Then what is it that you imply by "re-set".
Doctrine of Children?
- Thread starter Musicmaster
- Start date
I believe that the Bible says that TWO entered the Promised Land. Joshua and Caleb.
Well, not really, Major. I'm not presenting this as a concept that is at all stated or implied. It's the result of considering a possibility (meaning that it's not dogmatic at all) derived from the following:
1) The absoluteness of one having to be born again has no caveats, no exceptions, no side doors for access to Heaven to get around this requirement...nothing.
2) Nowhere does scripture suggest that babies, children, or even the mentally handicapped, in spite of the sin from their being at conception, that this is a consideration for getting around the mandate for having to be born again.
3) Where the Lord pointed to the requirement for us to be AS the children, and that of such is the Kingdom of Heaven, the language of that text doesn't lend to an idea of them, in spite of their sin, being granted absolute entrance into Heaven.
4) The majority, like all others throughout human history, of babies, children and the mentally handicapped, will reject Christ if given the opportunity to reach that point, as is evidenced in what Christ said about the broadness of the path of destruction, and the narrowness of the path leading to the straight gate and life.
We could add to that list, but I'm trying to keep these posts short enough so as to not lose those who have limited attention span and/or time to read these posts.
This, then, creates a paradox worthy of consideration. Most apply their emotions to this topic, and therefore assume what is contrary to, and even does violence to, the absolutes the Lord has given to us. I'm not saying they are doing this outside of a well-meaning nature toward the Lord's word, but as emotional creatures, we sometimes fail to recognize our tendency to grasp at things and beliefs that run counter to the Bible's absolute teachings. It almost falls into the ditch of Paul's definition for sin, which he defined as "missing the mark."
Therein is the prime point in all this...staying on track with the absolutes of which we are instructed and commanded by our Lord.
So, when I spoke of the Millennium as an excellent potential for how it plays out, that's only saying that I can't think of any other that would ensure that ALL of humanity, no matter what point at which any died, will justifiably make that decision for or against the Lord, and thus doing their self-determination as to if they are for or against the Lord.
(Generally speaking, for those of the hyper-Calvinist stripe, I'm not inserting into this an opportunity for anyone to try and argue such things as total depravity, and therefore allegedly no such thing as choice, or ability to make that choice. That's not a topic we will discuss here! It's a meaningless endeavor!)
MM
I have already addressed this, which has made this a moot point, and not at all in keeping with what I have been saying.
MM
They don't have to break the Law...especially considering that those items are fulfilled in Christ, with all the Law summed up in loving the Lord with one's all, and loving our neighbor as self.
Now, you seem to be avoiding the fact that babies and children are STILL with sin. Sin is sin. Sin cannot be allowed into Heaven, and the only entrance into Heaven is through being born again in the sense of what Christ was teaching. There's no side-paths, no end arounds, no tunnels underneath, and no stairs overhead to get around that one absolute that is the kicker in all this.
So, I ask you, where does scripture say that actual commission of sin is what makes the difference in the fact that we are all conceived and born in sin? Please provide backing if you can.
Thank you.
MM
I am trying to grasp your position.
Actually what I know is that those who occupy the millennial kingdom with glorified bodies can be divided into three subgroups:
1). The church, whose bodies were either resurrected or changed at the rapture (1 Thessalonians 4:13–18;1 Corth, 15:21-23 & 51-53).
2). Tribulation martyrs, who are resurrected after Christ returns to earth (Revelation 20:4–6);
3) Old Testament saints, who we assume are resurrected at the same time (see Daniel 12:2).
Those who occupy the kingdom with earthly bodies have survived the tribulation and can be subdivided into two groups:
1). believing Gentiles and
2). believing Jews.
Now, to the best of my Biblical understanding, there are NO Scriptures which indicate that babies who have died will be in the Millennium so as to live out their lives during the 1000 year rule of Christ.
I also know that in a quote, quoted from the History of the LDS Church, volume 4, page 556..............
Prophet Joseph Smith gave the two sisters these words of comfort:
“He told us that we should receive those children in the morning of the resurrection just as we laid them down, in purity and innocence, and we should nourish and care for them as their mothers. He said that children would be raised in the resurrection just as they were laid down, and that they would obtain all the intelligence necessary to occupy thrones, principalities and powers.”
That quote was repeated by Elder Bruce R. McConkie, in Mormon Doctrine.
1st of all Robin..........The command is literally , "Thou shall not MURDER".
It is always helpful to have a proper contextual understanding to have a correct doctrine,.
Then 2nd Robin........The Bible allows for three situations where killing is justified:
1). Killing in warfare. The Bible offers many examples where God commands His people to kill their enemy aggressors in warfare. In Genesis 10 through 12 (specifically 10:5 and 11:9). God condemned aggression from one nation against another, and he sanctioned warfare as a means of protection from aggressors. The Old Testament is filled with commands from God to Moses, Joshua, David, and many others, to kill their enemy aggressors. Deuteronomy 20:1 says, “When you go to war against your enemies and see horses and chariots and an army greater than yours, do not be afraid of them, because the LORD your God, who brought you up out of Egypt, will be with you.”
2). Self-defense. By the same principles as for killing in warfare, we know that God wants us to defend ourselves, and if an aggressor is too threatening and persistent, especially if we are in fear for our lives, then we are justified in killing the aggressor. This is actually what is happening in warfare, when a nation becomes an aggressor and sends its troops to take over another nation, and the troops killing that nation’s innocent citizens.
3). Capital punishment. Genesis 9:5-6 says, “And for your lifeblood I will surely demand an accounting. I will demand an accounting from every animal. And from each man, too, I will demand an accounting for the life of his fellow man. Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man.”
MODERATOR CAUTION: A Staff memo was placed in this thread at Post Location # 86. The staff has given participants more than 24 hours to get civil with each other and to get back on topic with each other. That Staff Caution seems to have been ignored once again by several persons - therefore this thread is temporarily LOCKED while the staff reviews each and every post in this thread for content. This not only wastes moderator time, but it also makes several persons in this thread look like Rules Violators to guests and search engines. Are you proud of yourselves?
Do we have to issue several weeks off for you to THINK about how you come across to others?
Staff evaluation for potential discipline is under way.
`
Do we have to issue several weeks off for you to THINK about how you come across to others?
Staff evaluation for potential discipline is under way.
`
After staff review and some minor editing, one participant in this thread has been given one week off for 5 rules violations totalling 9 warning points.
If the staff sees any additional violations from anyone anywhere at CFS, more time outs will be initiated.
Thank you for your cooperation.
`
If the staff sees any additional violations from anyone anywhere at CFS, more time outs will be initiated.
Thank you for your cooperation.
`
Excellent question!
You stated........
"So, when I spoke of the Millennium as an excellent potential for how it plays out, that's only saying that I can't think of any other that would ensure that ALL of humanity, no matter what point at which any died, will justifiably make that decision for or against the Lord, and thus doing their self-determination as to if they are for or against the Lord."
MM.......The end of sin and the complete righteousness of all Earth’s inhabitants won’t come until the New Earth. But if Isaiah 11 is speaking of the New Earth, as does its parallel passage in Isaiah 65, who are the infants and young children playing with the animals? Is it possible that children, after they’re resurrected on the New Earth, will be at the same level of development as when they died?
If so, these children would presumably be allowed to grow up on the New Earth—a childhood that would be enviable, to say the least! Believing parents, then, would presumably be able to see their children grow up—and likely have a major role in their lives as they do so. Although it’s not directly stated and I am therefore speculating, it’s possible that parents whose hearts were broken through the death of their children will not only be reunited with them but will also experience the joy of seeing them grow up . . . in a perfect world.
i realize this is one sided post and mine wont be seen... But if Children babies that do not understand the need for salvation . this varies on age of understanding . i have known 5 year old's understand better than adults.
as per those be fore Christ they had to look to the cross by faith.. Hebrews 11
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
2For by it the elders obtained a good report.
3Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.
4By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts: and by it he being dead yet speaketh.
5By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God.
6But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.
These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them "afar off," and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth.
i fully dont understand o.t salvation but there was something there drawing them to the Cross and Christ . even though n.t era had not been fully implemented once again my 2cents take it or leave it.. lol
as per those be fore Christ they had to look to the cross by faith.. Hebrews 11
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
2For by it the elders obtained a good report.
3Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.
4By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts: and by it he being dead yet speaketh.
5By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God.
6But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.
These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them "afar off," and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth.
i fully dont understand o.t salvation but there was something there drawing them to the Cross and Christ . even though n.t era had not been fully implemented once again my 2cents take it or leave it.. lol
Hi, Dave.
As has been stated way back in this thread, what I'm thinking about all this is that it encompasses ALL the babies, young children and some of the mentally handicapped. So I don't think I've left any grouping out, even before the cross.
So, good point, Dave. Let's see if this one fits:
Before the cross, they had the Mosaic Law. Before the Mosaic Law, they had a system of Law of which we are given no specifics, other than what is written in Romans 1.
Now, transport ALL those people over into the Millennium, where Christ is physically ruling the earth from Jerusalem, and they will see the very One to whom ALL the Law and the prophets pointed, and they will make their choice, with most rejecting Him...even with Satan locked away in the pit until the very end before his short release.
With Christ being central throughout all of time, I can see that there would be any violation of any precept, existing doctrine, Law, prophecy, or anything else to bring about some crisis of biblical proportions.
That's why I am discussing this here, to see if anyone has some idea(s) as to something I may have missed in all this, other than the fact that scripture does not cover this specifically.
MM
I fully agree.
Major, I have not had time to do an in-depth study of Isaiah 11 as an alleged parallel to Isaiah 65. Preliminarily, it seems like chapter 11 is about the Millennial Kingdom, and chapter 65 is about the New Heaven and New Earth...but I could be wrong. I'll have to give it more of a looksee.
MM
Well, Major, it is as I had thought.
Isaiah 11 deals with the Millennial Kingdom, where chapter 65 deals with the New Heavens and New Earth. I say that because chapter 11 still talks about things in this fallen world, and there are outcasts of Israel still in existence who need to be gathered together in verse 11, which points to the presence of sin for there to be such a necessity.
Now, if you would, please explain in more detail where you were going with that in relation to the multitudes of babies, young children and some of the mentally handicapped being afforded the chance to make their own choice for or against Christ in the Millennium. I realize you wrote that under the assumption that chapter 11 was about the New Heavens and New Earth, but it appears that is not the case...thus the need for a reset...
What you did write does present some emotionally appealing avenues of thought, but it still doesn't address what appears to me a roadblock to having to be born again for salvation from inherent sin.
Thanks, brother.
MM
Isaiah 11 deals with the Millennial Kingdom, where chapter 65 deals with the New Heavens and New Earth. I say that because chapter 11 still talks about things in this fallen world, and there are outcasts of Israel still in existence who need to be gathered together in verse 11, which points to the presence of sin for there to be such a necessity.
Now, if you would, please explain in more detail where you were going with that in relation to the multitudes of babies, young children and some of the mentally handicapped being afforded the chance to make their own choice for or against Christ in the Millennium. I realize you wrote that under the assumption that chapter 11 was about the New Heavens and New Earth, but it appears that is not the case...thus the need for a reset...
What you did write does present some emotionally appealing avenues of thought, but it still doesn't address what appears to me a roadblock to having to be born again for salvation from inherent sin.
Thanks, brother.
MM
Brother......, you are correct and all I was just giving you an alternative idea on babies that die. Instead of a "re-set", more of a finish out.
Just thinking out loud more than anything else.
Have you considered "Traducianism"????
Now the problem I have with your thesis is that it logically means that the majority of people lose their salvation by simply growing up.
The Westminster Confession of Faith (10.3) actually teaches that “elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated, and saved by Christ, through the Spirit who worketh when, and where, and how he pleaseth.”
That of course comes full circle back to your thesis.......“elect infants,". So by that, we do not know.
So, I can tell all of you that losing a child or an infant is one of the most traumatic experiences any parent can ever endure. However, as believers, we can find the greatest comfort in the fact that the covenantal promises of God have been made not only to us but also to our children (Acts 2:39; Isaiah 44:3). Therefore, if you are a believer—an adopted child of God by the grace of Jesus Christ—who have lost a pre-born or infant child, I personally believe that you can rest assured that, like David and Bathsheba, you will one day be joyfully re-united to your child(ren) in the eternal presence of God.
Last edited:
Actually, I had entertained that as a possibility as to how they enter the Millennial Kingdom, and it's interesting that you considered that as a possibility. It's definitely a possibility, though.
I had to look that one up. I hand't encountered that term nor its defining concept before.
No, I don't see that as viable. If we were to apply or reject that one in relation to the topic at hand, I don't see that it introduces any kind of crisis.
Valid point taken. Let's look again at what the Lord said about proportions:
Matthew 7:13-14
13 "Enter by the narrow gate; for wide [is] the gate and broad [is] the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it.
14 "Because narrow [is] the gate and difficult [is] the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it.
As you may recall, this is one of the foundational doctrines upon which I build this concept when I stated that the majority of babies, young children and mentally handicapped who would go into the Millennium will perish from having rejected Christ, based on the very words of Christ.
No offense to anyone who subscribes to that confession, but it's still rooted in human thinking and perceptions at the exclusion of a systematic analysis of what the Lord inspired to be written. It appears to me that this article of that confession is rooted more in emotion than it is solid theology, given that it tries to play on the Sovereignty of God.
I have avoided this error by openly admitting that I may be wrong...completely wrong, and that they are attributed the new birth without ever having had to make it to that point in life. However, I have grave doubts that there is a way around being born again without Christ having made some mention of that side-road around His absolute declaration.
Matthew 22:11-13
11 "But when the king came in to see the guests, he saw a man there who did not have on a wedding garment.
12 "So he said to him, 'Friend, how did you come in here without a wedding garment?' And he was speechless.
13 "Then the king said to the servants, 'Bind him hand and foot, take him away, and cast [him] into outer darkness; there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.'
I don't see anywhere in scripture that there is any short-cuts.
MM