The unborn and infant deaths

Primitive Baptist,

You said, quote: 'I have heard PB preachers stand behind the pulpit and say that there are no infants that God hates.'

Friar John Calvin's teachings forces some Christians to this unthinkable view. In that case, why do Presbyterian pastors baptize babies? And if a pastor disallows infant baptism, but ministers the dedication of the baby, this too, is foolish to do, if allegedly some babies are predestined to damnation. It might easily be a move in futility, because the parents are not privy to God's sovereign will.

No, Jesus invited all the children to come to Him, and not just elect ones.

 

I already responded to this. Neither the infant - nor the adult will be making "different" choices in heaven vs earth - because God is not "changing their minds" about anything in EITHER case. He is only changing the sinful nature. Removing it in BOTH cases.

Nope. I am arguing that the ONLY problem an infant has is the SINFUL nature. The ADULT also has the problem of their own CHOICES. An infant - makes no choices nor do they understand the concept.

That would be the sinful nature "again".

Changes the sinful nature - as in removes it.

But they have no "understanding of God" they have no worship of God and they have no concept of rebellion.

You are trying to get the infant "to be an adult".

It is not working.

Actually - God does not remove the sinful nature until we go to heaven. So you have a problem with equivocation here.

Also - there is no text that says God makes us Saints without letting us choose the LIGHT that shines into the darkness that enlightens EVERY heart, or without RESPONDING and opening the DOOR at which Christ knocks.

So you are left without a text as well.

Do they go to heaven? Yes.

And will their sinful nature be removed then? Yes.

ARE they making DIFFERENT choices in heaven than they were as the unborn or infant on earth? NO.

They are just as incapable of the concept one second after death as one second before.

So no "robot" scenario exists.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Brother Ray:

BROTHER RAY SAID:I am saying God often does not place a label on His doctrinal truth. For example, do you believe in the Trinity of the Godhead? So why is the 'Age of Accountability' not a Christian principle of faith?


BROTHER JOE: The answer is because the doctrine of the trinity is implicitly taught in Holy Scripture, but the doctrine of the "age of accountability is NOT. Further, if anyone truly believed in the so called "age of accountability", then it would make most since to kill all babies BEFORE they hit the "age of accountability" so everyone would go to heaven and not a soul would end up in hell. This doctrine is unbiblical and also illogical.

Brother Joe

 

Brother Ray:

BROTHE RAY SAID: Notice Jesus did not say to the gathered children, "Mary and Bobby you are not one of the elect but send the rest of the children over here to Me." But our Lord did say, 'Suffer the children to come unto Me, for of such is the Kingdom of Heaven.' [Matt. 19:14;Mark 10:14; Luke 18:16] Jesus called each child to Himself; the Lord was inclusive in His call, not exclusive.

BROTHER JOE: Brother Ray, is this also the case in the book of Exodus when God slayed all the Egyptian first born babies, but spared only HIS PEOPLE'S first born who were coverd by the BLOOD OF THE LAMB on their door posts? Do you not think the covering by the blood of the lamb was symbolic of those who will be saved by Christ's blood and the Egyptians were symbolic of unbelieving infidels whom God will judge?

By grace,

Brother Joe

 

Brother Nick:

Good day.

BROTHER NICK: What happens to the unborn or infants who die? What happens to those who are mentally handicapped? Are they "automatically" saved?

IMO, it presents a huge problem for Arminians/Pelagians, but no problems for Calvinists.

ME (BROTHER JOE): IMO it presents a problem for ALL Arminians who believe one must hear, understand, and accept the gospel to be born again. HOWEVER, it also presents a dillema for any calvinists who believe ALL the elect will hear and believe in the gospel to be born again or because they are born again. BOTH of these camps must be inconsistent and divise two different plans of salvation-one for babies and one for grown ups.

It does not present a dillema for those who hold to the biblical position that one becomes born again soley by the Holy Spirit regenerating that persons heart independent of the gospel.

Some of the elect will hear and respond to the gospel because the Holy Ghost has ALREADY REGENERATED THEIR HEARTS thus making them receptive to the gospel (not to become regenerated), however not all the elect will hear and respond to the gospel. Case in point- babies and the mentally handicaped. We must remember that belief in the gospel is evidence that one is born again NOT the cause.


BROTHE NICK SAID: It's also possible that God does not save the unborn at all.


ME (BROTHER JOE): No it is not. "But thou art he that took me out of the womb: thou didst make me hope when I was upon my mother's breasts." (Psalm 22:9)

"I was cast upon thee from the womb: thou art my God from my mother's belly." (Psalm 22:10)

"For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother's womb" (Psalm 139:13)

"Listen, O isles, unto me; and hearken, ye people, from far; The LORD hath called me from the womb; from the bowels of my mother hath he made mention of my name. " (Isaiah 49:1)

"Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations" (Jeremiah 1:5)

"and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb" (Luke 1:15)

What then shall we conclude from all of this? That God has provided one MEANS of becoming born again for all of his children, by the Holy Spirit quickening them-this saving of the soul is done independent of any means by man-including a gospel call. "7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.
8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.
9 Nicodemus answered and said unto him, How can these things be?" (John 3:7-9)

"And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins;" (Ephesians 2:1)


May God bless you brother Nick,

Brother Joe

 

Brother John:


BROTHER JOHN GILMORE SAID: No, instead Calvinism makes up a new doctrine of "regeneration without faith". Scripture does not teach "regeneration without faith".

ME BROTHER JOE: Brother John, most educated calvinists and I venture to say all Primitive Baptists do not take this position. Rather they take the position regeneration by the Holy Spirit IMMEDIATLY produces and causes a faith in Christ. For evidence I refer you to leading calvinist R.C. Sprouls article entiteld "Regeneration Then Faith" http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/sproul01.html

One who is dead cannot respond until he or she is first made alive. Further one who is dead cant make themselves alive, thus regeneration must proceed faith because life always proceeds action.

"1 John 5:1 - "everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ HAS BEEN born of God", " Notice this passage does not say everyone who believes BECOMES born again, but rather HAS BEEN (PAST TENSE-ALREADY IS BORN AGAIN)

Primitive Baptists differ a bit from calvinists in that the latter group usually insist this faith MUST BE MANIFEST by all individuals via a response to a gospel call as preached by man at some point during the individuals life time. I find this position to be not only illogical, but also unscriptural.

God bless,

Brother Joe

 

Nope. "First" of all salvation is ONLY "CHrist IN you the hope of Glory" -- your idea that Christ on the OUTSIDE KNOCKING is "the saved relationship with God" is not supported in all of scripture.

It is simply a mistaken position that Calvinists sometimes leap to in a desperate effort to solve the problem.

Christ says "I WILL SPEW YOU OUT" (Again - NOT the born-again SAVED experience of one IN Christ and who abides IN Christ).

Of course - for 4pt Calvininists all of that is "optional" Gospel.

19 As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten. Therefore be zealous and repent. 20 Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and dine with him, and he with Me.


Clearly this has everything to do with salvation - as salvation is NEVER described as being WITHOUT Christ - and having Christ on the OUTSIDE seeking entrance. Salvation is ONLY the model of Christ IN you the hope of glory.

Nice. Because HE does remove the sinful nature at glorification.

And so there is no possibility of equivocating between CONVERSION of an adult in this life WITH the sinful nature, vs just being in heaven WITHOUT it.

Umm.... ."no".

Obviously my point is to keep them distinct.

See?

Wrong.

It addresses the very point. contrasting being "Spewed OUT" vs those that HEAR and OPEN the door and LET Christ come IN.

The message is abundantly clear while you are stuck trying to pretend that "being ALONE with CHRIST on the OUTSIDE seeking to come in" is in fact the "SAVED" experience.

And obviously that is NEVER said to be the saved experience in all of scripture.

Actually I think that is exactly what you "need to do" - find one and do it.

Indeed and as Paul says in Romans 2 circumcision is of the heart and done by the Holy Spirit.

But in no case is this a "God sneaking around changing the lost into saints without their accepting the light".

The point is that in John 1 THE LIGHT shines in darkness - and enlightens EVERY man.

BUT the world LOVES Darkness.

There is no "made you a christian ANYWAY" Gospel.

Rather God DRAWS and CONVICTS "The WORLD" He does not simply "arbitrarily snip out of the world those He cares to take".

(I guess we are back to that Calvinist future scenario again).

Then you simply are not following the point of the argument.

Arminians object to God pithing the brain and CHANGiNG them into robots - changing them from lost to saved NOT by choice but by the great mind zap! You argue that this is PRECISELY what is going on when the infant gets saved - the VERY thing Arminians object to - is what you are arguing God to be doing with infants that die.

Get it?

So my point is that in fact infants ARE NOT going throug that mind-ZAP where they are making DIFFERENT choices due to the ZAP.

Neither the Saint that goes to heaven NOR the Child that dies and goes to heaven are making DIFFERENT choices before and after glorification.

BUT in the case of the ZAP of the LOST turning them mindlessly into saints YOU DO have the person's thoughts CHANGED and the mind ZAPPED!

I think the point is clear. You seek to impose the ZAP scenario that Arminians so object to - only you are trying to do it with the infant that dies to get the Arminians in a tight spot.

I simply am showing the flaw in your setup.

"AS IF" they were ALREADY deciding something and were now having DECISIONS taken away by the great ZAP!

My point is that SINCE they were not deciding BEFORE death - NEITHER are they DECIDING afterwards when in heaven! NO free will object has been removed!

You seek to equivocate BETWEEN the death of the infant (and removal of the sinful nature) VS - the CONVERSION of the adult.

But the adult IS THINKING before conversion -- and you would NEED a "ZAP" to change them without free will.

The point has already been made.

All true - but he is not REMOVING the decision FROM them - since as infants THEY DON't DECIDE even before they die - they are deciding NOTHING - so NOTHING has been lost to them.

Rather they stand only to GAIN.

Wrong.

(AND somewhat Calvinist)

The child WILL eventually grow AND CHOOSE and will love out of FREE WILL, motivation and compelling argument JUST as the Angels do today.

EVEN Calvinists do not argue that the sinless Angels "did not have a choice" or "do not love out of free will'.

At least there are a number of Calvinists that see that point clearly.

In Christ,

Bob

 

npetreley,

You said, quote: 'According to their own logic, God does not save adults apart from their
own free will because that would make them robots. Therefore,
according to the same logic, God does not save infants who cannot yet
exercise their free will, because that would make them robots, too.'

Ray--quote: 'Your logic about us above as Arminians, is like saying yes God destroyed the world by the Flood, so He can never destroy it by fire, which of course He will. [II Peter 3:10-11]

And all babies go to Heaven because II Samuel 12:23 and because Jesus said, 'Allow the little children to come unto Me, for of such is the Kingdom of Heaven.'

Children are innocent of a life of sinning and Jesus is merciful toward them when they are not understanding of the choice of either accepting Christ or ignoring Him.

We Arminian, Christian believers submit that His atonement is a canopy over all unborn and little children. No problem!

 

Brother Bob:

BROTHER BOB SAID: But lets review a few basic facts that might show how the Arminian model survives.

#1. When the infant dies - they are not a THINKING intelligent being "making moral choices"...When the infant grows to the point of actually having the ability to know an abstract thought or a moral choice


BROTHER JOE: Brother Bob, how do you reconcile your so called "fact" above about infants not being able to make moral choices with what God stated in Psalms 58:3, " The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies."


BROTHER BOB SAID: Also - there is no text that says God makes us Saints without letting us choose the LIGHT that shines into the darkness


BUT GOD SAID: "...to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, NOR OF THE WILL OF MAN, BUT OF GOD" (John 1:12-13)
and "So then it is NOT OF HIM THAT WILLETH, nor of him that runneth, BUT OF GOD that sheweth mercy."(ROMANS 9:16)

Now then BOB, who is right, Bob or God?

Brother Joe

 

I agree with your post in this paragraph.

You said, quote: 'Originally posted by npetreley:
First of all, the quote from Revelation to which you are
referring is Jesus talking to saints, and the issue is
repentance of their lukewarm nature, not salvation.'

Ray--quote: 'Nevertheless Jesus is asking them to use their will to return to full communion with Him. The choice is either to remain lukewarm or to repent and become a fire-brand for Christ and of real service to our Lord.'

 

Many people like me who hold a three-point Baptist view (TUP) believe that all those who die before reaching the age of accountability go to heaven. God through His omnipotent, counterfactual knowledge knows these are people who would later choose with free will to accept God’s offer of salvation if they had the opportunity, but the opportunity never comes before their deaths.

Our omniscient God foreknew all elect individuals before they were physically formed inside their mother: “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you” (Jeremiah 1:5). God knows not only the actual future; He also knows with certainty what individuals would do in an imagined future where non-actual circumstances are present (counterfactual knowledge). In other words, if actual individuals die before reaching the age of accountability, He knows what those individuals would have done had they lived past that age. Because God has always known which actual individuals would accept His offer of salvation utilizing free will if they had the opportunity, He could elect all such individuals even though He knew that some of them would die in infancy, before reaching the age of accountability.

One implication of this is that infants and young children can have eternal life. There is general agreement among evangelical Christians that those who die before reaching the age of accountability go to heaven. W.T. Conner, a theology professor at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary for thirty-nine years, elaborated on this subject:

As to the question of infant salvation, it is generally agreed among
evangelical theologians that those dying in infancy are saved. [. . .]
There is general agreement among evangelical theologians that all
disability up to the point of positive transgression and deliberate rejection
of moral light is provided for in the atoning work of Christ. [. . .] Up to the
point of positive transgression or rejection of moral light, the individual is
provided for in the grace of God without personal repentance and faith.
(W.T. Conner, Christian Doctrine, 1937, pages 143-144)

The 2000 Baptist Faith and Message, Southern Baptists’ current confession of faith, clarifies that the posterity of Adam are under condemnation after they reach the age of accountability: “Therefore, as soon as they are capable of moral action, they become transgressors and are under condemnation.” Roy Edgemon restated this Baptist belief:

Baptists believe in original sin but insist that no one goes to hell simply on
the basis of inherited sin. Baptists hold that responsibility for one’s sin
comes at the age of accountability, meaning that God does not hold persons
accountable for their sin until they reach the age when they become
conscious of the difference between right and wrong, an age that differs
with different people.
(Roy Edgemon, The Doctrines Baptists Believe, 1988, page 46)

Millard Erickson, the 2002 president of the Evangelical Theological Society, also commented on the time that people come under condemnation:

The current form of my understanding is as follows: We all were involved
in Adam’s sin, and thus receive both the corrupted nature that was his after
the fall, and the guilt and condemnation that attach to his sin. With this
matter of guilt, however, just as with the imputation of Christ’s
righteousness, there must be some conscious and voluntary decision on our
part. Until this is the case, there is only a conditional imputation of guilt.
Thus, there is no condemnation until one reaches the age of responsibility.
If a child dies before becoming capable of making genuine moral decisions,
the contingent imputation of Adamic sin does not become actual, and the
child will experience the same type of future existence with the Lord as will
those who have reached the age of moral responsibility and had their sins
forgiven as a result of accepting the offer of salvation based upon Christ’s
atoning death. The problem of the corrupted nature of such persons is
presumably dealt with in the way that the imperfectly sanctified nature of
believers will be glorified.
(Millard Erickson, Christian Theology, 1998, page 656)

By examining several passages in the Bible, we can understand that condemnation during the final judgment is based on works:

And the sea gave up the dead which were in it, and death and Hades gave
up the dead which were in them; and they were judged, every one of them
according to their deeds. (Revelation 20:13)

For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one
may be recompensed for his deeds in the body, according to what he has
done, whether good or bad. (2 Corinthians 5:10)

“For the Son of Man is going to come in the glory of His Father with His
angels; and WILL THEN RECOMPENSE EVERY MAN ACCORDING
TO HIS DEEDS.” (Matthew 16:27)

And if you address as Father the One who impartially judges according to
each man’s work, conduct yourselves in fear during the time of your stay
upon earth. (1 Peter 1:17)

Infants dying in infancy cannot perform morally significant works. Thus they are not condemned during the final judgment.

The Bible gives evidence that the unable ones are saved. After David and Bathsheba’s first child died, David stated: “But now he has died; why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he will not return to me” (2 Samuel 12:23). He knew that he would be reunited with his son in heaven.

In Ezekiel 16:21 God spoke of dead children as “My children”: “You slaughtered My children, and offered them up to idols by causing them to pass through the fire.”

Finally, God allowed the children of sinful adults to go into the promised land with Caleb and Joshua: “Moreover, your little ones who you said would become a prey, and your sons, who this day have no knowledge of good or evil, shall enter there, and I will give it to them, and they shall possess it” (Deuteronomy 1:39).

At this point a number of questions may come to mind. Do all infants and young children who die before reaching the age of accountability go to heaven or just some of them? If all infants and young children who die before reaching the age of accountability go to heaven, are they elected as individuals or as a group? How about the case of other individuals who die before reaching the age of accountability such as aborted babies or mentally handicapped people who are intellectually incapable of understanding the gospel even though they live to be adults?

First, we must conclude that all infants and young children go to heaven if they die before reaching the age of accountability. David was not omniscient, and thus he had no idea what his son would have done if he had lived past the age of accountability. In spite of that fact, he knew that he would see his son again in heaven. We must conclude that David knew that all infants who die would be in heaven.

Second, we must conclude that all infants and young children who die before reaching the age of accountability are elected as individuals, not as a group. Because God is omniscient, it is impossible for Him to elect a group of unknown individuals. Some people say that since all infants who die go to heaven, then all infants—including those who live past the age of accountability—must be elect individuals. One’s elect status cannot change, so those people are incorrect. One cannot temporarily be an elect person during infancy and later be a non-elect person after reaching the age of accountability. The elect were chosen “before the foundation of the world” (Ephesians 1:4).

If all of the infants and young children who die before reaching the age of accountability are elect individuals; and if some of the infants and young children who live past the age of accountability are non-elect individuals, then we must conclude that the only infants and young children who die before reaching the age of accountability are elect individuals. Therefore, non-elect individuals always live past the age of accountability. This conclusion might be difficult to believe when one considers the high infant mortality rates in some nations where there are few Christians. How would such infants have heard the gospel had they lived past the age of accountability?

Such a conclusion becomes even more difficult to believe when one considers the situation in Japan when the two atomic bombs were dropped in 1945. Japan’s population is about 1 percent Christian. How could all the infants killed in the two blasts have become Christians in a nation with so few Christians had they lived past the age of accountability?
The answer is simple when one understands the history of Japan. After the introduction of Christianity into Japan in the sixteenth century, it became concentrated in Nagasaki, and twenty-six Christians were crucified during a time of persecution in 1597, and fifty-one were executed there in 1622. During two centuries of persecution many Christians hid in the Nagasaki area. By the start of World War II the largest group of Catholics in Japan lived in the same area. Also, Christians from Korea were in Japan as prisoners in 1945. There were approximately 500,000 Koreans in Japan during the 1941-1945 period. About 3,000 of these were killed by the atomic bomb at Hiroshima, and around 2,000 living Korean atomic bomb victims are now in South Korea. (Korea was under the colonial rule of Japan from 1910 until 1945.) It would have been quite possible for God to bring all those Japanese individuals under the special conviction of the Holy Spirit had they lived past the age of accountability.

Third, we must conclude that other people who die before reaching the age of accountability—such as aborted babies, stillborn babies, and mentally handicapped people—are all elect individuals who will be in heaven.

A baby that is aborted or miscarried is no spiritually different from a baby who dies between birth and the age of accountability. The personhood of a baby in the womb is illustrated in Luke 1:15 which states that John the Baptist “will be filled with the Holy Spirit, while yet in his mother’s womb,” and Luke 1:44: “For behold, when the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the baby leaped in my womb for joy.” The apostle Paul illustrated the concept when he stated that God set him apart from his “mother’s womb” (Galatians 1:15).

A person who is mentally handicapped from birth is also not spiritually different from a baby or child who dies before reaching the age of accountability. All individuals who are intellectually unable to understand the gospel during their entire physical existence are elect people who will be in heaven.

 

Faith is not an action; it is a gift that occurs simultaneously with regeneration. Actions (good works) follow faith.

When R.C. Sprouls supports "regeneration then faith", he is supporting a form of Pelagianism or synergy. The Lutheran (and scriptural) view is that regeneration and faith always occur at the same time when and where it pleases God in them that hear the gospel.

Regeneration and faith do not depend on man's intellectual development or ability. As Luther writes, "I can not of my own reason or strength believe in Christ Jesus my Lord or come to him but the Holy Spirit has called me by the gospel."

Elect unborn and infants who die before adulthood are saved in exactly the same way as adults. They have heard, been regenerated, and believed the gospel whether in the form of preaching or baptism.

[ August 26, 2004, 04:09 AM: Message edited by: John Gilmore ]

 

If it’s okay for a new guy (a 3-point Baptist – TUP) to comment on Brother Joe’s interpretation of 1 John 5:1, I’d like to do so. Brother Joe said:

“1 John 5:1 – ‘everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ HAS BEEN born of God’, Notice this passage does not say everyone who believes BECOMES born again, but rather HAS BEEN (PAST TENSE-ALREADY IS BORN AGAIN).”

My interpretation is that belief occurs before regeneration and continues after it. A more thorough explanation than mine for the verse was given by Danny Akin, president of Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary:

“In the fourth Gospel we read that faith is not only a sign but also a condition of the new birth: ‘To all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God’ (John 1:12). Marshall writes: ‘Here, however, John is not trying to show how a person experiences the new birth; his aim is rather to indicate the evidence which shows that a person stands in the continuing relationship of a child to God his Father: that evidence is that he holds to the true faith about Jesus.’ The perfect tense of the verb gegennetai suggests a past action with results that continue in the present. In other words, Smalley concludes, ‘The regenerate Christian (past) must constantly live out (present) his faith in Jesus as Messiah, and also give his sustained allegiance to the love command.’”
(Akin, “1, 2, 3 John,” The New American Commentary, 2001, page 189)

Thus, in 1 John 5:1 faith is the sign of regeneration. Arminians and three-point Baptists believe John 1:12 indicates that in logical order a person receives Christ before he is born again. Many five-point Calvinists say that the phrase, “He gave the right to become children of God,” refers to adoption, not the new birth, and they see God as adopting children (John 1:12) to whom He has already given birth (John 1:13). Arminians and three-point Baptists respond by pointing out that the Greek word for “children” (tekna) in John 1:12 indicates birth, not adoption. The apostle Paul used the Greek word for “sons” (huioi) when he discussed the related Greek word “adoption” (huiothesia) in Romans 8:14-15. Marvin Vincent commented on John 1:12:

“Except in Apoc. xxi. 7, which is a quotation, John never uses huios to describe the relation of Christians to God, since he regards their position not as a result of adoption, but of a new life. Paul, on the other hand, regards the relation from the legal standpoint, as adoption, imparting a new dignity and relation (Rom. viii. 15; Gal. iv. 5, 6).”
(Marvin R. Vincent, “The Writings of John,” Word Studies in the New Testament, 1887, page 49)

 

Hyperbole about the sinful nature. My infants could not speak for over a year. Let alone have the abstract concept of "lie".

What did you think it meant?

My point is that there is not even a concept of right vs wrong for a child - they have no ability to formulate abstract thought - AND they have no ability to worship God. But they DO have a sinful nature and it is their vary nature FROM birth - to be in rebellion.

(I am not sure this point is even debatable - what is your opinion?)

This is a quote from John 1 - The LIGHT shines in darkness AND enlightens every man - BUT the world LOVED darkness rather than light -

The choice was there EVEN in the act of God in sending light to "enlighten EVERY human".

Certainly (though that is not the part of John 1 that I was referenceing -- and I notice you avoid it still)...

However - we are BORN again of the WILL of God because "God is NOT WILLING that ANY should perish, but rather that ALL should come to repentance" 2Peter 3.

It is God that shows mercy "enduring with much patience upon vessels of wrath prepared for destruction" Romans 9. Paul's point in Romans 9 is that the MERCY of God is NOT limited to the saved!

Who then is right BrotherJoe? Joe or God?

In Christ,

Bob

 

Rev 3:20 “Behold I Stand at the door and knock” (God’s Part)
“IF anyone Hear My Voice AND OPEN the door (Man’s part
“I will come in to him and dine with him and He with Me”
(Fellowship- at-one-ment)


But some would argue that the SAVED experience is Christ "ON THE OUTSIDE KNOCKING".

Is that True? Colossians 1 tells us that the SAVED experience is "CHRIST IN YOU the hope of Glory".

Gal 2:20 tells us that it is "no longer I who live but CHRIST IN ME".

Yet some will continue to insist that Rev 3 is describing the SAVED born-again experience of "CHRIST ON THE OUTSIDE knocking".

I find that astounding.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Koreahog said:

Think about what you're saying, KH. On what basis then would their election be ? On the basis of grace and mercy which came by Jesus Christ, or on the basis of a foreseen good in them which foreseen good is their response to the "offer" of eternal salvation, if there is such an offer to unregenerate mankind at all in the Scriptures.

Now, I may be wrong in what I read into your thesis, but, with the parts quoted and highlighted below, are you saying that election based on God's mercy and that alone is limited to infants dying in infancy and those who live beyond the womb but before the 'age of accountability', and the same is true for those who are mentally retarded (the heck with being PC) ?

 

Pinoybaptist, you said, “Think about what you're saying, KH. On what basis then would their election be? On the basis of grace and mercy which came by Jesus Christ, or on the basis of a foreseen good in them which foreseen good is their response to the ‘offer’ of eternal salvation, if there is such an offer to unregenerate mankind at all in the Scriptures.”

I think you’re asking about my view of unconditional election. I do believe in unconditional election. I don’t believe that God bases His choice of us on foreseen faith. I also believe, however, that His choice of us is in accord with our foreseen faith. In the case of those elect people who live past the age of accountability, His choice of them is in accord with foreseen actual faith. In the case of those elect people who do not live past the age of accountability, His choice of them is in accord with His counterfactual knowledge of what they would do if they did live past the age of accountability.

God is infinite. His knowledge goes beyond our finite universe. Examples of His counterfactual knowledge in Scripture are 1 Samuel 23:9-13; 2 Kings 13:19; Jeremiah 23:22; 1 Corinthians 2:8; Jeremiah 38:17-20; Acts 27:22-31.

The Bible says that Christians are chosen “according to” (kata in Greek) the foreknowledge of God:

Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to those who reside as aliens, scattered
throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, who are
chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, by the
sanctifying work of the Spirit, that you may obey Jesus Christ and be
sprinkled with His blood: May grace and peace be yours in fullest measure.
(1 Peter 1:1-2)

Because both God’s foreknowledge and election (choice) extend back through eternity, we can conclude that His election did not precede His foreknowledge, and we can also conclude that His foreknowledge did not precede His election. One did not precede the other in either temporal or logical order. There was never a time when Christians were not both foreknown and elected. We can also conclude that God’s election did not depend on His foreknowledge; rather, His election has always been in accordance with His foreknowledge.

Five-point Arminians often use this passage to say that God’s choice is dependent upon His foreknowledge (conditional election), but the phrase “according to” (the Greek preposition kata) can also mean “in accordance with, corresponding to.” An example of this usage is 1 Peter 1:15: “But like the Holy One who called you, be holy yourselves also in all your behavior.” The word “like” is the Greek word kata.

At this point one might ask what it means to be chosen (elected) by God. Does election mean that God first decided upon a group of humans that He would create, and later He chose some to be Christians? No, that scenario would not have been possible because God’s choice and foreknowledge have always been in existence.

Out of an infinite number of imagined people, God has always known that He would create a definite number of actual persons (the elect) whom He knew would freely choose to become Christians if they had the opportunity under certain circumstances. He has also always known that He would create a definite number of actual persons (the non-elect) whom He knew would freely choose to reject His offer of salvation if they had the opportunity under any circumstances. Thus, in this three-point Baptist view, God in one sense has determined what decisions will occur in the conversion process by creating elect individuals whom He knew would react positively with their free will to the influences He would put around them. This view allows for the coexistence of God’s sovereignty (His ultimate control of everything) with true free will.

God’s election of Christian individuals was not forced on Him by their foreseen faith but has always been in accordance with their foreseen faith. Election is unconditional; there are no conditions forced on God by actual persons that would cause Him to elect particular individuals.

For those who live past the age of accountability, repentance and faith are requirements (conditions) for the regeneration/justification event (salvation). Thus, those conditions must be met before God regenerates/justifies the non-Christian. If election is unconditional, then how can regeneration/justification be conditional? Is this a contradiction? No, it is not a contradiction to say that those regenerated on the condition of faith and repentance have always been unconditionally elected by God. He has always known that the people unconditionally elected by Him would satisfy the conditions He specified for regeneration/justification. Norman Geisler commented on election:

“Salvation is an unconditional act of God’s election. Man’s faith is not a condition for God giving salvation, but it is for man receiving it.”
(Geisler, Chosen But Free, 1999, page 179)

God’s sovereign plan—not the elect themselves—determined which possible individuals He would create as elect people. For this reason Jesus was able to say, “You did not choose Me, but I chose you, and appointed you, that you should go and bear fruit” (John 15:16). God’s choice (election) was unconditional, but later, utilizing true free will while under the irresistible conviction of the Holy Spirit, the elected individuals could accept His offer of salvation. Geisler said that there was no contradiction between God’s unconditional election and our free acts:

“There is no contradiction in God knowingly predetermining and
predeterminately knowing from all eternity precisely what we would do
with our free acts. For God determined that moral creatures would do
things freely. He did not determine that they would be forced to perform
free acts.”
(Ibid., page 54)

The three-point Baptist view I have outlined above which includes counterfactual knowledge is different than Molina’s middle knowledge concept. In the middle knowledge concept, God’s election is based on His foreknowledge of counterfactual events. In the view I outlined, His election is merely in accord with His foreknowledge of counterfactual events.

 

KH said:

And how woud 3 point Baptists make this statement work with the following Scriptures:

Where are the Scriptures to prove that out of fallen mankind, there are those who will freely choose to become Christians.

And what kind of opportunities should they be in for this exercise of good choice to be made ?

KH also said: