RE: Salvation for the un-accountable?

RE: Salvation for the un-accountable? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> Salvation Issues

Message

bob97 -> RE: Salvation for the un-accountable? (6/14/2008 3:56:44 PM)
quote: The post I offered about the question of Gods new covenant I provided scripture with very little commentary.It is as I said earlier disturbing to our sensibilities to see things as bluntly as God declares them.This is where our tainted selves run into trouble. Sunofone…I am a strong believer in election and I am in full agreement with your position on the new covenant. The point is this debate has raged for thousands of years and some people make it a life long process to debate one side or the other. I find the evidence conclusive for election but others don’t and when faced with that endless argument I am willing to allow others to continue in their position…I might add after I present the facts as I see them. If it were a salvation issue I would feel differently but I don’t see this being one. God will settle the matter of infant salvation according to His will and I don’t think He will be swayed by our emotional involvement. I really did enjoy your presentation of the facts on the new covenant by the way. Bob

zoebob -> RE: Salvation for the un-accountable? (6/14/2008 3:56:45 PM)
I would say that b is the closest but with the clarification I made...that the infants and young children of believing parents are mostly chosen and should be treated as such...just as infants in the OT were assumed to be part of God's chosen people. IOW: The children of believers are treated as and assumed to be chosen but it isn't necessarily so. Yes, they must be told about Christ and must make it their own but it is assumed that they probably will.

FreeGrace -> RE: Salvation for the un-accountable? (6/14/2008 4:06:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FolkSingerBlues I think a good point to make here is this: If the Bible is translated through the view of Calvinism or Arminianism it totally changes the meaning of many verses. While the debate over Arminianist and Calvinist will continue those on both sides of the issue must acknowledge that fact. Very good point. That is why I'm in neither camp. quote: So how about salvation for those who are un-accountable? There is ONLY one answer and that is God will himself handle it in justice. As will he judge us all. Beyond that we have no right to impose our tainted hermeneutic attempts and devices on others. No one is able to "impose" our own pov on anyone else. All we can do is offer our own pov to the thread. It is left for each to see if another's pov aligns with Scripture or not. All are free to accept or reject another's pov. There is no imposition. quote: Scripture cannot be translated or applied in accurate correctness if we try to approach it with a feminist hermeneutic, homosexual hermeneutic, armenian hermeneutic, or calvan hermeneutic. Again, that is a good reason to see Scripture without any of those lenses on. [8D] quote: Most of us, including myself, would do well to keep sharpening our reading skills and read the Bible as it was written to it's original recipients. An absolute must! Amen. quote: Again as for the salvation of the un-accountable..there are none that will be held un-accountable. So isn't the issue mute? For it is appointed to a man once to die and then the judgment. I believe the judgment will determine between those who are and who are not accountable. That is justice. Since Christ died for everyone, all are covered by His blood. The issue does come down to accountability of what one knows, and therefore believes/rejects.

FreeGrace -> RE: Salvation for the un-accountable? (6/14/2008 4:12:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Heavendweller Sunofone, So your point about the destination of infants is: e. All infants are protected under the grace and mercy of Christ, until they come to the knowledge of good and evil and are able to be held accountable for their sin. Therefore, all infants go to Heaven because Christ said, "to such belong the Kingdom of Heaven." Our Lord Jesus Christ is merciful and compassionate and will not send innocent infants to hell because they have not rejected Christ. What I am requesting Sonofone, is that you be a bit forth coming and direct. What do YOU think happens to infants? Heavendweller BTW, I'm inclined to go with the e. choice. I agree with your answer as well. Since Christ died for everyone, all sins have been atoned for. All that's left is for the individual to come to the knowledge of their sinfulness and understand their accountability.

Heavendweller -> RE: Salvation for the un-accountable? (6/14/2008 4:26:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FreeGrace I agree with your answer as well. Since Christ died for everyone, all sins have been atoned for. All that's left is for the individual to come to the knowledge of their sinfulness and understand their accountability. Wow, FreeGrace, we agree on something. I can hear the angels in Heaven clapping about right now! [:D] Heavendweller

FreeGrace -> RE: Salvation for the un-accountable? (6/14/2008 4:43:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Heavendweller quote: ORIGINAL: FreeGrace I agree with your answer as well. Since Christ died for everyone, all sins have been atoned for. All that's left is for the individual to come to the knowledge of their sinfulness and understand their accountability. Wow, FreeGrace, we agree on something. I can hear the angels in Heaven clapping about right now! [:D] Heavendweller Actually, the angels rejoice over one sinner who repents. But I'm sure they clap over those who "get it right". [;)] What else can we agree on? I'm sure there's lots.

sunofone -> RE: Salvation for the un-accountable? (6/14/2008 6:05:07 PM)
quote: What I am requesting Sonofone, is that you be a bit forth coming and direct. What do YOU think happens to infants? Heavendweller BTW, I'm inclined to go with the e. choice. I don't mean to come off as being evasive,and certainly not all knowing.I also don't mean to imply that my point of view is scriptural whereas others are not.I know for the most part we all seriously try to evaluate and appraise the scriptures as we best we can. To that point In a narrow sense I agree with folk singer that we see things as best we can.I believe that there is the truth which is absolute;however from a purely human perspective,the only thing that is true,is what's true for me. That is to say,what I have been given to see as truth is true for me,whether it is the absolute truth or not.I know that I have believed things to be true for a good deal of my life both naturally and spiritually only to discover I was wrong all along. I've been exposed spiritually to one level of truth,only to have God add multiple layers of truth,or deeper depths to that truth,that for a time I did not see,or realize was there. As to what do I believe is the fate of the so called innocent,whether infant,mentally impaired,spiritually,deaf,blind,or dead.I believe what God has given me to see by clear view of scripture. When God gave the last and final plague to Pharaoh,he killed,did not have mercy,was completely indifferent to all the first-born in the land of Egypt. But against any of the children of Israel not a dog would move his tongue,against man or beast. That we might know how that the Lord does put a difference between the Egyptians and Israel.God did smite all the first-born in the land of Egypt,both man and beast;against all the gods of Egypt,he did execute judgment,as he is the Lord! The only spared,and the only cause for the sparing was this:When I see the blood I will pass over you,and the plague shall not be upon you to destroy you. This is Gods view of the innocent.The innocent,those who would be spared his wrath,were those of his choosing.In fact to put it bluntly as God has no problem doing,that we might know how the Lord puts a difference between Egyptians,and Israel. Who were spared?His seed.Why were they spared?Because he put a difference between them and the Egyptians,in others words he chose one over the other.How is it he chose to spare them?By the blood of the Lamb! Does any of this sound familiar,or strike you as a tad bit ironic? I'll end by saying this although there is plenty more that can be rightfully said,but forgive me for being a little lazy,although I did provide a pretty detailed post highlighting this earlier. Jesus said I am the good Shepherd;the good Shepherd giveth his life for the SHEEP! I am the good Shepherd,and know my sheep,and am known of mine.And other Sheep I have which are not of this fold,them also I must bring.(Roman 9 vs 6-7)and they SHALL hear my voice;and there SHALL be one fold,and one Shepherd! But how can this be? Is there unfairness with God? 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! What shall we say then?Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.For he saith to Moses I will have MERCY,on whom I will have mercy,I will have COMPASSION,on whom I will have compassion. So I believe that God has concluded that ALL have sinned and come short of his glory,and as such ALL are worthy of his wrath.It is HIS,choosing and HIS good pleasure to save SOME.As Jesus ultimately states out of his own mouth,that he GIVES HIS LIFE FOR THE SHEEP! The sheep are those who the Father has given him.It's called CHOOSING,which like or not,is Gods CHOICE.I can be wrong,this is just what God has given me to see.

FolkSingerBlues -> RE: Salvation for the un-accountable? (6/14/2008 6:54:04 PM)
This is a true statement: God has chosen to save those who believe. As to how that belief is expressed or confessed, we could debate on forever. POV enters the picture here and it would be important for us to try and see this through God's eyes (the counselor can help with this). It would seem that if God means what he says and says what he means he has made who he has chosen easy to recognize. It is those who believe. So while we can talk about God being sovereign (which he is) he however has made it known how he demonstrates his sovereign choice. He chooses those who believe. Since I brought up the word "sovereign" I will expound on that. God has sovereignly chosen to hold all accountable and to judge them. Those who decide to live a life as if they are "un-accountable" can make that choice, but cannot make the choice not to be HELD accountable. Therefore we see a small glimpse of his sovereign governance. If we stick to what we KNOW as opposed to constantly forcing our opinions of how he works (which makes for great conversation, but lousy requirements for fellowship) we are a united body. We too will be held accountable for our "doctrinal pride" and if your studies have led you to understand pride, it's an UGLY sin that we have allowed to become "respectable".

SovereignIsHe -> RE: Salvation for the un-accountable? (6/14/2008 7:01:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AboundinginHisGrace One more point, If you look at revelation, where John is talking about the Great White Throne and Judgement. The people who have not accepted Christ as their savior will be judged by their works. So in turn if they are judged by their works and technically they have not sinned, then that would allow them into heaven wouldn't it. Because they would be sinless? That which is not done in faith is a sin... God says the toil(work) and even the "tender mercies" of the wicked are evil... That doesn't leave any hope for those who don't accept Christ, other than accepting Christ... John

SovereignIsHe -> RE: Salvation for the un-accountable? (6/14/2008 7:20:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FolkSingerBlues SovereignIsHe, Although you pose an interesting question as far as I see it is out of context. No doubt I wasn't too happy about reading that God would command that every living thing (including women and children) be killed in instances. A couple of examples: 1. The Flood 2. In various battles fought in the Old Testament (but not ALL battles). I don't know what specific battle you are speaking of in regards to Joshua but was Joshua's action God's judgment or was it a statement? If you are talking about the battle of Jericho, it says "they devoted the city to the Lord and destroyed with the sword every living thing in it-men and women, young and old, cattle, sheep and donkeys." (Joshua 6:21) Did the animals sin too? Or was it a statement? Did it make more than one statement? I would propose that Joshua was following God's instruction and desire. That is common knowledge... quote: Perhaps that desire was a statement of God's holiness and Joshua's faith in God. I don't necessarily see this as an example of "judgment of sin". God being just and righteous I believe the judgment was all about sin, not simply a statement... quote: God did say "Be Holy for I am Holy." Holiness is an on going theme in the Bible. The city of Jericho was not Holy. I suppose that one could take that as meaning it was only sinful, but I believe holiness is deeper than that. What could it be other than sinful? You say it cannot be sin, but offer nothing in its place... John

SovereignIsHe -> RE: Salvation for the un-accountable? (6/14/2008 7:24:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FolkSingerBlues Scripture cannot be translated or applied in accurate correctness if we try to approach it with a feminist hermeneutic, homosexual hermeneutic, armenian hermeneutic, or calvan hermeneutic. Small favor... Please don't lump feminist hermeneutic and homosexual hermeneutic with the above... John

SovereignIsHe -> RE: Salvation for the un-accountable? (6/14/2008 7:39:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FolkSingerBlues This is a true statement: God has chosen to save those who believe. Actually it's more like those who believe were raised from the dead so they are able to believe... God's choice is the catalyst for man's belief, so it God doesn't choose those who believe, God chooses whomever and because of His sovereign choice, they believe... quote: As to how that belief is expressed or confessed, we could debate on forever. POV enters the picture here and it would be important for us to try and see this through God's eyes (the counselor can help with this). It would seem that if God means what he says and says what he means he has made who he has chosen easy to recognize. It is those who believe. So while we can talk about God being sovereign (which he is) he however has made it known how he demonstrates his sovereign choice. He chooses those who believe. Only those He raised from dead in the Spirit state can believe... The flesh cannot please God, that leaves on the Spirit... quote: Since I brought up the word "sovereign" I will expound on that. God has sovereignly chosen to hold all accountable and to judge them. Those who decide to live a life as if they are "un-accountable" can make that choice, but cannot make the choice not to be HELD accountable. Therefore we see a small glimpse of his sovereign governance. If we stick to what we KNOW as opposed to constantly forcing our opinions of how he works (which makes for great conversation, but lousy requirements for fellowship) we are a united body. We too will be held accountable for our "doctrinal pride" and if your studies have led you to understand pride, it's an UGLY sin that we have allowed to become "respectable". If we stick to what we know this forum will close up shop by the end of the day... John

FolkSingerBlues -> RE: Salvation for the un-accountable? (6/14/2008 7:49:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SovereignIsHe quote: ORIGINAL: FolkSingerBlues SovereignIsHe, Although you pose an interesting question as far as I see it is out of context. No doubt I wasn't too happy about reading that God would command that every living thing (including women and children) be killed in instances. A couple of examples: 1. The Flood 2. In various battles fought in the Old Testament (but not ALL battles). I don't know what specific battle you are speaking of in regards to Joshua but was Joshua's action God's judgment or was it a statement? If you are talking about the battle of Jericho, it says "they devoted the city to the Lord and destroyed with the sword every living thing in it-men and women, young and old, cattle, sheep and donkeys." (Joshua 6:21) Did the animals sin too? Or was it a statement? Did it make more than one statement? I would propose that Joshua was following God's instruction and desire. That is common knowledge... quote: Perhaps that desire was a statement of God's holiness and Joshua's faith in God. I don't necessarily see this as an example of "judgment of sin". God being just and righteous I believe the judgment was all about sin, not simply a statement... quote: God did say "Be Holy for I am Holy." Holiness is an on going theme in the Bible. The city of Jericho was not Holy. I suppose that one could take that as meaning it was only sinful, but I believe holiness is deeper than that. What could it be other than sinful? You say it cannot be sin, but offer nothing in its place... John John, Although I have a glimpse of the concept as to what "holiness" truly is, I do not claim to understand it completely. For simplicity if we define "holiness" as set aside for a purpose. It would make total sense that Jericho was not set aside for God's purpose, therefore it was destroyed. Unlike Sodom and Gommorah which we are told why it was destroyed. I would have to think but I can't think of a time when God commanded anyone or an army to destroy a city as judgment for sin. (Perhaps you can refresh my memory if one has escaped me). I do however remember the death penalty for certain actions that were commited. ("A witch must be killed." for example). While this may seem to be a judgment for sin, again I ask you to consider it as a possible action pertaining to holiness. The Israelites were to be a holy people, if that be the case there would be no room for such unholiness among God's people. And while sin is committed by those who are not holy, there are many of us who are "holy" who still commit sin. We are made "holy" through Jesus blood. (Set aside for a purpose, if you will.) In the area of accountability again if we are "holy" (set aside for a purpose) then I offer that God's purpose and will for our lives makes us holy. Now if it was God's purpose for them to be set for destruction then I suppose one could say that they were "holy" because they were set aside for God's purpose. but I hardly think that is the case. So my offering is again "holiness" has more to do with God's purpose and will than it has to do with sin. If being holy required that there be NO SIN then we could not be holy. Jesus' blood which washes us away our sins allows us to become holy, but does not eliminate the acts of sin in our lives.

FolkSingerBlues -> RE: Salvation for the un-accountable? (6/14/2008 8:00:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SovereignIsHe quote: ORIGINAL: FolkSingerBlues Scripture cannot be translated or applied in accurate correctness if we try to approach it with a feminist hermeneutic, homosexual hermeneutic, armenian hermeneutic, or calvan hermeneutic. Small favor... Please don't lump feminist hermeneutic and homosexual hermeneutic with the above... John I do not recant this statement at all. These are all hermeneutics that are used to prove an agenda as opposed to discussing the nature of God. Hermeneutics do matter in every instance. Hermeneutics are how we apply God's Word to the here and now. I implore that exegesis and hermeneutics not be mistaken for one another.

FolkSingerBlues -> RE: Salvation for the un-accountable? (6/14/2008 8:03:09 PM)
quote: If we stick to what we know this forum will close up shop by the end of the day... I strongly disagree, if we stuck to what we know we could make REMARKABLE progress for His Majesties Kingdom.

SovereignIsHe -> RE: Salvation for the un-accountable? (6/14/2008 8:09:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FolkSingerBlues quote: ORIGINAL: SovereignIsHe quote: ORIGINAL: FolkSingerBlues SovereignIsHe, Although you pose an interesting question as far as I see it is out of context. No doubt I wasn't too happy about reading that God would command that every living thing (including women and children) be killed in instances. A couple of examples: 1. The Flood 2. In various battles fought in the Old Testament (but not ALL battles). I don't know what specific battle you are speaking of in regards to Joshua but was Joshua's action God's judgment or was it a statement? If you are talking about the battle of Jericho, it says "they devoted the city to the Lord and destroyed with the sword every living thing in it-men and women, young and old, cattle, sheep and donkeys." (Joshua 6:21) Did the animals sin too? Or was it a statement? Did it make more than one statement? I would propose that Joshua was following God's instruction and desire. That is common knowledge... quote: Perhaps that desire was a statement of God's holiness and Joshua's faith in God. I don't necessarily see this as an example of "judgment of sin". God being just and righteous I believe the judgment was all about sin, not simply a statement... quote: God did say "Be Holy for I am Holy." Holiness is an on going theme in the Bible. The city of Jericho was not Holy. I suppose that one could take that as meaning it was only sinful, but I believe holiness is deeper than that. What could it be other than sinful? You say it cannot be sin, but offer nothing in its place... John John, Although I have a glimpse of the concept as to what "holiness" truly is, I do not claim to understand it completely. For simplicity if we define "holiness" as set aside for a purpose. It would make total sense that Jericho was not set aside for God's purpose, therefore it was destroyed. Unlike Sodom and Gommorah which we are told why it was destroyed. I would have to think but I can't think of a time when God commanded anyone or an army to destroy a city as judgment for sin. (Perhaps you can refresh my memory if one has escaped me). I do however remember the death penalty for certain actions that were commited. ("A witch must be killed." for example). While this may seem to be a judgment for sin, again I ask you to consider it as a possible action pertaining to holiness. The Israelites were to be a holy people, if that be the case there would be no room for such unholiness among God's people. And while sin is committed by those who are not holy, there are many of us who are "holy" who still commit sin. We are made "holy" through Jesus blood. (Set aside for a purpose, if you will.) In the area of accountability again if we are "holy" (set aside for a purpose) then I offer that God's purpose and will for our lives makes us holy. Now if it was God's purpose for them to be set for destruction then I suppose one could say that they were "holy" because they were set aside for God's purpose. but I hardly think that is the case. So my offering is again "holiness" has more to do with God's purpose and will than it has to do with sin. If being holy required that there be NO SIN then we could not be holy. Jesus' blood which washes us away our sins allows us to become holy, but does not eliminate the acts of sin in our lives. At the end of the day in Jericho, Joshua put sinful people to the sword, men, woman and children... If he put "innocent" people to the sword he's be guilty of murder... John

FolkSingerBlues -> RE: Salvation for the un-accountable? (6/14/2008 8:22:12 PM)
So did the animals sin? I would be interested in understanding the importance of the animals being put to the sword in this account.

FolkSingerBlues -> RE: Salvation for the un-accountable? (6/14/2008 8:32:13 PM)
quote: For simplicity if we define "holiness" as set aside for a purpose. It would make total sense that Jericho was not set aside for God's purpose, therefore it was destroyed. Unlike Sodom and Gommorah which we are told why it was destroyed. I would have to think but I can't think of a time when God commanded anyone or an army to destroy a city as judgment for sin. (Perhaps you can refresh my memory if one has escaped me). I do recall God speaking through the prophets on occasion that he would allow other empires to destroy Israel as judgment upon them. I just can't think of a time when God specifically used the Israeli army to impose judgment for sin.

SovereignIsHe -> RE: Salvation for the un-accountable? (6/14/2008 8:57:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FolkSingerBlues So did the animals sin? I would be interested in understanding the importance of the animals being put to the sword in this account. I believe the animals were considered unclean due to who owned them... John

AboundinginHisGrace -> RE: Salvation for the un-accountable? (6/14/2008 11:44:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bob97 Even the Catholic Church does not teach that works “save” in the way that Protestants view salvation, contrary to the hearsay that many Protestants believe. The Second Council of Orange stated that “If anyone says that … the beginning of faith … by which we arrive at the regeneration of holy baptism is not through the gift of grace, that is, … the Holy Spirit reforming our will … he is proved to be antagonistic to the doctrine of the Apostles.” Also, “If anyone affirms that without the illumination and the inspiration of the Holy Spirit … he can think anything good which pertains to the salvation of eternal life … or consent to salvation … he is deceived by the heretical spirit” (quoted from LumenGentleman Apologetics). Works are seen as having value because they are acts of obedience. They are not the cause of initial justification, but are a result of it. One facing the judgment throne without faith might very well be rewarded based on their works but it is my opinion that the reward would be only a lesser degree of punishment. Bob I wasn't saying that people are saved through works. I was saying people will be judged by their works. Which in turn isn't enough to get to heaven. Only the work that Jesus did on the cross will hold up. I just think what He did on the Cross will be for the children who didn't have the knowledge of good or evil.

bob97 -> RE: Salvation for the un-accountable? (6/15/2008 12:09:52 AM)
Sorry Grace I must have misunderstood...we are on the same page then...thanks for setting me straight. Bob

greatdivide46 -> RE: Salvation for the un-accountable? (6/15/2008 7:49:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AboundinginHisGrace I just think what He did on the Cross will be for the children who didn't have the knowledge of good or evil. I'm on that page too [:)] It just seems to me that what Jesus did on the Cross will have a greater impact on newborns than what Adam did in the garden.

zoebob -> RE: Salvation for the un-accountable? (6/15/2008 7:51:58 AM)
The Bible teaches that what Adam did in the garden had automatic consequences for all humans. What Christ did on the cross did not have automatic eternal consequences for all humans. To say that all infants or children below an age of accountability is saying that we are born saved and then at some point lose it and have to get it back.

FolkSingerBlues -> RE: Salvation for the un-accountable? (6/15/2008 8:24:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: zoebob The Bible teaches that what Adam did in the garden had automatic consequences for all humans. What Christ did on the cross did not have automatic eternal consequences for all humans. To say that all infants or children below an age of accountability is saying that we are born saved and then at some point lose it and have to get it back. I would strongly disagree zoebob. What Christ coming to earth, and being the sin sacrifice has had eternal consequences on humans. You either believe in him or you don't. If you do believe the consequences are good. If you don't believe, well the consequences not so good. I do think that sin has repercussions that we can't begin to grasp the understanding of, just as we can only get a glimpse of just how powerful God's grace is. Both have consequences.

zoebob -> RE: Salvation for the un-accountable? (6/15/2008 8:39:43 AM)
quote: If you do believe the consequences are good. If you don't believe, well the consequences not so good. The not believing and bad consequences are the default position: that is the carry over from Adam.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI