Jump to content
  • Welcome to Online Baptist

    Free to join.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Standing Firm In Christ

Sometimes It's Heaven, Sometimes It's Hell

Recommended Posts

But the Bible is not silent on the matter of whether infants are capable of believing or not.

We are told that John the Baptist was filled with the Holy Ghost while in his mother's womb. That should give us the understanding that babies do indeed have the capability to believe. He was filled with the Holy Ghost.

One who is an unbeliever cannot be filled with the Holy Ghost. The Holy Ghost is given to them that believe.

John 7:39 (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)

John 14:17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.

Ephesians 1:13-14 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise, Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory.

John 7:39 and 14:17 cause me to believe that David's statement in Psalm 22:9,10 is more than prose or poetry. I believe David was indeed made to trust God even in his infant stage.

The idea that a baby is not capable of believe is alien to the Scriptures in light of John being filled with the Spirit while in his mother's womb.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites




Are you serious? You actually believe that the little baby lied by crying?

Did the baby say it was hungry?
Did the baby say it had a messy diaper?
Did the baby say it was sick?

Or did the baby simply cry because it wanted attention.

You had to have been joking or being sarcastic...no one could seriously believe such a thing.

I hate to say it but I really have seen that people will go to any lenghts no matter how absurd to try to prove what they believe.

For the record, the Bible does not teach that we are born in sin.



Of course I knew how those of the coC felt about this issue and you stated just about what I expected.


Ro 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:


Ro 5:19 For as by one man's disOBedience many were made sinners, .

Ps 51:5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.

Yes, we are born sinners.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



This would have been my answer before this topic came up. But I am not so sure at this point. I am not so sure it did not have more to do with what the fruit did to them than the actual act of disOBedience, though the act would be a part of it. My point about the apple is that the Bible does not say it was an apple. I do not believe it was an apple, but that it remained in the garden and we cannot eat of it today. But Jerry is correct I cannot prove that. But the answer to my question could not be an apple, as the Bible does not say it was an apple. It says You will notice it says knowledge. This bears with it understanding. Now I consider my 21 month old daughter. It would not bother her to run around naked. She does not have the understanding or the knowledge that it is wrong. My wife and I have to dress her and try to keep her modest. When she gets older she will gain the understanding that it is wrong to go naked. Now lets look back at the garden. Adam and eve were the only ones in the garden. The man and his wife. They were naked. But at least one of the first things they understood was that they needed their nakedness covered. The did not do a very good jOB of it!! And when God came he made them coats of skins to properly cover them. Now I believe this is a picture of Christ dieing to cover our sins, but it is also a fact of what happened. When they understood right from wrong they were accountable. Before that they were not accountable. I believe the same stands for little ones. Before they can understand, God does not count them accountable. I suppose if a babe in the womb could understand right from wrong (No I do not believe they can) that child would be accountable. But the rest would be covered by Jesus protection until they have knowledge of Good and evil.


I firmly believe it was disOBedience, they were told they could eat of all, expect that very one, and of course they ate of it.

This somehow seems true for us. it seems most boys and girls will be told a few things they should not do, many of them, like Adam and Eve, that's the 1st thing thye do.

For me I was told by my mother not to go near the pool hall. There was a bunch in the back that played dominoes that gave it a bad name, up front there was pool tables. I just had to go and see what that place looked like inside, of course that was wrong for me to do.

I agree what you stated about young children. Some seem to declare they cannot sin. Anyone can sin, and its sin even if they do not understand its sin.As with the young ones you speak of, they are just not held accountable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites




Of course I knew how those of the coC felt about this issue and you stated just about what I expected.


Ro 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:


Ro 5:19 For as by one man's disOBedience many were made sinners, .

Ps 51:5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.

Yes, we are born sinners.


It isn't about how anyone "feels" about this subject that counts; what does matter is what the Bible says and it doesn't not say that we are born in sin. Of course, you did exactly what those who believe in this tenant of Calvanism usually do. You picked your favorite passages and misapplied them to attempt to justify a false doctrine.

You might want to look at a a few passages such as Ezekiel 18:20; 28:11ff; Matt 18:3; 2 Samuel 12:23 etc. Interresting that Jesus said that we must become as the little children which according to YOU are actually sinners.

I know that various baptist groups have various views, but do the IFB (generally speaking) believe in Calvin's TULIP? From discussions on here I would say (generally) you at least believe in THD and P of the Saints and maybe to some degree unconditional election though not exactly. The true belief in this denomniational doctrine says that the person is saved by grace only without anything including faith.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CoC - you are absolutely wrong - the Bible very distinctly tells us that we are born in sin.


Um, no it doesn't. I will simply point you to my previous comment. These verses clearly demonstrate that we are not born in sin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I must declare an interest - our only daughter, Elizabeth died in her pram at 3 months. I left home for work leaving her well & happy & she was dead within 3 hours. Subsequently 4 more sons have never erased that precious child from my memory. She would have been the perfect companion for our Pastor's daughter, who in her teenage years had no English girlfriends.

Our pastor at the time referred to 2Sa 12:23 But now he is dead, wherefore should I fast? can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me. That child, born of murder & adultery, dead before circumcision, David yet hoped to see.

Many babies of Christians have died in infancy - should we doubt the mercy of the God of love on our babies?

I do not doubt the Scriptures that we are born with a sinful nature, nor that all display that sinful nature as they grow, yet I do not see that this implies hell for those that die young.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



Um, no it doesn't. I will simply point you to my previous comment. These verses clearly demonstrate that we are not born in sin.

coc - scripture has to be taken together. You claim folks are pulling verses out to match their "Calvinistic" beliefs (when in actuality, the greater majority on this board are in no way Calvinist) and yet that is what you do when you put a few verses out and say, lo and behold...it doesn't matter what other scripture says, we aren't born in sin.

You have quoted verses that in no way speak of whether or not someone is born in sin. Context is vital with scripture, as well as dovetailing. The verses in Ezekiel are speaking of physical punishment. Much of the way in which God dealt with the Jews was physical, not spiritual. Reading on to verse 21 in chapter 18, we see the truth of that: "But if the wicked will turn from all his sins that he hath committed, and keep all my statutes, and do that which is lawful and right, he shall surely live, he shall not die."

I think you accidentally put in a wrong reference? Ez. 28: 11 says: "Moreover the word of the LORD came unto me, saying,"

Matthew 18:3 isn't talking about sinlessness. That isn't even mentioned. What Christ meant here was the simplistic faith that children have. The Bible clearly tells us in Eph. 2 that salvation is by God's grace through faith. And many times adults have to suspend their supposed logical thinking to accept things by faith which children, in their simplicity, do not have to do.

2 Sam 12:23 simply tells us that the child will not return to the earth, but that David will join him. I believe that is a good verse to show that babies go to Heaven when they die, because David knew he was going to be joining God upon his death...and that statement indicates his belief that the child will be there. That doesn't mean that the child was sinless upon birth - it would simply mean that God, in His mercy, wouldn't send a soul to Hell if that soul hadn't had the chance to accept or reject Christ.

I'm sorry, but none of the verses you referenced in any way show that we are not born sinners...while there are many verses that show that we are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I must declare an interest - our only daughter, Elizabeth died in her pram at 3 months. I left home for work leaving her well & happy & she was dead within 3 hours. Subsequently 4 more sons have never erased that precious child from my memory. She would have been the perfect companion for our Pastor's daughter, who in her teenage years had no English girlfriends.

Our pastor at the time referred to 2Sa 12:23 But now he is dead, wherefore should I fast? can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me. That child, born of murder & adultery, dead before circumcision, David yet hoped to see.

Many babies of Christians have died in infancy - should we doubt the mercy of the God of love on our babies?

I do not doubt the Scriptures that we are born with a sinful nature, nor that all display that sinful nature as they grow, yet I do not see that this implies hell for those that die young.


I will clear up that it is Ezek 28:11ff. I will also clear up that I am not taking scriptures out of context. You have to take every passage together. Not one passage teaches that we are born in sin.

Beyond that I will simply point you to the previous mentioned passages.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



I will clear up that it is Ezek 28:11ff. I will also clear up that I am not taking scriptures out of context. You have to take every passage together. Not one passage teaches that we are born in sin.

Beyond that I will simply point you to the previous mentioned passages.


The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies. Psalm 58:3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What verse of Scripture is this from, "...he died while he was morally and spiritually safe."?

What verses indicate there is a time, or there are certain people, who, if they die, are "morally and spiritually safe" and will be rewarded with heaven without having Christ as their Saviour even though elsewhere in Scripture we are told that no one goes to heaven except through Christ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What verse of Scripture is this from, "...he died while he was morally and spiritually safe."?

What verses indicate there is a time, or there are certain people, who, if they die, are "morally and spiritually safe" and will be rewarded with heaven without having Christ as their Saviour even though elsewhere in Scripture we are told that no one goes to heaven except through Christ?
That verse can be found in II Opinions 3:7.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Question:
Is it possible that we may be looking at David's statement concerning the dead child all wrong?

People have been looking at it to mean either one of two things:

1. The child was now in heaven
2. The child was now in the grave.

Now, while both of these statements are interesting, they may not be the correct answer. The second can't be correct, for the child had just died... there is no indication that the child had been buried yet.

The first, is plauible, for, to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord.

But, could there be a possible third explanation for David's statement? Maybe.

Could he have meant, 'The child is dead. He cannot walk into this room to see me. I must needs go to the room where his body lies to see him"?

Maybe theologians have been looking at David's statement all wrong.

Had David meant "The child is in heaven, I will go to heaven to be with him,' I would think David would have continued to refuse to eat awaiting the moment that he died so he could be with the child.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Question:
Is it possible that we may be looking at David's statement concerning the dead child all wrong?

People have been looking at it to mean either one of two things:

1. The child was now in heaven
2. The child was now in the grave.

Now, while both of these statements are interesting, they may not be the correct answer. The second can't be correct, for the child had just died... there is no indication that the child had been buried yet.

The first, is plauible, for, to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord.

But, could there be a possible third explanation for David's statement? Maybe.

Could he have meant, 'The child is dead. He cannot walk into this room to see me. I must needs go to the room where his body lies to see him"?

Maybe theologians have been looking at David's statement all wrong.

Had David meant "The child is in heaven, I will go to heaven to be with him,' I would think David would have continued to refuse to eat awaiting the moment that he died so he could be with the child.


Amazing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Question:
Is it possible that we may be looking at David's statement concerning the dead child all wrong?

People have been looking at it to mean either one of two things:

1. The child was now in heaven
2. The child was now in the grave.

Now, while both of these statements are interesting, they may not be the correct answer. The second can't be correct, for the child had just died... there is no indication that the child had been buried yet.

The first, is plauible, for, to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord.

But, could there be a possible third explanation for David's statement? Maybe.

Could he have meant, 'The child is dead. He cannot walk into this room to see me. I must needs go to the room where his body lies to see him"?

Maybe theologians have been looking at David's statement all wrong.

Had David meant "The child is in heaven, I will go to heaven to be with him,' I would think David would have continued to refuse to eat awaiting the moment that he died so he could be with the child.



I would venture that David either meant he would join the child in heaven or that he would join the child in death.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would think if he meant either of those choices, he would have continued to refuse to eat and allowed himself to die.


Why would David want to die? He fasted in the hope perhaps his son would be spared and he could raise him in this life. Once he was dead, David was content knowing that one day he would follow his son and there was no more he could do about the matter; so he got on with life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't suppose I even know a theologian to ask about such a thing, yet I know the meaning of what David said, and its clear, David would see his son again, and he was not talking about the grave. And that is the reason David could go on after his babies death.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Who's Online   1 Member, 0 Anonymous, 14 Guests (See full list)

×
×
  • Create New...