toldailytopic: How does God handle babies when they die?

[Nang]

It's not exactly a problem of this board. Whether you witness or not it ironically makes zero difference anyway under your own theology. It's all a done deal including your own preaching.....

lain:

Nah . . . you try to spout "fatalism."

Such is not my philosophy; let alone my Christian faith.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Better off, certainly.

Ok.

I had doubts, yes. Especially when dealing with the deaths of my friends' children.

Highly understandable. Tragedies like that cause many to question. Do you think your friends would deserve to face eternal torment if they lost all faith due to such?

It would be nice to think so.

It makes sense to think so. The idea they're cast into a pit of suffering with no concept is simply abhorrent isn't it?

 

[Arthur Brain]

Nah . . . you try to spout "fatalism."

Such is not my philosophy; let alone my Christian faith.

Do you, or do you not believe, that God has preordained all people to 'reside' in either Heaven or hell? Do you, or do you not believe, that only the elect are destined for the former?

 

[elohiym]

That's a bit of a stretch to make the passage mean that Elo.

Based on how I interpret Psalm 82:5-7, it's not a stretch. Everyone is God's child, but some never believe that is true, i.e. "ye shall die like men ..." Those who believe will never die (John 11:26).

Every knee bows and every tongue confesses, even gives praise apparently. How do you reconcile that? Is it hyperbole?

Isaiah 45:23 doesn't appear to mean universal salvation in context.

Curious to know how you interpret Isaiah 45:7 KJV.

 

[Nang]

Do you, or do you not believe, that God has preordained all people to 'reside' in either Heaven or hell? Do you, or do you not believe, that only the elect are destined for the former?

I believe that before God created, He knew creaturely limitations (no creature can be like uncreate God), but God gave angels and men secondary moral agency (responsibility and accountability) by which they should and could live in submission to His higher and holy will.

It was the actions of angels and men that brought their fate upon themselves (Romans 5:12); even though God predetermined and ordained the effect of what they caused.

 

[Krsto]

So charges a coward who has run away from a challenged intellectual, spiritual, and exegetical debate from yours truly.

I don't think I have ever seen you present any biblical confession, let alone a exegetical and biblical defense of your personal beliefs.

So who are you to find find fault with others who tower over your theological grasps?

You don't even provide any good links!!!

Bah . . .

Nang

Nang, I responded to you that I did not care to move the discussion to another thread but continue from where we were on that thread, the "Did Jesus die for all men?" thread, to which you replied publicly:

Nang will not engage in any further forum discussions with Krsto on TOL, until and unless he agrees to formally debate me, according to debate terms presented in a PM to Krsto, to establish a One on One (more than a week ago).

From there I continued the discussion refuting your theology in the next post and it is still sitting there awaiting your response. But appearantly you are too chicken to get into it.

Suit yourself. I do realize my keen intellect and magnificent debating skills all delivered with irresistable charm at no charge to you can be rather intimidating but I'll try to go easy on you if you can gather the courage to participate.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Based on how I interpret Psalm 82:5-7, it's not a stretch. Everyone is God's child, but some never believe that is true, i.e. "ye shall die men ..." Those who believe will never die (John 11:26).

On this plane that would be true enough, but what about the next? At some point the existence of God would no longer be open to debate.

Isaiah 45:23 doesn't appear to mean universal salvation in context.

Not in itself no but it does indicate that all will believe unless you think it's hyperbole? There's also the verse (which eludes me at present) where all give praise which can hardly be coerced by definition.

Curious to know how you interpret Isaiah 45:7 KJV.

Personally I see it as analogy for this plane being a learning curve. Without the negative one can't appreciate the positive. Without any suffering or evil one can't have empathy or understanding or an appreciation of good or love. It's subjective admittedly and I'm not sure I'm answering as to how you'd like me to address in honesty?

:e4e:

 

[Arthur Brain]

I believe that before God created, He knew creaturely limitations (no creature can be like uncreate God), but God gave angels and men secondary moral agency (responsibility and accountability) by which they should and could live in submission to His higher and holy will.

It was the actions of angels and men that brought their fate upon themselves (Romans 5:12); even though God predetermined and ordained the effect of what they caused.

Except if everything happens by the sovereign will of God then any 'moral agency' is essentially redundant because all 'creaturely limitations' and weaknesses etc have already been designed. A baby hardly has any such flaws apart from what you view as being imputed due to forefathers....

lain:

 

[Krsto]

They are not, but at least AMR provides verification of his beliefs . . . something Krsto has never provided.

And yet Krsto, not a theologian at all, uses this as an excuse to find fault with a real theologian!

Bah . . .

Nang

I'm curious Nang, I've never claimed to be a theologian, but what qualifies AMR as a theologian? Does he have a doctor's degree? As I recall he attended a Jesuit seminary - is everyone who attended a Jesuit seminary a theologian able to spiritually discern the Word of God and do proper exegesis? Or do Jesuit seminaries graduate a lot of people who have head knowledge but do not have Christ living within?

 

[Vaquero45]

Present some biblical doctrines upon which your base your views, Vaguero, and we can go from there.]

Otherwise, you are only contributing harrassment.

You claim your doctrines are THE doctrines of God and any disagreement with Nang is an act of opposing God Himself. What could I possibly offer to that mindset?

 

[Nang]

I'm curious Nang, I've never claimed to be a theologian, but what qualifies AMR as a theologian?

Most Calvinists are theologians.

Does he have a doctor's degree?

Yes.

As I recall he attended a Jesuit seminary - is everyone who attended a Jesuit seminary a theologian able to spiritually discern the Word of God and do proper exegesis? Or do Jesuit seminaries graduate a lot of people who have head knowledge but do not have Christ living within?

I think you have gone off topic.

 

[Nang]

You claim your doctrines are THE doctrines of God and any disagreement with Nang is an act of opposing God Himself. What could I possibly offer to that mindset?

Probably not much . . . :chuckle:

 

[Samstarrett]

So then what? The crucifixion was just for giggles? Because otherwise Jesus/God could have just snapped His fingers and Bam, all men are saved.

You're not making any sense. Think about what you're saying. I say the sacrifice of Christ was necessary for man's salvation. It happened, and now all men will be saved. You're inventing a difficulty that doesn't exist.

I do too. Those who show themselves worthy to be saved.

Worthy? So you earn your salvation by merit?

Yes

So, I ask again, how does my view give the sacrifice less glory and honor than yours? If anything, it gives it more.

Matthew 25:46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

The Greek word translated "everlasting" does not necessarily mean that; in fact, it's quite possible it never means that. Any interpretation that translates it as such creates problems with 1 Cor 15:22 and 1 Tim 4:10, among others. I have a list of more Scriptural evidence for Universal Salvation here.

I'm not sure what you said there,

What part wasn't clear?

but what did happen was this:

Mark 16:16He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

Sure. I believe that. I just don't believe the condemnation lasts for eternity.

There are those who choose not to believe.

Beliefs aren't chosen in the way that actions are chosen unless you're deceiving yourself. Rationally justified beliefs are inescapable; the force of evidence and reason compels you to believe them. Is it your belief that all men have sufficient evidence that only dishonesty would lead them not to believe in Christianity?

supra

OK, this is a little complex. I don't believe all are presently saved; I believe all will be saved. Some, however, will be saved in the next life. So, fair enough, it's offered to all(at least all who hear about it) now, but I believe only the elect will believe in it. Later, all will be brought to believe(see Philippians 2:11, for one).

 

[Krsto]

Most Calvinists are theologians.


Yes.



I think you have gone off topic.

Oh, of course. I should have known all Calvinists are theologians. Stupid me.

And his doctor's degree has something to do with theology?

 

[Refractive]

toldailytopic: How does God handle babies when they die?

Same as us: with Perfect Love.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

The Platonists disagree with you. Consider reading the Symposium (Plato), On the Nature of the Good (St. Augustine), the Elements of Theology (Proclus), etc. Every man innately desires The Good.

Fortunately, the mental company I keep on sacred matters does not include such. I will claim Augustine among the great church divines, for I believe I have a wee bit deeper understanding of the man than you.

In the end, our warrant on the topic comes from our sole rule of faith and practice, an item that does not have Plato, et al., among its inspired writers.

AMR

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Well thank you for finally answering the question. How can an aborted foetus/baby/infant be at enmity with God when it has no awareness of either right or wrong or the concept of sin? That a loving God would create life under such horrific parameters should be an even greater question....

The logical conclusion of such an argument apparently escapes you, and I will simply let you figure that out on your own.

AMR

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

I think this is where I typically see you exit stage left, after you have stated what you believe but are then asked to defend what you believe with proper exegesis. In my year and a half here on TOL I don't think I've ever seen you actually do any exegesis. You just make a claim, perhaps refer to some lengthy article about it just like cruciform and serpentdove tend to do with their pet doctrines, then when asked to defend yourself come up with some lame pompous excuse something to the effect the other is not worthy of your efforts.

Your year and a half has been ill spent then. There is no burden on my behalf to point you to the error of your conclusions. In my tenure here I have made it a practice to actually read each and every post of my intended correspondent that I can find via the limited search functions of the site, and even resorting to other search engines to ferret out the views of others posted here that exceed the 500 post search limitation of the site. Had you adopted a similar practice, you would quickly disabuse yourself of your rash statements. :AMR:

AMR

 

[Krsto]

The logical conclusion of such an argument apparently escapes you, and I will simply let you figure that out on your own.

AMR

Typical.

 

[Arthur Brain]

The logical conclusion of such an argument apparently escapes you, and I will simply let you figure that out on your own.

AMR

I figured it out a long time ago thanks. Your doctrine is as merciless and unloving as it can possibly get AMR. Logic dictates that as well as any "emotional" objection to the horror you portray as "just". At least in open theism everyone gets to the stage where they can at least understand what's going on to an extent. Lucky you for being allowed to reach an age of understanding and become such a 'great theologian' as to explain the deficiencies of everyone else's objections to your rancid loveless doctrine. I only hope my sisters miscarriage goes to a God greater than yours.

lain: