Heavenly Pilgrim
New Member
HP: I certainly know how they have been treated in the past by the so-called Church, and that certainly has not been in love.
Others may but I cannot. :thumbsup:
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Your view on Catholics
- Thread starter Fignar
- Start date
- Status
HP: I certainly know how they have been treated in the past by the so-called Church, and that certainly has not been in love.
Others may but I cannot. :thumbsup:
You are consistent...consistently wrong. If anything, you are presuming to know more than God has revealed in there is some other "secret salvation" not given to us, which is heresy IMO, as He HAS given us the means of salvation. Your "proof text" is pure eisegesis in supporting your position, and even if I were to take your side on it you conveniently leave off the rest of the verse that does apply to infants, quite coincidently "but the things revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may follow all the words of this law."
So now you are a calvinist pulling that Scripture out of it's context? God has revealed to WHO He will have mercy on, you deny that?!?
Your own words condemn you "If He cannot, then He is not sovereign". Quit telling God how to be sovereign.
Your attitude does...it's lousy, not to mention breaks the very rules here you are supposed to be upholding.
What a riot. Reaffirming what Scripture says on how a sinner is saved is being confined to a "box...little system". Seriously :laugh: Maybe in your "Secret Salvation" theology there is room for muslims and atheists, after all Deut. 29:29 supports that
The Bible is NOT SILENT on how a sinner is saved. To state such tripe is borderline blasphemy!
Last edited by a moderator:
Does the Bible say: God sends all infants to Hell. No.
Does the Bible say: God sends all infants to Heaven. No.
The Bible is silent when it comes to the topic of the eternity of infants.
To say that that is blasphemy is a bit over the line.
Personally I think there is too much made of this infant thing. As you say the Bible is silent on the question and those who wish to undermine the doctrine of original sin it seems to me always want to press us on this question of infants. When the teaching of the Bible is very clear that rather than speculating on whether infants are saved or lost, we should rather look to ourselves and ask the question whether we are saved or lost. For if in Adam all do not die, then neither are all in Christ made alive. For if there be some in Adam who do not die, then this means that there will be some in Christ who shall not be made alive.
But it is evident that in Adam ALL do die. It is also evident if we believe the scriptures that ALL in Christ shall be made alive. We cannot go further than that. We must be careful that we do not reject the doctrine of original sin just because we cannot understand if infants are saved or lost.
So a child is sinless? They have no need for a Savior? That would be found where in Scripture?
Where does it say this in Scripture? How about the mentally disabled who do not have the mental facilities to have faith - yet have the strength to murder? They sin - how are they saved?
Amen. God never told us what happens to unborn and born babies so we just cannot say. However we all know God and His character. Is God just? Yes. Is God good? Yes. Then I can trust my own unborn children who died before having a chance at faith to Him and His will. What He does with those two babies is the right thing to do. Whether they went to heaven or hell, they are where they should be. If I don't trust God that much, then I'm not much of a child of His questioning Him about His job.
Heavenly Pilgrim
New Member
HP: Absolutely, i.e., before the age of accountability. Children are born with the capacity to become moral agents, but do not cross the threshold of moral accountability until they understand the intrinsic nature of the commands apart from punishments or rewards.
HP: Not in any salvic sense.
HP: Jesus, speaking of little children simply said Mr 10:14”Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.” He never once condemns any child as a sinner period but rather clearly states they are the very essence of what it takes to enter the kingdom and as such are part of the kingdom.
Out of every definition in Scripture, not a single instance implies children are, or could be, guilty of sin. Wherever sin is defined, two things are clearly stated or implied, i.e., light and abilities. Sin is also noted as a transgression of the law. Children in no wise transgress the law in any moral sense if we but only use some God given common sense coupled with immutable principles of justice, also instilled within our hearts and minds by God Himself.
Heavenly Pilgrim
New Member
HP: I disagree. I know the word ‘send’ is not in Scripture, but it clearly indicates they are the very essence of the innocence it takes to enter in. “For such IS” is the direct wording. I believe any honest reader would admit that infants and small children will in fact be in the very place Christ stated they were fit candidates for.
The question that remains in my mind is the place they will hold or occupy, not in reality being part of the ‘redeemed.’ On that point Scripture is indeed silent.
Heavenly Pilgrim
New Member
HP: Ann, you exhibit absolutely no sense to distinguish between moral acts and acts that are not moral in nature. Such acts by mentally disabled persons in no wise constitute sin if they are not even moral agents. We pity those Ann, and protect them from themselves and from doing harm to others the best we can, but we do not punish them for sin or wrongdoing.
If there was ever a need, it is to once again turn to the study of morals. Many have obviously lost their way.
Last edited by a moderator:
Wake up HP!!
The word "send" is used 221 times in the Bible and 64 times in the NT alone. Now what are you talking about "send" not in the Scripture??
Matthew 13:41 The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity;
No one is innocent. We are born with sin. You dismiss Scripture when it is shown you over and over again:
Psalms 58:3 The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.
--born speaking lies--born with a sin nature; born as a sinner; born sinning. The Scripture could not be any clearer. But you want to rationalize this away just like you will do with Psalm 51:5. Why? You refuse to believe the literal teaching of the Scriptures.
Listen carefully to the Scripture again:
There will come a day when Jesus will say:
Matthew 7:23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
--I never knew. I never, ever knew you--ever, not even in the womb did I know you--never did I know you.
This is hard for you to take isn't it. But it is what the Scriptures teach.
Now here also is what the Bible says:
Jeremiah 1:5 Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.
--In contrast, the Lord says to Jeremiah: I knew thee before you came out of the womb. I formed you when you were in the belly. And when he was still in the womb God ordained him. The Lord knew Jeremiah and even ordained him while still in the womb.
I never, ever knew you--not even in the womb.
I knew you and ordained you, in the womb.
Regardless of what you may think of Jeremiah, if one is never known of Jesus Christ, what is their fate?
The answer Jesus said: Depart from me
Heavenly Pilgrim
New Member
HP: When I stated that the word ‘send’ was not in Scripture, I was saying that in direct response to your comments here. I was not trying to imply it is not used in other contexts, just not in the contexts you were using it in relationship to ‘sending’ infants anywhere.
HP: Just as I stated before, when you make such a statement you are espousing the heart of pure unadulterated Calvinism, double predestination. The logical end is all infants deserve hell as well, for they have certainly not known Christ nor fulfilled the stated conditions for salvation.
Ro 10:14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?
I fully understand that you try to distance yourself from Calvinism. Why do you accept the very heart and soul of Calvinism, and then try to avoid its logical consequences???
Christ paid the atonement for sin, and like the OT atonement, unintentional sin is covered. Sin we are accountable for is the willful violation of God's law.
Chapter and verse, please!
If something is implied in Scritpure (like the Trinity), it is not silent on the matter. Just because the Bible does not have a section devoted to the salvation of infants, the Bible as a whole tells us how sinners are saved. If you are willing to label infants as such, you better be prepared to defend how they will exhibit faith in Christ and not make things up as we have seen here (some secret salvation, a zygote given the ability to have faith, etc.). The text you relate to is speaking of all dying physically (or even all dying spiritually as Adam did, by sinning) in Adam, and all those in Christ made alive. The "so as" connects the two, and to make your understanding work, every human would have to be saved spiritually.
Ephesians 2:1 As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, 2in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient.
Last edited by a moderator:
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
Amen.
We have a savior who is fully able to cover those sins and conditions we were not aware of or had no control over (as infants for example).
"He is the atoning sacrifice for OUR sins and not for OUR sins only but for the sins of the WHOLE WORLD" 1Johh 2:2
So that James can then say "To the one who knows to do right and does it not - to him it is sin" James 4:17.
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
Infants have a need for a savior - and praise God they have a savior who is the "Atoning Sacrifice for OUR sins and not for OUR sins only but for the sins of the WHOLE WORLD"!
The sins that the infant will ultimately have to answer for - are the James 4:17 sins "to the one who KNOWS to do right , and does it not - to him it IS sin".
Once it is a matter of knowing sin and choosing evil - then that person also has the John 16 Gospel-grace ability to CHOOSE to submit to God instead of sin.
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
1. Romans 10 makes it clear that God chooses baptism of believers - confession of believers etc. The Acts 2 model for baptism is something that the RCC seems to have largely forgotten as it appeals now to magic sacriment and holy powers of priests to "mark the soul" of lost infants.
2. There is no text in all of scripture where any infant at all is ever baptized or sprinkled in order to save them. No not even one.
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
The problem with infant baptism is best described in the words of Catholic historians themselves as they witness to their own church's history and problems.
Thomas Bokenkotter - an RC historian and author if the book "A Concise History of the Catholic Church" freely admits that prior to the introduction of the heresy of infant baptism - the role of the elder or presbytery was "bible teaching" it was "instruction". In that model the Word of God was key to salvation "Faith comes by hearing - and hearing by the Word of God".
In that model the informed listener "Believed" and then "confessed" resulting in salvation (as Romans 10 states clearly).
As Peter said "corresponding to that BAPTISM now saves you - NOT the magic touch of water to the flesh but an APPEAL TO GOD for a clean conscience".
But with the introduction of the heresy of infant baptism - salvation was now obtainable on the basis of a magic sacrament and the "power" of the priest to produce holy water and mark the soul.
The protestant reformation was really a case of "Catholic protesting" against their own church heresy. Martin Luther himself did not initially intend to be "non-Catholic". Step by step the protestant groups renounced heresy after heresy that had crept in over the centuries into the Catholic church from which they originated. The fact that various groups happen to "freeze in time" at the distance from the RCC that their founders traveled speaks to the inner desire of human nature to circle the wagons around past tradition, past successes rather than continually reaching ahead for new Bible-based clarity on doctrine.
We must applaud the annabaptist groups in history who at least saw the problem with infant baptism and opposed it.
in Christ,
Bob
Last edited by a moderator:
Well, how about that HP, how many times I have I said already that the Bible is silent about the future destination of infants much less using specific words such as "send". Duh! Silence is silence.
Where do you get this double predestination bit? Haven't the foggiest idea of what you are talking about? You must be in your own dream world.
But understand this. Use a concordance if you have to. The words: "elect" "predestined" "called" "before the foundation of the world" "chosen" "foreknowledge" etc. are in the Bible. I am not a Calvinist. But I know I have to account for these words and what they teach. Let me ask you: every time such words appear in your Bible do you take a pair of scissors and just cut them out of your Bible, because you don't want to talk about the doctrine or don't even believe in it? Is your Bible full of holes?
I agree completely with everything the Scripture teaches. What is your point?
I agree that you are thoroughly confused about some issues and don't accept some doctrines, though they be taught in the Bible, because human reason goes against it. But the Bible is not based on human reason; it is based on God's reasons.
- Status