Babies

[Zguy28]

Originally Posted by Starman3000m

Yo, Zguy28, where have ItalianScallion and I ever denied the inherent original sin that has been passed unto all mankind through Adam???

Here is an excerpt from the article you cited:



We have both posted Scripture quite a few times that states all have sinned and that the whole world is in condemnation and that sin was passed down from Adam.

With that in mind, The Bible states that Jesus came to save the world and that all who believe in Him will not perish but have everlasting life. (John 3:16-18)

Calvinism places a limitation on Jesus' work on the Cross by teaching that Christ's Atonement is not really offered nor available to all sinners only to a select group of mankind.

Calvinism is not just dangerously close to heresy - it becomes heresy through negating God's Love for the whole world and God's Will that no one perish at all. That is the reason for the Atoning Blood of Christ freely offered and available to all who will accept Him as Lord and Saviour. Not all people will accept Christ but the Bible gives the reason why and that is because they chose to love the world and their evil deeds rather than repent of their wayward ways and turn to God.

Thank you for finally saying what you believe, that Calvinism is a heresy.

Unfortunately you misunderstand Limited Atonement. Perhaps this article can shed some additional light on the subject.
Definite atonement - Theopedia, an encyclopedia of Biblical Christianity

[Starman3000m]

Originally Posted by Zguy28

Thank you for finally saying what you believe, that Calvinism is a heresy.

Unfortunately you misunderstand Limited Atonement. Perhaps this article can shed some additional light on the subject.
Definite atonement - Theopedia, an encyclopedia of Biblical Christianity

Calvinism claims that God has already predestined souls for either Heaven or Hell from the very start. That sure indicates that Jesus' Atonement will not apply to those who God has already chosen to send to Hell.

However, in the Bible, Jesus gives people the choice to overcome the world and accept Him as Lord or reject Him through unbelief. Those who accept Him are said to have overcome the world and their names will remain and be found in the Lamb's Book of Life on Judgment Day. Those who reject Him will be blotted out of the Lamb's Book of Life.

Question: What would a person's name be doing in the Lamb's Book of Life to begin with if they had already been doomed and predestined to Hell from the beginning?

The following Scripture implies that Jesus is able to retain or to blot people's name out of His Book of Life:

He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels.

[Zguy28]

Originally Posted by Starman3000m

Calvinism claims that God has already predestined souls for either Heaven or Hell from the very start. That sure indicates that Jesus' Atonement will not apply to those who God has already chosen to send to Hell.

However, in the Bible, Jesus gives people the choice to overcome the world and accept Him as Lord or reject Him through unbelief. Those who accept Him are said to have overcome the world and their names will remain and be found in the Lamb's Book of Life on Judgment Day. Those who reject Him will be blotted out of the Lamb's Book of Life.

Question: What would a person's name be doing in the Lamb's Book of Life to begin with if they had already been doomed and predestined to Hell from the beginning?

The following Scripture implies that Jesus is able to blot people's name out of His Book of Life:

So you do believe that man is born morally neutral and innocent, without original sin?

[Starman3000m]

Originally Posted by Zguy28

So you do believe that man is born morally neutral and innocent, without original sin?

C'mon, Zguy28, if you have read my previous posts I have stated many times that sin has been passed down to mankind through Adam. Of course, man is born with the "Adamic" original sin - that's what the Bible states.
(Romans 3:22-24; Romans 5:12-15)

Are you going to use that to say that when an infant or a young child dies and has no comprehension or concept of differentiating right from wrong that God will send the child's soul to Hell?

[hvp05]

Originally Posted by Starman3000m

Are you going to use that to say that when an infant or a young child dies and has no comprehension or concept of differentiating right from wrong that God will send the child's soul to Hell?

But hell is an acceptable punishment once the kid has become 'accountable'. What I find interesting is not so much that babies are left out of hell but that those who die after barely reaching the age of accountability will go to hell.

By some opinions, this age could be 2, 3, or 4 years. Consider a 7 year old. Do you think the typical 7 y.o. is able to make wise decisions for their life? Does a 7 y.o. have the tools to navigate the world's challenges successfully?

If we don't think a 7 y.o. can do that in the physical world, how are they supposed to get anywhere near comprehending the spiritual world? This forum is but one tiny example of grown adults who can't get this spiritual stuff straight... but a toddler is expected to understand god, sin, and salvation.

[ItalianScallion (Premo)]

Originally Posted by Zguy28

You realize that you and Starman are drifting dangerously close to heresy right? A heresy officially condemned in the 5th century.

Do you realize that you're having reading comprehension issues? Neither one of us has ever said or implied that. Calvin was not that accurate in his beliefs and, if you follow him too closely, you too may start your own belief system...

Originally Posted by Starman3000m

Are you going to use that to say that when an infant or a young child dies and has no comprehension or concept of differentiating right from wrong that God will send the child's soul to Hell?

That what I got out of his posts.

[ItalianScallion (Premo)]

Originally Posted by hvp05

But hell is an acceptable punishment once the kid has become 'accountable'. What I find interesting is not so much that babies are left out of hell but that those who die after barely reaching the age of accountability will go to hell.

If God knows that they will one day change their mind about Him, you can rest assured that nothing will prevent them from seeing that day. OTOH, if God knows that they will never follow Him, then what does it matter when they end up in Hell? God will call them many times in their life and they will always say NO, so...

Originally Posted by hvp05

By some opinions, this age could be 2, 3, or 4 years. Consider a 7 year old. Do you think the typical 7 y.o. is able to make wise decisions for their life? Does a 7 y.o. have the tools to navigate the world's challenges successfully?
If we don't think a 7 y.o. can do that in the physical world, how are they supposed to get anywhere near comprehending the spiritual world? This forum is but one tiny example of grown adults who can't get this spiritual stuff straight... but a toddler is expected to understand god, sin, and salvation.

You're missing the positive side of this. What if a 2, 3 , 4 or 7 year old decides to follow Christ? Would God say they're too young and not save them?

You make God out to be an evil, predatorial person. He knows everything so, again, what difference does it make, since the person is never going to follow Christ anyway?

[hvp05]

Originally Posted by ItalianScallion

If God knows that they will one day change their mind about Him, you can rest assured that nothing will prevent them from seeing that day. OTOH, if God knows that they will never follow Him, then what does it matter when they end up in Hell? God will call them many times in their life and they will always say NO, so...

By that reasoning, there should be no elderly non-Christians; conversely, kids in very religious families, and therefore having a high probability of themselves being Christian, should not die.

Doesn't causing/allowing a kid "god knows... will never follow him" to die sort of cut off the whole free will thing? I thought we all had a choice and a chance to be saved at any time, despite foreknowledge.

You're missing the positive side of this. What if a 2, 3 , 4 or 7 year old decides to follow Christ? Would God say they're too young and not save them?

So you think a 4 y.o. can really comprehend god, sin, etc. Little kids say and believe a lot of funny things. Little kids are inclined to believe animals can talk and that superheroes exist because they see them on t.v. regularly. You said of your own past that god did not accept your pleas several times because he knew you were not genuine, so simply because a kid says, "I love Jesus because he died for me!" should not be enough to qualify.

You make God out to be an evil, predatorial person.

Hello, Mr. Reading Comprehension! I am saying it does not equate how a baby can be completely innocent but a toddler is to be held accountable.

While we're opening the foreknowledge flood gate: if god knows this kid will not follow him and allows the kid to die, why would god have created the kid in the first place? Does that not seem more cruel than helpful or loving?

[PsyOps (Premo)]

Originally Posted by Zguy28

Then why did sin bring physical death into the world? Or am I misunderstanding what you are saying?

Better question… Why didn’t God just kill Adam and Eve outright for disobeying Him and start from scratch? Were they to live physically forever then God gave them an expiration date post fruit consumption?

If you believe the story of creation and the Adam and Eve account literally, then I would argue that God never intended for them to live physically forever. The physical nature that God created doesn’t work that way. They would have still aged, got sick from something and died. The death from eating the ‘fruit’ is a spiritual death.

My interpretation of Genesis has always been an allegorical one. I don’t think Adam and Eve were actual people. They represent the dawn of civilized man. Eating the fruit represents the desire of man to be separated from God; to rebel and disobey God; to doubt God. This ‘sin’ caused God to relinquish our souls. That’s why God gave us salvation through Christ, but not to live physically forever. We still die even though we are saved of this sin inherited through the fall of Adam and Eve. Adam and Eve died spiritually, and we are saved spiritually.

If you read Genesis where God talks about the 'tree of life' - this tree God intended for man to not have access to - it is also mentioned in Revelation 22. Genesis is the story of man's spiritual death. Revelation is the story of man's spiritual redemption.

[Zguy28]

Originally Posted by PsyOps

Better question… Why didn’t God just kill Adam and Eve outright for disobeying Him? Were they to live physically forever then God gave them an expiration date post fruit consumption?

If you believe the story of creation and the Adam and Eve account literally, then I would argue that God never intended for them to live physically forever. The physical nature that God created doesn’t work that way. They would have still aged, got sick from something and died. The death from eating the ‘fruit’ is a spiritual death.

My interpretation of Genesis has always been an allegorical one. I don’t think Adam and Eve were actual people. They represent the dawn of civilized man. Eating the fruit represents the desire of man to be separated from God; to rebel and disobey God; to doubt God. This ‘sin’ caused God to relinquish our souls. That’s why God gave us salvation through Christ, but not to live physically forever. We still die even though we are saved of this sin inherited through the fall of Adam and Eve. Adam and Eve died spiritually, and we are saved spiritually.

Do you believe in a physical bodily resurrection?