Posted on 10/15/2004 1:04:27 AM PDT by OrthodoxPresbyterian
Are persons who die in infancy saved? Holy Scriptures do not directly address this subject. But various indirect declarations give us every reason to rest assured that they are indeed saved.
The goodness of God suggests the salvation of those who die in infancy. We read in Job 38:41 that He provides food for newborn ravens when they cry unto Him. Surely He will not turn a deaf ear to the cries of infants and permit them to be cast from His presence! We read in Psalm 145:15f that He provides food for "every living thing," even the most loathsome of creatures. Surely He will provide salvation for those made in His own image who die in infancy!
In various passages, the number of the redeemed in glory is so large as to suggest the salvation of those persons who died in infancy. For example, they are described in Revelation 7:9 as "a great multitude which no man could number." It is thought by many theologians that the number of souls in glory will be greater than that of the souls in the regions of the damned on the grounds that Christ must have the preeminence. This certainly will be true if the number of the redeemed in glory will include all those who died in infancy and childhood, which was a vast part of humanity in former times when a great percentage of children did not live long enough to reach adulthood. This number would also include the untold millions who today are snatched from their mothers' wombs and sacrificed by abortionists.
In Ezekiel 16:21, God called the children sacrificed to heathen gods "My children": "you have slain My children and offered them up to them by causing them to pass through the fire." God's children are received in glory, not consigned to hell.
In Jonah 4:11, we read that God had great pity on the citizens of Nineveh, especially upon its "more than one hundred and twenty thousand persons who cannot discern between their right hand and their left." Such pity suggests these infants would be received into glory if they died in infancy.
In Mark 10:14, Jesus Christ said, "Let the little children come to Me, and do not forbid them; for of such is the kingdom of heaven." He then admonished adults in the next verse, "Assuredly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God as a little child will by no means enter it."
In 2 Samuel 12:23, David expressed his own assurance that his own departed infant was received into heaven, and that he himself would later be forever reunited with him there: "I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me."
The great question before us not is not whether persons dying in infancy are saved and received into glory. Holy Scriptures would seem to assure us that they indeed are. Rather, the question before us should be whether the parents and loved ones of those who die in infancy will be reunited with them in glory.
How are persons who die in infancy saved?
Arminians err when they aver that persons dying in infancy are saved because of their supposed innocence. Arminians are driven to this view because of a fatal flaw in their scheme of salvation. Arminians believe that God has done all He can to save sinners, and that the success of His desire and endeavor rests solely upon those sinners exercising their supposed "free will" in making what they call a "decision for Christ." Arminians declare that if sinners do not make such a conscious and deliberate decision to let God save them, God cannot do so.
This Arminian heresy mercilessly shuts the door of salvation to infants who are in every way incapable of their own will to make a "decision for Christ." Arminians admit this fatal flaw to their scheme of salvation, but they are not willing to concede that persons dying in infancy are forever lost and damned. Arminians therefore must devise another scheme by which God saves infants, thereby averring that God saves adults in one way, and infants in another.
This Arminian dilemma is compounded for Campbellites, the disciples of Alexander Campbell (1788-1866). Campbellites are not only Arminian, but also among the most strident proponents of the heresy of baptismal regeneration. They emphatically deny that anyone can be saved apart from baptism. This Campbellite heresy also mercilessly shuts the door of salvation to unbaptized infants — unless another scheme of salvation can be devised for them.
Arminians generally believe the scheme for the salvation for infants involves their innocence and/or the fact that they have not reached the age of accountability – whatever that is!
This Arminian scheme for the salvation of infants contradicts Holy Scriptures in at least two ways. First, it denies that God has but one plan for salvation, and posits instead that He saves adults in one way and infants in another.
Second, this Arminian scheme for the salvation of infants denies the Biblical doctrine of the sinfulness of the whole human race, including infants.
Romans 5:12-19 teaches us that we all, infants included, sinned and died in the fall of Adam, the first man.
Job (14:4) declared the sinfulness of infants when he said, "Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? No one!"
The psalmist David declared the sinfulness of infants when he, speaking for us all, said in Psalm 51:5, "Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin my mother conceived me."
And he poignantly declared the sinfulness of infants when he said in Psalm 58:3, "The wicked are estranged from the womb; they go astray as soon as they are born, speaking lies."
Solomon includes infants when he teaches us in Ecclesiastes 7:20 that "there is not a just man on earth who does good and does not sin."
And Jesus Christ includes infants when He teaches us in John 3:1-7 that "That which is born of the flesh is flesh" and in need of being "born again" by the Holy Spirit if he or she is to see or enter God's kingdom.
Another flaw of the Arminian view is that it in reality denies infant salvation. There is no need of salvation for those who are innocent! "Infant salvation" is a misnomer for Arminians.
Roman Catholics err when they aver that persons dying in infancy are saved if they are baptized. One of the first great heresies to plague the church of Christ was the mistaken belief that salvation is obtained through baptism. Since those who embraced this heresy wished to prevent their children from dying unbaptized, and therefore unsaved, they baptized them as soon as they were born. Scriptures deny both the heresy of baptismal regeneration and of the baptism of infants.
Nevertheless, the Roman Catholic Church emphatically declares that infants and young children dying unbaptized are forbidden to enter heaven. According to the article "Infants, Unbaptized" in A Catholic Dictionary, "The Church has always taught that unbaptized children are excluded from heaven .... Heaven is a reward in no way due to their human nature as such."
Calvinists rightly teach that persons dying in infancy are saved in the same manner as are saved adults. God has only one plan of salvation. It teaches that sinners are saved by God's free and sovereign grace in Jesus Christ, totally apart from any works of righteousness they perform or any supposed virtue in them. Everyone who is saved — including all persons dying in infancy — is saved through being elected to salvation by God the Father, redeemed by the blood of Jesus Christ, and regenerated or born again by the Holy Spirit (as set forth in preceding messages).
Calvinists believe persons dying in infancy are saved in this manner. Contrary to the slanders of Arminians and Romanists, Calvinists do not believe any persons dying in infancy are damned.
One of the most glorious aspects of the Calvinist doctrine of infant salvation is that it magnifies the goodness and grace of God in salvation and in no way contradicts Holy Scriptures. To the contrary, Arminianism denies the need of God's grace for the salvation of infants. And Romanism exalts the work of parents in having their infants baptized, and bars from heaven the departed infants of those parents who did not do so.
We Calvinists alone can rightly assure the parents and friends of departed infants that they are saved and received into glory.
But we also exhort these same parents and friends to trust in Jesus Christ for their own salvation. None but such persons can say with assurance the words of David regarding his own departed infant, "I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me."
Most Calvinists whole-heartedly affirm that all persons dying in infancy are saved, even though they acknowledge the Bible has no definitive doctrine on this subject. Some Calvinists will go only so far as to acknowledge that the Bible definitely teaches that at least some persons dying in infancy are saved. But no representative Calvinist theologian declares that any person dying in infancy is damned. (See the preceding message, #171.)
Arminians nevertheless deliberately misrepresent Calvinists as believing persons dying in infancy are damned. Let the following quotations from some of the most renown Calvinists suffice to show that the Arminian accusation is false.
John Calvin, the sixteenth-century Reformer for whom Calvinism is named, asserted, "I do not doubt that the infants whom the Lord gathers together from this life are regenerated by a secret operation of the Holy Ghost." And "he speaks of the exemption of infants from the grace of salvation 'as an idea not free from execrable blasphemy'" (cited by Augustus Strong in Systematic Theology). He furthermore declared that "to say that the countless mortals taken from life while yet infants are precipitated from their mothers' arms into eternal death is a blasphemy to be universally detested" (quoted in Presbyterian and Reformed Review, Oct. 1890: pp.634-51).
Charles Hodge was a 19th-century professor of theology at Princeton Seminary, which was in those days a foremost American bastion of Calvinism. He wrote: "All who die in infancy are saved. This is inferred from what the Bible teaches of the analogy between Adam and Christ. 'As by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.' (Rom. v.18,19.) We have no right to put any limit on these general terms, except what the Bible itself places upon them. The Scriptures nowhere exclude any class of infants, baptized or unbaptized, born in Christian or in heathen lands, of believing or unbelieving parents, from the benefits of the redemption of Christ. All the descendants of Adam, except Christ, are under condemnation; all the descendants of Adam, except those of whom it is expressly revealed that they cannot inherit the kingdom of God, are saved. This appears to be the clear meaning of the Apostle, and therefore he does not hesitate to say that where sin abounded, grace has much more abounded, that the benefits of redemption far exceed the evils of the fall; that the number of the saved far exceeds the number of the lost" (Systematic Theology, vol.I, p.26)
John Newton, author of the favorite hymn "Amazing Grace," became a Calvinistic Anglican minister in 1764, serving the English parishes in Olney, Buckinghamshire, and London. In a letter to a friend he wrote, "Nor can I doubt, in my private judgment, that [infants] are included in the election of grace. Perhaps those who die in infancy, are the exceeding great multitude of all people, nations, and languages mentioned, Revelations, vii.9, in distinction from the visible body of professing believers, who were marked in the foreheads, and openly known to be the Lord's" (The Works of John Newton, vol.VI, p.182)
Alvah Hovey was a 19th-century American Baptist who served many years in Newton Theological Institution, and edited The American Commentary. He wrote in one of his books: "Though the sacred writers say nothing in respect to the future condition of those who die in infancy, one can scarcely err in deriving from this silence a favorable conclusion. That no prophet or apostle, that no devout father or mother, should have expressed any solicitude as to those who die before they are able to discern good from evil is surprising, unless such solicitude was prevented by the Spirit of God. There are no instances of prayer for children taken away in infancy. The Savior nowhere teaches that they are in danger of being lost. We therefore heartily and confidently believe that they are redeemed by the blood of Christ and sanctified by His Spirit, so that when they enter the unseen world they will be found with the saints" (Biblical Eschatology, pp.170f).
Lorraine Boettner was a 20th-Century Presbyterian who taught Bible for eight years in Pikeville College, Kentucky. In his book The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination he wrote at some length in defense of the Calvinist doctrine of infant salvation. We here quote from his remarks: "Calvinists, of course, hold that the doctrine of original sin applies to infants as well as to adults. Like all other sons of Adam, infants are truly culpable because of race sin and might be justly punished for it. Their 'salvation' is real. It is possible only through the grace of Christ and is as truly unmerited as is that of adults. Instead of minimizing the demerit and punishment due to them for original sin, Calvinism magnifies the mercy of God in their salvation. Their salvation means something, for it is the deliverance of guilty souls from eternal woe. And it is costly, for it was paid for by the suffering of Christ on the cross. Those who take the other view of original sin, namely, that it is not properly sin and does not deserve eternal punishment, make the evil from which infants are 'saved' to be very small, and consequently the love and gratitude which they owe to God to be small also.
"... Calvinism ... extends saving grace far beyond the boundaries of the visible church. If it is true that all of those who die in infancy, in heathen as well as in Christian lands, are saved, then more than half of the human race up to the present time has been among the elect."
B.B. Warfield, born in Kentucky in 1851, was along with Abraham Kuyper and Herman Bavinck one of the three most outstanding Reformed theologians in his day. He wrote concerning those who die in infancy: "Their destiny is determined irrespective of their choice, by an unconditional decree of God, suspended for its execution on no act of their own; and their salvation is wrought by an unconditional application of the grace of Christ to their souls, through the immediate and irresistible operation of the Holy Spirit prior to and apart from any action of their own proper wills... And if death in infancy does depend on God's providence, it is assuredly God in His providence who selects this vast multitude to be made participants of His unconditional salvation.... This is but to say that they are unconditionally predestinated to salvation from the foundation of the world" (quoted in Boettner's book).
Charles Haddon Spurgeon is perhaps the most-widely recognized name among Calvinists next to John Calvin. He served many years in the 19th-century as pastor in the Metropolitan Tabernacle in London, England. He preached on September 29, 1861, a message entitled "Infant Salvation" (#411 in Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit). In this message, Mr. Spurgeon not only convincingly proved from Holy Scriptures the belief of Calvinists that all persons dying in infancy are saved, but also soundly rebuked those Arminians and others who wrongly accuse us otherwise:
"It has been wickedly, lyingly, and slanderously said of Calvinists, that we believe that some little children perish. Those who make the accusation know that their charge is false. I cannot even dare to hope, though I would wish to do so, that they ignorantly misrepresent us. They wickedly repeat what has been denied a thousand times, what they know is not true.... I know of no exception, but we all hope and believe that all persons dying in infancy are elect. Dr. Gill, who has been looked upon in late times as being a very standard of Calvinism, not to say of ultra-Calvinism, himself never hints for a moment the supposition that any infant has perished, but affirms of it that it is a dark and mysterious subject, but that it is his belief, and he thinks he has Scripture to warrant it, that they who have fallen asleep in infancy have not perished, but have been numbered with the chosen of God, and so have entered into eternal rest. We have never taught the contrary, and when the charge is brought, I repudiate it and say, 'You may have said so, we never did, and you know we never did. If you dare to repeat the slander again, let the lie stand in scarlet on your very cheek if you be capable of a blush.' We have never dreamed of such a thing. With very few and rare exceptions, so rare that I never heard of them except from the lips of slanderers, we have never imagined that infants dying as infants have perished, but we have believed that they enter into the paradise of God."
Whom will you believe: Calvinists speaking for themselves? or Arminians deliberately misrepresenting them?
Oh yeah?
Well, but what if they were, like, these really, really small angels, and maybe they were just, like, twisting - on one foot, slowly.
It could happen, ya know.
It's not unseemly at all to ask people how they are voting. In this most important election it's exactly the question we should be asking. Especially here at FreeRepublic.
FR is not a forum for religious discussion. It's something JR graciously allows. Most of us have other outlets for religious discussion and study. For me the religion forum is something to do while there's nothing happening on the news side.
And, if you know all on the forum (at least those xzins has asked) are Bush supporters, why don't you ask why some of them are afraid to discuss it?
Well maybe.
All I know is 30 is about all our church can handle on stage at Christmas...
Because this is a religion thread.
Ask away on any of the 1000's of political threads.
Clearly, you have artifically limited yourselves, temporally and spatially.
Logically, you have already supported as many as the script didn't call for.
Sounds like separation of thread and state.
We'll just have to disagree here. I don't mind xzins zeal on behalf of our President.
Many were cast, but few were choreographed.
What part of TULIP is about 'ingreience'?
Bear the pain.
It's only 2 more days until 7 PM PST.
Keep the context: a religion thread on a political website. We mix religion and politics around here.
But, let me be so bold as to suggest that I'd like to discuss with the undeclared on a thread about infants why they should consider an adult response to the election instead of that of an infant.
Simple question to the undeclared.
I've never cared too much for the gentlemen. He's a little too moderate for my taste. But I WILL NEVER vote for a Democrat and will do everything I can, short of marching for social causes ;O), to prevent Democrats from winning.
”You'd simply quote the passages that show Cornelius being regenerated and sealed before he heard or believed.”
Act 11:15-17 "And as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell upon them just as He did upon us at the beginning. And I remembered the word of the Lord, how He used to say, 'John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.' "Therefore if God gave to them the same gift as He gave to us also after believing in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could stand in God's way?"
Cornelius received the Holy Spirit AFTER HE BELIEVED which was when PETER BEGAN SPEAKING TO HIM.
I’m saying Cornelius salvation experience shows: 1) he was a devout man; 2) an angel appeared to him and told him to send for Peter; 3) Peter hesitated to bring the message but came after being persuaded by God and men; 4) Peter preached to Cornelius; 5) Cornelius believed in the Lord Jesus; 6) the Holy Spirit fell upon Cornelius; 7) they were baptized.
You want to ignore steps 1-3 of the redemptive process. Step 1-We know Cornelius was devout doing good works but how is that possible since good works only come from God? Step 2-God’s angel was sent to Cornelius to illuminate what he must do. Step 3-God had to intervene to persuade Peter to preach the word of Christ
Of course my comments about Cornelius getting hit on the head are hypothetical not because Cornelius avoided walking under ladders but because God shrouded him in His protection until the logical redemptive process could be complete. This isn’t a timing issue with God. It is a logical redemptive process. You just don’t recognize steps 1-3 in this process and what exactly they mean since they all entail God's direct involvement in the redemptive process.
What kind of dancing?
There is no other candidate in the race who can keep a democrat from winning. Obviously, the lesser parties are not a viable option this year (and seldom are.)
If you believe that God is in control and He will raise up who He wants, then you must believe that God wants either George W. Bush or Kerry to win. He would have had His hand in the rise of either.
Is there any possibility that the other 3rd parties have a chance? Not at all. We all know that.
Assuming, then, that God will have either Bush or Kerry, then you must rate Bush as the one who will promote a culture of life and religious freedom. With kerry you have a candidate who will promote abortion, cloning, homosexuality, and religious repression.
If you are certain that this is a time when God is deciding to refine His people in the fires of sickness and oppression, then vote for Kerry.
If you believe that you must decide for the best of your people based on biblical principles, then you will vote for the opportunity for life and religious freedom to flourish. You will vote for Pres. Bush.
If you're registered.
This is the only adult, non-infant, view on the subject.
I look at this slightly different. What else. :O)
It's far more complex than just Bush/Kerry. What happens if Bush wins but Congress switched back into Democrats hands. Or what happens if Kerry wins but Tom Dashcle (sp) loses his position? Far too many permutations in my mind.
I haven't a clue as to what God's plans are so I can only vote for the best possible choice which closely (and I use this loosely) resembles some sense of morality and lowering my taxes (kind of goes hand-in-hand). To me the races are increasingly boiling down to one issue-whether a candidate supports or rejects abortion.
Regardless of how I rate the candidates and vote God is the one who will ultimately make the decisions for His sovereign plan. It's like Jonah trying to decide whether to go to Tarshish or Niveveh. We can make the wrong decision but God is in control and will bring about His will. Whatever that is I will respect His decision.
And, yes, I'm registered and I vote in EVERY election. Even those where no one shows up.
Latest polls show Republicans leading in both branches of Congress. There will be an increase in the Senate.
Therefore, President Bush will be able to forcefully advance judicial appointments who oppose reading their own philosophy into our Constitution.
Starwind post #297: ”You'd simply quote the passages that show Cornelius being regenerated and sealed before he heard or believed.”
HarleyD post #312: Act 11:15-17 "And as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell upon them just as He did upon us at the beginning. And I remembered the word of the Lord, how He used to say, 'John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.' "Therefore if God gave to them the same gift as He gave to us also after believing in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could stand in God's way?"
Cornelius received the Holy Spirit AFTER HE BELIEVED which was when PETER BEGAN SPEAKING TO HIM.
I challenged you to quote passages wherein Cornelius was regenerated and sealed before he heard or believed.
Your answer was to quote and highlight Cornelius receiving the Holy Spirit after believing in the Lord Jesus Christ.
I'm sure you know the difference between "before" and "after" (or "logically" maybe you don't?), but that didn't stop you from pretending yours was an intellectually honest answer.
I’m saying Cornelius salvation experience shows: 1) he was a devout man; 2) an angel appeared to him and told him to send for Peter; 3) Peter hesitated to bring the message but came after being persuaded by God and men; 4) Peter preached to Cornelius; 5) Cornelius believed in the Lord Jesus; 6) the Holy Spirit fell upon Cornelius; 7) they were baptized.
You want to ignore steps 1-3 of the redemptive process.
And now you concoct yet another process and artificially contrive to front-load it with 3 steps which you then claim I want to ignore (another strawman), because again you want to deflect attention away from steps 4-7 in which Cornelius first believed and then the Holy Spirit fell. But you spin steps 4 and 5 as if Cornelius was hearing and believing for the first time in Acts 11:15-17, when in fact Acts 10:1-2 record Cornelius' had heard of, feared, and prayed to, God and knew about Jesus ministry earlier, and then later in Acts 10:44 or Acts 11:15-17 Cornelius was as well hearing the gospel, and he believed it as well but it was not the beginning of his belief in God. Cornelius believed in Acts 10:1-2 which you spin as him being devout. Yes he was devout, but he was more than devout, he also had heard of God and feared God and prayed to God and he knew about Jesus ministry, all of which preceded his (likely) regeneration in Acts 10:44 or 11:15-17.
All of which I've stated before, and I don't need to restate it every time you invent a new process.
Harley, I have not ignored your processes. You know that. I have in fact attempted to analyze them, organize them and I have critiqued how poorly they were described. I didn't ignore them, I disected and disagreed with them. The new process you postulate now in your post #312, I haven't had a chance to ignore, this being my first response to your most recent post to me, and I'm not ignoring it either, now am I?. You knew all that but that didn't stop you from making the false charge that I ignore your processes.
How many cites and refutations of your arguments, and questions that I've posed to you, have you ignored?
Step 1-We know Cornelius was devout doing good works but how is that possible since good works only come from God?
Yet another in a long line of false premises from you. Many unregenerate people do good works, good works which may well have been prepared by God for the benefit of the receiver (not the 'worker') but unregenerate people do good works none the less. True, doing good works doesn't save them, and some will 'boast' in them and argue (mistakenly) they are 'good people' to whom God would not deny heaven, but they do good works nonetheless. Unregenerate people daily sacrifice their lives to save others, work 2 or 3 jobs to support their families, give of their time and money to charities - yes, without Jesus they're still lost, but it doesn't change the good works they have done.
And so in Acts 10:1-2 Cornelius was unsaved and unregenerate at the time he was giving alms, a good work perhaps even prepared by God, but nonetheless Cornelius was unregenerate when he did those good works, and Cornelius did it of his own free will and choosing. God did not work Cornelius' puppet strings and make him do it. Cornelius did that particular good work (the only specific work we know) because he had the belief, desire, and ability, and God gave him the opportunity foreknowing Cornelius would 'step up', but Cornelius did it of his own choosing while yet unregenerate.
Step 2-God’s angel was sent to Cornelius to illuminate what he must do. Step 3-God had to intervene to persuade Peter to preach the word of Christ
I didn't ignore these "steps" either. I've addressed their passages many times. I disagreed previously with your "terminology", which ill-defined terminology is still irrelevant to my argument, oft repeated lo these many posts, that believing follows hearing and preceeds regeneration or being sealed with the Holy Spirit. But then that is more of your deflection away from the argument which you have neither refuted and even implicitly affirmed when you cited Acts 11:15-17 as the response to my challenge to quote passages wherein Cornelius was regenerated and sealed before he heard or believed.
And now we come to:
Of course my comments about Cornelius getting hit on the head are hypothetical not because Cornelius avoided walking under ladders but because God shrouded him in His protection until the logical redemptive process could be complete. This isn’t a timing issue with God. It is a logical redemptive process. You just don’t recognize steps 1-3 in this process and what exactly they mean since they all entail God's direct involvement in the redemptive process.
Let me repeat your exact words: [your] comments about Cornelius getting hit ... are hypothetical ... because God shrouded him in His protection until the logical redemptive process could be complete
Harley, you are not posing logical redemptive process as a hypothetical. You pose that as your serious argument to get Cornelius regenerated before he heard or believed. Hence, in your view, Cornelius not being killed prematurely is not hypothetical either but an actual result of 'protective shrouding' until the 'logical redemptive process' completes. More on this non-sequiter below.
Here is the background:
Starwind post #272:
One must argue from silence and assume (in support of ones doctrine) that Cornelius was first regenerated and then believed and then heard - and that at this point Acts 10:1 picks up the story. In fact, arguably, regeneration, renewing and sealing occurred when the Holy Spirit fell - if one were to overreach.
HarleyD post #273:
Oh really? I guess it’s important to support one’s doctrine over careful examination of the scriptures. Are you saying Cornelius was regenerated, believed and heard and then was re-regenerated? Or perhaps Cornelius wasn’t regenerated at the time of the angel and if a brick would have fallen on his head God would have said, “Shucks, there’s one that got away.”
Starwind post #274:
You are the one that seems to think scripture says Cornelius was regenerated, so why not help me out here and post it and highlight it?
I don't know. And I daresay neither do you. Or are angelic visits your proof of regeneration? In which case you still have not proved Cornelius was regenerated before he became God-fearing prayerful and knew about Jesus ministry, now have you? And if someone has not received an angelic visit then are they unregenerate? Have you received any angelic visits lately with audible commands?
HarleyD post #275:
[Starwind post #274] "You are the one that seems to think scripture says Cornelius was regenerated, so why not help me out here and post it and highlight it?"
Act 10:3-8 "About the ninth hour of the day he clearly saw in a vision an angel of God who had just come in and said to him, "Cornelius!" And fixing his gaze on him and being much alarmed, he said, "What is it, Lord?" And he said to him, "Your prayers and alms have ascended as a memorial before God. Now dispatch some men to Joppa and send for a man named Simon, who is also called Peter; he is staying with a tanner named Simon, whose house is by the sea." When the angel who was speaking to him had left, he summoned two of his servants and a devout soldier of those who were his personal attendants, and after he had explained everything to them, he sent them to Joppa."
Rom 4:3 "For what does the Scripture say? "ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS CREDITED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS." "
HarleyD post #293:
No conjecture, just fact. Once again I've seen nothing offered by you, Starwind or anyone else that would explain my original question about Cornelius dying between the time of meeting with the angel and meeting with Peter. Would he be saved? Starwind says no even though it was God's desire to bring Cornelius to Himself. What do you say?
Starwind-It's convenient for you (as well as others) to offer no solutions to these events but a tad disingenious when I explain it in a consistent manner with the theological views presented in this article and then you chastise me for my "fruit salad" theology. You have no way of explaining these events because your theological perception is based upon a flawed premise as illustrated by your response. I'm confident you would also be unable to explain how God could have appeared to Abraham in Genesis Chapter 12 and Abraham be justified in Chapter 15. It's the same situation only in the Old Testament.
HarleyD post #312 Of course my comments about Cornelius getting hit on the head are hypothetical
So, summarizing
- I (in #272) point out you're arguing from silence about when Cornelius was first regenerated.
- You (in #273) rhetorically argue Cornelius was regenerated prior to the Holy Spirit falling and pose the question what if a brick had hit Cornelius.
- I (in post #274) asked you where you think Cornelius was regenerated.
- You (in post #275) cite Acts 10:3-8, wherein there is no regeneration, no Holy Spirit, no preaching, just the angels visit. (Harley, you were arguing in post #275 that an angelic visit is regeneration or a sign of regeneration!!!)
- You further (in post #293) claim nothing has been offered by me or anyone to explain your original question about what if Cornelius were hit by a brick. You further argue I have no way to explain what if Cornelius were hit by a brick.
- And now (in your post #312) you claim it was a hypothetical. Yet you had mistakenly argued (in your hypothetical) Cornelius was regenerated when the angel visited, and you mistakenly cited Acts 10:3-8 as proof of Cornelius regeneration (ignoring the Holy Spirit falling in Acts 10:44 or Acts 11:15-17) but only admit now that "Cornelius received the Holy Spirit AFTER HE BELIEVED which was when PETER BEGAN SPEAKING TO HIM" so Cornelius was not regenerated during your hypothetical.
So, while you claim it was hypothetical, it was a false hypothetical since Cornelius was not regenerated when the angel visited (as you now admit), but you still demanded that everyone construct some kind of doctrine to explain a false hypothetical to your satisfaction!
And now you try to deflect that as well:
Of course my comments about Cornelius getting hit on the head are hypothetical not because Cornelius avoided walking under ladders but because God shrouded him in His protection until the logical redemptive process could be complete. This isn’t a timing issue with God. It is a logical redemptive process. You just don’t recognize steps 1-3 in this process and what exactly they mean since they all entail God's direct involvement in the redemptive process.
Yet more word-salad without meaning. Truly, Harley, you theorize about angels dancing on pinheads.
If the redemption process were "logical" then Cornelius would already be saved ("logically") and it would not matter when or how he died because he'd die 'redeemed'. He would not need God's protective shrouding, would he? In fact, he wouldn't want it. The sooner he was accidently killed the sooner he'd get to heaven. There'd be no need to hear or believe and no need to be sealed with the Holy Spirit - redemption (and regeneration) all being "logical". If redemption is "logical", then redemption (being the end-point, logically, of a process that was thought of as temporal) is complete and always was complete - Cornelius is saved, mission accomplished - and so the rest of the process becomes moot, and hence protective shrouding to prevent a moot process from being preempted is likewise moot.
But seriously, if God's elect had a stripe painted down their backs so we could recognize them prior to regeneration (some are even getting hard to recognize after), then discussing such shrouding might be edifying - knowing whom to watch, but we don't know whom and we'll never know whom. But even if you could know whom, how would you explain the millions of God's elect and saved who experience the most severe trials, including martyrdom? Where is/was God's protective shrouding for them?
Rom 9:20-21 The thing molded will not say to the molder, "You can skip this molding stuff since, logically, I'm already a vessel for honorable use" will it?
Well, it very much is a timing issue with God as well as with us. God created a space-time continuum and created us inside it. He sustains us within it. He is aware of the time constraints He imposed on us and He inspired His word to be written using temporal concepts that conote a time sequence of events, including a lot of history, prophecy, and time-sensitive instructions (ex: Mat 10:19 "But when they hand you over, do not worry about how or what you are to say; for it will be given you in that hour what you are to say") and consequences (Heb 9:27 And inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment).
Further, Paul taught many time-sensitive principles including that belief follows hearing (which man must do inside time) and precedes regeneration (which the Holy Spirit - coming from outside time - does to a man who is still inside time).
So while you might argue that God "logically" views regeneration as "done" in a timeless eternal sense, the prerequisites (to hear and believe) nonetheless are on man to fulfill in a timely human sense, and then regeneration and the Spiritual fruits therefrom likewise become evident, also in a timely human sense.
While God knows the end from the beginning and sees all in an eternal timeless perspective we, His creation, do not, and we (constrained within God's temporal creation) are taught:
Eph 1:13-14 In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation--having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise, who is given as a pledge of our inheritance, with a view to the redemption of God's own possession, to the praise of His glory.
Sealing with the Holy Spirit (scripturally, part of regeneration - Tit 3:5-7, 2Co 1:21-22, Eph 1:13-14, Eph 4:30) is a pledge to us of our inheritence. A pledge that offers us little or no hope if it is merely "logical" in God's perspective and not experienced by us temporally. The gifts and fruit of the Holy Spirit, and the peace which transcends understanding, in the believer is the temporal evidence of that sealing and regeneration. If regeneration were merely "logical" in God's perspective and not temporal in ours, the Holy Spirit's pledge or promise of our inheritance would be absent in us.
But the Holy Spirit's regeneration is in fact a temporal event in believers. Scripture teaches it and we actually experience it. Your attempt to deflect the argument into a "logical" context away from the biblical spatial/temporal context has no basis in scripture or reality.
But that hasn't stopped you yet, has it?
My side of this 'discussion' (such as it was) has required considerable time and effort to reread our posts and check scripture as well as to compose and proof read my arguments. That you don't go to similar lengths is ok, but your inclination to refute straw men rather than my arguments, and to distort scripture and English rather than address issues factually is not edifying, so I will desist.
Think about others who read the views you so haphazardly conceive yet so adamantly defend, such as "logical redemption". Have you considered the consequences, Harley, if others were to believe what you insist (without scriptural support) is truth? Do you think God sees your arguments as inconsequential?
STANDING OVATION!!!!!!
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.