Posted on 04/23/2012 6:04:14 PM PDT by Salvation
Yes, all mankind DOES inherit the sin nature and without the sacrifice of Jesus Christ upon the cross for sin, none of us could be saved. So, we all need redemption. The question, to me, is whether or not certain humans are exempt from the "faith" part of the grace of God. Can an unborn baby or a born one, even, before coming to an age or mental state that is capable of understanding that be exempt? I look at the many ways that God demonstrates His mercy and love - and He says He is not willing that ANY should perish but that all should come to repentance those that are able to, at least.
From what God has revealed about Himself, I would say that He holds no one accountable that cannot understand this. Who you are born to does not automatically condemn you nor save you - but each person must make a decision FOR Christ. I've heard the excuse that to say innocent babies go to heaven somehow excuses infanticide or abortion, I reject that because murder is NEVER a good thing and those who participate in it WILL answer to God. I used to think that aborted babies' souls would just be sent back to earth in another body, but I don't think that is true anymore - too close to the belief in reincarnation. Now THAT might be a plausible excuse if it were true but murder of innocents is NEVER sanctioned by God.
You asked where Scripture says babies born of those who have rejected God are saved - it doesn't. I challenge you back to show me where ANY innocents are eternally damned because of the actions of their relatives. Our God is a just God, and that would not be justice. His mercy covers the innocent.
As to the salvation of innocents - God is merciful and just. No person will be in hell who did not consciously reject God's grace to be saved. That excludes "unbaptized" babies that die after birth or through abortion. There were some early church fathers who DID teach that babies who died without baptism would be damned, the Catholic Church has changed her doctrines on this over the years. They came up with a fictitious place called "Limbo" in order to console those who lost babies through miscarriage. I do not believe such a place exists but that ALL innocents go directly to heaven at death.
To say such a doctrine "encourages" infanticide or abortion is the height of cynicism. Murder is murder and God will judge it. Anyone who would kill their own child under such an idea is mentally unbalanced in the first place. To contend Satan would NOT want abortion if all babies went to heaven, is also a strange idea. Satan thinks he is god, the first born are always dedicated to the true God, most first abortions ARE the first born child. Satan is a "murderer from the beginning" and ALL that he tries to do is to usurp God's will and plans. I think Satan thinks he gets far more out of abortion than to care that those children go to heaven. I have no doubt that they are covered under the mercy and grace of God, because He IS merciful and they are innocent.
I've seen this statement several times, and I just MUST say it is probably the lamest thing I've seen in a while. Jesus walked the earth preaching the Gospel of the kingdom of God and those that were hand selected by Him to continue to speak what he taught them wrote down those teachings so that ALL people would have an objective, Divinely-inspired and infallible resource after they were gone. They also hand selected followers that would continue to preach the same truth as Jesus taught them. That same Holy Scripture in the New Testament time had as its predecessor, the Old Testament which was also divinely inspired and authoritative. Jesus saves people through His sacrifice on the cross and those who receive Him become a member of His body, called the "church" - a called-out assembly.
This is a good article that explains the differences between how Roman Catholics see this succession and how non-Catholics do http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2011/06/the-rise-of-rome-in-a-nutshell/. One of the points it brings out, that is relevant to this discussion is:
So far, so good? Protestants and Catholics agree to this point. The next step is that the Apostles passed on their faith to others. Easy enough. The Apostles commissioned others to be leaders and authorities in the church. They handed over the faith to followers, like Timothy, who were approved in both their life and teaching. This created a succession of faith and teaching. They would often call this “laying on of hands.” With this “system” in place, the church maintained a safeguard against rogue expressions of the Christian faith. This is why Paul warned about commissioning people too hastily (1 Tim. 5:22).
Again, to this point both Protestants and Catholics agree. We need to pass on the faith. We need to commission others that have been approved. There needs to be accountability. However, the departure comes when we begin to define not only what this succession of authority is, but what it does. Again, we agree that it is the duty of the church to pass on the faith once for all handed to the saints (Jude 3). We agree that the church is the “pillar of truth” (1 Tim. 3:15). We also agree that all in this succession are saints and a part of the church. However, Catholics believe that in order for this succession to be valid, it has to be seen as primarily a succession in person. Protestants, on the other hand, believe that the primary issue involved it is a succession in teaching, doctrine, and practice. Therefore, Roman Catholics focus on the one to whom the succession is given, while Protestants focus on the teaching and doctrine itself, believing that the person who receives the succession is instrumental, not integral.
Therefore, in essence, for the Roman Catholic, the persons in succession define the Gospel and make up the institutional church which presides over the Gospel. Hence, Catholics have the Pope and the magisterium of bishops (as represented by the fellows in the graph that follow the apostles). For the Protestant, on the other hand, it is the other way around. Only to the degree that the person is in succession with right teaching are they in apostolic succession. A hasty “laying on of hands” is possible, and can damage both the doctrine and reputation of the church.
This is why Protestants are continually going back to the source – the Bible – for final authority (sola Scriptura) and why Roman Catholics are continually going to the institution for final authority.
But there is one more way in which the chasm is further widened between Roman Catholics and Protestants with regard to the issue of apostolic succession. For the Roman Catholic, in order for this institution to have ultimate authority, it must possess the gift of infallibility. For the Protestant, the person upon whom the hands are laid (along with the institution, which is made up of a bunch of fellas upon whom hands have been laid) is fallible. Only the Apostles’ teaching is not. For the Protestant, apostolic succession is a safeguard to the Gospel, but it must be continually tested by the Scriptures.
I hope you will read the whole article.
I don’t know who it was who was speaking to this “Kevin Barrett”, but it was NOT the Lord Jesus Christ.
Thank you for sending me a comment.
What church do you attend?
What is your church website that has church documents that I can read?
I have learned that many people post on freerepublic with their own opinions about Christianity.
Please let us look your church documents so we can understand whatever theological point you seem to be making.
I really do not understand your purpose in asking for such personal information. Whatever theological point I try to make I make it using Holy Scripture as my source of authority. Unlike Roman Catholics, many of us here are not bound at the hip to a religious institution that tells us what to believe. I believe what the Apostles believed because they wrote down for us what Jesus taught them both while he was physically present with them for three years as well as when he ascended to heaven through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. That same Holy Spirit indwells all believers and leads us into the truth of Scripture.
I fellowship with a Southern Baptist Church locally but have also attended nondenominational churches in other places I lived. There is not too much difference between the two and their Statements of Faith are nearly identical. I am not at all afraid of people stating their own opinions about Christianity as it is not as if there is nothing with which to discern correct vs. incorrect doctrine. That is why God gave us the Bible. The "church" - the body of Christ - is supposed to be the upholder and supporter of the truth of God and, like the "noble Bereans", we are all advised to search the Scriptures to know if what church leaders teach is true and not the "blind leading the blind". Much of what we do on these threads is discuss our views about various topics as they come up. I know I am edified by these exchanges and I hope others are as well. Thank you for your comments.
Thank you for your reply. & Thank you for attending a Southern Baptist Church which is a strong >pro-life church.
There are literally thousands of different churches that claim the Bible as their source of what they believe. & Within those many churches, the people will argue about the >true meaning of scripture.
Sometimes on freerepublic, folks seem to post comments from the ‘Sunday-Stay-At-Home’ church. The doctrines expressed seem to be whatever suits their fancy that day.
Doctor Albert Mohler of the Southern Baptist Divinity School has a column that I read occasionally. Praise God for Pro-life & pro-traditional morality> churches.
I’m a Roman Catholic & I am obligated to believe Catholic Doctrines. If you have any questions, I’ll try to point out Catholic Doctrines to the best of my ability. +Obviously, I believe you should be attending a Catholic Church.
“I don’t know who it was who was speaking to this “Kevin Barrett”, but it was NOT the Lord Jesus Christ.”
~ ~ ~
Uh oh, denying your own prophets now? Teasing you boatbums. Kevin receives teaching messages, serious messages from Our Lord.
OSAS - nope
One time “ALTAR CALL” justifies - no way
the “PROSPERITY GOSPEL” - false
What is it you didn’t agree with about the words in
caps written in the message? There were three sentences in caps. Or is it the title of the message about purification?
Then you don’t believe in original sin? Which sect do you belong to?
Again, you are not thinking this through. Saying all aborted children get to heaven makes abortion a net good. Not all of them, if they were born and grew up, would be saved.
So if then why be pro life? It is like the popular (and wrong) statement that those who die in a public and horrific way (think the Twin Towers) get a free pass to heaven.
From the time of Adam it is clear that all of mankind is “lost in sin”. The sin of Adam and Eve separated them and all of mankind from God. From that time forward God established a system whereby man could renew that relationship and escape the judgment because of that original sin. He selected only those who were faithful to Him and their offspring as His people. For instance, the promise was to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob not to Abraham, Isaac, and Esau. One can imagine the offspring of Esau who some would say were unaware or “innocent”. They did however suffer the condemnation brought about by condemnation of Esau.
Jesus told the disciples to go into all the world to proclaim the gospel to the lost. Think about it. If those people were “exempt” because they hadn’t heard and thus were “not held accountable” but were saved because of His “unwillingness that any should perish” why would Christ have instructed the apostles to go to them? If it’s true that because they hadn’t heard they are not “held accountable” and are given grace why would we need to have missionaries? They were “under grace” anyway. If missionaries go in and “proclaim the gospel” and they reject that teaching they are then lost. Do missionaries go out to saved people to give them the opportunity to become lost?
There weren’t just adults condemned and killed by the flood. When Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed it was the entire population, not just the adults.
Children of God’s people are covered by the faith of the fathers until the age of accountability just as it was in the Old Testament. The urgency to tell those who have not heard of Christ is because they and their offspring are lost. If they were not “held accountable” until they rejected Christ it would be cruel to go tell them. The urgency is that they are lost until they accept Christ.
What "sect" do I belong to??? I already stated I accepted that the sin nature from Adam passed down to all mankind and that all stand condemned because all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. My contention that God's mercy and grace cover the aborted and those who, through no fault of their own, i.e.; little children, the mentally handicapped, are covered under that mercy of God and they are NOT sent to hell. Any and all others MUST come to God through faith in Christ. You say not all of the aborted would come to Christ when they grew up is really a moot point since they CANNOT grow up and come to Christ. Don't you think God knew ahead of time those that would be born and be held accountable? How do you deal with all those souls that die through miscarriage, ones that ONLY God can even know?
I just cannot get over your attack that saying God saves those who are aborted makes abortion a "net good". That is disgusting to even say so. By your reasoning, should parents baptize their baby first before they kill it? Would that then be also a "net good". Do you see where such logic leads? My ONLY contention is that the mercy of God covers the innocents. They are NOT condemned to hell if they could not have the ability to believe in Christ. This in no way gives anyone a free pass but is probably the MOST pro-life position one can have. I am not speaking here of sane, self-aware humans but of the truly innocent lives that God will not send to hell but will take with him to heaven.
All those Egyptian babies that died when the Angel of Death killed the first born on that first Passover were NOT sent to hell. That would make God unjust and he IS a just and righteous God. His nature is mercy so those who are innocent and die are covered under the blood of Christ through the grace of God. Now I realize that Scripture does not directly address this, but we CAN know enough about the goodness and grace of God - that it is His will that ALL be saved - to believe that the aborted, the babies that die soon after birth and those who have no capability to mentally receive the Gospel will be in heaven. God is good, "The Judge of all the earth always does right" (cf Gen 18:25)... in mercy and grace or even in judgment. Psalms 145:9 The LORD is good to all; he has compassion on all he has made.
From the site http://www.bibleistrue.com/qna/qna56.htm:
London Baptist Confession of Faith (1689): Elect infants dying in infancy are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit; who worketh when, and where, and how he pleases; so also are all elect persons, who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word. The provided Scripture reference for this section, which emphasizes that God does what He pleases, is...
Isn't it great to know that our God is sovereign over all, and that He chooses, and that He is good?! Psalms 135:3-6 Praise the LORD, for the LORD is good; sing praise to his name, for that is pleasant. 4 For the LORD has chosen Jacob to be his own, Israel to be his treasured possession. 5 I know that the LORD is great, that our Lord is greater than all gods. 6 The LORD does whatever pleases him, in the heavens and on the earth, in the seas and all their depths. (NIV)
Miscarriage is a different thing than abortion. Again, we can't know, but if they parents were Christian we may hope for that child to be saved. But we can't know.
As with the mentally ill, my cousin has worked with Downs syndrome adults for most of his life. They often have a very clear view of God, better than most. I know of others who have imbalances, who struggle daily with it, and also love and try to follow God. Their suffering brings them closer to God in ways that I don't fully understand.
But we have to be careful in labeling people innocent if there is such a thing as Original Sin. If you believe in that, there are no innocents. We have been conceived in sin.
I always shudder at statements like that. How far does one carry that thought? Are all babies of the heathen saved? What about the babies of Muslims, or other not Christian beliefs? Like you said, there is no scriptural basis for that belief. Basing a belief on human emotion or desires is ill advised.
No, I am NOT a Calvinist! I often get in disagreements with Calvinists on the RF threads. Let me just TRY to clarify once again that I am not saying I "label" people nor do I know the hearts of others. Only God knows if there is true innocence and my only contention is that God is merciful, not willing that ANY should perish but that all should come to repentance and be saved. There ARE humans that have no capability to understand repentance, their need for it nor that Christ is our savior. This includes - obviously - the unborn, newborn, children at very young ages and those mentally incapable. The circumstances of a person's birth parents does NOT automatically condemn them OR redeem them.
You can believe that God would condemn for eternity an innocent aborted unborn baby (meaning: they never personally committed sin) if you desire but I will continue to trust that the God of all the earth will do right. They are covered under the grace of God. Yes, we are ALL born under sin but there is a difference in how God deals with innocents than the culpable. Please, do not imagine that somehow this makes me think infanticide and abortion make no difference. They are horrible and evil sins that those who DO them will answer to God - but, by the same token, to believe that those victims of infanticide and abortion are twice cursed by a God that sends them to hell to suffer for all eternity AFTER they are murdered by humans makes YOUR God NO ONE I want to know. I'm done discussing this subject with you.
No, I am NOT a Calvinist! I often get in disagreements with Calvinists on the RF threads. Let me just TRY to clarify once again that I am not saying I "label" people nor do I know the hearts of others. Only God knows if there is true innocence and my only contention is that God is merciful, not willing that ANY should perish but that all should come to repentance and be saved. There ARE humans that have no capability to understand repentance, their need for it nor that Christ is our savior. This includes - obviously - the unborn, newborn, children at very young ages and those mentally incapable. The circumstances of a person's birth parents does NOT automatically condemn them OR redeem them.
You can believe that God would condemn for eternity an innocent aborted unborn baby (meaning: they never personally committed sin) if you desire but I will continue to trust that the God of all the earth will do right. They are covered under the grace of God. Yes, we are ALL born under sin but there is a difference in how God deals with innocents than the culpable. Please, do not imagine that somehow this makes me think infanticide and abortion make no difference. They are horrible and evil sins that those who DO them will answer to God - but, by the same token, to believe that those victims of infanticide and abortion are twice cursed by a God that sends them to hell to suffer for all eternity AFTER they are murdered by humans makes YOUR God NO ONE I want to know. I'm done discussing this subject with you.
Why would talking about the grace of God that is so great that he will not condemn an innocent baby who dies to an eternity in hell make you shudder? Thinking our God would do so makes me shudder. Can any and all people come to saving faith in Christ no matter what their parents believed? What kind of God would send innocent babies who were killed before they even knew right from wrong to an eternity of suffering in hell? Yes, Scripture isn't precise about this subject, but from what it DOES say, I choose to trust that the God of all the earth does right and He is good.
Because its espousing beliefs not based on scripture. In fact, more evidence exists to refute.
Psalm 51:5 Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, And in sin my mother conceived me.
Romans 3:23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
John 3:18 He who believes on Him is not condemned, but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only-begotten Son of God.
What about children of believers?
Acts 16:30 And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? 31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.
Thus the urgency to tell all who will listen.
I seldom disagree with you on anything, CB, but I can't help but think I am not making myself clear enough on this issue. I totally agree that we have all sinned, that we sin because we are sinners, that even a baby has inherited the sin nature. My ONLY contention is that it is God's grace that covers those who, through NO fault of their own, cannot believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. Of course, this is extremely limited and only means those who are personally innocent of acts of sin. An unborn baby who is aborted had NO chance to even believe or not believe so the grace of a just and merciful God covers their sin through the blood of Christ. God, who knows the end from the beginning, already knows who will be born and who will not make it to birth. He also knows all those who cannot understand their sinful state and their need for a savior - those with mental handicaps. Don't you believe He has made a provision for them? Why would He allow conception to take place at all for a baby He knows will be aborted and then send them to hell? That makes no sense at all if God is just and merciful. Babies die every day through miscarriage, starvation, abuse, disease, etc., yet God allowed them to exist even if only for a short time.
None of those Scripture verses address this question, and the one you gave where Peter told the jailer to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved and your house does NOT mean his family automatically gets saved based upon the man's faith. Each one of them also must believe. By the same token, babies who die to unsaved parents are no more condemned by their parent's rejection of Christ than the jailer's children were saved through his faith. EVERY person - who can - must individually come to faith in Christ to be saved. Those who are not able to because of age or mental disability - and ONLY God knows - are covered under the blood of Christ. It is not much different than the Old Testament saints, who did not personally believe in Jesus Christ - because he had not come yet - but were still saved through faith in God's redemption plan.
We may not agree about this issue, and I accept you as a brother in Christ because of your personal faith in Christ. I respect your right to think for yourself and I know you do the same for me. We WILL know one day who is right. I'm okay with that.
We agree on most everything and have shown that often. You have indeed made yourself clear and you are not alone in your belief. It’s just that scripture makes it clear, at least to me, that all were lost because of Adam’s sin and only those who have put their faith in God have been saved. From examples such as Noah and his family, Lot and his family we see that it was the faith of the father that saved the family. The jailor was told that if he believed his house would be saved. I believe it’s the faith of the father that covers the innocents until the age of accountability. Christ told us to preach the gospel to the lost. If those who have not heard are saved by God’s grace why would we need to go tell them of the gospel?
The jailer's family would be saved only when they each received Christ as Savior. The jailer's faith had NO benefit for his wife or grown sons and daughters if they refused, did it? What you want to accept for "believers'" families, I accept for the truly innocent of ALL people. I will say this once again - I am NOT speaking of self aware and mentally able people - but ONLY those such as babies who die before birth or after (but before they know right from wrong). Lot and his family were saved from the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. Noah and his, were saved from the flood. But NONE of them can be saved from eternal damnation if they reject the grace of God. It is this grace that I believe saves the innocents.
I understand the Reformed doctrine of the "elect" being saved and it applying to their families as well. I reject that only because the elect are all those who are saved and they got saved by a personal choice of faith in Christ. God knew before the world existed all those who would be saved and all those who would be lost and he created them anyway. This in no way means that God intentionally created beings to send them to hell for his own purposes. It means each and every person, if they are able, can receive the truth and be saved and God knows all those who will. This doesn't mean he created them without giving them a will but, even though he knows who will or won't, he STILL created them so that "in the coming ages he might show the incomparable riches of his grace, expressed in his kindness to us in Christ Jesus." (Eph. 2:7) It is this kindness and grace that moves me to believe that God will not condemn the innocent to hell.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.