Doctrine of Children?

[Musicmaster]

Over a period of months now, I've been contemplating the absolute nature of what is said about salvation...in that one MUST be born again in order to enter into Heaven. There are loopholes, no bypasses, no end arounds, no tunneling under the wall and no flying over it. Christ Jesus is the ONLY means to salvation, and there is no other...at least, that's what the Bible teaches and most of us here believe.

So, when we find ourselves faced with another seemingly contradictory doctrine that is not stated in scripture anywhere that I can find, and we realize we're faced with utter silence on the issue, and we still pit the emotional doctrine against the absolute doctrine, the emotional doctrine seems to win on all counts! Why is that?

Well, the seeming "end-around" doctrine that seems to win the day with most, and only on the basis of emotion so far as I can see, is the fate of infants, both before and after birth, up to the POINT of accountability...not age, since that deals only with some arbitrary number, which is fallacious since different children mature at different ages from child to child.

Please do not assume anything into what you think I will say or conclude. Read this to the end.

It's assumed that they all will be in Heaven in spite of the proportions Christ revealed concerning all of humanity:

Matthew 7:13-14
13 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide [is] the gate, and broad [is] the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:
14 Because strait [is] the gate, and narrow [is] the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

Do you see what the above quotation is saying. It reveals the intentionality of which path one is upon, and that the narrow path must be intentionally sought out. We see no indication that anyone just so happens to land on the narrow path on the basis of their life having been snuffed out before what we affectionately call "the age of accountability." Now, I'm not saying they're going to Hell, and I'm not saying they go to Heaven or some limbo in between as some religions seem to enjoy teaching their followers. Neither am I saying that they cease to exist, so just in case...

When we seek the mind of God, and His ways, and have the courage to ask the Lord for those things, we have to be prepared for what may seem radical to us, but in God's economy, is filled with meaningful and wise insight, grounded in His perfect justice and consistency to His written word to us.

In short, what has occurred to me about this topic, which is not stated in either direction within scripture that I can find, apart from the many traditionally emotional injections so many out there have practiced all their sacred lives, including myself, I would like to put forth another thought for your consideration.

In the economy of God's perfect justice, and given that the majority of all babies and children would have ended up rejecting Christ, as is address in the above scriptural quote, it just doesn't seem reasonable to assume that those who would have eventually landed themselves in Hell by their own choices would be forcefully taken and kept in Heaven in spite of their own choosing of the path in life on this earth.

So, how can they all be brought to that point in their life to make that choice between two opposing directions for eternity that we all have encountered and decided upon?

The Millennium.

You likely see where I'm going with this...

My oldest son used a modern term as to how that will happen...he called it the RESET.

Now, I don't know if this concept is at all in keeping with God's plan, and if it is, HOW He will accomplish it...whether through another birth to parents in that time, or they simply come into being and are delivered to couples in that Millennium...the Lord can and will accomplish it all as He sees fit. In that environment, they will then have reached that point of choosing, and be judged accordingly as is ALL of humanity.

So, I'm offering this as food for thought and conversation. Those who have unbridled emotions, I don't have time for emotional outbursts since I am not bringing up a concept that is worthy of such. Please keep emotion out of this, and let's just talk about what IS said in scripture that may serve as a constellation of supporting doctrines that most of us DO believe are absolutes, and therefore beyond question.

MM - at it again...

 

[Musicmaster]

Matthew 18:10 is a favorite go-to for some:

Matthew 18:10 Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you, That in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven.

The historic understanding of this passage has been that it's actually a reference to all TRUE believers, both great and small, for we are ALL children of God.

Secondly, the context is not about children or babies, which renders the emotional exercise of reading something into the white spaces between words and sentences is a very insidious practice in order to try and brow beat others into submission to give in to the twist and corruption of what's actually at the heart of the context. This is where our English translations can and do lead many astray from the actual meaning, therefore the necessity for digging into the original languages of scripture.

Matthew 19:14 But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.

Mark 10:14 But when Jesus saw [it], he was much displeased, and said unto them, Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.

Luke 18:16 But Jesus called them [unto him], and said, Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.

These passages are also the dangerous whipping posts that many have tried to strap the truth seekers, always applying the pathogens of misleading emotionalism. Dare we look closely at the contexts of these passages, we MUST observe the lack of His words denoting a departure from the necessity for being born again. We ALL have heard that we ALL were BORN in sin! Right?

If we ALL were born in sin, then sin is in our makeup not only from birth, but all the way back to the DNA from the earthly father whose sperm fertilized the mother's egg. Sin is passed from parent to child ONLY through the seed of the earthly father, not the mother. If it also came through the mother, then Jesus was born in sin as well, which we all know He was not because He had no earthly father, thus the virgin birth.

The context has to do with us adopting the CHARACTER of children, who generally are loving, forgiving, and trusting, outside the corruptions of their character through abuses.

Here's an even more dangerous passage:

Romans 8:17 And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with [him], that we may be also glorified together.

Again, observe the CONTEXT. When the writer says WE, he was addressing all adults in that we ALL are children of God. This is not about toddlers and babies in the physical sense.

This is an attempt to point at some commonly abused passages where it's so easy to inject into them what they are not at all addressing, nor even implying.

MM

 

[LearningToLetGo]

We humans, who are evil by axiom, are condemned by default. God, who is good by axiom, allows only a small few to enter through the narrow gate via his son, Jesus. Infants, who are unable to choose Jesus, are not exempt from this equation.

What are we to make of this?

 

[BibleLover]

Over a period of months now, I've been contemplating the absolute nature of what is said about salvation...in that one MUST be born again in order to enter into Heaven. There are loopholes, no bypasses, no end arounds, no tunneling under the wall and no flying over it. Christ Jesus is the ONLY means to salvation, and there is no other...at least, that's what the Bible teaches and most of us here believe.

So, when we find ourselves faced with another seemingly contradictory doctrine that is not stated in scripture anywhere that I can find, and we realize we're faced with utter silence on the issue, and we still pit the emotional doctrine against the absolute doctrine, the emotional doctrine seems to win on all counts! Why is that?

Well, the seeming "end-around" doctrine that seems to win the day with most, and only on the basis of emotion so far as I can see, is the fate of infants, both before and after birth, up to the POINT of accountability...not age, since that deals only with some arbitrary number, which is fallacious since different children mature at different ages from child to child.

Please do not assume anything into what you think I will say or conclude. Read this to the end.

It's assumed that they all will be in Heaven in spite of the proportions Christ revealed concerning all of humanity:

Matthew 7:13-14
13 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide [is] the gate, and broad [is] the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:
14 Because strait [is] the gate, and narrow [is] the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

Do you see what the above quotation is saying. It reveals the intentionality of which path one is upon, and that the narrow path must be intentionally sought out. We see no indication that anyone just so happens to land on the narrow path on the basis of their life having been snuffed out before what we affectionately call "the age of accountability." Now, I'm not saying they're going to Hell, and I'm not saying they go to Heaven or some limbo in between as some religions seem to enjoy teaching their followers. Neither am I saying that they cease to exist, so just in case...

When we seek the mind of God, and His ways, and have the courage to ask the Lord for those things, we have to be prepared for what may seem radical to us, but in God's economy, is filled with meaningful and wise insight, grounded in His perfect justice and consistency to His written word to us.

In short, what has occurred to me about this topic, which is not stated in either direction within scripture that I can find, apart from the many traditionally emotional injections so many out there have practiced all their sacred lives, including myself, I would like to put forth another thought for your consideration.

In the economy of God's perfect justice, and given that the majority of all babies and children would have ended up rejecting Christ, as is address in the above scriptural quote, it just doesn't seem reasonable to assume that those who would have eventually landed themselves in Hell by their own choices would be forcefully taken and kept in Heaven in spite of their own choosing of the path in life on this earth.

So, how can they all be brought to that point in their life to make that choice between two opposing directions for eternity that we all have encountered and decided upon?

The Millennium.

You likely see where I'm going with this...

My oldest son used a modern term as to how that will happen...he called it the RESET.

Now, I don't know if this concept is at all in keeping with God's plan, and if it is, HOW He will accomplish it...whether through another birth to parents in that time, or they simply come into being and are delivered to couples in that Millennium...the Lord can and will accomplish it all as He sees fit. In that environment, they will then have reached that point of choosing, and be judged accordingly as is ALL of humanity.

So, I'm offering this as food for thought and conversation. Those who have unbridled emotions, I don't have time for emotional outbursts since I am not bringing up a concept that is worthy of such. Please keep emotion out of this, and let's just talk about what IS said in scripture that may serve as a constellation of supporting doctrines that most of us DO believe are absolutes, and therefore beyond question.

MM - at it again...

We must face the hard truth without adding romanticized notions. Scripture is quite clear about the qualifications for salvation, and those requirements are non-negotiable. It is not our place to judge God's actions or purposes.

Beware re-birthing ideas; they teach reincarnation, contrary to God's Word.

 

[Musicmaster]

We must face the hard truth without adding romanticized notions. Scripture is quite clear about the qualifications for salvation, and those requirements are non-negotiable. It is not our place to judge God's actions or purposes.

Beware re-birthing ideas; they teach reincarnation, contrary to God's Word.

Good point. That's why I was careful to state that I know not how they would enter the Millennium kingdom, but that in that environment, they would eventually reach that point of accountability.

MM

 

[Musicmaster]

We humans, who are evil by axiom, are condemned by default. God, who is good by axiom, allows only a small few to enter through the narrow gate via his son, Jesus. Infants, who are unable to choose Jesus, are not exempt from this equation.

What are we to make of this?

I fully agree that it's non-negotiable, in that there are no go-arounds. I also addressed the topic of the economy of God's perfect justice.

A poor example, albeit if the larger herd of goats on the left, and the herd of sheep on the right. If we were to take the baby goats on the left and set them among the sheep on the right, they still become goats, do they not? In other words, for those who would say that all those who proportionately would have grown up to reject Christ, and are placed in Heaven regardless, that's a dangerous thing to assume in that we are not told any such thing...and yet I have encountered many who believe that there is a way around Christ for entry into Heaven. That's impossible for me to fathom and glean from what is written.

MM

 

[BibleLover]

Good point. That's why I was careful to state that I know not how they would enter the Millennium kingdom, but that in that environment, they would eventually reach that point of accountability.

MM

Our problem is that we are operating from a position of complete ignorance regarding the question. We can make suppositions and reason them out, but there is never a means of validating our conclusions. The best we can do is to contribute more ideas to the vast pool of ignorance surrounding the issue. Is it something to which we would do well to devote much attention? During the middle ages, scholars at leading European universities would devote hours on end debating how many angels could dance on the head of a pin. That question remains unsolved.

 

[Musicmaster]

We must face the hard truth without adding romanticized notions. Scripture is quite clear about the qualifications for salvation, and those requirements are non-negotiable. It is not our place to judge God's actions or purposes.

Beware re-birthing ideas; they teach reincarnation, contrary to God's Word.

One other thing I will say in relation to the reincarnation idea, if God brings them back into life on this earth through being born to parents in the Millennium, that clearly is not at all akin to the conceptualized reincarnation of paganism. They are ideas that are virtually polar opposites, and do not at all share in the purpose nor drive between the two systems of thought.

MM

 

[Musicmaster]

Our problem is that we are operating from a position of complete ignorance regarding the question.

Agreed. As I had mentioned, the thought along this line was conceptualized from within the framework comprised of the constellation of absolute doctrines of things of which we are told expressly within scripture.

We can make suppositions and reason them out, but there is never a means of validating our conclusions.

Again, I agree. Their placement into the Millennium Kingdom SEEMS reasonable, but only on the basis of God's perfect justice, and therefore the means by which to deal with those whose lives had been snuffed out in this world of sin, before they reached that point of accountability.

The best we can do is to contribute more ideas to the vast pool of ignorance surrounding the issue.

Except that we can indeed approach the Lord and seek to reason together with Him in relation to His Thoughts and His Ways, even though they are above ours as the heavens are above the earth. There is that one element the Lord opened up for us rather than to have closed the book in our faces. He invites us to reason with Him, even though that was written in the context of Judah's wickedness. In this discussion we are indeed dealing with a similar topic, which is sin...wickedness.

Is it something to which we would do well to devote much attention?

Yes, it is worthy of our consideration as yet another topical means by which we may strengthen doctrinal truths in the minds of those who allow themselves to be swayed by so many socially and emotionally derived doctrines that are contradictory to sound doctrine.

During the middle ages, scholars at leading European universities would devote hours on end debating how many angels could dance on the head of a pin. That question remains unsolved.

I don't see that as a viable basis for comparison when it comes to salvation itself, and the idea that some get around the absolute declarations of the Lord Himself who said that there's no way to enter into Heaven apart from being born again. The idea that babies and young children are born again, and the unborn again only to be born again...again after reaching that point of accountability and then calling upon the name of the Lord.

I hope you can see the dilemma that emotive doctrines introduce into the arena of all doctrines.

MM

 

[BibleLover]

I hope you can see the dilemma that emotive doctrines introduce into the arena of all doctrines.

MM

Definitely! Sound reasoning is the means by which we winnow out the truth from the chaff, and emotion is the enemy of sound reasoning because it clouds right thinking.

Good discussion bro. I look forward to reading the inputs.

God bless you and yours

BL

 

[Musicmaster]

Definitely! Sound reasoning is the means by which we winnow out the truth from the chaff, and emotion is the enemy of sound reasoning because it clouds right thinking.

Good discussion bro. I look forward to reading the inputs.

God bless you and yours

BL

I like your choice of wording...winnow. We just did that a couple weeks ago, winnowing the chaff from our freshly roasted coffee beans. Wow, the smell is so amazing when roasting coffee beans.

Anyway, this is a good discussion topic, among so many others, that need exploring in this day and age of so much falsehoods as we watch the "turning away" taking place right before our very eyes.

Blessings to you and yours.

MM

 

[Musicmaster]

I would hope that more people at least read these posts and gain an even greater appreciation for the well-established and solid doctrines of the faith, which is what this discussion is geared toward...that the said appreciation would spur you all on to allowing solid, biblical doctrines to ground you even more firmly against the waves and waves of deception that are rolling out from so many outlets, and even from behind pulpits with more and more denominations and independent church organizations falling prey to the deceptive and deceiving influences of the enemy of our souls.

MM

 

[LearningToLetGo]

A poor example, albeit if the larger herd of goats on the left, and the herd of sheep on the right. If we were to take the baby goats on the left and set them among the sheep on the right, they still become goats, do they not? In other words, for those who would say that all those who proportionately would have grown up to reject Christ, and are placed in Heaven regardless, that's a dangerous thing to assume in that we are not told any such thing...

Neither are we told that baby goats, raised among sheep, grow up to become goats. That's an inference on your part. Truth is we don't know the answer to this particular scenario.

 

[Dave F.]

The passage cited most often in support of an age of accountability is 2 Samuel 12:21–23. The context is that King David committed adultery with Bathsheba, with a resulting pregnancy. The prophet Nathan was sent by the Lord to inform David that, because of his sin, the Lord would take the child in death. David responded by grieving and praying for the child. But once the child was taken, David’s mourning ended. David’s servants were surprised to hear this. They said to King David, “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.” David’s response was, “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.’ 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.” David’s words might indicate that infants who die are safe in the Lord. David could have simply been referring to the fact that his child was in the grave, but he seemed to be comforted by the knowledge. The peace he felt suggests that he believed he would see his baby son again (in heaven).

This is from Got Questions. I had a guy try to tell me the age of accountability was 20, he based this on when a young man could be in the army. I told him that was not at all supported for accountability just for military service. There is nothing definitively written that states a particular age. I believe that God would place His grace upon those incapable of making such a choice, including the mentally handicapped. Even we are compassionate toward such, how much more so is GOD? The bible does tell us that Jesus paid for ALL sin, surely God can apply His grace as He sees fit.

 

[Musicmaster]

The passage cited most often in support of an age of accountability is 2 Samuel 12:21–23. The context is that King David committed adultery with Bathsheba, with a resulting pregnancy. The prophet Nathan was sent by the Lord to inform David that, because of his sin, the Lord would take the child in death. David responded by grieving and praying for the child. But once the child was taken, David’s mourning ended. David’s servants were surprised to hear this. They said to King David, “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.” David’s response was, “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.’ 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.” David’s words might indicate that infants who die are safe in the Lord. David could have simply been referring to the fact that his child was in the grave, but he seemed to be comforted by the knowledge. The peace he felt suggests that he believed he would see his baby son again (in heaven).

This is from Got Questions. I had a guy try to tell me the age of accountability was 20, he based this on when a young man could be in the army. I told him that was not at all supported for accountability just for military service. There is nothing definitively written that states a particular age. I believe that God would place His grace upon those incapable of making such a choice, including the mentally handicapped. Even we are compassionate toward such, how much more so is GOD? The bible does tell us that Jesus paid for ALL sin, surely God can apply His grace as He sees fit.

Dave, that's an excellent point! I very much appreciate that insight from you.

Now, please keep in mind that this brings up some of the points of consideration I have made thus far, and some I have not in this thread.

Where did David's son go after his death, and where did David go after his? To Heaven? No. They, like all the OT adherents to the Law and God, as well as all the babies and children before the POINT of accountability (which I think differs from child to child), they all went to Sheol...Abraham's Bosom. So, when David said he would go to his son, that was David's understanding, as well as all the other Patriarchs, that they were all headed to Sheol rather than Heaven. They knew that the completed redemption for their sin was not yet established.

Interestingly, the Lord, when He spoke about Abraham's Bosom in Sheol, He did not say that it ceased to exist, or was done away with. Personally, I suspect that Elijah and Enoch are both still there, along with all the babies and children who passed from this life before the POINT of accountability.

A point I believe I did make in another post is that sin is passed to children from from their earthly father, not the mother. I'm bringing that up because there are those who believe that babies are not born in sin. If that were the case, then Christ having no earthly father would have no other real meaning in order for Him to have been sinless, which cannot be said of any other man who was ever born of women.

Some may point out where the Lord referred to "innocent blood." If that terminology was, as many seem to think, a proof for sinlessness, then King David was as sinless as Christ as an adult male before he became crowned king:

1 Samuel 19:4-5
4 Thus Jonathan spoke well of David to Saul his father, and said to him, "Let not the king sin against his servant, against David, because he has not sinned against you, and because his works [have been] very good toward you.
5 "For he took his life in his hands and killed the Philistine, and the LORD brought about a great deliverance for all Israel. You saw [it] and rejoiced. Why then will you sin against innocent blood, to kill David without a cause?"

This strikes at one of many cores upon which so many rely when they parrot false doctrines concerning babies and children allegedly being without sin. When strong emotion drives some over the precipice of falsehoods, they need us to rope them like cowboys and bring them back up over the edge to the safety of sound and solid doctrine, because the vortex of falsehoods is getting stronger and stronger in these last days. Rome is exerting some seriously strong delusions that is sucking up hundreds of thousands, and even millions, into its massive maw with an appetite unmatched since before the flood.

So, in conclusion, if what David said is indicative of anything, it is ample reason to believe that babies are in Abraham's Bosom, although the mass of pre-cross believers are already evacuated because of the shed Blood of Christ. Those left there have not yet fulfilled the cycle of life, death and accountability to have yet been released from there.

MM

 

[Major]

Matthew 18:10 is a favorite go-to for some:

Matthew 18:10 Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you, That in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven.

The historic understanding of this passage has been that it's actually a reference to all TRUE believers, both great and small, for we are ALL children of God.

Secondly, the context is not about children or babies, which renders the emotional exercise of reading something into the white spaces between words and sentences is a very insidious practice in order to try and brow beat others into submission to give in to the twist and corruption of what's actually at the heart of the context. This is where our English translations can and do lead many astray from the actual meaning, therefore the necessity for digging into the original languages of scripture.

Matthew 19:14 But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.

Mark 10:14 But when Jesus saw [it], he was much displeased, and said unto them, Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.

Luke 18:16 But Jesus called them [unto him], and said, Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.

These passages are also the dangerous whipping posts that many have tried to strap the truth seekers, always applying the pathogens of misleading emotionalism. Dare we look closely at the contexts of these passages, we MUST observe the lack of His words denoting a departure from the necessity for being born again. We ALL have heard that we ALL were BORN in sin! Right?

If we ALL were born in sin, then sin is in our makeup not only from birth, but all the way back to the DNA from the earthly father whose sperm fertilized the mother's egg. Sin is passed from parent to child ONLY through the seed of the earthly father, not the mother. If it also came through the mother, then Jesus was born in sin as well, which we all know He was not because He had no earthly father, thus the virgin birth.

The context has to do with us adopting the CHARACTER of children, who generally are loving, forgiving, and trusting, outside the corruptions of their character through abuses.

Here's an even more dangerous passage:

Romans 8:17 And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with [him], that we may be also glorified together.

Again, observe the CONTEXT. When the writer says WE, he was addressing all adults in that we ALL are children of God. This is not about toddlers and babies in the physical sense.

This is an attempt to point at some commonly abused passages where it's so easy to inject into them what they are not at all addressing, nor even implying.

MM

Good topic MM.

Personally, I believe that the Scriptures you posted gives us ample basis for the salvation of children who dies in infancy.

It is a fact that no child will reject Jesus if he/she is presented to that child on a Bible basis.

I believe this is one reason why we should get the gospel message to them as quick as possibble. The reason for trying to get the gospel into their hearts is so that when they reach the age of accountability they will at that time make the choice for Christ.

To many times, a child at 5 or 8 will say that they accept Christ, but if there is no follow up then it just becomes a statement with no meaning. The real decision will be made at the age of accountability, not at 5 or 8. What then is that age has already been asked here.

Lets be clear here.......No one knows because the Scriptures do not tell us!
Only One verse that may speak to the issue indirectly is Romans 1:20.......
“Since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.”

Many people say that the age of 13 is the most commonly suggested for the age of accountability, but that based on the Jewish custom that a child becomes an adult at the age of 13. However, the Bible gives no support to the age of 13 being a set age of accountability.

The Bible tells us what we do not like to know at times. The Bible tells us that, even if an infant or child has not committed personal sin, all people, including infants and children, are guilty before God because of inherited and imputed sin. Inherited sin is that which is passed on from our parents. In Psalms 51:5David wrote, ......
“Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.”

No one wants to think that! However God impressed upon David when he recognized that even at conception he was a sinner. The sad fact that infants sometimes die demonstrates that even infants are impacted by Adam’s sin, since physical and spiritual death were the results of Adam’s original sin.

It has always been my understanding that God’s extending grace to those who cannot believe would seem consistent with His character. It is my position that God does apply Christ’s payment for sin to babies and those who are mentally handicapped, since they are incapable of understanding their sinful state and their need for the Savior.

However, I would caution that this is an area where we cannot be dogmatic.

There is however one thing I can be dogmatic of and that is that God is loving, holy, merciful, just, and gracious. Whatever God does is always right and good, and He loves children!!!

 

[Musicmaster]

Good posting, Major.

What you stated does beg some questions:

1) Is there a limited boundary not stated by Jesus when pointing out that most of humanity was/is on the pathway to destruction?
2) Where did the Lord ever even hint at the idea that babies and children are exempt from having to be born again to enter into Heaven...without adding to scripture what is not there?
3) Where is the flaw in the reasoning for the Millennium being the kingdom within which all those children and babies will be allowed to reach that point of decision?
4) Where is the flaw in the reasoning that those children and babies therefore growing through that point of accountability in the Millennium, that such a scenario does not somehow fit the concept for the fullness of perfect justice playing out in real life in order to ensure that, those who have not yet been tested as to their choice for or against Christ is made, will arrive at that point, and therefore having been tested as tried and true for the choice they were not yet able to make? (Please keep in mind the proportions Jesus spoke in relation to ALL humanity as all of humanity who were/are on the pathway to destruction, and those few who were/are on the pathway to life eternal. MOST have, are and will perish in destruction.)

It just seems unlikely to me, and I may be wrong in relation to the realities of God's plans, that the Lord is going to allow babies and children to bypass having to be born again in order to enter Heaven, given that the majority of them will have rejected Christ had they made it to that point in their lives. The imagery I used in another post of this thread was the image of two groupings...the sheep and the goats. If we take baby goats from among the goats, and set them in with the sheep, they will not magically become sheep, but will still mature into goats.

Again, I'm just exploring this thought process on the basis of other doctrines that are beyond dispute upon which I am building this concept that is not at all expressly stated, but seems to be a logical outflow from those well-established doctrines upon which we all agree...or at least, I hope we do...

MM

 

[Dave F.]

And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment: so Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation. HEB. 9:27-28

Bringing them alive again in the millenium would require them to die a second time and a third after the judgement. While I don't pretend to know what God has planned for "innocents" I must believe He does have a plan just the same. I disagree with your two groupings idea, the goat has no choice but to be a goat as it was created as such, whereas we all have a choice to make. When do these "innocents" get to make that choice is unknown, but, I agree that it must be made at some point.

 

[Major]

Good posting, Major.

What you stated does beg some questions:

1) Is there a limited boundary not stated by Jesus when pointing out that most of humanity was/is on the pathway to destruction?
2) Where did the Lord ever even hint at the idea that babies and children are exempt from having to be born again to enter into Heaven...without adding to scripture what is not there?
3) Where is the flaw in the reasoning for the Millennium being the kingdom within which all those children and babies will be allowed to reach that point of decision?
4) Where is the flaw in the reasoning that those children and babies therefore growing through that point of accountability in the Millennium, that such a scenario does not somehow fit the concept for the fullness of perfect justice playing out in real life in order to ensure that, those who have not yet been tested as to their choice for or against Christ is made, will arrive at that point, and therefore having been tested as tried and true for the choice they were not yet able to make? (Please keep in mind the proportions Jesus spoke in relation to ALL humanity as all of humanity who were/are on the pathway to destruction, and those few who were/are on the pathway to life eternal. MOST have, are and will perish in destruction.)

It just seems unlikely to me, and I may be wrong in relation to the realities of God's plans, that the Lord is going to allow babies and children to bypass having to be born again in order to enter Heaven, given that the majority of them will have rejected Christ had they made it to that point in their lives. The imagery I used in another post of this thread was the image of two groupings...the sheep and the goats. If we take baby goats from among the goats, and set them in with the sheep, they will not magically become sheep, but will still mature into goats.

Again, I'm just exploring this thought process on the basis of other doctrines that are beyond dispute upon which I am building this concept that is not at all expressly stated, but seems to be a logical outflow from those well-established doctrines upon which we all agree...or at least, I hope we do...

MM

You do tend to ask very insightful questions brother.

1). Not in my understanding. There will be NO ONE brought back to live in the Millenium. There will be humans, saved who live through the Tribulation. They will have children in the Millennium.

2). As I sated, there are none.

3). Those born in the Millenium are sinners because all humans are born with a sin nature. They are unique in that Satan will have been chained for their whole life and they have never been "tempted" They must experience temptation so as to know what they will choose, Satan or Christ. That brings several Doctrines in to focus.....
A. God does not show favoritism
B. Freedom of choice.
C. We are not saved because our parents are saved.

4). Those who do grow in the Millenium will make their choices when temped and "They" are the ones that refuse Christ and lead the 2nd Gog and Magog attack on Jerusalem.

This means that even living in a perfect society does not make a person sinless or acceptable to God.

This is one of those topics that we will never know the answer to. It really boils down as to how we view God.

Is it in the character of God to condemn mentally ill, insane or babies to eternal death because they were not able to make a choice knowledgably? YES........I do understand Predestination and the Doctrine of Depravity I also believe in the love of God.

 

[Musicmaster]

And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment: so Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation. HEB. 9:27-28

Bringing them alive again in the millenium would require them to die a second time and a third after the judgement. While I don't pretend to know what God has planned for "innocents" I must believe He does have a plan just the same. I disagree with your two groupings idea, the goat has no choice but to be a goat as it was created as such, whereas we all have a choice to make. When do these "innocents" get to make that choice is unknown, but, I agree that it must be made at some point.

Very good point, Dave.

When we look at Lazarus, whom Jesus raised from the dead, and the boy Elijah raised from the dead, and the little girl Jesus raised from the dead, all of whom needed nourishment after having been raised from the dead, and the man who was brought back to life whose body had been laid on the bones of Elisha, it seems reasonable that there is an exception to that appointment in the lives of some, and therefore the exceptions does seem to exist.

When we look at the Greek word translated as "appointed," we see this:

b. metaphorically, with the dative of person, reserved for one, awaiting him: Colossians 1:5 (ἐλπίς hoped-for blessedness); 2 Timothy 4:8 (στέφανος); Hebrews 9:27 (ἀποθανεῖν, as in 4 Macc. 8:10).

The meaning, therefore, seems to point to a general rule for humanity in general, but the few who died a second physical death in this life doesn't seem to violate what is generally appointed as a rule other than to say that ALL will die at some point. The only OTHER exception to that rule is the Rapture, at which point those still living will be instantly transformed without having had to die a physical death. Again, an exception that gives ample evidence to the idea that Hebrews 9:27-28 is not a hard fast rule in the sense of what the English translation seems to point toward.

MM