The unborn and infant deaths

Context, context, context.

9 The Lord is not slack concerning His promise [to us, the elect], as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any [of us, the elect] should perish but that all [of us, the elect] should come to repentance. </font>[/QUOTE]Context context!

#1. There are NO qualifiers in the text!
#2. The CONTEXT is that of God DELAYING the 2nd coming which means that ALL the elect "US" are NOT around to say "ALL OF US" about.

In other words - another good example of a Calvinist circular argument.

You "need" it to qualify and say "any of US to perish" but you also need it to include "future us-es" because you have no intention of claiming that ALL of the saints 2000 years ago were the "US" that God was going to save - or the US that you want to insert into the text.


In fact as Paul writes his letter - you agree that the UNSAVED - the LOST, the WICKED are in that group that God "is not willing to perish" because they will one day be saved - but are not yet saved. The same goes for the yet-to-be-born in your model.

So in fact - there is no way to insert you "God just wants US to be saved" idea into the text.

And we are back to the Arminian model of just accepting scripture as it reads.

"God is not willing that ANY should perish but that ALL should come to repentance" (Editing the text is not allowed).

In Christ,

Bob

[ August 27, 2004, 11:34 PM: Message edited by: BobRyan ]

 

Okay...answer this question. WHY are all infants necessarily elect?

 

Brother Bob:

Thanks for your eply. Im sorry I do not have much time tonight to address the entirety of your responses, however I hope to shortly within a couple of days. (Because of times sake im forced to address small portions at a time.)


BROTHER BOB RYAN: Fine -- then SHOW infants exhibiting abstract concepts.

Until then we understand scripture to speak of their having sinful nature's from birth - but we are not talking about genius infants having the ability to master abstract thought at or before birth.

...The point remains - infants have no ability to exhibit abstract thought. The unborn do not "Worship" nor do the newborns.

ME BROTHER JOE: Here is the example: "43 And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?
44 For, lo, as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in mine ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy" (Luke 1:43-44) \

***************Is this a coincidence, Brother Bob?***********
This infant did something that many in the grown intellectual couldnt do....KNOW JESUS. "He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not." (John 1:10)

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


Brother Joe

 

Brother Primitive Baptist:

I agree with you. It is illogical of many PB's to argue that God hasnt elected all mankind to eternal life, but he has elected all mankind who die before a certain age to eternal life. For example, I cant imagine any of the Egyptian babies who were slayed by command from God for not being covered by the blood of the Lamb to have been amongst God's chosen children.

God bless,

Brother Joe

 

Gentlemen, I've been out of town a couple of days, and a lot of water has passed under the bridge. Someone discussed the type of sin that people commit before they reach the age of accountability. As I said earlier, I think all those who die before reaching the age of accountability are elect people and go to heaven. They are born as totally depraved people, but their sins that result from that depravity are unintentional sins rather than willful sins. Willful sins are unpardonable. The unintentional sins of people who die before reaching the age of accountability are forgivable, and those people are not able to commit morally significant, willful sins.

The Bible makes it clear that sins of ignorance (unintentional sins) can be forgiven. Notice the following passages:

"Now when these things have been thus prepared, the priests are continually entering the outer tabernacle, performing the divine worship, but into the second only the high priest enters, once a year, not without taking blood, which he offers for himself and for the sins of the people committed in ignorance." (Hebrews 9:6-7)

"And the priest shall make atonement before the LORD for the person who goes astray when he sins unintentionally, making atonement for him that he may be forgiven." (Numbers 15:28)

The apostle Paul said that even his blasphemy as a non-Christian could be forgiven because he “acted ignorantly in unbelief” (1 Timothy 1:13). He was not experiencing the special, illuminating conviction of the Holy Spirit when he blasphemed. When Paul unintentionally sinned after he became a Christian, he said that he was not doing “what I would like to do” (Romans 7:15); rather, “sin which dwells in me” was responsible for his actions (Romans 7:17). Thus, both Christians and non-Christians can commit unintentional sins.

When Peter addressed the Jews in Jerusalem after the crucifixion of Jesus, he said that they “acted in ignorance” (Acts 3:17) when they put Him to death. Jesus said from the cross, “Father, forgive them; for they do not know what they are doing” (Luke 23:34).

Willful (defiant, intentional) sin, however, is an unforgivable type of blasphemy. Again, notice the following passages:

"But the person who does anything defiantly, whether he is native or an alien, that one is blaspheming the LORD; and that person shall be cut off from among his people. Because he has despised the word of the LORD and has broken His commandment, that person shall be completely cut off; his guilt shall be on him." (Numbers 15:30-31)

“Therefore I say to you, any sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven men, but blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be forgiven.” (Matthew 12:31)

"For if we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a certain terrifying expectation of judgement, and THE FURY OF A FIRE WHICH WILL CONSUME THE ADVERSARIES. Anyone who has set aside the Law of Moses dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. How much severer punishment do you think he will deserve who has trampled
under foot the Son of God, and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has insulted the Spirit of grace?"
(Hebrews 10:26-29)

 

KH:

Good to have you back. How is Korea ? Been there once, for exactly 80 minutes. I was working as helmsman for a towing company in Manila and we were sent to Seoul to pick up 20 ft x 12 ft Bay and River tugboat and bring it home to Manila.

We got off the airport, on to a waiting taxi, off the pier, waited a while for the ship master as he cleared all papers with customs, etc., and off we went.

That tugboat looked like a fragile matchbox floating in that huge China Sea to Manila, and it was November, when the SW winds were really blowing.

Anyway, I am thinking of starting another thread on The Age of Accountability and would like your permission to quote a portion from your post, if I may. Here's what I would like to use, and thank you in advance:

 

Hi, Pinoybaptist. Feel free to use my quote. Cut out the words "morally significant." I've had second thoughts about using that phrase. All sins are in some sense morally significant. I have been to Manila a couple of times. South Korea is a high-tech country now. It reminds one a lot of America, but there are many cultural differences. Christianity has done so well here that all the American mission agencies seem to be downsizing, including us. I said more about our ministry on the "parable of the sower and soils" thread.

 

Thank you, KH.

I probably won't be posting on this forum because I'm not sure if it should fall within the Cal-Arm context. I'll start the thread in the Baptist Theology forum, and then the moderators can decide later on if it belongs there, to another forum or back to this forum.

South Korea's being a high tech country makes me a lot more sadder about my own country. We have all the human and natural resources and yet all we can manage is to be an end-user economy instead of a producing country.

Anyway, thanks.

 

I think that's a special case, as John the Baptist was obviously a very gifted prophet. That doesn't mean all infants and unborn know just as much about sin and righteousness as adults.

As you earlier said, it was symbolic, so that was no case of "hatred" toward, or "reprobation" of infants. They weren't "chosen", but then, as I explained above, they were not charged with their [legal] sin, and the slaying was not for their sin, but for the adults.
And "unbelieving infidels" were symbolized by anyone who did not put the blood on the doorpost; Israelites included, of course. I'm sure as per later instruction, if an Egyptian had joined Israel and applied the blood, he would have been saved as well. So that is no proof of unconditional preterition either. Salvation is NEVER according to nationality. as "not of blood/the flesh" tells us.

 

Isn't it possible that "to us" refers to humanity and not "the elect"? Especially given the fact that "promise" in this passage refers to "the promise of His coming in v. 4; not the braketed "us, the elect". That promise is to all (including those who reject Him, in which it is a negative "promise"), so then the "us" refers to all who will be affected by the Coming, which is all of humanity.

 

Because they are infants and unnable to choose.

Because they die before they can think through the problem of salvation.

Because it would be unfair to select some but not others.

Because there is no basis for choosing one above another since they have not done anything yet.

And you are right about one thing - that all sounds "Arminian" not Calvinist.

I could not use it my Calvinist future scenario.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Brother Joe responds

So - born again before birth?

Did he "confess Christ" before birth?

Did he "convess the trinity" before Birth?

Did he "repent" before birth?

Was he a able to see through the darkness - detect the presence of his mother's cousin - detect that the cousin was pregnant - evaluate the 3-month old fetus and discover it to be sinless - Christ?

Did the unborn infant know that Christ was coming to pay for his sins?

I suggest that the answer to all the above is "no" (even if one is a Calvinist).

If the unborn infant did anything at all - it was not out of "understanding" but rather a physical "prompt" given to it by the Holy Spirit.

John was not in there making up his mind, or having is mind "changed" - indeed it was still being "created".

In Christ,

Bob

 

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
9 The Lord is not slack concerning His promise [to us, the elect], as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any [of us, the elect] should perish but that all [of us, the elect] should come to repentance.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

#1. There is no "TO US" in the text.

#2. Those who "need" to edit the text and "insert it" merely show the weakness of their position.

You don't need to find "other meanings" for "inserted edits".

In Christ,

Bob

 

I meant (was referring to) "toward us".

 

Primative Baptist,

Esau was probably just as good a saint as you and I. After all the Bible says that Jacob was the deceiver not Esau. Esau was merely a careless son of Isaac. God knew that Esau would select pagan women and could not allow Jesus to be born of the seed/heritage of paganism. Thus, he loved Jacob and looked down on Esau, or as Romans nine says, 'Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.' Some of you Christians just don't get it. Jesus could not have been born from a wicked protegy; Christ would have been unclean.

Hebrew eleven, contrary to what Calvinists refuse to admit, speaks of Isaac, Esau and Jacob as being sons of the covenant promise. If I recall correctly they are listed as O.T. saints in verse twenty. Put that in your Calvinistic pipe and smoke it until truth reigns supreme in your heart.

It was Esau who returned to Jacob to patch up the weakened relationship.

And don't make out that Esau was such a sinner; Abraham had his concubines on the side also. Oh, and note that Abraham made it to Heaven also. [Hebrews 11:8]

Romans nine does not speak of damning and saving humankind. Study! Study! Some good intentioned pastors have misrepresented the truth and rather enjoy keeping their traditional truth of their own denominations.

 

ErciB said:

And then, there's the first verse of the first chapter:

The first verse of the second chapter:

Up to the closing verses, the context has been consistently addressing a specific set of persons, not humankind: