Jump to content
  • Welcome to Online Baptist

    Free to join.

A nice Bible name

Saved , Unsaved, Then Saved Again?

Recommended Posts

Christians usually agree that babies that die are taken to Heaven, ie, are "saved". The main scriptural example being when King David acknowledged that he would see his dead baby son again as recorded in 2 Samuel 12.

 

So, considering the fact that all adults alive once must have saved babies, why do they then have to be saved again as adults....at what point in their development do babies become unsaved and then must be resaved as adults?,

 

This is a difficult question, particularly in the light of scripture such as John 10 : 28 where eternal salvation is assured, once given, and never taken away.

 

Comments please?

 

 

"Study to shew thyself approved..."  2 Tim 2:15

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Christians usually agree that babies that die are taken to Heaven, ie, are "saved". The main scriptural example being when King David acknowledged that he would see his dead baby son again as recorded in 2 Samuel 12.

 

So, considering the fact that all adults alive once must have saved babies, why do they then have to be saved again as adults....at what point in their development do babies become unsaved and then must be resaved as adults?,

 

This is a difficult question, particularly in the light of scripture such as John 10 : 28 where eternal salvation is assured, once given, and never taken away.

 

Comments please?

 

 

"Study to shew thyself approved..."  2 Tim 2:15

 

We are not told clearly of the state of babies that die young, or are aborted. We live in hope, as we trust our Saviour God - in my case for our precious little girl who died in her pram at 3 months - & that Scripture was quoted at her funeral.

 

We are also told that children are born sinners - David said:

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

but I (we) believe God is gracious & those dying in infancy are received into heaven.

 

That does not mean that ALL babies are in a state of salvation until they begin to sin deliberately, as all those who live through infancy are lost & guilty sinners, needing salvation by repentance & faith in Christ. Their sinful nature soon becomes evident.

Edited by Covenanter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Christians usually agree that babies that die are taken to Heaven, ie, are "saved". The main scriptural example being when King David acknowledged that he would see his dead baby son again as recorded in 2 Samuel 12.

 

So, considering the fact that all adults alive once must have saved babies, why do they then have to be saved again as adults....at what point in their development do babies become unsaved and then must be resaved as adults?,

 

ANBN, could you first explain why you think the belief that babies go to heaven necessarily implies the 'mechanism' you've just described--i.e. that all babies are saved while alive as babies.
 
Just off the top of my head I can think of another system that would account for all babies going to heaven: babies aren't saved while they are alive but if they die then God has mercy on them. Such a system wouldn't do any violence to the OSAS doctrine, though it would still beg the question at what age are people no longer shown such mercy.
 
Now I haven't provided any scripture in support of it working this way (assuming that babies do go to heaven), but then you've not provided any scripture that suggests it works the way you describe either, which is my point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Scripture doesn't clearly address the matter of babies or young children who die with regards to their eternal status. For His own reasons, God has not shared that with us at this time. However, if we know God then we should know He is perfect and whatever the eternal destiny of babies and youngsters is it will be right and just.

 

We don't have to concern ourselves with this matter as we can trust God with the outcome.

 

What we should concentrate our attention upon is those matters where Scripture is clear. Are we OBeying God in those matters? Are we in His revealed will? Are we giving our attention to that which God has called us to or are we distracted with other things?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Scripture doesn't clearly address the matter of babies or young children who die with regards to their eternal status. For His own reasons, God has not shared that with us at this time. However, if we know God then we should know He is perfect and whatever the eternal destiny of babies and youngsters is it will be right and just.

 

We don't have to concern ourselves with this matter as we can trust God with the outcome.

 

What we should concentrate our attention upon is those matters where Scripture is clear. Are we OBeying God in those matters? Are we in His revealed will? Are we giving our attention to that which God has called us to or are we distracted with other things?

 

Excellent post John but it actuality, this post should be applied to virtually every single thread on this forum. It should make everyone wonder why they waste precious time here. I certainly do and am hardly on here.

 

All must admit though that the most interesting debates that occur here are of similar status: crystal clear to some and clear as mud to others and all have differing interpretations usually.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Excellent post John but it actuality, this post should be applied to virtually every single thread on this forum. It should make everyone wonder why they waste precious time here. I certainly do and am hardly on here.

 

All must admit though that the most interesting debates that occur here are of similar status: crystal clear to some and clear as mud to others and all have differing interpretations usually.

To an extent I agree, in that there do often arise topics that are unprovable by Scripture and yet heated (and pointless since it can't be biblically resolved) debate ensues.

 

Yet at the same time there are some topics which may not have a clearly defined "answer" within Scripture but there are principles that can be considered, or there are some "partial answers" or circumstantial evidences to consider.

 

Unfortunately, threads on OBeying God, discussing how to apply various commands of Scripture, pursuing personal holiness, casting off our old nature and putting on the new, are little discussed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We are not told clearly of the state of babies that die young, or are aborted. We live in hope, as we trust our Saviour God - in my case for our precious little girl who died in her pram at 3 months - & that Scripture was quoted at her funeral.

 

 

Ok first of all I don't know about you people but there is NO way I am worshiping a God who send babies to Hell. Call me picky but to do so is neither loving nor just. You can try to ignore the elephant in the room as mush as you want but I think his question needs to be considered. You don't seriously think every question is answered in the small amount of scripture that we have access to as canonised in the bible do you ? Jesus said so much more and did so many more things than are recorded in the version as compiled by a group of men. I for one would have been much happier seeing the entire works of that heretic Paul removed from the bible and just had more of what the Master actually said rather than some arrogant legalistic tentmaker with a personal agenda worte to concoct his own version of Christianity, second of all John of course we should be concerning ourselves with such questions. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi DaveW, thanks for responding. why would I want to remove parts of the bible from the bible ? Because it is an incomplete inaccurate representation of what God was actually trying to say. It is merely a canonised collection of books put together by a bunch of men with an agenda. How is it not possible Christians cannot see the contradictions and Pauline tainted version of events as depicted in the bible. I have to ask the same question. Given how contradictory Paul's version of Christianity is to the real message Jesus was trying to get across why would you NOT want to remove parts of the bible. One thing I found when I was attending church every weekend was that the constant corruption of telling me the bible was the infallible word of God simply did not line up with the Jesus I was reading about in books other than the Pauline books, it polluted my mind from seeing the real Jesus. You see I LOVE Jesus now not because I have to not swear ( I do) not because I have to not drink ( I do ) not because I have to dress a certain way but because I AM FREEEEEEE. Jesus came to set the captive free  !!!!!!!! He set me free from the LAW, he paid it ALL, he did it ALL he is THE MAN and Paul is a sad little egotistical man still trying to get people to live by a set of rules to gain their salvation. answer me this people here on this forum................are you really free ? I am.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Al,

 Besides the scripture that described Davids' sure knowledge that he would "go to him", being his dead son...2 Sam 12:23, we have Jer 32:35 telling us what God thinks of the act of burning children...an act that he calls an abomination, and one that never even came into his mind....

 

If God condemns the act of burning children on one hand, declaring he never even thought of the idea, wouldn't he be nothing more than a deceitful, sick liar if he was responsible for the existence of a place where exact same thing took place FOR ETERNITY?....not only that, God would know, in his omniscience, upon his creation of every new soul, which ones would be ending up in his barbecue pit to burn in torment for eternity...and yet he continues to create them?

 

So to answer your question, the mechanism is this;

 

God creates and babies are born, they are born with free will which eventually leads them to sin, love God or whatever they want to do. After all the concept of free will is a double edged sword,  free to love God, free to sin.

 

God knew that free will would lead to sin, so he cured the prOBlem before it began' Christs' atoning sacrifice "ONCE FOR ALL" Heb 10 : 10

 

Babies go to God when they die because their sin has already been forgiven, as is that of the adults they grow into. John 10:28 .Thus, there is no need for a place of eternal torment, except for in the sick minds of those men who desire it to exist.

 

After 13 years in an IFB church, and being constantly encouraged  to study the Book, this is the conclusion I have come to... there is no eternal torment, the word Hell has been misused to translate several different , non related, words and concepts that have nothing to do with the invention of the lie that God sets fire to people for eternity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks, ANBN. The fact that you and Washed Clean 'both' believe the doctrine of Hell is false, 'both' believe that everyone is saved through Jesus' sacrifice on the cross whether they believe in Him or not, and 'both' have started espousing this view within hours of each other further supports my claim that you are both the same person, or at the very least are two people working together.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Firstly Al, to address your accusation, I am not the same person as WC, although I have told several people of my joining this site. I have no control over the actions of others if they also have joined, what they say or what the do.

 

As to your response, it is typical of those given by many in the IFB movement, though not all. I personally know a couple of men who have had the guts to give up their positions as Pastors upon realizing, through study, the error of the eternal punishment doctrine.

 

Most others do what you are doing...ignore what has been presented, stick your head firmly in the sand and commence an attack on the man instead.

 

This is due to the fact that, sadly, all you can to do is parrot the same line that you have been indoctrinated with by the  people that were indoctrinated before you.

 

The word Hell, does not even have to be removed from the Book in order for this ridiculous doctrine to collapse. Simply applying its actual usage as intended in its old English use is enough.

 

For example, the word Hell is used to translate Sheol, Hades, Tartarus and Gehenna. Sheol is the place where all the OT Jewish dead go, Hades is the Greek translation of Sheol, Tartarus is used once in the Book describing a place where fallen angels are held and Gehenna is the rubbish tip outside of Jerusalem..the vally of Hinnon as described in Jer 23:35

 

The English word Hell is a word that describes a hidden place, a covered hole in the ground, the word Helmet is derived from it, as is the trade name of the village roof repairer, a Hellier.

 

Its use instead if Gehenna in the parable of The rich man and Lazarus is wrong. This parable is a prophecy concerning the condition of the Jewish people and the Gentiles.....look it up, Study to shew thyself approved......

 

So keep the word if you want, the house of cards has fallen down around you, and there are more and more Christians realising this.

Edited by A nice Bible name

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I bring up my claim here that you and Washed Clean are the same person or are working together not to deflect from the topic but to warn others that if they engage with you they'll prOBably be engaging with someone who is operating in bad faith, and that is significant to any meaningful discussion. You call my claim paranoia but I'm not overly anxious about it, which that term implies, rather I just don't want to see friends' time wasted engaging with someone who isn't being genuine, as such is rarely fruitful. Now I might be wrong about you, but I've shared the reasons why I claim what I do, and others can make up their own minds.

 

On to your claim that I'm not engaging the discussion. Actually I did directly engage the question in >post 3. I asked you to support your claim that regular Christians who believe that babies go to Heaven are effectively believing that folk are 'saved, unsaved then saved again'. Now you claim in your response to be answering my question but actually you do no such thing. In your 'answer' you explain to me what you think does happen, but that isn't what I asked for. I asked you to explain your claim about others' beliefs, not tell me about your own.

 

And your question about wouldn't God be a sick, deceitful liar if the doctrine of hell were true--well that's a completely different question to the OP and we still haven't finished on that first question yet.

 

I doubt you were really interested in your original question: it was prOBably just designed to be a lead-in to what you are now going on about.

 

I don't claim to be IFB, btw. I don't go to an IFB church and many IFB doctrines I don't have a clue about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK Al, How about considering the question posed regarding the statement God makes as recorded in 32:35 ?..

 

Have you ever considered that scripture before Al? have you ever even read it before Al? is God a deceitful liar Al?, does God condemn the burning of babies in the vally of Hinnon  and state that the thought of carrying out the practice never came into his mind, and yet carry out the very same practice himself by sending the souls of those same babies to burn in Hell???

 

Any chance of an answer without the ad hominem attacks?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wolves fully exposed now outright denying the inerrant Word of God, denying Paul was inspired of God to write what's recorded in Scripture, denying the clear biblical doctrine of hell and eternal punishment, twisting the verses left from their Bible dissection in an attempt to make them say something totally out of context and incompatible with the whole Word of God, attacking Baptists, IFBs, and individual brothers in Christ right here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK Al, How about considering the question posed regarding the statement God makes as recorded in 32:35 ?..

 

Have you ever considered that scripture before Al? have you ever even read it before Al? is God a deceitful liar Al?, does God condemn the burning of babies in the vally of Hinnon  and state that the thought of carrying out the practice never came into his mind, and yet carry out the very same practice himself by sending the souls of those same babies to burn in Hell???

 

But my point is that if someone is having a discussion with no goodwill then it's almost bound to be unproductive, hence not worth engaging with. And you've really proved that here. You asked a question. I gave you the benefit of the doubt and asked a logically prior question about one of your premises.

 

You could have addressed my prior question, giving me the info I needed to respond to yours, but instead you went off on a tangent to a completely different question. So why would I now address your latest question given your track record so far? I could spend time answering it only for you to avoid any follow-up questions and go off on another tangent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Err, wrong Al, since I am not avoiding a question, I am not carrying out an ad hominem attack on you......its simply a mocking comment directed at you in response to YOUR avoidance in answering questions.

 

Math 15:14.

 

As to your original question, I addressed it in post 3 by questioning one of its premises, which is a perfectly valid thing to do. I can't proceed further with your question until you've responded to that.

As to the second question, yes I am refusing to answer it on the grounds that if you won't deal with my response to your first question then how do I know you'll deal with any response I give to this second question? I'm not prepared to be taken on a merry-go-round of tangent questions, each one never dealt with before another is asked.

By the way, I notice that after I quoted you calling my claim 'paranoia', you went back and altered your own post so that the sentence now says 'accusation' instead of 'paranoia'. :coverlaugh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Who's Online   1 Member, 0 Anonymous, 26 Guests (See full list)

Article Categories

About Us

Since 2001, Online Baptist has been an Independent Baptist website, and we exclusively use the King James Version of the Bible. We pride ourselves on a community that uplifts the Lord.

Contact Us

You can contact us using the following link. Contact Us or for questions regarding this website please contact @pastormatt or email James Foley at jfoley@sisqtel.net

Android App

Online Baptist has a custom App for all android users. You can download it from the Google Play store or click the following icon.

×
×
  • Create New...