GCM Home | Bible Search | Rules | Donate | Bookstore | RSS | Facebook | Twitter

Recent Posts

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10
11
Theology Forum / Re: Ten Reasons to Reject Baptismal Regeneration
« Last post by S.T. Ranger on Today at 07:57:34 AM »
STR, I was going to respond to your ridiculously long post,

I doubt that very seriously: you have a habit of dodging responses when you are shown to be in error.

More lies, STR...they are beginning to show your true character.

I think it is more of a matter that your statements being dealt with...you would rather fall into the background where it might be forgotten.

But as I said, you have a habit of dodging direct response. I would encourage anyone that might be interested to look a one-on-one debate we entered into which has a similar response as this one. There, because I would not conform to a format of more formal debate...this fellow refused to answer.

And it is sad to see you still maintain the same habits in your posting.


which you purposely cut out numerous words that I stated

Not one word was left out...not one.

But the Public Record holds that information.

Another lie, which anyone can see just by calling your bluff and reading both posts one after the other...


in an ill-concieved and uncouth tactic to try and make me look like I don't know what I am talking about...

It wasn't me that did that...you did.

Now if you care to respond to what I addressed in your poorly constructed response...we can discuss it.


but then I decided that you will only continue with the dishonest, subversive and underhanded tactics

It is true, I will continue in the method of response with which I have responded to your first attempt, lol.

You got me there.

As far as whether you describe it properly or not, that is not for me to judge.

Like I said, since ill-gotten tactics are the ONLY way you seem to be able to win an argument (in your own mind, anyway) that is what you do. Nice try, thought.

(since you apparently seem to think that is the only way you can win an argument),

First...there is no argument. In order for that to be true you would have to actually respond to my address of your post.

Secondly, there are a number of ways in which a debate can be won, and I particularly enjoy this method...letting my antagonist make my case for me.

;)


so I decided not to.

Then perhaps public discussion, debate, and "arguing" is just not for you, lol.

At least not with someone who refused to debate by the rules, which you have already confessed that you refuse to do. Yes, that is the ONLY way you can win an argument, by side-stepping the rules and employing illegitimate tactics. Have fun with that, it won't get you into heaven.

Nevertheless, not one of your points stands,

They all stand, and until you address my response...I have no choice but to accept your response as yielding.

Every single one of your "points" have been dealt with in the recent past, and every one of those points have been demonstrated to be fallacious. There is no need to re-hash a lost argument... ::beatingdeadhorse:: ::beatingdeadhorse:: ::beatingdeadhorse::

they all fall in domino fashion, mainly from your lack of knowledge on the subject and apparent ignorance (if that is what it is) of understanding the principles of Biblical Interpretation...

I am not even sure you know what the subject is.

How about the subject of salvation solely based on the Blood of Christ, to which you responded..."Not!"

See, there you go again. Liar...try not to do that and perhaps we can engage in an honest debate...but someone I don't think you can or will. Produce the whole quote, or don't quote me at all. And the topic was baptism, not the blood of Christ...you are again playing stupid games.


of which you broke so many that I stopped counting them.

Great. Please list how and where I broke them, lol.

I did...unless you cut them out of your response below...


post a few of them which you fail (on a continuous basis) to utilize, which damages not only your interpretational credibility, but also your personal theology...

The following has nothing to do with anything I said, nor do they point out where I failed to meet your standard for proper interpretive skills.

For Pete's sake, SM, get of books about the bible and get into the Books of the Bible.

First, everything I posted has to do with practically every post you have ever posted. Read them again, and quite  being a sore looser.

3.  The Progressive Revelation Principle: God does not give us all the information on one particular doctrine or teaching in one setting, instead He gives us glimpses of the whole of one topic scattered throughout His Word.

Show how I violated this principle.


4.  The Human willingness Principle: is the principle of the willingness of a man to so choose illumination by God’s Word, or to remain confined to lesser shades of light because of a number of human faulty attitudes addressed earlier.

Show how I violated this principle.


Under the Context Principle, the following rules:

Rule Six – All of the passages of Scripture that deal with a given subject must be studied together topically; this maintains proper balance of Scriptural truth.

Show how I violated this principle.


Rule Seven – Take passages that are plain to understand to illuminate more difficult passages on the same subject.

Show how I violated this principle.


IV.  Theological Analysis - A single verse cannot, and should not, be made to make a theological doctrine. Scripture often touches on issues in several different books. For instance, Gifts of the Spirit are addressed in Romans, Ephesians, and I Corinthians. To take a verse from Romans without taking into account other passages that deal with the same topic can not only cause a poor interpretation, but also results in incomplete knowledge on the subject, which can lead to false doctrinal statements.

Show how I violated this principle.


8.  The Contradiction Principle: always interpret a passage of Scripture in harmony with all other passages of Scripture, especially in harmony with other passages dealing with the same subject matter.

Show how I violated this principle.


10.  The Topical Principle: that, seeing as how God has revealed His Word in human history through Progressive Revelation, one must gather all the relative passages having to do with any one particular subject or topic, and study those passages as a whole, in order to come to a full and complete exegesis on any given topic in Scripture. In other words, one cannot take only three or four passages on a subject out of fifty and build a doctrine on that topic from those few passages. This is irresponsible handling of the Word of God.

Show how I violated this principle.


V.  Historical-Cultural Analysis - The history and culture surrounding the authors is important to understand to aid in interpretation. For instance, understanding the Jewish sects and the government that ruled Palestine in New Testament times increases understanding of Scripture. Understanding that ancient Israel was a covenantal society helps us to comprehend the role and function of ANE covenants and their impact upon the New Covenant modeled after them.

Show how I violated this principle.


Since the Historical Analysis is the one you violate the most, I will post the entire package here...

11.  The Historical Principle: take into consideration the historical context of the passage, this includes (if possible) the politics and religion of the day that might give light to the passage, social customs (which include covenants), and laws of that day and time.

     Historical Rule
   Politics
   Religion
   Law
   Social customs
      Covenants
         National
         Social
         Personal


Show how I violated this principle.


14.  The Covenant Principle: that God deals with mankind towards redemption through the legality of the covenant. That we must understand covenants and the principles by which they operate, because the covenants which God has instituted (including the New Covenant) are based upon those principles.

Show how I violated this principle.


And finally, the covenant principles by which all ANE covenants operate by (with the exception of blood covenants to a certain degree)...

1.  A covenant is not in force until after both parties agree to all of the elements, terms, stipulations, promises, blessings, benefits, gifts and obligations of the covenant agreement, and then inaugurate and ratify the covenant relationship. At that point all elements of the covenant are legally binding upon all parties involved.

2.  Once the covenant has been agreed upon and entered into by both parties, it cannot be altered unless both parties agree to such alteration, usually in response to some unforeseen variable at the time of the inauguration of the covenant.

3.  Entering into covenant involved establishing not only a binding legal relationship between both parties, but was also recognized as one of the most strongly held to relationships in the cultures in which they thrived.

4.  The terms, stipulations, promises, blessings, benefits, and gifts of the covenant are only applicable to those who are participants in that specific covenant.

5.  All of the elements of the covenant in question, be they terms, stipulations, promises, benefits, and gifts, or obligations, are to be interpreted solely from within the context of the covenant from which they originate.

6.  None of the obligations of the covenant are legally binding upon the participants until after the covenant has been inaugurated and then ratified.


Show how I violated this principle.

And by the way, do I get any credit for not violating principles 1,2, and 5?

;)

No, because the only reason you probably didn't violate them...YET...is because we have not yet discussed a topic where your exegesis would dictate such a violation. I am sure you will also violate them, since you know nothing about them.


If you study these and apply them to your "study" of Scripture, you will have a better grasp of what you so far only think you understand as theology which you hold to. That is not meant to be insultive, but educational.

What I think I understand? lol


And stop your dishonest tactics,

Was this meant to be insultive? lol

or I will call you out on them every time.

You have my express blessing to call me out whenever you like.

I would prefer it, though, if you would actually include something I have said from time to time.


Blessings.

I will not bother wasting my time showing you here where you violate every single one of these principles of interpretation, because you will violate them again and when you do I will let you know then.


God bless.

Once again...refusal to respond.


God bless.
12
Theology Forum / Re: Ten Reasons to Reject Baptismal Regeneration
« Last post by S.T. Ranger on Today at 07:53:06 AM »
If you do a scriptural study you will find that the the holy spirit baptism is simply a way of saying the spirit will be poured out on all which is referring to the giving of the indwelling spirit. It was foretold back in the old testament and followed through into the new with the baptism in the name of Jesus Christ being the means of receiving the indwelling spirit.

The promise of the Spirit is seen to still be future in Acts 1 prior to the Day of Pentecost. The establishment of the New Covenant brought about precisely what was promised, and we see a correlation between them being Baptized with the Spirit and the establishment of the New Covenant. It is safe to say that the indwelling did not take place according to the New Covenant Standard, just as we see several things which did not take place.

The Spirit of God has always ministered to the Hearts of men, but, it was not until Pentecost, with the Coming of the Spirit in this particular ministry, that we see men eternally indwelled by God, having received remission of sins in completion:


Jeremiah 31:31-34

King James Version (KJV)

31 Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:

32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the Lord:

33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.

34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the Lord: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.



Scripture support this but we can only see what our eyes are trained to see.

I can't agree with that: the Lord is teaching all of us according to the obedience we give unto His will for our lives. I think most of us would admit that where we are now is not where we were shortly after being saved. In other words, we are all learning...all the time. Doctrines we held then may not be doctrines we hold now. Doctrines we hold now may not be doctrines we hold as we grow further in Christ. It is as we obtain a better understanding of salvation as a whole, throughout the course of Redemptive History as given in Scripture, that we can better assimilate truths which fashion our understanding.

One of the complaints that Atheists give is that the God of the Old Testament seems to be so different from the God of the New. You and I know that is not true, and that there is a harmony which, rather than undermining Redemptive History, actually accentuates the fact that God's Redemptive Plan has not changed from Day One. We see the promises of God extending back into the Garden, reiterated in Abraham's time, spoken more clearly in the Law, and then full revelation and realization of the Plan God intended to effect before the world was even formed...salvation in Christ.

Abraham was correct: God will provide Himself a sacrifice.


Indoctrination is a serious stumbling-block I think most of us are aware of, and feel we have avoided. But I think most of us will suffer from this problem to some extent or another. As we grow in Christ, our loyalty to Him can override our tendency of loyalty towards the group we were saved through. Integrity of Theology will, I believe, overcome indoctrination in the end, and while we might remain a little stubborn, in our hearts, where God does His work, there will be growth.


God bless.
13
Christian Marriage Forum / Re: She won't talk, only text
« Last post by AVZ on Today at 07:51:51 AM »
Chosen - IMO you are jumping to assumptions here.  There is nothing in the OP's posts to indicate that he was even emotionally attracted to her; or her to him; let alone an emotional affair.

There may have been something on her part; but if so, he seemed rather blind to it.

I take him at his word that as far as he knew, nothing happened.

Something made him want to text a young single woman back and forth 400 times. That is not the normal behavior of a married man with a single female colleague. I am sure nothing did happen physically, but there is far more to a relationship than merely the physical, and I am not at all surprised that his wife can no longer trust him. At the very least he was opening the door to one or both of them getting far too close emotionally to the other.

 There are many books written today about how we need to set clear boundaries or hedges around our marriages, and the dangers of people getting too close to others of the opposite sex. I have seen far too many people get into affairs with people they have met at work, and marriages being destroyed as a result.

I think he has learnt his lesson, but it may take a very long time for his wife to trust him again.   

With who do you spend more time?
Your husband or the internet?
 

MY husband by far. He works most of the time from home so we are together nearly all the time.

Exactly.
Now imagine your husband is going to react the same way as the woman in the OP story.
He is accusing you of spending considerable time on the internet, even though he is around for you to spend time with.
And if you were to tell him that nothing is going on, he would simply say that he doubts you.

Because if you are really in to him, and appreciate him being around, you would not feel the urge to pop off 22,000 messages to total strangers in the past years.
Your message counter also is approximately 400 posts a month...similar to the message counter of the OP.

So if you think it is normal for the woman in the OP post to mistrust the husband...I suppose you would think it is perfectly fine if your husband would do the same to you?
14
Theology Forum / Re: Ten Reasons to Reject Baptismal Regeneration
« Last post by S.T. Ranger on Today at 07:36:09 AM »
Of the 10 points in the OP, only 2 (7 and 10) quoted Scripture that addresses Christian water baptism.  Rather than rehash the entire post, I would simply ask if you could provide the Scriptural support for two of your claims.

The points were given in brief, the hope that, as we are doing, they would be addressed in more detail.


You claim (as best I can decipher) that water baptism pictures our identification with Christ.   Can you provide the Scriptures which state this? 

When we are Baptized we are Baptized in identification with Christ. We see this several times where the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are mentioned, and also the Name of Christ.

Probably the best passage that illustrates this is found here:


Acts 19

King James Version (KJV)

1 And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples,

2 He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.

3 And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism.

4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.

5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.



These disciples of John were identified with John, but they had need to be identified with Christ.

Paul identifies the baptized with Christ here:


1 Corinthians 1:13

King James Version (KJV)

13 Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?



Compare that to the Children of Israel:


1 Corinthians 10:1-2

King James Version (KJV)

1 Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea;

2 And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea;



They were identified with Moses.

So we see identification with the Baptizer and the associated aspects of that baptism.

I hope that sufficiently answers this one.


You also stated that baptism in water “pictures the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.”  Again, what Scripture says this?

What I said was...


Quote
We do believe it is commanded that men be baptized in water to affirm their profession of faith in Christ, and that this pictures the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.


...and this is given from a view that rejects Baptismal Regeneration, though I am sure the BR would agree that it is commanded that men be baptized in water to affirm their profession of faith in Christ, and possibly that it pictures going into the ground and coming back up.

This is a personal view and one that many embrace, but I cannot say I can give a Scriptural reference that would explicitly support this view.

Do you reject it?


Thanks.

Great questions, thanks to you as well.


God bless.
15
Christian Marriage Forum / Re: She won't talk, only text
« Last post by chosenone on Today at 07:28:21 AM »
Chosen - IMO you are jumping to assumptions here.  There is nothing in the OP's posts to indicate that he was even emotionally attracted to her; or her to him; let alone an emotional affair.

There may have been something on her part; but if so, he seemed rather blind to it.

I take him at his word that as far as he knew, nothing happened.

Something made him want to text a young single woman back and forth 400 times. That is not the normal behavior of a married man with a single female colleague. I am sure nothing did happen physically, but there is far more to a relationship than merely the physical, and I am not at all surprised that his wife can no longer trust him. At the very least he was opening the door to one or both of them getting far too close emotionally to the other.

 There are many books written today about how we need to set clear boundaries or hedges around our marriages, and the dangers of people getting too close to others of the opposite sex. I have seen far too many people get into affairs with people they have met at work, and marriages being destroyed as a result.

I think he has learnt his lesson, but it may take a very long time for his wife to trust him again.   

With who do you spend more time?
Your husband or the internet?
 

MY husband by far. He works most of the time from home so we are together nearly all the time.
16
Preterist Forum / Re: Audience relevance of John 14
« Last post by LetGodBeTrue on Today at 07:25:45 AM »
As you are probably aware, there are preterists who take a literal first-century rapture position (e.g. Ed Stevens, Evidence Demands a First Century Rapture, Ian Harding, Taken to Heaven in AD 70   They make some compelling arguments for their position, but I have not yet gotten on board.  What I do believe is that AD 70 marks the time that Jesus, as the ultimate, one-of-a-kind High Priest, exited the heavenly Most Holy Place where He had sprinkled His blood on the heavenly Mercy Seat.  This brought the salvation Jesus had told His disciples to look for (Luke 21); it was the salvation Paul told them was nearer than when THEY had first believed (Romans 13). 

Before this event, salvation brought a ticket to Hades for all saints where they awaited the final installment that would make them fitted for heaven.  John 14 ties in nicely with 1 Thessalonians 4.  They both speak of the same event.  Those who waited in Hades were released and went to be with Jesus.  The controversial part deals with what became of those still living at the time.  In some sense they were joined together (the gathering of Matthew 24) in the Lord.  The jury is still out for me whether this was a literal or spiritual event.  But the Scriptures are clear when and to whom it happened.  It is not a future but a past occasion.  However one understands it, it most definitely involved that which forever established the final destiny of those IN Christ--total union with Him and complete rest in His presence forever.  That is the Blessed Hope Realized and not deferred! 

No futurist should confidently proclaim that Christians die and go to heaven.  Unless Christ has exited the Most Holy Place and come to receive His own unto Himself, saints still go to Hades to await His return. 
17
News from Around the World / Girl Hit by Plane on Beach Dies
« Last post by Victor08 on Today at 07:18:15 AM »
http://6abc.com/news/georgia-girl-struck-by-plane-on-florida-beach-dies/226188/
ABCNews TAMARA LUSH
Tuesday, July 29, 2014

ST. PETERSBURG, Fla. --A 9-year-old girl who was struck by a plane that crash-landed on a beach while she vacationed with her family has died from her injuries, law enforcement officials in Florida said Tuesday.

Oceana Irizzary's father also was killed Sunday. The two, of Fort Stewart, Georgia, were walking along Caspersen Beach in Venice on Sunday afternoon when the 1972 Piper Cherokee plane made an emergency landing after reporting problems.

In a statement, the family thanked the emergency responders and beachgoers who helped them, and expressed gratitude for prayers and support from around the world.
18
Theology Forum / Re: Ten Reasons to Reject Baptismal Regeneration
« Last post by S.T. Ranger on Today at 07:16:01 AM »
Since He said belief and baptism, then baptism is not being added to salvation by Christ alone. He is the one who said it.
There is a Baptism that accompanies salvation, but it is not water Baptism. It is the Baptism with the Holy Spirit.

And we have far more passages dealing with the Baptism with the Holy Spirit than we do passages that might be viewed as advocating water baptism as part of the salvation experience. And the teaching is explicit, not something that is left open to debate.
Except man cannot baptize in the Holy Spirit, only Our Lord can. 
That is why I repeatedly state that Christ is the Baptizer, and that His Baptism is the only Baptism that is essential to salvation.

Where in scripture is Baptism in the Holy Spirit coupled with salvation? Or a requirement for salvation?

A few passages to consider:


John 3

King James Version (KJV)


5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.



Here the rendering can be translated "born from above" (which does not alter the fact that elsewhere it is called "born again"), and we see one must be "born of the Spirit." The Baptismal Regenerationist is going to view the "water" here as physical water most likely, but I take this "water" to speak of the cleansing God promised alongside the indwelling of the Spirit here...


Ezekiel 36:24-27


King James Version (KJV)

24 For I will take you from among the heathen, and gather you out of all countries, and will bring you into your own land.

25 Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you.

26 A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh.

27 And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.


Note that it is God that sprinkles this clean water.


Romans 8:9-10

King James Version (KJV)

9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

10 And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness.



If one is not indwelt by God...they don't belong to Him. Thus...they are not saved.


While we might say the Disciples were "saved" before Pentecost, just as we might say that Abraham or David were "saved," we also understand that they were not saved according to New Covenant standard, meaning they had not received the promises of God in regards to God's Redemptive Plan.

We know they had not received the Spirit:


Acts 1

King James Version (KJV)


4 And, being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me.

5 For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.



...which is a New Covenant standard. In this Age no man is "saved" apart from the New Birth and indwelling of the Spirit of God.

Our salvation is guaranteed by His indwelling Spirit:




2 Corinthians 1

King James Version (KJV)

21 Now he which stablisheth us with you in Christ, and hath anointed us, is God;

22 Who hath also sealed us, and given the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts.



2 Corinthians 1:22

King James Version (KJV)

22 Who hath also sealed us, and given the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts.


Ephesians 1:13-14

King James Version (KJV)

13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,

14 Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory.




All that remains in our salvation is the redemption of our bodies, which will ultimately occur with the glorification of the Saints.




I was saved at least 10 years before I was water baptized OR baptized in the Spirit.


You were not saved apart from being Baptized with the Holy Spirit.

There is no New Birth apart from the indwelling of the Spirit of God.


God bless.
19
Apologetics Forum / Re: Our Faith
« Last post by gigman7 on Today at 06:56:45 AM »
Hebrews chapter 11
2 Peter 1:3-11
Galatians 5:16-24
Thank you very much.
20
Theology Forum / Re: Ten Reasons to Reject Baptismal Regeneration
« Last post by S.T. Ranger on Today at 06:55:29 AM »
While I have a few problems with some views of the Reformed, it cannot be denied that they adhere to a closer doctrinal position of God's Sovereignty in regards to salvation then a great many groups do.

What?  The idea that God decided who was saved and who was to be thrown into hell before He even formed the world?  The to support that idea you have to invent Total Depravity to keep the hell-bound from making a positive decision to follow the gospel and Irresistable Grace to make sure the "elect" DO decide to follow the gospel. 

Its soverign alright - in a mechanistic despotic kind of way.

Let's not derail the thread, but in short...that is a caricature view of what many Reformed teachers present. In a recent Reformed conference, which held some teachers that I believe are some of the best (you might be surprised should you hear them, lol) teachers available to the Church today, the question concerning babies going to Hell came up in the Q & A. I was a little surprised that none of them would confirm that they thought babies go to Hell.

As I said, I am not a Reformed Christian, I am a Transformed Sinner, lol. I take issue with both Calvinist and Arminian theology and see their fatal flaw, as I see among some of you here, is that there is a notable lapse in understanding and incorporating the Ministry of the Holy Spirit into the equation of regeneration.

To give a brief outline of my view concerning the Grace of God towards man, and how one who is natural can come to believe, repent, and turn in faith to Christ Jesus, I see the Ministry of the Comforter as the Key to unlocking that debate. Keeping in mind that the New Covenant held promise of God's indwelling and the remission of sins (never to be remembered again, because they would be forgiven in completion), and that the Covenant of Law was only given as a "parable" of sorts of the True that would come (i.e., the "rest" of Canaan which was temporal and did not guarantee eternal relationship with God and the true Rest found in Christ which is itself that very eternal relationship, guaranteed by the indwelling of God Himself).

In considering whether or not babies go to Hell, we simply have to look at the Old Testament principle of Grace, and the principle taught in Scripture that God judges according to man's understanding of the revelation provided him, and we understand that babies have no understanding at all.

Now some may protest, "But wait a minute, all men have a sin nature," or, the sin of all men must be dealt with in order for them to be able to dwell with God."

That is true, but if we look at the simple pattern of grace seen in the Old Testament, we see that not one person before Pentecost had an understanding...of Christ. What that means is that while men might have had faith in the First Principles of the Doctrine of Christ (and we see in Christ's Day that even the Disciples misconstrued that and looked for a temporal salvation), not one of them placed their faith in the Risen Lord. Why not?

Because that revelation was not provided to Man until after the Lord died, rose again, ascended into Heaven...and sent the Comforter to convict men of that knowledge.

So why didn't a murderer and adulterer like King David not go to Hell? Surely he could be found far more guilty than a babe that dies of some malady, or his/her life cut short through life's circumstances...right?

It is by the Grace of God that David did not go to Hell. God made provision for Man before the Revelation of the Knowledge of the Truth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ...

...why would that change?

There are three specific means of revelation shown to us in Scripture: the internal witness of God, the witness of God in Creation, and direct Revelation, such as we have through God's direct intervention in appearing to Man and through His Word. Babies cannot be expected to understand any of those. So it seems reasonable that the same provision made for man before the Gospel was given to man is still available to man today.


God bless.
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10