Do you believe that ALL babies that die go to Heaven or only "the elect"?

[ChristisGod]

God is indeed just and not evil.

But that does not take away the fact that all children after Adam are condemned by God to die for sin. And to campaign for the would-be innocence of children because Jesus used them as the object of comparison to the children born of the spirit of God does not make children of the flesh the subject of His parable comparison, but is a contradiction to the whole message of scripture, a misunderstanding, and misses His point of comparison and that of the many things He spoke of heaven as only a "likeness" rather than being actual. This is true of all parables: the object is not to be confused with the subject. They are not the same.

tell me how a 3 month old infant can sin ?

 

[St. SteVen]

It is as divided from the KJV as the Matt 28:19 crowd is divided from the Acts 2:38 crowd.

Which crowd are you in?
Should I assume the Matt 28:19 crowd?

 

[St. SteVen]

tell me how a 3 month old infant can sin ?

From my post #74

I'm trying to imagine the judgement of an infant.

Parody time:
"Do you remember depriving your parents of sleep for weeks on end?"
Response: "Goo goo, gah gah."
"For the record, was that a 'Yes', or a 'No'?
Response: "Dah dah dah."
"So, you're blaming your father?"
Response: "Thhatttttz." (tongue noise)

 

[ChristisGod]

From my post #74

I'm trying to imagine the judgement of an infant.

Parody time:
"Do you remember depriving your parents of sleep for weeks on end?"
Response: "Goo goo, gah gah."
"For the record, was that a 'Yes', or a 'No'?
Response: "Dah dah dah."
"So, you're blaming your father?"
Response: "Thhatttttz." (tongue noise)

Ditto

 

[Truther]

Which crowd are you in?
Should I assume the Matt 28:19 crowd?

Acts 2:38

 

[St. SteVen]

Acts 2:38

That's a surprise.
Were you baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit?

 

[Truther]

That's a surprise.
Were you baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit?

Yes, but rebaptized in the name of Jesus for the remission of my sins

 

[St. SteVen]

St. SteVen said:

That's a surprise.
Were you baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit?

Yes, but rebaptized in the name of Jesus for the remission of my sins

Are you Catholic?
That is a RCC belief that water baptism is for the remission of sins.

In Protestantism baptism is a religious ceremony for believers.
A religious ceremony is an outward sign of an inward reality. IMO

Therefore, the remission of sins would come BEFORE water baptism, not as a RESULT.
Water baptism should be a public confession of faith in Jesus Christ.
Actually, "the remission of sins" came by the cross. IMO

 

[Truther]

St. SteVen said:

That's a surprise.
Were you baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit?

Are you Catholic?
That is a RCC belief that water baptism is for the remission of sins.

In Protestantism baptism is a religious ceremony for believers.
A religious ceremony is an outward sign of an inward reality. IMO

Therefore, the remission of sins would come BEFORE water baptism, not as a RESULT.
Water baptism should be a public confession of faith in Jesus Christ.
Actually, "the remission of sins" came by the cross. IMO

I was a Catholic.

I was rebaptized in the name of Jesus for the remission of my sins on Oct 7, 1979.

The RCC first protested Acts 2:38 in the 4th century, thus they are the original protestants.

The "protestants" as we think of, are her daughters, who also protest Acts 2:38.

No matter what you call yourself, if you don't obey Acts 2:38, you protest it, and are a protestant.

 

[ScottA]

Just think. You advocate the idea that your bloodline is righteous.

Whoah!

I never said anything of the sort.

 

[ScottA]

I

I can bet you don't even know the NT plan of salvation?

Conjecture. Go figure.

 

[ScottA]

tell me how a 3 month old infant can sin ?

You are looking at it all wrong.

The reality of all people since Adam (including babies) is not first rooted in their acts of sin, but rather in being children of sin: Those who are born out of sin, sin. That is what they/we are as children and descendants of Adam categorically, of which there is and has ever been only One exception: Jesus Christ.

In other words, one is only without sin if they have been born [again] out of the righteousness of God. Such is the gospel of Jesus Christ (the only actual gospel).

 

[ChristisGod]

You are looking at it all wrong.

The reality of all people since Adam (including babies) is not first rooted in their acts of sin, but rather in being children of sin: Those who are born out of sin, sin. That is what they/we are as children and descendants of Adam categorically, of which there is and has ever been only One exception: Jesus Christ.

In other words, one is only without sin if they have been born [again] out of the righteousness of God. Such is the gospel of Jesus Christ (the only actual gospel).

Until one sins and becomes guilty there is no need for the new birth.

 

[St. SteVen]

The RCC first protested Acts 2:38 in the 4th century, thus they are the original protestants.

LOL
They might take that as an insult.

 

[ScottA]

Until one sins and becomes guilty there is no need for the new birth.

That is not correct, as it wrongly assumes (against the scriptures) that flesh and blood can inherit the kingdom of God--which is biblically not true.

 

[ChristisGod]

That is not correct, as it wrongly assumes (against the scriptures) that flesh and blood can inherit the kingdom of God--which is biblically not true.

Nope it’s sin that keeps on out period. Otherwise you must condemn every mentally handicapped person to hell because the have a pagan sin nature invented by augustine. And all the aborted babies have as well since they have a sin nature but never sinned. That god is a monster created by augustine and revived during the reformation.

 

[St. SteVen]

Until one sins and becomes guilty there is no need for the new birth.

This is an interesting subject.
To be clear, I don't think God sends babies to hell.
But there is no biblical evidence to support this position that I am aware of.

If that is true, then the biblical position is that God will send babies to hell.
It seems that we don't believe that because we don't envision God to be that sort of a monster.

Reminds me of my own position on UR. God wouldn't do that to anyone.
My biblical defense is pretty thin, but it's no different than sending babies to hell, really.

 

[ScottA]

Nope it’s sin that keeps on our period. Otherwise you must condemn every mentally handicapped person to hell because the have a pagan sin nature invented by augustine.

I just gave you the biblical truth. You just responded with your own heartful but unbiblical sentiments. That is understandable, it's just not true. So you can continue to lean on your own understanding without hearing the truth...or you can listen up. Your choice.

 

[Truther]

I never said anything of the sort.

I never said anything of the sort.

You sorta did.

 

[ChristisGod]

I just gave you the biblical truth. You just responded with your own heartful but unbiblical sentiments. That is understandable, it's just not true. So you can continue to lean on your own understanding without hearing the truth...or you can listen up. Your choice.

That was you spin on the passage not what the passage means as its talking about the resurrection body that will be changed from mortal to immortal, perishable to imperishable. We need new bodies for eternity not ones that die.