Total Inability...withou Excuse

[2Tim215]

All right. So we have two camps here. One that says God has made a condition for salvation and that condition is to believe and that this "choice" is available to all mankind. The other says God stops at some and passes on by others using comments like "irresistible grace"; "predestined"; "foreknew" and others to justify this doctrine.

One says free will

One says "God's will"

Now if it's free will, then how do babies make a choice? Does God come speak baby gobbly gook that they understand and they make some baby gobbly gook decision to follow Christ?

Or does God "foreknow" the baby's decision and decide for them?

Those of us in the free will camp either ignore this question, believe in the "age of accountability" thing or say all those who have not decided on their own free will to follow Christ are in hell.

Those in the "Calvinist" or "reformed whatsit" camp don't care, God's got His own and the rest can go to hell.


So this is the God some of you serve:

• One who damns fetuses, babies, children, the autistic and those born brain damaged all to hell. (I am leaving out the ones who haven't heard because I understand and accept Romans)
• One who has made Himself the sacrifice for sin for ONLY those that hear, UNDERSTAND and believe with a complete understanding of the doctrine of salvation.
  

The others serve a God that like I said just doesn't care, He's already done His pick and choose thing and we have no will in the matter.

Come on people, even the Jews understand that the parents are accountable for the child until a certain age - bat mitzvah!

I choose to believe the Word and the Word tells me that though God is vengeful and righteously ruthless at times He is also FAR MORE of the following:

• Just
• Compassionate
• Long suffering
• Merciful
• Holy
• Righteous
• Self sacrificing (Jesus for those that don't know)
  

And He knows what He's doing. So just because I don't know and HE hasn't made it clear I will stick to what He has told me:

1Co 7:14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy. - Sanctified through the faith of the parent! A DIFFERENT SALVATION FOR CHILDREN that are not yet of an age to understand the doctrine of salvation - prove otherwise!

And I don't care what "some" have preached or "commentaries" say I follow the WORD of God - KJV AV and it says "NOW ARE THEY HOLY" - it doesn't say legitimate, they would have used that word if that's what they meant - IT SAYS HOLY!!!!

So if you are a KJV believing believer then stand your ground, ignore what the preacher says, the commentaries say and HEED the Word and it says they are holy and sanctified through the faith of the parent just as we are sanctified through the faith of Christ. The passage context is salvation, not illegitimate children. It's married believers and unbelievers, not the unmarried.

[Standing Firm In Christ]

If your theory is true, then why trust Christ? After all, if we who were born to Christian parents are saved because of our parents being saved, then there is no need for us to trust Christ... we're already assured of Salvation.

If that is how you got saved, I have bad news for you.

John 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

John 3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

A child is not automatically saved just because he or she was born to Christian parents. That child must trust Christ just as his or her parents did or when that child dies he or she will go to a devil's hell. He that believeth not is condemned already and the wrath of God abideth on him.

Edited May 15, 2012 by Standing Firm In Christ

[2Tim215]

If your theory is true, then why trust Christ? After all, if we who were born to Christian parents are saved because of our parents being saved, then there is no need for us to trust Christ... we're already assured of Salvation.

If that is how you got saved, I have bad news for you.

John 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

John 3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

A child is not automatically saved just because he or she was born to Christian parents. That child must trust Christ just as his or her parents did or when that child dies he or she will go to a devil's hell. He that believeth not is condemned already and the wrath of God abideth on him.

Not a theory - 1 Cor 7:14 says the children of a saved parent are holy. I suppose this covers the "age of accountability" doctrine. As a young child the gospel was explained to me and I made a choice to accept Jesus as my savior, recommitted my life in my teens and was baptized, so no I do not base my salvation on that and I never stated that I did. I do however believe that the child of a believer is protected (covered by the faith of the parent if you will) until the time they can make there own decision. And just as God sees us through the blood of Christ and His faith, He sees our children through our faith. So just as Christ is responsible for the Church His bride and so the believing father responsible for his wife and children, if no father then the believing mother.

[Standing Firm In Christ]

Then Jesus was lying when He said, "I am the way, the truth and the life; no man cometh unto the Father but by Me". He should have said "I am a way; man can also come to the Father by being born to a Christian parent.

Sorry, 2Tim. Your theory doesn't jive.

[2Tim215]

Then Jesus was lying when He said, "I am the way, the truth and the life; no man cometh unto the Father but by Me". He should have said "I am a way; man can also come to the Father by being born to a Christian parent.

Sorry, 2Tim. Your theory doesn't jive.

Once again you put words in my mouth so I will let you read it again - this time read slowly and pay attention - I will even highlight for you:

Not a theory - 1 Cor 7:14 says the children of a saved parent are holy. I suppose this covers the "age of accountability" doctrine. As a young child the gospel was explained to me and I made a choice to accept Jesus as my savior, recommitted my life in my teens and was baptized, so no I do not base my salvation on that and I never stated that I did. I do however believe that the child of a believer is protected (covered by the faith of the parent if you will) until the time they can make there own decision. And just as God sees us through the blood of Christ and His faith, He sees our children through our faith. So just as Christ is responsible for the Church His bride and so the believing father responsible for his wife and children, if no father then the believing mother.

Do you by chance see the word "saved"; "believer" or any such thing in that statement? By this I mean "kept safe" though this does fly in the face of many a believers child having died too young to make a conscious decision. Like I said - it's a difficult one that no one really knows the answer to and if there is one we don't always like it. So I will stick to this one even if it sounds foolish, just as you stick to your "Repent" in order to be saved. We all have our faults. And to keep the peace don't use this as an opening to do the whole repent thing again - it's been done to death already. :D

[John81]

Once again you put words in my mouth so I will let you read it again - this time read slowly and pay attention - I will even highlight for you:



Do you by chance see the word "saved"; "believer" or any such thing in that statement? By this I mean "kept safe" though this does fly in the face of many a believers child having died too young to make a conscious decision. Like I said - it's a difficult one that no one really knows the answer to and if there is one we don't always like it. So I will stick to this one even if it sounds foolish, just as you stick to your "Repent" in order to be saved. We all have our faults. And to keep the peace don't use this as an opening to do the whole repent thing again - it's been done to death already.

That would be another means of salvation and Scripture tells us there is only one way of salvation.

If your theory were true, then that women who killed her children in Texas so they would go to heaven and not risk missing heaven later in life was actually being a good mother!

As well, you are putting forth an idea of children of a Christian parent being saved because of their parent until that child reaches some certain age when God takes away their salvation, at which point they stand condemned and hell-bound unless they then decide to accept Christ. Scripture speaks nowhere of this but does speak of our salvation being sure, one is only assured of heaven if they are born again into God's family and they can never lose this.

Simply because the word "holy" is used in the verse you refer to doesn't mean the children are saved. "Holy" is used in various ways throughout Scripture and in this verse it certainly does not mean that one is saved.

Also remember that no doctrine is ever to be formed from one verse. Where matters of doctrine are concerned, Scripture repeats these and verifies them from one point to another.

[2Tim215]

Agreed John, but please point out where I said saved. I do not believe that babies nor children up to a certain age are saved by other means and no where did I say that. I am also not taking a single verse out of context and "creating" a doctrine. The whole passage speaks of unequaly yoked and equaly yoked marriages in the context of salvation so where does legitimacy come in? Paul speaks of having received a letter asking questions - we do not have that letter and he does not specify the questions so I must take the scripture at face value and not read anything into it - so "sanctified" and "holy" mean exactly what they are meant to mean in the context of salvation. So I state AGAIN - I believe that possibly the children of believers are PROTECTED by God's grace and mercy until they make there own choice. IOW - they are kept alive if there parents are walking in God's will. This is my personal belief based on what I understand. But if you & SFIC believe that all babies, fetuses and children are damned to hell then by all means do so.

But I must say that the Calvinist camp is sounding far more attractive every minute with their belief that we have no say and that God chooses whom He will, then I don't have to worry about my unborn child not making it or not making a decision if they die before understanding the doctrine of salvation because God has already chosen and nothing I do nor say nor teach can change that.

It's easy for you to say that I can not believe a child is protected, but the thing is, you nor SFIC don't know either.

[John81]

Agreed John, but please point out where I said saved. I do not believe that babies nor children up to a certain age are saved by other means and no where did I say that. I am also not taking a single verse out of context and "creating" a doctrine. The whole passage speaks of unequaly yoked and equaly yoked marriages in the context of salvation so where does legitimacy come in? Paul speaks of having received a letter asking questions - we do not have that letter and he does not specify the questions so I must take the scripture at face value and not read anything into it - so "sanctified" and "holy" mean exactly what they are meant to mean in the context of salvation. So I state AGAIN - I believe that possibly the children of believers are PROTECTED by God's grace and mercy until they make there own choice. IOW - they are kept alive if there parents are walking in God's will. This is my personal belief based on what I understand. But if you & SFIC believe that all babies, fetuses and children are damned to hell then by all means do so.

But I must say that the Calvinist camp is sounding far more attractive every minute with their belief that we have no say and that God chooses whom He will, then I don't have to worry about my unborn child not making it or not making a decision if they die before understanding the doctrine of salvation because God has already chosen and nothing I do nor say nor teach can change that.

It's easy for you to say that I can not believe a child is protected, but the thing is, you nor SFIC don't know either.

I have said all along that Scripture is silent as to what happens when a baby is aborted, a two year old dies, the mentally handicapped pass away. We are not told directly that they have some special entrance to heaven nor are we told they go to eternal hell. Whatever God's plan regarding these, I trust Him and I don't need to know and He certainly doesn't have to tell us.

Jesus pointed out to His disciples that they did not choose Him, but that He chose them.

[Covenanter]

But I must say that the Calvinist camp is sounding far more attractive every minute.....

[Standing Firm In Christ]

I do not believe that babies nor children up to a certain age are saved by other means and no where did I say that. ...... so "sanctified" and "holy" mean exactly what they are meant to mean in the context of salvation.

You are contradicting yourself.

As to you claim that the child is kept alive if the parents are walking in God's will, there are enough obituaries of children of godly parents to prove that claim wrong. Edited May 15, 2012 by Standing Firm In Christ

[JerryNumbers]

Agreed John, but please point out where I said saved. I do not believe that babies nor children up to a certain age are saved by other means and no where did I say that. I am also not taking a single verse out of context and "creating" a doctrine. The whole passage speaks of unequaly yoked and equaly yoked marriages in the context of salvation so where does legitimacy come in? Paul speaks of having received a letter asking questions - we do not have that letter and he does not specify the questions so I must take the scripture at face value and not read anything into it - so "sanctified" and "holy" mean exactly what they are meant to mean in the context of salvation. So I state AGAIN - I believe that possibly the children of believers are PROTECTED by God's grace and mercy until they make there own choice. IOW - they are kept alive if there parents are walking in God's will. This is my personal belief based on what I understand. But if you & SFIC believe that all babies, fetuses and children are damned to hell then by all means do so.

But I must say that the Calvinist camp is sounding far more attractive every minute with their belief that we have no say and that God chooses whom He will, then I don't have to worry about my unborn child not making it or not making a decision if they die before understanding the doctrine of salvation because God has already chosen and nothing I do nor say nor teach can change that.

It's easy for you to say that I can not believe a child is protected, but the thing is, you nor SFIC don't know either.

For most, false teachings always sound more attractive.


Mt 7:13 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:
Mt 7:14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

For most people are gathered together crowding up around that broad gate that leads to destruction.

Yet, we should not believe something because its attractive, but because its God's truth.

[JerryNumbers]

You are contradicting yourself.

As to you claim that the child is kept alive if the parents are walking in God's will, there are enough obituaries of children of godly parents to prove that claim wrong.

No contradiction, infants, babies, are protected by God. Why? They have not the mentality, maturity, understanding, knowledge, to make a rational decision. Nothing contradictory by God protecting showing mercy to such a group of people.

But it would be evil to condemn anyone to hell that did not have the mentality, understanding, knowledge to understand the Gospel. Pl;us, the Bible backs it up, & its been pointed out recently 2 or 3 different times. I refuse to go though that every time you bring it up, I feel sure you have made that statement as least two times recently, if not more. Edited May 15, 2012 by Jerry80871852

[Standing Firm In Christ]

No contradiction, infants, babies, are protected by God. Why? They have not the mentality, maturity, understanding, knowledge, to make a rational decision. Nothing contradictory by God protecting showing mercy to such a group of people.

But it would be evil to condemn anyone to hell that did not have the mentality, understanding, knowledge to understand the Gospel. Pl;us, the Bible backs it up, & its been pointed out recently 2 or 3 different times. I refuse to go though that every time you bring it up, I feel sure you have made that statement as least two times recently, if not more.

And how do you know exactly that they don't have the capability to believe? Have talked to them?

[2Tim215]

No contradiction, infants, babies, are protected by God. Why? They have not the mentality, maturity, understanding, knowledge, to make a rational decision. Nothing contradictory by God protecting showing mercy to such a group of people.
But it would be evil to condemn anyone to hell that did not have the mentality, understanding, knowledge to understand the Gospel. Pl;us, the Bible backs it up, & its been pointed out recently 2 or 3 different times. I refuse to go though that every time you bring it up, I feel sure you have made that statement as least two times recently, if not more.

Exactly what I have been saying and to John, no it's not a false teaching - it's not a teaching at all, just something I choose to believe. Whether they are saved or protected or not accountable until a certain age I really do not know but I just choose to believe in His Mercy that has been evident throughout the Word and not only on the occasional example of his just and righteous wrath.

[2Tim215]

And how do you know exactly that they don't have the capability to believe? Have talked to them?

That's just stupid!!!