Samstarrett
New member
I was going to stay out of this, but...
Please explain why you
and especially how it
toldailytopic: How does God handle babies when they die?
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
- Status
I was going to stay out of this, but...
Please explain why you
and especially how it
some other dude
New member
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Yes it is. Funnily enough I've asked you at least three times to display your knowledge of the original texts/translations, and the emergence of eternal hell as mainstream doctrine on previous discussions and was completely ignored.
lain:
some other dude
New member
If everybody is saved, Jesus' sacrifice is unnecessary.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Hmm. So SOD finds the concept of the reconciliation of all to God disgusting yet finds the concept of billions of children being consigned to eternal suffering acceptable and supportable. That pretty much says it all...
lain:
Samstarrett
New member
Wrong. The Christian Universalist teaches that all are ultimately saved because of Jesus's sacrifice. He does not deny the necessity of the sacrifice of Christ to effect the salvation of all men; rather, he affirms its absolute efficacy in effecting the salvation of all men. Christian Universalism glorifies the sacrifice of Christ in a way separationism can never do, because only the Christian Universalist can simultaneously believe that Christ's sacrifice was meant to save all men(not only an arbitrary elect as in Calvinism) and that it was successful.
If you believe in Unlimited Atonement(that Christ's death was for all men) and do not believe in Universal Salvation, you believe that there are men Christ died for who are not saved. If any view "spits on Christ's sacrifice," it's not the one that says He was wholly successful.
Last edited:
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Why? Because salvation should only be availed to those who 'choose' it? Bad luck on those kids then eh? You're all over the map dude. Why does a 100% success rate demean the sacrifice?
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
You cut a response of mine to the word 'why' and then did your bog standard crap of accusing me of 'whining' after I'd asked you why it should cause you any discomfort to address the issue of miscarriages etc. That was nothing more than an asinine quip so get a grip and quit with it.
some other dude
New member
That's silly. Or else Jesus isn't God.
I believe Christ's death made salvation available for all men.
I don't.
Yes, scripture is clear on this.
Only if you believe He intended to force salvation on all. I believe He came to offer it to all.
Just like scripture says.
some other dude
New member
Hmm. So SOD finds the concept of the reconciliation of all to God disgusting yet finds the concept of billions of children being consigned to eternal suffering acceptable and supportable. That pretty much says it all...
Well then Arthur, just accept that you'll never understand my position and take your sorry act somewhere else.
some other dude
New member
Nang
TOL Subscriber
elohiym
Well-known member
It appears inconsistent with the necessity of faith, and contrary to what others (not me) perceive as their "free will."
Nang
TOL Subscriber
Hmm. So SOD finds the concept of the reconciliation of all to God disgusting yet finds the concept of billions of children being consigned to eternal suffering acceptable and supportable. That pretty much says it all...
God did not "consign" billions of children to eternal suffering apart from Adam bringing sin and death into the world . . . which sinfulness and resultant deaath was imputed to all his offspring.
The fate of babies is totally caused by Adam.
Except for the grace of God, who chooses to save many souls in infancy.
If it were not for God's determination to save many infant souls, all babies would suffer hell because of inherited sin.
Nang
Nang
TOL Subscriber
Philosophers are finite humans, whose wisdom cannot begin to compare with the wisdom of God . . .which is found in the Holy Scriptures.
e.g. Romans 3:10-12
Nang
Samstarrett
New member
:AMR: That doesn't make any sense at all. The Deity of Christ is in no way connected to the extent of salvation. You can with perfect consistency be a Universalist who doesn't affirm the Deity, or who does, or a separationist who doesn't affirm the Deity, or who does.
So I believe Christ's death saves men, and you believe it makes them savable, and yet somehow my view is the one that "spits on the sacrifice." Really...
No duh.
Hardly. Or, please cite.
If He didn't intend it as a matter of "force," belief would not be the criterion. All rational beliefs are "forced" by reasoning. No rational belief is "chosen" based on one's desires, except the desire to find the truth, whatever it may be. If He'd wanted to give a "choice," He would have made the situation clear and asked people whether they wanted to go to Heaven or Hell. That's not what happened.
Where?
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Oh? How am I misrepresenting your view dude? You've just said you find the concept of universal salvation disgusting. You're also saying that the concept of babies being consigned to eternal suffering supportable. Then bizarrely, in your last response to Sam you say that Jesus came to offer salvation to all. How does one offer salvation to a baby who has no concept of what it actually is? :freak:
Samstarrett
New member
Philippians 2:11
elohiym
Well-known member
You believe Adam elected the wicked by sinning?
Your god doesn't want to save all souls, so it cannot be God.
There is no such thing as inherited sin.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
What a vicious little troll.
lain:I sincerely hope you never do go through such an experience.
- Status