I need some proof please.......

Maybe the answer is simple. My 6 yr old granddaughter said, "Jesus loves me and God loves Me" I asked, "How do you know?"

Her answer, "I just know" Maybe it is as simple as that. The young baby knows and believes. The young child knows and believes. They may not understand sin, dying on the cross and the resurrection, but they know Jesus loves them.

She also said that she learns about Jesus in her school. This child goes to public school so this statement surprised me. I said that's wonderful. They teach you about Jesus in school.

"Not my real school, but my school that I have at home" This child plays school.

 

Why not? please remember : All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
2 Tim 3:16

I cannot sit by and have God's word slandered so I advise you to accept the Bible as absolute truth. Concerning the theology involved in making children and even aborted babies go to Heaven let us consider the truth of John 3:16 "whosoever believeth in Him shall not perish" now I know a baby cannot walk the aisle but I do think they can believe in their creator. I am fully aware of the requirements for salvation that have been quoted here and I agree but I will not tell God that just because a baby cannot meet the requirements or terminoligy that I insist on that He cannot and does not keep them safe.
Murph

 

Are you suggesting that every word said by every character in the bible is synonymous with what God would say in the same situation??

I did not question that the words were said. I'm sure the record of the words were given by divine inspiration.

I just suggested that they are a record of what David said & thought, not what God said & thought.

Some other words said by characters in the bible are found here

Gen 19v32

"Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father."

I'm sure if I suggested that these words do not portray the will of God I would get no argument.

In the same way I do suggest that those words said by David do not necessarily portray the same views as held by God.

-KFC

[ October 21, 2003, 12:09 AM: Message edited by: C.S. Murphy ]

 

Mark 10:13-16. "And they were bringing children to Him so that He might touch them; but the disciples rebuked them. But when Jesus saw this, He was indignant and said to them, "Permit the children to come to Me; do not hinder them; for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. "Truly I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child will not enter it at all." And He took them in His arms and began blessing them, laying His hands on them."

 

Sorry buddy but that falls short. When you say that the recording of the words were inspired you have denied God the authority to thru David and then to have it recorded. To believe the Bible as this forum requires one must not only believe that the recording was inspired but the very words themselves. When we go down the slippery slope that begins with allowing the authenticisty and authority of the Word to be questioned what will stop us from denying John 3:16?

Concerning your theory about the daughters of Lot as I have already told you were they not correct in what they said , did they not get Lot drunk and sleep with him? You are not succesful in making me to question Davids words.

Murph

 

Murph, if I may humbly suggest, I think kung foo is saying that the words are recorded accurately, but the theology or motive behind them might not be godly or from God.

For example, Gamaliel said that the church should be left alone because if it doesn't last, it wasn't from God.

That isn't necessarily true in every circumstance for everything. Ya see wot I mean?

 

Here's a scripture: Jonah 4:11

"Should I not have compassion on Nineveh, the great city in which there are more than 120,000 persons who do not know the difference between their right and left hand, as well as many animals?" (NASB)

 

Can someone point out where someone said God's word ISN'T inerrant?

 

This is absolutely true....

This is what I like to think as well, but I, like you, realise that I believe this mostly because its the option I like best.

One thing we can count on is that "the Judge of the earth will do right."

 

DD it is good to see you again. Concerning your examplef Gemalial I feel that his advise was correct don't you. If God had not been in the early church they would not have made it. Concerning David yes I believe for one to say that his words were not doctrinal is to say that the Bible is not true. It is not good enough to say that the bible was recorded true it is scripture. Davids words are just as valid as Pauls that according to 2 timothy. Now was david speaking for every child or only his, I have no way to know but I believe so. I do believe that his words being scripture and usuable for doctrine that in his case his baby went to heaven. Now I know all the verses that have been quoted here about the requirements of salvation but if God made a special case for Davids baby why would he not for everyone else.
Murph

 

John 9:39
And Jesus said, For judgment I am come into this world, that they which see not might see; and that they which see might be made blind. 40 And some of the Pharisees which were with him heard these words, and said unto him, Are we blind also? 41 Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth.

 

Murph, I agree that babies will spend eternity with God.

I was simply bringing up the point about the authority of Scripture. All of Scripture is inerrant and perfectly true. All I was saying though is that sometimes it records the conversations of people that do not reflect biblcal theology. In such cases, inerrancy extends to the accuracy of the conversation(s).

David is spoken of in Scripture as a prophet. I do believe his words about his baby and eternity with God.

 

DD thanks for the reply, I am trying to understand this so bear with me. As I looked back at your 1st post " Murph, if I may humbly suggest, I think kung foo is saying that the words are recorded accurately, but the theology or motive behind them might not be godly or from God." I wonder if you also agree with this statement or if you are attempting to explain the error of KFC. Your words above stating that you believe David is correct in his statement about his child seems to conflict with your earlier statement. I may have jumped to the wrong conclusion.
Murph

 

This is what I am saying:

the words of some people in the Bible are not "biblical" in their theology.

For example:

Nebuchadnezzar said that HE was responsible for the glory of Babylon.

Now, it is true that he said that and completely inerrantly recorded for us that we may be confident that he did believe this and that Daniel accurately wrote it.

The theology of Nebuchadnezzar though was off base. This is proven by the way God judged him for his idolatrous pride.

This makes sense to me, but not necessarily in the way I am explaining it.

Narrative is not the same as discourse and treatise.

The epistles are primarily treatise and are presented as perfect truth in every point, and thus inerrant.

The gospels have a mixture of narrative, discourse, treatise, poetry, etc. In each case, what is written was done so by the breath of God. Sometimes the purpose is to perfectly record events, while others are to be descriptives of something, to teach a particular truth, etc.

ALL OF SCRIPTURE IS INERRANT AND PERFECT.

Please understand me correctly here. I am talking about the interpretation and not the authority or accuracy of Scripture. The type of literature though that the authors used determines the interpretation.

In Gen. 1, we have people debating over the various kinds of literature, and thus arrive at all kinds of positions, including evolution.

We can be confident in a literal interpretation though because Jesus took the text as literal. Moses wasn't just using imagery.

 

I've heard about David and his infant son, and about Jesus saying, "Suffer the little children to come to me."

I cannot fathom a God who loved guilty mankind enough to allow His Son Jesus to die in their place and then would not appropriate that Sacrifice for those who could not believe in His grace.

Genesis 18:25 That be far from thee to do after this manner, to slay the righteous with the wicked: and that the righteous should be as the wicked, that be far from thee: Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?
(KJV)

 

This is a no-brainer. Anyone who is conceived and dies before they can believe will be in heaven.

The death of Christ paid the price for the sin nature of all people (Romans 5:15, 18-19).

A person doesn't go to hell because of their sin nature, Christ paid for it. The only sin that sends a person to hell is the sin of unbelief.

Belief starts with knowledge. Infants and some retarded people are not capable of belief.

Because infants and some retarded people have never committed the sin of unbelief, they are in heaven.

It is not faith that saves, it is Jesus who saves through faith (Ephesians 2:8,9).

At the Great White Throne Judgement the unsaved are judged according to their works. Infants, those aborted, etc. have no works to be judged on.

Revelation 7:9 gives us a good indication there are tons of infants in heaven. Since there are multitudes from every kindred, tribe, nation, etc. it goes to reason that even now extinct tribes and people are there (EVERY tribe...) and the gospel never reached these people. Obviously this has to be infants that died.

Matthew 21:15-16 also hints at infants in heaven.

Hope this helps.