The Spiritual Progression of Human Souls.

[John Young]

7 hours ago, Ronda said:

Romans 9:10-13
10 "And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac;"11 "(For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;)"12 "It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger."13 "As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated."

AS Jacob and Esau were both in Rebecca's womb, not having even been born yet, neither of them having yet committed any sin themselves, God proclaimed that he HATED Esau !So I respectfully dispute your assertion that "there is no verse that says children are wicked from the time of conception" and I also refute that there are no verses which are not inclusive of one "in the womb" as Romans 9:10-13 clearly details. And so this also refutes (quote john young about huans are sinners because they decide to sin -later posting

This is not a salvation verse but a promise verse. Jacob received the promise over his brother from God before he was born but still had to receive Him in Faith. Paul explained that just as with the promise, salvation does not come just to anybody, even if they are sons of Abraham by flesh, but rather to those who He chooses. He goes on to say that God chooses those who have faith regardless of the lineage. "Hated" here is used to show that he was not chosen for the promise. It does not denote sin, wickedness, or condemnation. Esau still had the same opportunity for salvation he just did not have the promise and therefor he and his descendants were treated differently in that regard. God chose to be with and make a Godly nation from Jacob and his descendants rather then Esau's. (see the book of Malachi) A simulare use of the word is presented by Christ when he said in Luke 14:26 If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. While those around us have the same opportunity for salvation we should love Christ (the Promised Seed) and HATE all other relatives! Not merely because they are all wicked but because we need to have LOVE in the Promised Seed, alone, over all others.

Also Jer 1:5 "Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations." Here we see that God KNEW Jeremiah BEFORE he was even in the womb! So this even goes FURTHER back before the womb! 

While forknowledge plays a part here, sanctified does not mean salvation. It means to be set apart for a specific use. I agree that he was known of God and set apart by God before birth but those are in regard to God's calling for his life and are separate to his salvation.

Romans 7:8-9; 8 "But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead." 9 "For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died."

Correct sin was in a dead state and had no effect on his soul but when understanding came it revived and he died. I acknowledge that we are all under and have a capacity to sin but that sin has no effect on us until after the commandments come to our mind and we act in regard to them. Proverbs 19:16 He that keepeth the commandment keepeth his own soul; but he that despiseth his ways shall die. Ezekiel 18:4 Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die.

I concur wholeheartedly with Mike, and I will go on to say that I believe children before this age (or condition) is met, are saved. PLEASE let me qualify that statement: ALL? No, (although for any years I did believe that to be the case), BUT after years of study (and especially in light of the verses regarding Esau in Romans 9, the verse regarding Jeremiah (1:5), and the implications of Romans 7) I have a different conclusion now.

I myself would be hesitant to say that they are saved. I would prefer to say that they are safe. The saved by faith in Christ cannot fall but those who are safe can fall once the commands come.

So while that baby or child has not yet reached the "time" of reason (true understanding of sin, right/wrong) ... I believe that God knows what the baby or child WOULD have chose (of their own free will) in regard to accepting/believing or rejecting/denying Christ. This could be considered conjecture... and I admit there is no specific verse to PROVE this exactly,

I know many who argue for elect babies based on a future that existed only in the mind of God (if at all) but none could practically define such an idea with confidence. While I know that God knows what WILL come to pass, I'm not sure that salvation, based in alternate realities, that were never lived, is really a biblical thing. This line of thinking, to me, is not scriptural but merely using the elect of God doctrine for wistful thinking.

There is no way that WE (as mere humans) could hazard to guess WHICH babies or children would or would not accept Christ... Yet king David knew with confidence so I think it is something that is knowable specifically.....

 

Edited June 16, 2016 by John Young

[John81]

Considering Scripture doesn't directly address the eternal state of those who die in the womb, as babies or young children, isn't is simply safe to trust God with the matter and not try to come up with our own thoughts on this?

Another point, are we all going to be the "age" we were at death throughout eternity? Will the woman who died at 108 be as that age for eternity; or the 13 year old boy, or anyone else? It doesn't seem likely little babies will be tossed into hell for torment or crawling around the streets of gold for eternity. Again, however, since Scripture doesn't specifically speak to this, doesn't it stand to reason we can trust God with however He deals with this?

[Ronda]

Thank you for the discourse, brother John (Young). However, I think you MAY have missed my point entirely. God knew Esau while he was yet IN THE WOMB. God knew Jeremiah BEFORE he was even conceived! On the one hand we see Esau (wicked) on the other hand we see Jeremiah (made righteous in God's eyes).

Both cases of God's foreknowledge of how each of those individuals WOULD be even before they were YET born. Why would it be hard to grasp that He would have the same foreknowledge of a person's heart for every one ever conceived? And while I admit I (myself) could never determine exactly whom would be chosen of God for either condemnation or non-condemnation (since we will put aside the term 'saved' for sake of argument), I fully believe that God can and does! 

So again, I would state that babies and children CAN be "non-condemned" OR "condemned" (again putting away the term 'saved' for sake of argument), depending on what GOD Himself knows them to be even prior to birth, even prior to conception.  I also have (in the past, likely even on this site) used David's statement over his infant as a 'proof text' for (supposedly) ALL babies and children being "non-condemned", I had to change my view on that in light of the account of Esau as well as the account of Jeremiah in scripture. I don't think David's infant child can be used as a blanket conclusion for ALL babies and children, for not ALL babies and children were born to one who God Himself claimed (of David) was a 'man after His own heart'. (Acts 13:22), therefore we MAY have to take that in consideration. Or at least we DO have to take the account of Esau (wicked and hated of God) before yet being born, and Jeremiah (favored of God) before even being conceived into account.

God Bless as you seek to serve and please Him first!

Maranatha!

[DaveW]

8 minutes ago, Ronda said:

....

I also have (in the past, likely even on this site) used David's statement over his infant as a 'proof text' for (supposedly) ALL babies and children being "non-condemned", I had to change my view on that in light of the account of Esau as well as the account of Jeremiah in scripture. I don't think David's infant child can be used as a blanket conclusion for ALL babies and children, for not ALL babies and children were born to one who God Himself claimed (of David) was a 'man after His own heart'. (Acts 13:22), therefore we MAY have to take that in consideration..........

Are you suggesting that the spiritual condition of the father (parents??????) affects the eternal destiny of the child?

[Ronda]

No. Please read my earlier post for clarification. Note the "MAY" as compared to the next sentence (you did not finish the quote) noting the "DO".  

10 hours ago, Ronda said:

There is no way that WE (as mere humans) could hazard to guess WHICH babies or children would or would not accept Christ..

5 hours ago, John Young said:

Yet king David knew with confidence so I think it is something that is knowable specifically.....

I was attempting to refute brother John Young's statement (in red above). And show that God alone would know. As I believe both of my posts in regard to this show. (God foreknew Esau in the womb, God foreknew Jeremiah prior to conception). God ALONE would be the only one who could determine this no matter who the parent is. 

 

10 hours ago, Ronda said:

BUT I don't think that would have to be true... there are many (adult) believers whose parents (sadly) did not believe, and so I don't think (IMO) that the parents being saved would HAVE to be a prerequisite.

Again, even though David was a 'man after God's own heart', it is not suggestive that ALL parents (saved or unsaved) as the required prerequisite. If you read the entirety of both of my posts you would see that I was NOT suggesting this:

1 hour ago, DaveW said:

Are you suggesting that the spiritual condition of the father (parents??????) affects the eternal destiny of the child?

 Thank you! 

[DaveW]

I did a partial quote, and indicated such, because there is no point including the whole quote when the full post is right there. This should be done more, especially with extremely long posts.

You do however in the section I  quoted note David as a "special case" and you attribute it specifically to his staus as "a man after God's own heart".

Therefore my question was entirely justified, even in the context of a single instance.

Further your answer above indicates that you DO think in that one case that the knowledge of the child going to heaven was directly attributable to the spiritual status of the father. (Which is why I quoted that section only - inconsistent statements require clarification.)

But I am unlikely to continue in this thread anyway so.........

[Ronda]

Loving those 'drive by shooters'. 
Can't be bothered to read (but yet complain about) those "long" posts of mine, but CAN be bothered to pull one PARTIAL statement out and sum up a conclusion out of context, and put words in my mouth I did not say...

Consider the word "MAY as compared to the word "DO" (Wasn't it you who gave a grade-school primer on another subject) Here's mine: I MAY prefer the Bible over any other book. I DO prefer the Bible over any other book. See the difference?
(Guess you didn't read the part about my profession of what I USED to believe in contrast to what I NOW believe either).
But that's okay. I'm used to those who want a 5 word "weak milk" summary on a "meat" subject.
Pretty much all of "churchianity" today expects a spoon-fed 5 word summary. Maybe go buy a video or DVD instead of actually read and study the Bible for oneself? Grab a bowl of popcorn, a can of soda, and get a spoon to fit that 5 word summary in one itty bitty bite...

Rather than continue an inane argument of what I said (since it's still there TO read)
Here's my 5 word summary:
"Have it your way fella"

Edited June 16, 2016 by Ronda

[Pastor Scott Markle]

On ‎6‎/‎14‎/‎2016 at 5:07 PM, Pastor Scott Markle said:

This is not wholly accurate.  At the Great White Throne judgment, as prophesied in Revelation 20:22-15, two sets of books will be opened.  The first set is the record of all the works of every human individual.  The second set is the Lamb's Book of Life.  Furthermore, according to Revelation 20:15 it is not the record of all the works that will determine if an individual is cast into the lake of fire, but is the record of the Lamb's Book of Life that will determine such, whether that individual's name is written therein, or not.  On the other hand, those who are cast into the lake of fire because their names are not written in the Lamb's Book of Life shall indeed receive greater or lesser judgment in accord with the record of their works, as per the first set of books. (See Revelation 20:12)

This is your own speculation. The set of Books will be and can only be the Books of God's Word in which all those you died without faith will be judged by. What other "books" could it mean when all we have to learn by and measure works from is God's Word? The second set is but one Book which is the Book of Life.

Brother Wretched,

On this point, it is not at all my desire to set any significant focus of debate, since it is not central to the theme of this thread.  On the other hand, I will acknowledge that your definition of "the books" which were opened in Revelation 20:12 as the 66 books of the Bible is a new thought which I had never encountered before.  In my own past thought processes, I had only ever considered that these books were the divine record of every work by every individual, since Revelation 20:12 states that those who shall be judged at the Great White Throne are judged "out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works."  My thinking has ever been that the phrase, "according to their works," provides the contextual indication as to what the things are "which were written in the books."  However, I can see how your position may have some validity, if 'those things which were written in the books" is not intended as the record of their works, but is intended as the standard (of law/authority) against which their works are compared.  Yet after considering this new thought, I still lean toward my original position because I am not aware of any place wherein God's Word refers to itself as a set of books (66), such as we do.

On ‎6‎/‎14‎/‎2016 at 5:07 PM, Pastor Scott Markle said:

We are probably arguing semantics anyway.

I must agree that in much of this discussion between us, the differences probably are a bit in the of way of difference over semantics.  However, if I am understanding you correctly, I do believe that there is one point over which we do have a definite disagreement.  I believe that this point of disagreement is revealed through your following response:

On ‎6‎/‎14‎/‎2016 at 5:07 PM, Pastor Scott Markle said:

So then, has the Lord God formed each and every human individual since Adam and Eve in the spiritual condition, wherein they are already bound under sin's mastery and already spiritually dead in sins?  Yes, through the sinfulness of Adam, the Lord God has indeed created each and every human individual as a child of Adam's unrighteousness, such that each and every human individual begins as a spiritual child of disobedience and of the devil.  Yet the Lord God has also graciously made a way of salvation for each and every one of those human individuals, if they will receive it through faith.

No my friend. Adam was directly created 3/3 while all afterwards were procreated from Adam/Eve 2/3 and not a direct creation in sin from God which would certainly leave them with excuse. Yet all were and are still without excuse and being unable to obtain righteousness must receive the Savior. God knows us all one by one but He did not create us directly. This is simply how it happened and God certainly knew it would, He did not orchestrate it this way which is the foundation of false Calvinism and is the polar opposite of free will.

After all, God did form Adam by hand and without sin but Adam sinned anyway. The same goes for Lucifer. There always has been free will and always will be whether lost or saved. Physical body or Glorified. Spiritually alive or dead. Free will is the central theme of His Word and goes hand in hand with faith = righteousness. This is one theme from cover to cover of God's Word.

Once again, I am in no way stating that anyone could live in this world without sin, earning their own salvation, it cannot be done as God's foreknowledge in His Word tells us. So speculating on the possibility of it is moot since we are fully enlightened that it has not and will not occur.

What I am contending is your interpretation that God created us in sin therefore making Him the author of sin in us. God states the facts from His omniscience in His Word, He never one time states that He authored sin in us that way.

First, before I proceed to that which I perceive as our point of disagreement, I wish to indicate that I am not fully understanding your reference to "3/3" and "2/3."  My guess is that you are referring to the (1) spirit, (2) soul, and (3) body.  If my guess is correct, then I further surmise that your use of "2/3" for all humans after Adam indicates your position that human individuals come into this world with only two of these parts -- a soul and a body, but not with one of these parts - a spirit.  If I am correct on this surmise, then I must express my disagreement therewith.  If I am completely incorrect in my guess and/or surmise, then I must request some explanation on your part.

Second, from the rest of your response, I am understanding your position to be that no human individual after Adam and Eve has ever been directly, personally, creatively formed by God Himself, but has been formed through the natural processes which God has allowed through the free-will act of Adam's disobedience.  Yes, I recognize that you would likely acknowledge that God is certainly involved with the upholding of every part of the creation, including every human individual.  However, it appears that you would contend that since every human individual is conceived already a sinner, God Himself did not have a direct hand in the creation of each sinful soul (lest that make Him the Author of sinfulness), but that He only governs the natural processes whereby each sinful soul is formulated.

Now, if I am correct in my understanding of your position herein, then we do have a point of disagreement on this matter.  My disagreement would be primarily rooted in my understanding of Psalm 139:13-16, wherein David proclaimed under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, "For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother’s womb.  I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well.  My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth.  Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them."  To me verses 15-16 seem to speak concerning the formulation of David as a baby within his mother's womb, extending from the time of conception unto the time of birthing.  Even so, to me David's reference in verse 14 unto God's possessing his reins in relation to his mother's womb seems to indicate that God was directly, personally, creatively involved in David's originating formation as a human individual.  Furthermore, to me David's reference unto being "fearfully and wonderfully made" in connection with his declaration that God's works are wonderful seems to indicate that he viewed God as the One who directly, personally, creatively formed him as a human individual.

Indeed, if my understanding of Psalm 139:13-16 is correct, then all of the following phrases in that context would be directly attributable unto God Himself -- "possessed my reins," "covered me in my mother's womb," "fearfully and wonderfully made [me]," "made in secret," "curiously wrought," "all my members . . . which in continuance were fashioned."

So then, I would ask -- Based upon your response above, what is your view point concerning the truth of Psalm 139:13-16?

(Note: It is my understanding concerning the original article of this thread that Brother John Young would agree with me concerning the position that the Lord God is indeed directly, personally, creatively involved in the originating formation of each human individual.  However, it is my understanding that in order to avoid your concern over thereby making God to be the Author of sinfulness, he would contend that each human individual is originally formed by God in a spiritually neutral condition, being neither sinful nor righteous in the nature of the soul -- although he does appear to allow that the body is already bound under sin's corruption from conception through genetic progression from Adam.  Brother Young, I would certainly request that your correct me herein, if I am misunderstanding.)

[DaveW]

Rhonda:

May I give you some advice?

If you want people to discuss things with you maybe you would consider not being so rude?

I find your accusations toward me offensive and your general tone is likewise.

I also find your posts to have a great deal of incorrect application of verses and inconsistency of argument, but I will not discuss them with you for precisely the reasons above. I have seen it towards others on this site and now had it directed at me. 

THIS is the primary reason for my not getting involved in this thread.

I am certainly not a "drive by shooter" and I certainly did not try to misrepresent your post in any way.

 

Edited June 17, 2016 by DaveW
Missed a word

[John Young]

12 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

(Note: It is my understanding concerning the original article of this thread that Brother John Young would agree with me concerning the position that the Lord God is indeed directly, personally, creatively involved in the originating formation of each human individual.  However, it is my understanding that in order to avoid your concern over thereby making God to be the Author of sinfulness, he would contend that each human individual is originally formed by God in a spiritually neutral condition, being neither sinful nor righteous in the nature of the soul -- although he does appear to allow that the body is already bound under sin's corruption from conception through genetic progression from Adam.  Brother Young, I would certainly request that your correct me herein, if I am misunderstanding.)

You are completely correct on my understanding that God is directly involved in each person's creation, not just Adam and Eve's. Every description of birth in the bible seems to clearly indicate it. I do believe sin has its start in the flesh but not because God put it there. Rather because we all (even Adam and Eve) have a built in capacity to be able to sin but can also chose not to. That in its self is not sin but rather the ability of freewill. I also believe all flesh, because of corruption from Adam's sin, is now weak and sin works in it to bring forth death. Both bodily and spiritually. Every body (human and other) eventually dying because of the corrupting influence of Adam's sin over creation (the first death of the body) and the Soul dying because of it's own sins of commission (the second death in hell). I believe also every soul has built in it the knowledge of God's law and the spirit while giving life to the body is not yet quickened to help the soul until the second birth brought only by Faith in Christ.

Genesis 6:12 And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth.

2 Peter 1:4 whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.

2 Peter 2:12 But these, as natural brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed, speak evil of the things that they understand not; and shall utterly perish in their own corruption;

Galatians 5:17 For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.

Galatians 5:24 And they that are Christ’s have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.

Ephesians 2:3 among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.

James 1:13-15 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man: 14 but every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.15 Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.

1 John 2:15-17 Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. 16 For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world. 17 And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever.
 

Genesis 2:17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Genesis 3:6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

Edited June 17, 2016 by John Young
Added verses

[Pastor Scott Markle]

To all,

Due to Brother McWhorter's posting ("No Nicolaitans"), I find myself in a position of difficulty on this thread; for that posting opens a whole second line of significant communication.  I do intend to provide my responses (which will likely be as lengthy and thorough as mine ever are); however, I will request patience as I seek to separate each line of communication and to handle each adequately.  Furthermore, I believe that I may need to present a series of "preface" responses in order to produce understanding and establish context, before presenting more direct responses.  As such, I will also request patience for my approach to the matter in this manner.

__________________________________________

Herein I wish to direct my first "preface" response unto Brother Young, if I may.

Earlier in the thread I presented my belief that I possess a fairly solid understanding concerning your position on "the progression of the human soul," as follows:

On ‎6‎/‎14‎/‎2016 at 4:22 PM, Pastor Scott Markle said:

No sir.  I believe that I understand the position that you have presented well enough.  I believe that you are presenting the progression of the human soul, as follows:

1.  First, there is the spiritual condition of innocence, wherein the soul is not viewed by God as either righteous or unrighteous, which condition will end as soon as God holds that soul accountable for its first act of willful sin.  (Note: I believe that you would then hold that if such a soul dies while in this condition of innocence, that soul will not perish in hell, but will have everlasting life with God.  However, I do not know how you would answer the question -- On the grounds of whose righteousness would that soul have everlasting life with God?)

2.  Second, from the moment wherein God holds a soul accountable for its first act of willful sin, there is the spiritual condition of unrighteousness/sinfulness, wherein that soul is now "dead in trespasses and sins" and is now guilty of condemnation before God.  (Note: I believe that you would then hold that if such a soul dies while in this condition of unrighteousness, that soul would will indeed perish forever and ever under the wrath of God in hell.)

3.  Third, if a soul who is in the condition of unrighteousness comes unto Christ through heart-faith as Savior from sin, that soul will be graciously and eternally redeemed, regenerated, justified, and saved by God, so as to enter the condition of righteousness, not having his own righteousness, but having Christ's righteousness, from which condition that soul can never be lost by any means.  (Note: I believe that you would then hold that if such a soul dies while in the condition of righteousness, that soul will spend eternity with God as one who possesses everlasting life.)

I now ask -- Is this an accurate assessment and understanding of your position?

Furthermore, in your latest posting you appear to indicate that in your position you would define the "flesh" against which we must spiritually battle as "the physical body," not as a principle of selfish sinfulness within the soul.  Am I correct in this understanding?

____________________________________________

For my second "preface" response, I also wish to direct it toward and about Brother Young's proposed position.

Although I do not at all agree with the primary point of Brother Young's proposed position in this thread, I do respect the "consistency" of his approach to the matter.  If indeed human individual's enter into this world in a position of innocence before the Lord God, then it would appear consistent to consider that they also enter into this world with a condition of innocence in the soul's nature.  As such, I can respect Brother Young for seeking consistency in his doctrine. 

Furthermore, I can also respect Brother Young for his acknowledgement that he may not even yet fully agree with himself concerning the details of this doctrine, since he is still on a path of doctrinal search herein.

On ‎6‎/‎16‎/‎2016 at 2:34 AM, John Young said:

I'm not even sure I agree with John Young! haha! Like you I'm struggling with the details and trying to answer and formulate my understanding of the issue from scripture as well. So some minor things may change and develop as I interact with those who have studied my OP and are giving me biblical feedback.  That said I do think the premise has merit and at the end of the study I hopefully will have a better understanding of how it all works together. 

As such, I suppose that I shall serve as the whet stone whereby he may develop a more precise sharpening of his position.  However, I am compelled to indicate that my motivation is not for him to continue in that development, but to be turned aside from it.  From my perspective, I believe that his primary premise concerning the originating condition of the soul as spiritually neutral is wrong and Biblically false.  As such, I desire that he might come unto (what I believe to be) the truth in this matter.  Therefore, I do indeed desire to see him turn aside from this doctrinal pursuit.  However, I also have enough understanding in such discussions and debates to recognize that he would view the case from the exact opposite perspective, thereby viewing me as holding the position which is false, and thereby desiring that I be the one who might come unto (what he believes to be) the truth in the matter.  Because I understand this, I believe that I can respect my "opponent" while also "opposing" him.  As such, I do not seek to show disrespect against the person of my "opponent."  However, I will engage with forcefulness to "oppose" the position of my "opponent." 

(Note: In general I have found that many cannot handle my approach in this fashion; therefore, I must at some point disengage from the "debate."  However, to this point I have not observed such a difficulty with Brother Young; therefore, I pray that we may continue in respectful, yet forceful "opposition.")

[No Nicolaitans]

23 hours ago, John81 said:

Considering Scripture doesn't directly address the eternal state of those who die in the womb, as babies or young children, isn't is simply safe to trust God with the matter and not try to come up with our own thoughts on this?

John, I understand your thoughts and advice on this; however, scripture does address this. That's why I included (and saved as the last reference) the scripture reference from Job. It's very clear. He specifically addressed dying as a baby. He specifically described the state he would have been in if he had died as a baby, and he also included those who died in the womb...and that state has the characteristics of a place where he would have been alive, a place of rest, safety, freedom, and sinlessness. A place of comfort...definitely not a place of torment.

One can only go to one of two places. Job's description of what he would have experienced if he had died as a baby certainly doesn't describe what the rich man experienced in Luke 16; however, it does describe what Lazarus experienced.

However, if I'm wrong in what Job describes, and scripture doesn't address this, may I ask a sincere question?

We live in a real world; in which, real people lose their babies to death. Real people needing real comfort in a time of tremendous loss. Real people who are experiencing real pain and grief. In many cases, they may blame God for the death of their child...or they may not understand why God allowed it to happen.

They need help. They need hope. They need comfort...and they need answers.

Here's my question(s)...and I promise that I'm asking this sincerely. I'm not mocking and trying to stir emotions or strife.

If God doesn't address this in scripture, what could one say to comfort the parents who lost a child? How can it help them to say that "You'll just have to trust God"? There may be some who might understand that, but the vast majority won't, and perchance the parents are lost...they certainly wouldn't understand.

On the other side, for those who believe that a baby dies and goes to hell...and I ask this sincerely too...what could you possibly say to the grieving parents to comfort them? Again, what if the parents are lost? How can you possibly help them over the grief?

...

Or, one could point them to Job and show them that their child is now in heaven...alive...in a place of rest, safety, freedom, and sinlessness. A place of comfort with the Lord Jesus Christ...and like David, they can see and be with their child again one day if they too are saved.

[Ronda]

13 hours ago, DaveW said:

Rhonda:

May I give you some advice?

If you want people to discuss things with you maybe you would consider not being so rude?

I find your accusations toward me offensive and your general tone is likewise.

I also find your posts to have a great deal of incorrect application of verses and inconsistency of argument, but I will not discuss them with you for precisely the reasons above. I have seen it towards others on this site and now had it directed at me. 

THIS is the primary reason for my not getting involved in this thread.

I am certainly not a "drive by shooter" and I certainly did not try to misrepresent your post in any way.

 

I agree... you are right...I was rude and answered in anger...and I apologize.
I have answered in anger, my excuse being I do think my answer was distorted by an inaccurate summary. However, there is NO EXCUSE for me to answer so "grumpily".
I have taken this to the Lord for not only did I offend in answering YOU snappily, but even worse, I offended the LORD by sinning along with the anger.

Ephesians 4:26 "Be ye angry, and sin not: let not the sun go down upon your wrath."
I (myself) did not follow His word. I was angry (not the sin) the sin was in acting on the anger by the tone and attitude of my retort done in anger ("be ye angry AND SIN NOT").

If I may, May I please clarify my belief in regard to the account King David's infant? 
I do not believe that the account of King David's infant child was a predetermination or blanket statement as a determination of "non-condemnation" for ALL babies/children. (In other words... parentage does not always determine the "condemnation nor non-condemnation" of a child prior to the time the child comprehends the essence of what right and wrong actually is).
David is not you or I (he also was not in the age of grace either). He was chosen of God as 'a man after God's own heart'. 
This does (to me) makes this account different (to me) than a current day application.
In the current age of grace...We likely know many adults who grew up with unbelievers as parents, and yet the adult came to Christ in belief for salvation despite their parentage.
The opposite could be said as well (in this current age of grace). We also likely know adults who grew up with both parents being believers, and yet even though they grew up under those circumstances, they themselves rejected/ did not believe upon Christ for salvation.

And if my (previous posting) wording was confusing, then forgive me for not wording it plain enough. I do hope this statement clarifies my position. 
And I also do hope you will accept my apology.

[Pastor Scott Markle]

Ok, I am now stepping out of the pattern of slow progression through the discussion which I communicated in my previous posting as my intent, in order to present a "quick" response unto your above posting.

3 minutes ago, No Nicolaitans said:

John, I understand your thoughts and advice on this; however, scripture does address this. That's why I included (and saved as the last reference) the scripture reference from Job. It's very clear. He specifically addressed dying as a baby. He specifically described the state he would have been in if he had died as a baby, and he also included those who died in the womb...and that state has the characteristics of a place where he would have been alive, a place of rest, safety, freedom, and sinlessness. A place of comfort...definitely not a place of torment.

One can only go to one of two places. Job's description of what he would have experienced if he had died as a baby certainly doesn't describe what the rich man experienced in Luke 16; however, it does describe what Lazarus experienced.

It will certainly be necessary for me to provide a more thorough response unto your longer posting in order that you might have a better understanding of my viewpoint on this matter.  However, I do wish to express my agreement with your assessment of "the Scripture reference from Job."  (I need to communicate much more for understanding; however, that shall suffice for a "quick" response.)

9 minutes ago, No Nicolaitans said:

We live in a real world; in which, real people lose their babies to death. Real people needing real comfort in a time of tremendous loss. Real people who are experiencing real pain and grief. In many cases, they may blame God for the death of their child...or they may not understand why God allowed it to happen.

They need help. They need hope. They need comfort...and they need answers.

Here's my question(s)...and I promise that I'm asking this sincerely. I'm not mocking and trying to stir emotions or strife.

If God doesn't address this in scripture, what could one say to comfort the parents who lost a child? How can it help them to say that "You'll just have to trust God"? There may be some who might understand that, but the vast majority won't, and perchance the parents are lost...they certainly wouldn't understand.

On the other side, for those who believe that a baby dies and goes to hell...and I ask this sincerely too...what could you possibly say to the grieving parents to comfort them? Again, what if the parents are lost? How can you possibly help them over the grief?

...

Or, one could point them to Job and show them that their child is now in heaven...alive...in a place of rest, safety, freedom, and sinlessness. A place of comfort with the Lord Jesus Christ...and like David, they can see and be with their child again one day if they too are saved.

INDEED!  This doctrinal subject is FILLED with emotion!  However, we must be careful not to allow our emotional desire to influence our search for doctrinal truth.  Scripture is the source for doctrinal truth, regardless of whether or not our emotional desires or the emotional desires of others agree with that truth.

Actually, there are many, many, many circumstances of life wherein the only answer is that we must simply trust God.  The Lord our God does NOT give us all of the answers in order to provide us with the comfort that we seek.  Rather, the Lord our God gives us Himself as the answer to provide us with the comfort that we need.

Actually, I do NOT believe that all babies who die are condemned under God's eternal wrath in hell.  However, if I did, my response to your question would simply be that I could not give any more comfort unto the parents concerning their baby's eternal destiny than I could give to the family who just lost their unsaved, but dearly loved father concerning his eternal destiny.

Please understand, Brother McWhorter, (especially on the ground of our friendship, which I highly appreciate and do not wish to damage) that human emotion must not be allowed to influence our search for Biblical truth, but must be made to submit itself under Biblical truth, however pleasing or displeasing that truth may be.

(Ohhh, how I pray that this posting will be taken with the grace in which it is intended.)

[No Nicolaitans]

10 minutes ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Please understand, Brother McWhorter, (especially on the ground of our friendship, which I highly appreciate and do not wish to damage) that human emotion must not be allowed to influence our search for Biblical truth, but must be made to submit itself under Biblical truth, however pleasing or displeasing that truth may be.

I agree.

My belief on this isn't tied to my emotions, nor do my questions represent any emotion on my part. My questions represent the emotions on the grieving parent's part. That's all. I'm in no way bound to this by emotion.

I only asked the question(s), because I sincerely wanted to know what one could say to grieving parents under such circumstances. I realize that's probably asking a lot, because a conversation with grieving parents could go in many different directions. While I know that trusting God is ample enough for whatever may happen, it's not enough for most people. In the real world, leaving grieving parents with "just trust God" will most likely cause confusion and resentment. I'm not saying that's right on their part; I'm just stating how people are. So, I was just wondering if there was anything else that could be said.

16 minutes ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

(Ohhh, how I pray that this posting will be taken with the grace in which it is intended.)

It was. I know you well enough brother.