Before my children were born I ask GOD to take care of them,be with them always,I told GOD I would do what I could to be a good mother, and I needed his input in our lifes for that, knowing that GOD see's things I can't.
I love my children an still thank GOD for them, choosen people will be in heaven, what if one or all of my children are not elect, and I if I am elect and I believe I am, will know in heaven my chilren are not there, even after I ask GOD to take care of them. Why would GOD take care of children here on earth an then let them die forever. that is a heartbreaker.
Hope somebody has some good news for me Thanks neicey
neicey asks: Why would GOD take care of children here on earth an then let them die forever. that is a heartbreaker.[/i][/b]
This is one of those issues where emotions seem to dictate one's beliefs, rather than what the Scriptures teach being the foundation of truth. You will find passions run high on both sides; on the one side where emotions over rule propositional truth, all kinds of arguments are set forth, usually appealing to the love and goodness of God, parenthood, etc. One the other side are those who look at this issue more objectively and hold to the biblical teaching of the sovereign grace of God Who is infinitely holy and the sinfulness of man who is born into this world with both the guilt of the Fall imputed and the corrupt nature inherited (aka: Original Sin).
What the Scriptures teach is that ALL are born under the wrath of God and subject to condemnation. NONE are worthy of mercy or grace, for there is not ONE who is righteous, no not one. NO ONE seeks after God by nature. For ALL are born with an innate hatred of God and all that is good. God, being thrice holy would be perfectly just in condemning the entire human race into eternal punishment. But in His infinite mercy for reasons only known unto Himself, although we do know that His choice to save any is wholly "unconditional", i.e., there is NOTHING about the person nor ANYTHING that a person might do, e.g., believe (which is impossible without grace anyway), which moved God to choose some over any other. (Rom 9:6ff; Eph 1:4ff)
The truth of this matter is like a very large pill. It is very difficult for many to swallow. Instead of allowing the inspired Word of God determine what we are to believe, many reject that Word and impose upon God what THEY feel would be "fair", "just", "right", "love", etc.
The LORD God is benevolent to all here on earth in many temporal ways. (cf. Matt 5:45) That men are even allowed to draw a breath of air is testimony to the goodness of God. (Rom 2:1ff)
Thus most ask the wrong question, e.g., "How could God hate Esau?". The right question should be, "How could God love Jacob? Why has God loved anyone of the human race?" THIS is the reality of grace; i.e., UNDESERVED favor. If one posits that there is anything which is commendable about man which God should recognize and be swayed to act favorably because of it, then it is not grace which is bestowed, but one's due.
To end this now, I would suggest that at that last and sober day when all shall stand before the judgment seat of Christ and be tried according to their works; either those of their own of those which were wrought for them in Christ, those of us who have been given new hearts and have been reconciled to God in Christ Jesus will be so enthralled with the Lord and His grace that all else will be nothing more than a fleeting thought. All our present attractions and bonds here on earth will be removed and we will be wholly bound in love to the Triune God; praising Him for both His grace and justice.
A couple of times during the past year or so, I heard R.C. Sproul relate a tale of Dr. Gerstner being asked a question along these line in a seminary class. Dr. Gerstner's response was that in Heaven we would be so sanctified and so oriented to God's glory that we could see our mother in hell and be glad.
I think that, honestly, the Catholics, from my understanding, have a good response to the issue of where babies go. They just say trust God cuz He'll do right despite what we think here on earth.
The Bible is pretty silent on the matter, and so therefore, I don't think that we CAN know, in this lifetime, how God chooses to work here apart from grace and Unconditional Election. When we get to heaven, though, I don't think that it will matter to us. I am not a father yet, in fact, I am only just beginning a relationship with a girl and pursueing things in the direction of, if it be God's will, someday marrying, but I am already praying that God give me peace about what His will is for my children. And that is all we can do. We really don't know, and we can only speculate, but we CAN trust God and His just decisions and know that He will do what is right all the time.
Quote
[color:"0000FF"]Then Job replied to the Lord: I know that You can do anything and no plan of Your's can be thwarted.[/color] Job 42:1-2 (HCSB)
Kalled2Preach suggests: The Bible is pretty silent on the matter, and so therefore, I don't think that we CAN know, in this lifetime, how God chooses to work here apart from grace and Unconditional Election.
Obviously, I believe the Bible is rather clear on the matter concerning who is going to spend eternity praising God and who is going to suffer justly for their sinfulness/sins.
But I am VERY curious about your belief in "how God chooses to work here <span style="background-color:yellow">apart</span> from grace and Unconditional Election". Are you suggesting that there are some individuals who are going to be saved without "grace" and/or who were not predestinated according to God's unconditional election? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/scratch1.gif" alt="" />
It is perfectly normal for a mother to have those kinds of feelings. However in the end, it is a matter of trust in the sovereign will of our God. As I look at the book of Psalms, I see David lamenting and pleading with God on many occasions. However in the end he trusted God no matter what life through at him. All we can do in the situation you brought up is make sure we bring our children up in the Lord and trust God no matter what happens. However, I must say we should not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow with take care of itself.
I am not an expert by any means on this subject, and I am trying to reconcile any emotions I have about this with Scripture. So please be patient with me, but I heard Albert Mohler, President of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, who is a Calvinist, speak on this subject. He referenced Numbers 14:28-33
28 "Say to them, 'As I live,' says the LORD, 'just as you have spoken in My hearing, so I will surely do to you; 29 your corpses will fall in this wilderness, even all your numbered men, according to your complete number from twenty years old and upward, who have grumbled against Me. 30 'Surely you shall not come into the land in which I swore to settle you, except Caleb the son of Jephunneh and Joshua the son of Nun. 31 'Your children, however, whom you said would become a prey--I will bring them in, and they will know the land which you have rejected. 32 'But as for you, your corpses will fall in this wilderness. 33 'Your sons shall be shepherds for forty years in the wilderness, and they will suffer for your unfaithfulness, until your corpses lie in the wilderness.'
His argument was that God chooses/elects those infants that die before the "age of accountability" (or what ever you want to call it) and He does not hold them accountable to thier parents sins. I wish that they had not taken the speech off Mohler's web site, but unfortunately they have.
I hate making someone else's arguments for them because I usually get them wrong, so please be merciful in your replies. Anyway, what is your take on this?
I see two things here. First, I would like to know how this passage is interpreted to mean this. Second, I would like the "age of accountability" provided from scripture.
I'm in agreement, Will. I don't see how that passage could be an argument for an "age of accountability." I don't see how the idea of such an age could be compatible with the doctrine of original sin.
I just found an article that Mohler and Danny Akin wrote on the subject.
Here is a key paragraph to his argument:
Quote
What, then is our basis for claiming that all those who die in infancy are among the elect? First, the Bible teaches that we are to be judged on the basis of our deeds committed "in the body."(2 Corinthians 5:10) That is, we will face the judgment seat of Christ and be judged, not on the basis of original sin, but for our sins committed during our own lifetimes. Each will answer "according to what he has done,"(2 Corinthians 5:10) and not for the sin of Adam. The imputation of Adam’s sin and guilt explains our inability to respond to God without regeneration, but the Bible does not teach that we will answer for Adam’s sin. We will answer for our own. But what about infants? Have those who die in infancy committed such sins in the body? We believe not.
But I respond by saying that we are stillborn in trespasses and sins. We are born DEAD!
Another paragraph:
Quote
One biblical text is particularly helpful at this point. After the children of Israel rebelled against God in the wilderness, God sentenced that generation to die in the wilderness after forty years of wandering. "Not one of these men, this evil generation, shall see the good land which I swore to give your fathers."(Deuteronomy 1:35) But this was not all. God specifically exempted young children and infants from this sentence, and even explained why He did so: "Moreover, your little ones who you said would become prey, and your sons, who this day have no knowledge of good and evil, shall enter there, and I will give it to them and they shall possess it."(Deuteronomy 1:39) The key issue here is that God specifically exempted from the judgment those who "have no knowledge of good or evil" because of their age. These "little ones" would inherit the Promised Land, and would not be judged on the basis of their fathers’ sins.
We believe that this passage bears directly on the issue of infant salvation, and that the accomplished work of Christ has removed the stain of original sin from those who die in infancy. Knowing neither good nor evil, these young children are incapable of committing sins in the body – are not yet moral agents – and die secure in the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ.
How do they make such a generalization from this specific text?
Quite frankly, I expect better arguemnts out of those two scholars.
True godliness is a sincere feeling which loves God as Father as much as it fears and reverences Him as Lord, embraces His righteousness, and dreads offending Him worse than death~ Calvin
Since God declared, that if there had been found but then righteous in Sodom, he would have spared the whole city for their sakes, may we not well suppose, if infants are perfectly innocent, that he would have spared the old world, in which there were, without doubt, many hundred thousand infants, and in general, one in every family, whose perfect innocence pleaded for its preservation? Especially when such vast care was taken to save Noah and his family (some of whom, one at least, seem to have been none of the best), that they might not be involved in that destruction. If the perfect sinlessness of infants had been a notion entertained among the people of God, in the ages next following the flood — handed down from Noah and his children, who well knew that vast multitudes of infants perished in the flood — is it likely that Eliphaz, who lived within a few generations of Shem and Noah, would have said to Job (Job 4:7), “Who ever perished, being innocent? and when were the righteous cut off? Especially, since in the same discourse (Job 5:1) he appeals to the tradition of the ancients for a confirmation of this very point (also in Job 15:7-10, and 22:15, 16.) and he mentions the destruction of the wicked by the flood, as an instance of that perishing of the wicked, which he supposes to be peculiar to them, for Job’s conviction; in which the wicked were cut down out of time, their foundation being overflown with a flood. Where it is also observable, that he speaks of such an untimeliness of death as they suffered by the flood, as one evidence of guilt; as he also does, Job 15:32, 33, “It shall be accomplished before his time; and his branch shall not be green.” But those who were destroyed by the flood in infancy, above all the rest, were cut down out of time; when instead of living above nine hundred years, according to the common period of man’s life, at that time, many were cut down before they were one year old.
True godliness is a sincere feeling which loves God as Father as much as it fears and reverences Him as Lord, embraces His righteousness, and dreads offending Him worse than death~ Calvin
It is my understanding that all are born in need of salvation; not that we come to need salvation at some uncertain age. In my two years at Baptist college, I have yet to have one person offer any significant scripture of this belief. I also understand that being born with original sin makes us a sinner. One needn't add age to the mix for this to be true.
18 Then it happened on the seventh day that the child died. And the servants of David were afraid to tell him that the child was dead, for they said, "Behold, while the child was still alive, we spoke to him and he did not listen to our voice. How then can we tell him that the child is dead, since he might do himself harm!" 19 But when David saw that his servants were whispering together, David perceived that the child was dead; so David said to his servants, "Is the child dead?" And they said, "He is dead." 20 So David arose from the ground, washed, anointed himself, and changed his clothes; and he came into the house of the LORD and worshiped. Then he came to his own house, and when he requested, they set food before him and he ate. 21 Then his servants said to him, "What is this thing that you have done? While the child was alive, you fasted and wept; but when the child died, you arose and ate food." 22 He said, "While the child was still alive, I fasted and wept; for I said, 'Who knows, the LORD may be gracious to me, that the child may live.' 23 "But now he has died; why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I will go to him, but he will not return to me."
What I'd like to know is how they can jump to these conclsions, and yet still believe in original sin and total depravity.
By the way, if David is not saying he will see his son in heaven (even if he was saying that, it wouldn't be enough to make a generalization), then what exactly is he saying? I have some ideas: that David is speaking in generalities about the fact that his son cannot be brought back from death, and that one day David will die too.
True godliness is a sincere feeling which loves God as Father as much as it fears and reverences Him as Lord, embraces His righteousness, and dreads offending Him worse than death~ Calvin
I am deeply saddened and quite surprised as you were to read what these two men wrote, who are not novices to biblical doctrine and who claim to hold firmly to the doctrines of free sovereign grace. I see two glaring errors in their responses:
1) The doctrine of "Original Sin" as held by Calvinists for hundreds of years, being that which the Scripture everywhere teaches is that it consists of [color:"red"]"2"[/color] elements: a) The guilt of Adam is imputed to the entire human race. Thus ALL are guilty before God from the judgment rendered upon Adam, who was our Federal Head. This is part and parcel of "corporate solidarity" and clearly taught in Rom 5:12-18 and 1Cor 15:21, 21. To deny this truth is also to deny imputed righteousness and therefore the foundational doctrine of justification by faith. ALL are under judgment (Eph 2:3). The guiltimputed declares our judicial status/standing before God and has no bearing upon our "inability" to respond to the Gospel. b) The corruption of nature is inherited by generation from our parents, also as being part of the punishment rendered to Adam's transgression. It is this depravity of the soul; aka: spiritual death, which is the post-Fall natural inclination to be at enmity with God and to hate all that is good. We are thus prone to all manner of wickedness and evil. (cf. Gen 6:5; 8:21; Job 15:14-16; Ps 51:5; 58:3; Eph 2:1-5;)
The fact that Esau was rejected before he was born, even before he had done either good or evil, and God being perfectly just in all His ways (Gen 18:25b; Deut 32:4), shows that Esau was deemed guilty and worthy of damnation by virtue of his relation to the human race.
2) It is indefensible to take a portion of Scripture as Mohler did, from Numbers, which speaks to God preserving the youth under 20 years of age from physical destruction and force upon it a salvific meaning. Secondly, this portion of Scripture is local and historical, being a specific account and judgment upon a particular people at a particular time in history. There is no warrant to fabricate a universal principle out of it and thus apply it to all men everywhere for all time. If one were to apply this fractured interpretation with equity, then one would be forced to conclude that Moses was damned as well as all those who the Bible says were saints living during that period of time, for he, Moses, was forbidden to enter into the land and died without ever doing so.
Once again, it is my belief, that the truth of this matter is to be found in the Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter X, "On Effectual Calling", in section III, where it states:
Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated, and saved by Christ, through the Spirit, who worketh when, and where, and how he pleaseth: so also are all other elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.
![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/pilgrim/pil_sig2.gif)
![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/Smileys/pencil.gif)
![[Linked Image]](http://home.earthlink.net/~johnfschultz/logos/GTownCovenanterLogo.gif)
