toldailytopic: How does God handle babies when they die?

[elohiym]

Philippians 2:11

Psalm 82:5-7

Some will never believe.

 

[Nang]

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.

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

 

[Arthur Brain]

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

How convenient to make Adam the scapegoat for babies suffering in hell. This doctrine is appalling.

lain:

 

[Samstarrett]

Psalm 82:5-7

I fail to see how that constitutes a refutation.

Some will never believe.

That's not what Philippians 2:11 says. :idunno:

 

[Nang]

You believe Adam elected the wicked by sinning?

Adam condemned all his seed to death, by his sin.

There is no such thing as inherited sin.

No, but there is such a thing as inheriting a sin nature, and receiving imputed guilt, according to Adam's sin.

If you deny this, you deny the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Nang

 

[some other dude]

What a vicious little troll.

lain:

I sincerely hope you never do go through such an experience.

Been there, whiny.

Lost two kids to miscarriages, watched two close friends lose their young children (one each) to accidents.


Now, are you interested in discussing what scripture says about it, or do you want to keep up the peeing contest?

 

[Arthur Brain]

Psalm 82:5-7

Some will never believe.

That's a bit of a stretch to make the passage mean that Elo. Every knee bows and every tongue confesses, even gives praise apparently. How do you reconcile that? Is it hyperbole?

 

[Nang]

How convenient to make Adam the scapegoat for babies suffering in hell. This doctrine is appalling.

lain:

Oh, so you find it less appalling to blame God for babies suffering hell, rather than placing the blame (according to Scripture) upon Adam? Romans 5:12

Such sentiment reveals you remain cursed and at enmity against God.

Nang

 

[Arthur Brain]

Been there, whiny.

Lost two kids to miscarriages, watched two close friends lose their young children (one each) to accidents.


Now, are you interested in discussing what scripture says about it, or do you want to keep up the peeing contest?

Then if so you have my sincere condolencies. I wouldn't wish such on anyone, nor would I quip about it either. I've never been interested in a 'peeing' contest with you or anyone else frankly, so if you can quit with the 'whiny' nonsense then I'm willing to address this subject without any kindergarten crap. What say you?

 

[Arthur Brain]

Oh, so you find it less appalling to blame God for babies suffering hell, rather than placing the blame (according to Scripture) upon Adam? Romans 5:12

Such sentiment reveals you remain cursed and at enmity against God.

Nang

According to you everything happens by the sovereign will of God. So even if Adam did sin it was hardly by accident but by design. Adam didn't create himself and nor did he create a place of eternal torment so if babies end up in such a place then God designed it that way. Appalling and sickening. Your doctrine is the one that's cursed Nang....

lain:

 

[Skavau]

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

It is unjustifiable to suggest that anyone ought to be held accountable for the actions of their ancestors or to be tainted by the actions of their ancestors. It is unjustifiable further for anyone to punish people for their imperfect nature. These are things that one does not have control over and yet you say with complete moral sincerity that people could be punished for their own existence and nothing more, and in the most obscene way as well.

And all approved by God. Nasty.

 

[Arthur Brain]

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

Since when were links integral to a debate?

:freak:

 

[Nang]

It is unjustifiable to suggest that anyone ought to be held accountable for the actions of their ancestors or to be tainted by the actions of their ancestors. It is unjustifiable further for anyone to punish people for their imperfect nature. These are things that one does not have control over and yet you say with complete moral sincerity that people could be punished for their own existence and nothing more, and in the most obscene way as well.

And all approved by God. Nasty.

If one denies the federal headship of Adam, responsible and accountable for all his natural seed, one must also deny the federal headship of the last Adam, Jesus Christ, who died for all His spiritual seed.

Imputation of the guilt of sin, imposed upon all the first Adam's natural seed, before their lifetimes, is a type of the imputation of righteousness worked by God through His Christ, for all the sons of God, before their lifetimes. (Romans 5:8)

Nang

 

[Nang]

Since when were links integral to a debate?

:freak:

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

 

[Skavau]

If one denies the federal headship of Adam, responsible and accountable for all his natural seed, one must also deny the federal headship of the last Adam, Jesus Christ, who died for all His spiritual seed.

Imputation of the guilt of sin, imposed upon all the first Adam's natural seed, before their lifetimes, is a type of the imputation of righteousness worked by God through His Christ, for all the sons of God, before their lifetimes. (Romans 5:8)

Nang

Is this supposed to be a moral justification for being held accountable for actions you never committed or being tainted for incident you were never involved in?

 

[some other dude]

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

So I believe Christ's death saves men

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

, and you believe it makes them savable

Yes

Hardly. Or, please cite.

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

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.

I'm not sure what you said there, 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.

There are those who choose not to believe.

Where?

supra

 

[Nang]

Is this supposed to be a moral justification for being held accountable for actions you never committed or being tainted for incident you were never involved in?

Nope, just relaying the teachings of God's Holy Word, fella.

Nang

 

[Skavau]

Nope, just relaying the teachings of God's Holy Word, fella.

Nang

So you do not think it remotely prudent to morally justify what you believe?

 

[Arthur Brain]

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 imagine the scribes thought the same thing. Intellectual pomposity and legalism doesn't justify the eternal suffering of children. I hope you get around to realizing that....

lain:

 

[Arthur Brain]

Nope, just relaying the teachings of God's Holy Word, fella.

Nang

Well, as you believe it anyway....

lain: