission, (not including them in the elect for heaven), not comission (choosing them actively for hell). I hope that clears a few things up and ensures I don't have to answer certain questions anymore.

God's choice by omission is still God's choice, for those who are not predestined to heaven are then going to hell. It doesn't take a genius to figure that out, though it takes a lot of dancing around the scriptures to try and explain this while also trying to keep God's character in tact.

I understand you loud and clear and I respectfully disagree.

~Lorelei

[ August 19, 2002, 11:40 PM: Message edited by: Lorelei ]

 

[C.S. Murphy]

Just a thought but is it really necessary to fill an entire page with just one post?
Murph

 

[Lorelei]

Pastor Larry,

I am sorry for offending you, I do hope that you realize that I found many of your comments offensive. After all the threads we had particpated in, I didn't think you would so easily be able to tell me that I have no knowledge of the scriptures.

I don't claim to know everything, but I do study and I do seek to learn with all my heart.

The post that I made took about 3 hours for me type up because I didn't copy or paste theologians. I looked up each scripture and read them thoroughly within context. I am not well read on the subject and I don't feel that I need to be. I feel the only book I need is the Bible. That is the source I used when making my comments. If you heard that before it is because others have come to the same conclusion based on the same passages.

After spending so much time, I got brushed off as still misunderstanding etc and was offered no other means for explaining why this was said.

Anyway, I doubt I will join the other forum, but thanks for the offer. I went there once, I didn't find it fruitful. I saw people doing like we have done and getting no where in the process.

We have both stated our peace and I respectfully disagree. I hope you can do the same, but if you would rather call me ignorant or misinformed or whatever you think fits, then feel free. I am done.

~Lorelei

 

[Bible-belted]

Originally posted by C.S. Murphy:
Just a thought but is it really necessary to fill an entire page with just one post?
Murph

Murph,

I haven't figured out all the formatting here yet. Sugestions and encouragements are aways welcome.

Lorelei,

You have not interacted with what has been presented, nor, obviosly, did/do you really have an intention to.

You have not demonstrated that you ever understood calvanism. In fact you were corrected numerous times. Your claim of understanding is as empty now as before, except now you also fail to interact with the evidence. Now you don't understand and choose toi ignore the evidence rather than interact with it. That is quite contrary to your comments to Larry.

It seems your bluff has been called.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Lorelei:
I don't claim to know everything, but I do study and I do seek to learn with all my heart.

As do I. I realize you went to great lengths to make your post. I didn't have the time to talk about it point by point. I made a few comments for that reason. But you must admit that your understanding is clouded by your presuppositions.

For instance, you say that God's choice by omission is still God's choice. Well yes and no. God chose to save some and left the others goes where they want to go. Those others are not going to hell against their will. That I think is so often the part that is missing. The caricature is that God is making people go reject who want to do otherwise. That simply is not true. Nor is God forcing people to accept him who want to do otherwise. Scriptural descriptions of free will are unmistakeably clear about this.

After spending so much time, I got brushed off as still misunderstanding etc and was offered no other means for explaining why this was said.

I understand how you feel about this but I must still maintain that while you believe you understand, your post does not communicate that. You are within your rights not to read and study those who have thought through these issues. I would not encourage that though. As I say, my reading has only clarified the conclusions I came to from Scripture. I wrestled with many of these things. My tension was Eph 1:11 -- that God works all things after the counsel of his own will. That verse made me a Calvinist. I simply could not exclude salvation from "all things." I had to wrestle with free will, until I understood that free will is tied to nature; it does not include the ability to contradict one's own nature, just as God can be free without being able to make a contrary choice. I had to wrestle with depravity and understand that even the will was affected by sin. In short, there are some issues that must be wrestled with.

I can respectfully disagree. I have not intentionally accused you of misunderstanding the Scripture per se. It has been with reference to some passages that deal with this subject. But remember, you said the same thing about me--that I didn't understand. I do not think you are ignorant; I think you have not fully wrestled through some of these issues, as I have not with other issues.

 

[mommynurse]

Wow...I finally finished reading this whole thread...phewwww...

This will not fall under the category of infant, but here we go:
I had a friend, we'll call her Sue, I would never want to use her real name. Sue was raised in a fundamental Baptist church. Sue's mom & dad were saved, and as such were very active in service in thier church. Sue had a little sister who was born with a congenital illness. Obviously, the illness was part of the Will of God. If it wasn't part of His Will then He is not sovereign right? Ok...
When Sue was 8 or 9 her little sister died at the age of 5 (from her illness). Despite prayers from the family and the congregation it was, obviously, God's Will that this child die. Even more obvious: Sue and her parents were devastated.
When they went for couseling with thier PASTOR they were told, by him, "You know...your daughter is in Hell now because she never confessed her sin to God." Let's think about this for a minute from the family's perspective. Here was thier beautiful little child born in the Will of God with a terrible illness. This little child suffered every day that she spent on this Earth. Now they are being told that this same God has sent thier little girl to Hell. Hmmmmm....can anyone guess what happened after this?
That Pastor's statement tore that family apart. Sue's mom and dad stopped serving at the church, stopped going to church, and eventually divorced each other. No one in that family has set foot in a church since then. To this day Sue's dad is a recluse that sits in his house from sun up to sun down; waiting for his Lord to come. Sue's mom has strayed so far from walking with the Lord that I won't even go into it. And my friend Sue? Lord...Ilove her and I pray she finds her way back to YOU; because now she has a little baby of her own.
So I ask you, all of you, did the Pastor glorify the Lord? Did the OUTCOME of this scenario glorify the LORD? Was the body of Christ edified?
When there is no specifice Scripture verse that says: babies go here or there, this is the age of accountability etc.. What then do we say of those men who cannot righteously judge a grey area with only the knowledge of Him who has proven Himself in the Scriptures to be Good. After all, even those adults who haven't heard the Good News are without excuse because they can see the majesty and glory of God in His Creation. If we, who are evil, conceive it 'good' that babies/young children who know not good/evil should go to Heaven; how preposterous, if not heretical, is it to say that He Who is Perfect Goodness would have a lesser thought?

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by mommynurse69:
If we, who are evil, conceive it 'good' that babies/young children who know not good/evil should go to Heaven; how preposterous, if not heretical, is it to say that He Who is Perfect Goodness would have a lesser thought?

Why I would not defend what the pastor in question did, I would suggest our thoughts and conceptions are not good reasons to judge God. This precise reasoning is why many people who claim to believe the Bible no longer believe in hell. Surely, they say, a God of love would not send a person to hell for all eternity. They cannot conceive of that, so therefore it is not true. Our depraved minds are affected by sin; therefore our conceptions will be also. While your point may be true, your reasoning to get there is not the best.

 

[mommynurse]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:

Why I would not defend what the pastor in question did, I would suggest our thoughts and conceptions are not good reasons to judge God. This precise reasoning is why many people who claim to believe the Bible no longer believe in hell. Surely, they say, a God of love would not send a person to hell for all eternity. They cannot conceive of that, so therefore it is not true. Our depraved minds are affected by sin; therefore our conceptions will be also. While your point may be true, your reasoning to get there is not the best.[/QUOTE]

Pastor Larry,
My apologies that I am not a theologian, and my reasoning is not good enough for you. My ministry as a wife, mother, nurse puts me out of the intellectual theology circles. I have to LIVE my faith every second of every day in a world that has alot of nasty realities. And many times I am attacked and have to defend my faith. I don't read my Bible everyday to be scholarly and a good debator. I read my Bible every day to apply what the Lord teaches me to my life, and to the lives around me. You know...don't just be a hearer of the Word, but be a doer of the Word.
I have to humble myself before Him everyday, and ask Him to show me His truth. I have to totally rely upon Him to guide and direct me. When I ask for wisdom I get it by faith in accord with James 1: 5-7. I ask for wisdom when approaching the Lord with issues such as the one in this thread. When, from there, the Spirit guides me to passages like Romans 5:13 in direct response to my questioning the Lord about babies who die. (I wrestled with this question long before coming to this BB...because of my friends situation.) If I had no faith, if I did not wholly trust in the Lord and only trusted my intellect then I would have doubted that I was being led to Truth by the Spirit.
I just praise the Lord that the Wisdom of the Father is foolishness to men. I'm sorry...I'm not calling you a fool. But from real experience I have learned that when we go to the Father, in Christ, (He did say 'Come let us reason together' did he not?) and ask Him a direct question; and then we consequently rely completely on Him to give us wisdom...we will eventually get our answer.
My point (bet ya didn't think I had one ): Romans 5:13 was the God breathed answer to a direct question I asked of Him after asking for wisdom to learn His Truth. (And no this was no one day affair.)

BTW: I do not deny Hell. As a matter of fact the undeniable existance of Hell, and my personal conviction of the same, are the reason I repented. I didn't accept Christ out of the "God is all love" argument. I was out and out scared to death because I knew Hell was where I was headed for

Judge God? That is what you think I was doing? Where you get that idea...I am not quite sure. It certainly was not my intent.

[ August 23, 2002, 10:03 AM: Message edited by: mommynurse69 ]

 

[Scott_Bushey]

Mommienurse69,
Thank you for your posts! I hear your heart. This is a difficult subject. May I address something you state?

You write: "My point (bet ya didn't think I had one ): Romans 5:13 was the God breathed answer to a direct question I asked of Him after asking for wisdom to learn His Truth. (And no this was no one day affair.)"

Scott replies:
Romans 5:13 cannot be read outside of the contextual meaning from the preceding verses as well as the following. One can see that in context, Romans 5:13 does not mean that which you have used to support your theory. Verse 12 states
that *all* have died from sin, since Adam. Verse 14 reveals that even those who "had not sinned in the same likeness of Adam, death reigned". Verse 18 finalizes the impact of Adams sin, "....through one transgression, condemnation to *all* men...."

Also,
God speaking to one's heart will never contradict the harmony of scripture. Just fyi!

In Love,

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by mommynurse69:
My apologies that I am not a theologian, and my reasoning is not good enough for you.

There was no offense intended. I was merely addressing a bigger point of how we come to our positions. I talk to many people whose conceptions of God are based on what that individual feels or thinks God ought to be or do without regard for what God said he is or would do. Too many people have a theology that is dictated by personal feelings rather than by objective revelation. We simply must remember that "I can't understand" or "I can't see God doing that" is not good theological argumentation.

As for judging God, I was referring to your evaluation: "If we, who are evil, conceive it 'good' that babies/young children who know not good/evil should go to Heaven; how preposterous, if not heretical, is it to say that He Who is Perfect Goodness would have a lesser thought?" It was not "judge" in a negative sense.

All of us here are to be living our faith in our worlds, no matter whether at home, in the business place, the school, or the community. Those nasty realities happen outside the home too. I am sorry that you misunderstood my post.

And last but not least, I cannot for the life of me see how you are applying Rom 5:13 to this situation. I think v. 14 would negate any "gain" from v. 13. Babies still die for one reason: Sin.

 

[mommynurse]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
And last but not least, I cannot for the life of me see how you are applying Rom 5:13 to this situation. I think v. 14 would negate any "gain" from v. 13. Babies still die for one reason: Sin.[/QB]

Ok...Scott...Pastor Larry,
My little ones are napping so I will try to address both of you in this post. Please be patient with me...I am on a horrifying yet wonderful journey at this point in my walk with our Lord. I am not here to argue or be negative (although I can come across that way) so my apologies to all for that.
Please...take the time to open your Bibles to read the verses as you read my post.

Rom 5:12- I do not deny that even infants in the womb have the sin nature, and are deserving of death.
Rom 5:13- Adam did not have the law, but the sin was still there right? Yes. "But sin is not IMPUTED when there is no law."
Definition of IMPUTED: 1. to attribute (esp. a fault or misconduct) to another; charge with; ascribe 2. Theol. to ascribe (goodness or guilt) to a person as coming from another.
If an infant does not have the law...if you say they do I will say you are nuts ...then sin is not IMPUTED i.e. ascribed(definition: to regard as belonging to or coming from someone). Why then would one conclude that infants who die would go to Hell?
Lets look some more:
Rom 5:14 Yes death reined as the direct result of Adams transgression up to Moses. Yet in that time frame there was still NO LAW. Sin yes, law no. Again, "But sin is not IMPUTED when there is NO LAW."
Rom 5:15 Praise the Lord that the gift is not like the offense!!!! Adams offense caused MANY to die (from Adam to Moses), but 'much more the grace of God ABOUNDED to MANY'. Key words: MANY, ABOUNDED
Abounded: 1. to be plentiful; exist in large numbers or amounts 2. to have plenty, be filled, be wealthy
Grace abounded to many...the many who died from Adam to Moses. For where there is NO LAW sin is not IMPUTED. Grace, not the imputation of sin, was given from Adam to Moses for there WAS NO LAW!
Since our Lord is not a respector of persons (male, female, black, white, adult, baby etc etc etc) having done all I stand: "sin is not imputed when there is no law."
Again I am not a theologian...I have not stopped praying since I started to give you my post. In my inadequacies I hope, pray I have answered you both.

[ August 23, 2002, 02:33 PM: Message edited by: mommynurse69 ]

 

[Scott_Bushey]

Mommynurse69,
If understand you correctly, forgive me if I am misinterpreting you, that before Sinai, before Moses was actually given the tablets, men had no law of God? Is this your position? If so, it is quite unorthodox and contra-biblical. The bible as a whole, does not support this idea.

Rom 5:3, 5:12 says that all have sinned.........

Rom 5:12 Because of this, even as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, so also death passed to all men, inasmuch as all sinned.

Adam Clarkes commentary on rom 5:14......

Verse 13. For until the law sin was in the world— As death reigned from
Adam to Moses, so also did sin. Now, as there was no written law from
Adam to that given to Moses, the death that prevailed could not be the
breach of that law; for sin, so as to be punished with temporal death, is
not imputed where there is no law, which shows the penalty of sin to be
death. Therefore, men are not subjected to death for their own personal
transgressions, but for the sin of Adam; as, through his transgression, all
come into the world with the seeds of death and corruption in their own nature superadded to their moral depravity.All are sinful, all are morta ans all must die.

JFB states:
Rom 5:14. For until the law sin was in the world —that is during all the period from Adam “until the law” of Moses was given, God continued to
treat men as sinners.

49
but sin is not imputed where there is no law — “There must therefore
have been a law during that period, because sin was then imputed”; as is
now to be shown.
14. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them
that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression —
But who are they? — a much contested question. Infants (say some), who
being guiltless of actual sin, may be said not to have sinned in the way that
Adam did [AUGUSTINE, BEZA, HODGE]. But why should infants be specially connected with the period “from Adam to Moses,” since they
die alike in every period? And if the apostle meant to express here the
death of infants, why has he done it so enigmatically? Besides, the death of
infants is comprehended in the universal mortality on account of the first
sin, so emphatically expressed in Romans 5:12; what need then to specify it here? and why, if not necessary, should we presume it to be
meant here, unless the language unmistakably point to it — which it certainly does not? The meaning then must be, that “death reigned from
Adam to Moses, even over those that had not, like Adam, transgressed against a positive commandment, threatening death to the disobedient.”

Also..
Are you also with the understanding that men before the time of Mt. Sinai, before they received the tablets of the law, were born sinless?

How do you reconcile chapter 3 of Romans in light of your view ?

King David states that he was "brought forth in iniquity."

Food for thought.

[ August 23, 2002, 10:00 PM: Message edited by: Scott Bushey ]

 

[mommynurse]

OK Let me be clearer. I think you may be misunderstanding me. Adam transtressed/sinned. His sin brought physical death. Allow me to insert this here: Adam was made in the likeness of the one who was to come (Christ) right? That means Adam, before his sin, had an immortal body/soul. His original transgression brought physical death & seeds of depravity for future sin against the law.
The death that prevailed from Adam to Moses was physical death for the sin of Adam. I'm not saying the Lord did not have His laws. He had not given people His laws. Where there is no law no sin (sin against laws of God) is imputed.
Therefore infanst, progound MR patients & some others have that sin nature & therefore will die physically; with that I have no quarrel. That is the consequence of the seeds of depravity ALL have within.
OK...so it is appointed unto men once to die & then the judgement. The judgement for the unrepentent soul (i.e. not accepting Christ) is Hell. At the judgement seat the infants soul is not imputed with sin for the infant knows not the law, nor had the ability to repent and accept Christ. Hence where there is no law sin is not imputed. This statement in itself can be speaking of no other sin than the transgressions of the law.
The blood of Christ covers these souls who are sinful by nature, but have not the law (i.e. have not transgressed against a law they were conscious of). If this is not true then answer me this question: Who's soul, from Adam to Moses, is NOT in Hell. CATEGORY: None of them had the law, most likely all transgressed against the unwritten law, and none had the gospel of Christ? My answer: Christ's shed blood covered sin retroactively for those between Adam and Moses. And likewise covers those past, present, and future souls (like infants) who fall into the CATEGORY. The Almighty is timeless there is no past, present, & future with Him; I understand that. All the more support for my statement above (And likewise covers those past, present etc etc etc).
BTW I have never read any of the theologians whose names you put in your post. All of my posts are based on my understanding; not the understanding of other men. So please don't think I am echoing others thoughts; I am not and never was a theology student. Not even as a hobby. I rely on the Lord not men for guidance.
Sorry... that sounded crass...it was not meant that way.
Thank you for your polite dialogue.

 

[Scott_Bushey]

Mommynurse69 writes:
None of them had the law, most likely all transgressed against the unwritten law, and none had the gospel of Christ?

Mommynurse,
The gospel of Jesus Christ is strewn all over the scriptures from Genesis through Revelation!

Gal 3:8 And the Scripture foreseeing that God would justify the nations by faith, preached the gospel before to Abraham: "All the nations will be blessed" "in you." Gen. 12:3

* Here's the gospel in Genesis!

Gen 3:14 And Jehovah God said to the serpent, Because you have done this, you are cursed above all beasts, and above every animal of the field. You shall go on your belly, and you shall eat dust all the days of your life.
Gen 3:15 And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her Seed; He will bruise your head, and you shall bruise His heel.

*Abraham was justified by God, without the written tablets......yet He was still responsible to Gods law! The scripture implies that until this time, Abraham could have been considered "unrighteous".

Rom 4:1 What then shall we say our father Abraham to have found according to flesh?
Rom 4:2 For if Abraham was justified by works, he has a boast, but not with God.
Rom 4:3 For what does the Scripture say? "And Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him for righteousness." Gen. 15:6
Rom 4:4 Now to one working, the reward is not counted according to grace, but according to debt.
Rom 4:5 But to the one not working, but believing on Him justifying the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.

Men have been saved in the same way from the old to the new; by Gods grace. In Romans chapter 9, it says that God shows mercy to whom He will. God decides who are saved. He justifies them by the blood of Christ. Eph 2:8,9 and Titus state that God does this for no reason of us; not by good works.

Mommynurse69 writes:
I'm not saying the Lord did not have His laws. He had not given people His laws.

Scott responds:
Technically, yes..........However,

Rom 2:8 but to the ones truly disobeying the truth out of self-interest, and obeying unrighteousness, will be anger and wrath,
Rom 2:9 trouble and pain on every soul of man that works out evil, both of Jew first, and of Greek.
Rom 2:10 But glory and honor and peace will be to everyone working out good, both to the Jew first, and to the Greek.
Rom 2:11 For there is no respect of persons with God.
Rom 2:12 For as many as sinned without Law will also perish without Law. And as many as sinned within Law will be judged through Law.
Rom 2:13 For not the hearers of the Law are just with God, but the doers of the Law shall be justified.
Rom 2:14 For when nations not having Law do by nature the things of the Law, they not having Law are a law to themselves,
Rom 2:15 who show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience witnessing with them, and the thoughts between one another accusing or even excusing,
Rom 2:16 in a day when God judges the hidden things of men, according to my gospel, through Jesus Christ.

Mommynurse 69 writes:
so it is appointed unto men once to die & then the judgement. The judgement for the unrepentent soul (i.e. not accepting Christ) is Hell. At the judgement seat the infants soul is not imputed with sin for the infant knows not the law, nor had the ability to repent and accept Christ.

Scott asks:
Mommy, what do you do to reconcile the harmony of the scriptures that orthodoxically state that all men have sinned and that all men will be judged for that sin. The sin of Adam, will send us to Hell. Law or no law. We have been cursed by the first Adam. The stain is present. Infants and the imbecile have the same curse. They are not above the fact. Unless of course you are implying that children are born without sin?

Also,
You seem to be seperating tha ideas that Adams sin is a condemnation to only a physical death? Do you understand that there is only one way to paradise? John 3:3 states that a man MUST be born again before he can see the kingdom of God. There are not two salvific programs in scripture. Jonah states, "Salvation is of the Lord". God saves as a gift. So, having said this, either God has two programs, or he saves every child.....this is your implication. Both ideas are not supported by scripture. Romans shows that all have sinned, none righteous, no not one! King David, the man that was after Gods own heart, acknowledges that he was brought forth in sin. To seperate Adams sin nature causing spiritual death from the physical is unorthodox. Please seek counsel from your pastor on this subject.

Also,
I assume by your title, you are a nurse? Do you go to doctors when you get ill? Why? Why not just seek the great physician? Jesus is healer correct? My point is, Christ is the great physician, yet He has gifted men with the knowedge to bring about His miracle of healing etc. This idea is to include our Doctors and historians of theological medicine. Please do not propagate the present day error of stigmatizing the theological learned as a discredit or disadvantage; the Holy Spirit uses them as well as other study aids in the lives of the body of Christ.

more to come........

[ August 24, 2002, 08:58 AM: Message edited by: Scott Bushey ]

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by mommynurse69:
Adam was made in the likeness of the one who was to come (Christ) right?

More specifically, he was made in the image of God, perhaps the archetypal image of Christ.

[quiote]That means Adam, before his sin, had an immortal body/soul.[/quote]No, God alone is immortal (1 Tim 6:18).

The Law of Rom 5:13, is the Mosaic Law as evidenced by the span from Adam to Moses. That does not mean there is no law; it means there was no Law (meaning Mosaic).

Who's soul, from Adam to Moses, is NOT in Hell.

The only concrete answer is "Anyone who failed to believe."

I think in this rom 5 passage, you have to look at the context of Romans and what Paul is trying to show. There is no salvation by keeping the Law through which life could come if perfectly kept (Lev 18:5 -- incidentally proof that commands and obligations do not imply the ability to keep them. They are commands even without the ability to keep them and people are judged for not keeping commnands they were never able to keep). Paul's point in Rom 5 with this in mind is, How do we get righteousness? His answer: The same way we got sin -- by imputation, not by action.

 

[mommynurse]

The gospel of Jesus Christ is strewn all over the scriptures from Genesis through Revelation!

Yes I know this. The entire OT reveals mans desperate need for a Savior. Poor choice of words on my part I guess. I told you I was inadequate with words on this stuff.

Rom 2:8 but to the ones truly disobeying the truth out of self-interest, and obeying unrighteousness, will be anger and wrath,
Rom 2:9 trouble and pain on every soul of man that works out evil, both of Jew first, and of Greek.
Rom 2:10 But glory and honor and peace will be to everyone working out good, both to the Jew first, and to the Greek.

Scott: how is an infant able to work out the above? Just curious.

Rom 2:11 For there is no respect of persons with God.
Rom 2:12 For as many as sinned without Law will also perish without Law. And as many as sinned within Law will be judged through Law.

Scott: When they sin without the law and perish without the law...how then are thier souls judged?

Rom 2:13 For not the hearers of the Law are just with God, but the doers of the Law shall be justified.
Rom 2:14 For when nations not having Law do by nature the things of the Law, they not having Law are a law to themselves,
Rom 2:15 who show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience witnessing with them, and the thoughts between one another accusing or even excusing,

How can an infant's conscience witness with them?

Please do not propagate the present day error of stigmatizing the theological learned as a discredit or disadvantage; the Holy Spirit uses them as well as other study aids [/QB]

I already apologized about how crass the end of my post sounded. Like I said at the beginning here; my words are obviously inadequate to hold this type of discussion. That's why I keep mentioning the theologically learned; not to disrespect them, but to point out that I cannot use thier type of learned knowledge. I hold absolutely no disrespect for theologians. They have a very difficult job indeed! If that's how I sounded then I AM sorry. Maybe if I had more time on my hands I could consult some of the learned in these matters; perhaps sometime I will discuss this issue with my pastor. I'm still not understanding how my understanding is wrong. And it's not because I want what I want to be true; although that would be nice! If I am shown evidence to the contrary then I will accept it.

 

[mommynurse]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
[quiote]That means Adam, before his sin, had an immortal body/soul.

No, God alone is immortal (1 Tim 6:18).

OK...so I obviously misunderstood...thank you!

Paul's point in Rom 5 with this in mind is, How do we get righteousness? His answer: The same way we got sin -- by imputation, not by action.[/QB][/QUOTE]

So is the imputation of righteousness obtainable by infants or not? Is the imputation of righteousness universal for those who do not have the conscience/cognisance to admit they need it, and then ask for it?

Thank you Pastor Larry for your patience; I really am trying to understand all of this. I do not want to be guilty of giving false hope to those whose babies have died; nor to the parents of the few profound MR patients I care for from time to time. That's the only reason I want answers.

 

[post-it]

Originally posted by mommynurse69:

Where there is no law no sin (sin against laws of God) is imputed.
Therefore infanst, progound MR patients & some others have that sin nature & therefore will die physically; with that I have no quarrel. That is the consequence of the seeds of depravity ALL have within.
OK...so it is appointed unto men once to die & then the judgement.

I believe that only those that accepted Jesus will go directly to heaven, everyone else including babies etc go to a state of death to await judgment at the White Throne Judgement. All dead are reinbodied and brought forth from hell (ground) and the sea to be judged according to what they have "done". It is very clear that only those who committed sin without repentence or are confessed unbelievers are thrown into the lake of fire. The implication of being judged is that some will not go to the lake of fire meaning the innocents and those before Christ who were under God's grace.

I of course don't believe that Hell contains any punishment or even awareness. It is called the 1st death and I believe that it is a Death. It is then reaffirmed in Rev when it says the dead are brought up from Hell and the Sea.

 

[Scott_Bushey]

Post-it,

You write:
The implication of being judged is that some will not go to the lake of fire meaning the innocents and those before Christ who were under God's grace.

Scott asks:
Are you implying that before Calvary's cross, men were received by God under a different protocol?
In other words, men were saved outside of the idea of messiah, his death, burial and resurection? Do you not believe the gospel being preached prior to Calvary?

[ August 28, 2002, 07:59 AM: Message edited by: Scott Bushey ]