You are PING!
| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 04/19/2004 7:52:52 PM PDT by Admin Moderator, reason:
This thread has 183 abuse reports. It’s now locked. Maybe you can all get along better on the next thread. |
Posted on 03/10/2004 9:37:27 PM PST by malakhi
| Statesmen may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue. - John Adams |
I believe we share the belief that we are saved by grace by the Mercy of God.
The key word is Mercy
If an infant is viewed as not deserving hell based on their innocence , then it is not mercy that saves them . They deserve heaven based on their own righteousness, there is no mercy required...as there is no judgment that MUST precede Mercy being granted.
Your belief that all infants have their name written in the Lambs book of Life also carries the same problem
Those churches that believe in baptismal regeneration of infants , in effect believe that the infant is cleansed from sin with the water...after that salvation is theirs to lose .
That is not what the bible teaches . Salvation is an affirmative act of God . He saves us . We can not earn it , we can never deserve it, we can never lose it as it was never ours to take or lose . It is His .
The scriptures are silent on the spiritual end of infants that die, so any doctrine we have is made of mens desire not Gods word.
IF God is consistent (and we know He is) then infants like you and I are saved not because they are righteous ... but they are saved because God CHOOSES to have MERCY on them , not because they are somehow righteous in them selves . That would mean that God would be the debtor of the children ..it would not be grace and it would not be mercy
Scripture says " there is non righteous no not one." There are no exceptions listed
If everyone here really HEARD the word everyone here would be saved. There is hearing and there is HEARING ...as Jesus said "let he that has ears hear"
Rom 11:7 What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded
Malakhi had nothing to do with the banning, please do not insinuate that. If you will reread what got them banned it should be plain what was going on. I don't agree with the banning, but it's clear that the thing that got them banned has been clearly discussed. They knew what they were doing, now they're reaping the consequences.
I could be wrong, but I believe the idea of "the age of accountability" does not state that infants are "innocent," only that God might see them as such as they do not have a full understanding of their actions. It is not (in my understanding) a doctrine which states that God owes them heaven or grace, but that God, in his mercy, grants both to them.
so any doctrine we have is made of mens desire not Gods word.
Only if we have no idea what God is like from His self-revelation, both specific and general. I do not believe this is the case. From what we know of God's nature, we can develop a doctrine. We do this all the time on things like abortion.
No. But there is a parallelism between the first and second Adam. If the first Adam brought condemnation upon everyone, why doesn't the second Adam bring grace in the same fashion?
Right , right . right ..don't fall asleep while your reading and you will get it:>)
It (salvation of the elect) was finished at the cross..
The resurrection is a visible sign to men that God has accepted it
You never asked me for my OT shadow of this.So you will get it anyway
We read in the OT that the High Priest went into the Holy of Holies to offer sacrifices for the sin of Israel . God had warned that no one but the priest could go in there , the sacrifice had to be preformed in the way that God ordered, if not the priest could be struck dead.
So bells were sown to the hem of His garment so the people knew as long as the bells rang that all was well with the priest , and the sacrifices were being offered to assuage the wrath of God . The priest had a rope tied around his ankle so that if God struck the priest dead the people could pull the body out .
So the nation stood there and listened to the bells , they watched and prayed that the sacrifice would be accepted. But they had no way to know that the sacrifice was done as God had ordered and was complete ,until the priest stepped out of the Holy of Holies .
That is a type of the resurrection , Jesus as the Lamb sacrificed himself (as our High Priest) , the sacrifice was completed and the wrath of God assuaged . It (like the sacrifices in the Holy of holies was completed ) . Just as the Priest stepping out let the people know that God had accepted the COMPLETED sacrifice..Jesus rising from the dead is our sign and assurance that indeed it is finished..Praise God!!
I would suggest you ask RochesterFan that question.
I cued the mod's in on this very possibility last night.
See Cindy , it was not the Calvinists ..your own folks did it ...are you scared of us Quester?
This was after Jim had already warned that the thread was in danger of being shutdown.
I FM'd him to find out the reason for the warning, as I hadn't seen anything to warrant one.
Your statement is just another example of how on top of things you are in this thread.
Don't assume that I haven't.
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.