If I remember the name correctly, It was a forum just called "Christian forums" or something like that.
Anyway I ended up being banned from that forum due to the overwhelming complaints over the proposition I posed. I'll admit that I intended for this to be an antagonistic question, so getting banned was something I expected. I still believed it is a question that should be answered by those who demand the following.
That the "bible is true" and that the "true" message concerning salvation is that if you do not make a decision to accept Christ of your own free will before you die on earth then you for all eternity will be punished, doomed to have an existance of such without any hope.
I posed that if the eternal punishment message is true then Christians should never have kids, for the risk of not knowing if your kids will "get saved" is much too high and that if their child dies "after the age of accountability" without making that decision, then they are responsible for their child going to hell. These parents made the free will choice to have a child and the child had no choice in the matter to be given this life and subjected to that risk.
Thats is probably not word for word what I posted , but it is the general idea.
I am not going to argue with anyone over the question. I am asking your opinion if it is a reasonable question or not?
I'll take it a step further and say that under the eternal punishment paradigm, abortion doctors are heroes that are risking their own damnation to get kids out of here before the age of accountability. It's unavoidable that if there's a certain age bracket where not having embraced the Lordship of Jesus is okay/reasonable/acceptable/permissible/overlookable/unpunishable, but after that time period if you die without Christ then you'll burn forever, then anything that can be done to limit the number of those damned at 12, 13, 14, 15 or whenever the really bad year to die as someone young would be....
The eternal hell paradigm places the abortion doctor in the position of having the same grave responsibilities as the youth pastor. Get them across the finished line with Christ at absolutely any and every cost, even to one's own eternal existence, if one is a caring/compassionate person who doesn't want to see kids by the thousands dying in accidents, school shootings, gang warfare, or whatever who've crossed that mystical age of accountability and must suffer the eternal consequences of hearing Jesus Christ SCREAM at their 10 to 20 year old selves "DEPART FROM ME, INTO THE FIRE PREPARED FOR THE DEVIL AND HIS ANGELS FROM THE FOUNDATION OF THE WORLD BECAUSE I NEVER KNEW YOU, YOU WORKER OF INIQUITY!!!!!!"
(http://www.tentmaker.org/images/PreacherFinal.jpg)
LOL, love that cartoon, where did you get that?
I got it from the main Tentmaker website on this page:
http://www.tentmaker.org/Cartoons/index.htm (http://www.tentmaker.org/Cartoons/index.htm)
There's only about 2 others on there. I think that the page is taking longer to fill out with comics than Gary intended.
Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on October 17, 2008, 02:05:12 AM
they are responsible for their child going to hell. These parents made the free will choice to have a child and the child had no choice in the matter to be given this life and subjected to that risk.
Thats is probably not word for word what I posted , but it is the general idea.
I am not going to argue with anyone over the question. I am asking your opinion if it is a reasonable question or not?
Absolutely yes - rattle those cages! I use it all the time.
It's proof that no one really, in their heart of hearts, believes in ET or they would never take the risk. Some say "I have to have kids - because I'm commanded by God to multiply".
My response is "If you really believe in ET then be a man and defy the procreation order - in fact, kill yourself and stop the risk of being responsible for any more eternal torment". Response "But I'll go to hell for killing myself". Answer: "But you'll be a great hero for sacrificing yourself to save others."
Yes, it gets a little crazy, doesn't it.... :laughing7:
Quote from: firstborn888 on October 17, 2008, 01:57:49 PM
Some say "I have to have kids - because I'm commanded by God to multiply".
1 Corinthians 7:8 And I say to the unmarried and to the widows: it is good for them if they may remain even as I am;
Quote from: martincisneros on October 17, 2008, 03:05:11 AM
I got it from the main Tentmaker website on this page:
http://www.tentmaker.org/Cartoons/index.htm (http://www.tentmaker.org/Cartoons/index.htm)
There's only about 2 others on there. I think that the page is taking longer to fill out with comics than Gary intended.
lol, I wondered about what Jack Chick could come up with if he became a universalist.
Paul I want to thank you for being able to bring up this topic. I see things the way you do as well but I haven't had the nerve to bring this up to anyone.
I remember at one time I read a post on this forum where one said they couldn't imagine being a calvinist holding their newborn baby and had to wonder if their baby was part of the elect or not. Arminianism isn't any better. You basically just have to hope that your child accepts the Lord, but you can't control their free will.
I think this argument proves another point as well. You and I believe that if eternal torment is true then having children is a selfish thing to do. However when you hear an eternal torment believer talking about wanting to have kids, it just shows that they haven't truly thought their position through. That's where they struggle, they don't truly look at what it is they believe in.
Chris
Paul, not trying to hijack your thread, I think this ties in. I'm not saying we shouldn't share the Good News, we are told to "charge and teach Jesus, Savior of all men, especially of those believing". But....if ET were true, then aren't missionaries doing a dis-service as well, when they go tell "pagans/heathens" about Jesus who've never heard before? Again, that's IF they go to hell once they've heard His name and don't believe, then wasn't their hearing about Jesus unfortunate for them? It can't be that way, can it, just as it can't be that way with children born into this age? Jesus' death and resurrection is GOOD NEWS! to ALL MEN in the context of the dispensation of God's plan for the Ages. Ephesians 3:10,11..."that there might be made known now to the principalities and the authorities in the heavenly [places], through the assembly, the manifold wisdom of God,
according to a purpose of the ages, which He made in Christ Jesus our Lord"...
Quote from: jabcat on October 18, 2008, 02:39:43 AM
But....if ET were true, then aren't missionaries doing a dis-service as well, when they go tell "pagans/heathens" about Jesus who've never heard before? Again, that's IF they go to hell once they've heard His name and don't believe, then wasn't their hearing about Jesus unfortunate for them?
I was raised to believe a doctrine popular in many religious systems called "Original Sin." It is that people inherited Adam's sin and it's guilt so are by nature children of wrath. You deserve to be ceaselessly tortured for ever just for being born here as a human being. This in their minds is an incentive to evangelize those that have never heard. Some might believe; other wise, they're all already heading to permanent hell.
What I keep being so dazzled by is the seeming impossiblity to get those indoctrinated into this and other parts of their systematic theologies to prove these doctrines by saying them in the actual quoted words of Scripture (verified from the original languages.) They can't seem to comprehend the request. Yet they mouth the words, "We believe the Bible. We teach only what the Bible says." Of course, the Bible doesn't teach "Original Sin" or a lot of other commonly accepted traditions of men.
Without verifying to my personal satisfaction the legitimacy of presuppositional apologetics I see a functional validity in that approach because of these strongholds. (Rather than the humanistic ideal of reason defining man inherited from the Enlightenment, presuppositionalism's man is a creature of faith. All ultimate claims are based on one's beginning assumptions rather than rational conclusions.) How are we to overcome those claiming God's approval for beliefs based in human authority and are actually in rebellion against God and His authority?
James, I think I like what you're saying, but could you say the last paragraph over with 25 cent words instead of 50 centers? :mblush:.
P.S. I think the A to your Q is along the lines of Jesus draws and the Spirit reveals/unveils. All we can do is proclaim and pray :JCThink:.
Quote from: jabcat on October 18, 2008, 06:27:45 AM
James, I think I like what you're saying, but could you say the last paragraph over with 25 cent words instead of 50 centers? :mblush:.
Yes, if I had the time.
Quote from: jabcat on October 18, 2008, 06:27:45 AM
P.S. I think the A to your Q is along the lines of Jesus draws and the Spirit reveals/unveils. All we can do is proclaim and pray :JCThink:.
...and suffer. (Love really hates lies!)
You're right. Suffer...and rejoice! :thumbsup:
I previously said, "I think the A to your Q is along the lines of Jesus draws and the Spirit reveals/unveils. All we can do is proclaim and pray". I said that like it doesn't bother me, when in fact now that I think about it, it really does bother me...a lot. What I said may be right, but it's the "technical" answer, not the one I usually experience. I want people to see, to understand, to "get it", and I struggle with the fact that they don't. It gets lonely being one of the only people you really know in the world who believes like you do. So yeah, Reformer, I feel the intensity of "how do you get them [to see]".....I need to absorb the reality of what I said, not just say it....James.
Great question! Actually, any time I begin to doubt UR (which is less and less frequently) I think of things like this. It's unanswerable questions like these that brought me to UR.
I had 7 children before accepting UR at about the time my 8th child was born a year ago. I often thought of this question, but handled it the way my wife still does. I just trusted God to work things out. That's the best I could come up with.
Along the lines of the "age of accountability", check out this article by Charles Slagle. It is strong and a bit graphic so would be for the mature audience - A Tale of Two Twins - http://sigler.org/slagle/tale_of_twins.htm (http://sigler.org/slagle/tale_of_twins.htm)
Great thread!
Tale of Two Twins by Charles Slagle is extremely disturbing so I'll also warn you before reading it. But it is a story that makes you think.
Wow, difficult question. I think the question is an ok question, but that it probably will not reach the intended audience. But that is for God to decide. I am not sure if being antagonistic is a Christ-like aspect or not. I struggle with that one myself... You want to be sarcastic, but that somewhat goes against the gentle and quiet spirit thing in 1st Peter.
There's 2 books I want to read that are both about parents who's unbelieving child has passed away. One is Whatever Became of Melanie and the other is The Jerome Conspiracy. Jerome lived during the 4th or 5th century I believe. He was originally a universalist but he got caught up with Augustine and started to believe in eternal torment. The Jerome Conspiracy is supposed to reveal some astonishing facts about Jerome and the doctrine of eternal punishment. I'll be reading it this week and I'll let you all know how it is.
Quote from: valueallhumanlife2008 on October 27, 2008, 07:23:31 AM
The Jerome Conspiracy is supposed to reveal some astonishing facts about Jerome and the doctrine of eternal punishment. I'll be reading it this week and I'll let you all know how it is.
Looking forward to your book review! Please post it here: http://www.tentmaker.org/forum/index.php?topic=3346.0
as well :thumbsup:
Well I went to Barnes and Noble and they didn't have the book. But they did order it for me. Hopefully it'll come in soon.
Has anyone read Whatever Became of Melanie?
Hi Paul and ALL ,
great post ReFORMer
it is true LOVE /GOD suffers hates lies!
there is nothing more pitiful than for a parent to doubt and wonder
if WHERE IS /their "young man" SON who died in a truck wreck at 32
example only , but I am not lying here it has happened just this past week to a couple I know :mshock:
they have two sons both die in 4 months apart one is christian 27
whom was so loving and dear and they were suffering his loss and not understanding WHY God took him ?he having a loving wife of 8 years and a 5 year old son and twin babies 4 months old died in a freak fishing accident /drowning by undertow
this couple is so awesome and wondeful and "good people
but they have been raised and conditioned to believe in hell fire and everlasting punishment and have raisied their 3 boys[little ones to now ] to believe also the same and that going to church is the way of expressing and exercising their faith in God
this has ripped families apart and faith apart and utter deveatation to so many
and to me the difference between UR believers and ET believers is that wonderfully Strange Confidence in God through Jesus Christ , that fear and worry subsides , you can never tell it on the outside , just by looking at any one of us .all folks considered here
its something I have realized over time
just what the difference is
that calm rest in Gods will being perfect and you cannot change His will no matter how much you kick and scream against it
I thank you for this thread , its has been very enlighting to me personally
God love you all .. rose
.
Quote from: firstborn888 on October 17, 2008, 01:57:49 PM
Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on October 17, 2008, 02:05:12 AM
they are responsible for their child going to hell. These parents made the free will choice to have a child and the child had no choice in the matter to be given this life and subjected to that risk.
Thats is probably not word for word what I posted , but it is the general idea.
I am not going to argue with anyone over the question. I am asking your opinion if it is a reasonable question or not?
Absolutely yes - rattle those cages! I use it all the time.
It's proof that no one really, in their heart of hearts, believes in ET or they would never take the risk. Some say "I have to have kids - because I'm commanded by God to multiply".
My response is "If you really believe in ET then be a man and defy the procreation order - in fact, kill yourself and stop the risk of being responsible for any more eternal torment". Response "But I'll go to hell for killing myself". Answer: "But you'll be a great hero for sacrificing yourself to save others."
Yes, it gets a little crazy, doesn't it.... :laughing7:
Its so funny guys, I was just thinking of this and then I came across these posts. I heard somewhere (not sure now where or if it was even in my country) that a little boy asked his teacher why Mary and Joseph named their baby after a curse word - that naturally caused the teacher lots of concern. Religion is'nt taught in schools in my country anymore but evolution is very much so taught. Parents are'nt teaching their kids religion anymore and thats what makes for such questions coming up. Lots of kids (majority I am sure) don't even realize why we at first celebrated Christmas - it's become a commercial money making enterprise. Okay now my point is simple. We are living in very unreligious times, lots of people have rejected religion all together and therefore many of the next generation (the children of today) have no idea of what religion even is. Since no one is making an effort in their lives to teach them, is it really fair to think our loving Father would condemn them?
Blessings and my :2c:
Dee
The children that is. Meant I really doubt He would condemn the children.
Dee
Quote from: DeeDee on November 09, 2008, 01:36:20 PM
The children that is. Meant I really doubt He would condemn the children.
You will get many different answers on that question. On this board it will simply be that those childeren will enter heaven.
But I also have read ET visions/opinions....
The most morbid one was along these lines:
Someone was having a look into the seperate torture chambers of hell. All diffrent and all with different pain levels.
In a certain room there was a baby in an oven.
The baby was there because it died before it was baptized.
Now you might ask youself isn't that very unfair? The baby didn't sin yet!
The answer was that God knew the baby would have become some monster like Hitler.
So God showed his grace in two fold:
a] He protected society from the crimes the grown up baby would do.
b] And the baby was only in an oven now instead of a very hot fire if it was allowed to live a whole life.
So 6 billion people. 6 billion answers.....
That is truly disturbing WhiteWings. Such tales were very common during the middle ages and throughout the protestant reformation. Today though, most Christians sugarcoat their belief in eternal torment. If it's what they believe, why not come straight out and say it like it is?
This sounds like the quote WhiteWings refers to.
Quote"The fifth dungeon is the red hot oven. The little child is ...
This is another disturbing one, but if you want to read it, the rest is here: http://www.tentmaker.org/Quotes/hell-fire.htm (http://www.tentmaker.org/Quotes/hell-fire.htm) Search the page for "red hot oven". I've heard it quoted in more detail sounding more like what WhiteWings said rather than just the excerpt here.
There are plenty of other similar quotes :mshock:
I just read some
:mshock: x 1000
QuoteI posed that if the eternal punishment message is true then Christians should never have kids, for the risk of not knowing if your kids will "get saved" is much too high and that if their child dies "after the age of accountability" without making that decision, then they are responsible for their child going to hell. These parents made the free will choice to have a child and the child had no choice in the matter to be given this life and subjected to that risk.
Been thinking about this again. It reminds me of that same view many Christians (ET based) hold when asked how would they feel in Heaven knowing that many are suffering in hell. Many answer in the following ways;
1.) We would become so much like God that we would hate sin and be glad to know that those who did not come to repentance are getting their "just reward".
2.) God will make us forget about the ungodly when we are in heaven. Whether it be family or friends we will simply not remember they existed.
So with that in light, I would think that many (ET christians) when posed with the question of "would'nt it be unfair to have kids if they are at risk of ET" would simply answer something like;
1.) The bible forbids contraceptives :laughing7:
2.) If my child is meant to be in hell its God's will :dontknow:
There will always be 1000 arguments back.
Blessings
Dee
Quote from: reFORMer on October 18, 2008, 05:46:34 AM
Quote from: jabcat on October 18, 2008, 02:39:43 AM
But....if ET were true, then aren't missionaries doing a dis-service as well, when they go tell "pagans/heathens" about Jesus who've never heard before? Again, that's IF they go to hell once they've heard His name and don't believe, then wasn't their hearing about Jesus unfortunate for them?
I was raised to believe a doctrine popular in many religious systems called "Original Sin." It is that people inherited Adam's sin and it's guilt so are by nature children of wrath. You deserve to be ceaselessly tortured for ever just for being born here as a human being. This in their minds is an incentive to evangelize those that have never heard. Some might believe; other wise, they're all already heading to permanent hell.
What I keep being so dazzled by is the seeming impossiblity to get those indoctrinated into this and other parts of their systematic theologies to prove these doctrines by saying them in the actual quoted words of Scripture (verified from the original languages.) They can't seem to comprehend the request. Yet they mouth the words, "We believe the Bible. We teach only what the Bible says." Of course, the Bible doesn't teach "Original Sin" or a lot of other commonly accepted traditions of men.
Without verifying to my personal satisfaction the legitimacy of presuppositional apologetics I see a functional validity in that approach because of these strongholds. (Rather than the humanistic ideal of reason defining man inherited from the Enlightenment, presuppositionalism's man is a creature of faith. All ultimate claims are based on one's beginning assumptions rather than rational conclusions.) How are we to overcome those claiming God's approval for beliefs based in human authority and are actually in rebellion against God and His authority?
Great point in this post.
I was just thinking recently about how indoctrinated we've been (those of us growing up in the church) to think about things a certain way. Very hard to overcome indeed. The problem with systematic theologies is that they're all based on man's reason, and are our feeble attempts to understand a somewhat incomprehensible God.
QuoteGreat point in this post.
I was just thinking recently about how indoctrinated we've been (those of us growing up in the church) to think about things a certain way. Very hard to overcome indeed. The problem with systematic theologies is that they're all based on man's reason, and are our feeble attempts to understand a somewhat incomprehensible God.
exactly! :thumbsup: the doctrines/teachings of men ..
we need the Holy Spirit for guidance and help and comfort ,direction
Jesus said would dwell with us forever John 14;16
Jhn 14:26 But
the Comforter, [which is] the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
One thing I've noticed is many of the perpetuators of ET were also extremely misogynistic.
Quote from: Andromeda_Organa on November 26, 2008, 04:29:06 AM
One thing I've noticed is many of the perpetuators of ET were also extremely misogynistic.
Misogynistic? Golly. I thought they were Catholic.
Quote from: Andromeda_Organa on November 26, 2008, 04:29:06 AM
One thing I've noticed is many of the perpetuators of ET were also extremely misogynistic.
Religion in
general has not been too kind to women, has it... :sigh:
Quote from: firstborn888 on November 26, 2008, 05:01:08 AM
Quote from: Andromeda_Organa on November 26, 2008, 04:29:06 AM
One thing I've noticed is many of the perpetuators of ET were also extremely misogynistic.
Religion in general has not been too kind to women, has it... :sigh:
No, it hasn't, but many atheists have been misogynistic as well. *cough Sigmend Freud cough*
Quote from: Andromeda_Organa on November 26, 2008, 05:51:02 AM
Quote from: firstborn888 on November 26, 2008, 05:01:08 AM
Quote from: Andromeda_Organa on November 26, 2008, 04:29:06 AM
One thing I've noticed is many of the perpetuators of ET were also extremely misogynistic.
Religion in general has not been too kind to women, has it... :sigh:
No, it hasn't, but many atheists have been misogynistic as well. *cough Sigmend Freud cough*
And I assume Darwinism considers women to be inferiorly evolved? Yet there are more women than men :omg:
Here are two powerful quotes by universalist Thomas Allin, which speak to the subject of belief in ET and the decision to bear children. They are from his book, Christ Triumphant , written back in 1890 --
"If [ET is] true, can this strange fact be explained--that nobody acts as if he believed it? I say this, for any man who so believed, and who possessed but a spark of common humanity--to say nothing of charity--could not rest, day or night, so long as one sinner remained who might be saved. ... No society, no individual, can possibly act, or has in fact acted, on such a creed, in the real business of life. It is simply impossible: who would dare so much as to smile, if he really believed endless torments were certain to be the portion of some member of his household--it may be of himself? Marriage would be a crime, and each birth the occasion of an awful dread."
and ...
"Whenever human beings exist, in what form of community it matters not, in what climate or under what conditions of life whatsoever, there is found everywhere a deep spontaneous belief, call it feeling, instinct, what you please, that connects the marriage tie and the birthday with joyful associations, with mirth and gladness. Now why is this--has it no meaning? ... Is it possible that our Heavenly Father should bid His creatures everywhere to rejoice with a special joy at the marriage feast, at the natal hour, if these births were in fact destined to add largely to the ranks of hell? As you think it over, take with you these words of Jesus Christ...'joy that a man is born into the world.' Dwell on these words, that you may grasp all they convey. ... It is a joy that a man--any man--should be born into the world (John 16:21). See how wide the words are. ... Can I believe that our Father bids any mother's heart to stir with joy at the sight of her infant, while he knows that this infant is destined to be, will be, in fact, shut up into endless torment and sin?"
Quote from: tm55 on November 26, 2008, 06:54:24 AM
Marriage would be a crime, and each birth the occasion of an awful dread."
That's right. The insanity of the doctrine of ET is numbing to the senses.
Quote from: firstborn888 on November 26, 2008, 11:56:18 AM
Quote from: tm55 on November 26, 2008, 06:54:24 AM
Marriage would be a crime, and each birth the occasion of an awful dread."
That's right. The insanity of the doctrine of ET is numbing to the senses.
Wow , this all reminds me of a preacher who used this verse to say the same thing! that death would be the rejoicing seeing them go saved rather and the new baby as misery for fear of the things to come
kind of twisted that one up huh? :msealed: :mblush:
Ecc 7:1 A good name [is] better than precious ointment; and the day of death than the day of one's birth.
Quote from: rosered on November 26, 2008, 02:38:51 PM
Ecc 7:1 A good name [is] better than precious ointment; and the day of death than the day of one's birth.
I use that verse to show that the Genesis 3 account is what all the OT writers knew and believed.
Here's reformed theologian (AKA Calvinist) John MacArthur, Jr. explaining children/babies and hell:
"Now, listen. Salvation then is by grace completely apart from works. Damnation is by works completely apart from grace. Infants have no sinful works to fill the books and condemn them. So I say this, if a baby dies, that baby is elect. Instant heaven.
Let me read you something in closing, written in 1907 by R. A. Webb. Listen to this: "If a dead infant were sent to hell on no other account than that of original sin, there would be a good reason to the divine mind for the judgment because sin is a reality, but the child's mind would be a perfect blank as to the reason of its suffering. Under such circumstances, it would know suffering, but it would have no understanding of the reason for its suffering. It could not tell itself why it was so awfully smitten and, consequently, the whole meaning and significance of its sufferings, being to it a conscious enigma, the very essence of the penalty would be absent, and justice would be disappointed, cheated of its validation."
Yes, children are born sinners--their death proves that--but never being able to understand the truth and therefore consciously reject it and choose rebellion, they have no record against them in the books of God and they then constitute a marvelous and vast opportunity for sovereign grace to operate, apart from any works at all.
So here's a final summary: all children who die before they reach the condition of accountability, by which they convincingly understand their sin and corruption and embrace the gospel by faith, are graciously saved eternally by God through the work of Jesus Christ, being elect by sovereign choice, innocent of willful sin, rebellion, and unbelief, by which works they would be justly condemned to eternal punishment. (Get the tape if you want that again). So, when an infant dies, he or she is elect to eternal salvation and eternal glory. So, dear one, if you have a little one that dies, rejoice! Count not your human loss; count your eternal gain. Count not that child as having lost, but having gained, having passed briefly through this life, untouched by the wicked world, only to enter into eternal glory and grace. The true sadness should be over those children of yours who live and reject the gospel. Don't sorrow over your children in heaven; sorrow over your children on earth, that they should come to Christ. This is your great responsibility, your great opportunity".
http://www.biblebb.com/files/MAC/80-242.htm
Calvinism is a special brand of ET. In their view - God pre-planned this whole salvation and damnation thing and who goes where and is thrilled with the outcome. But - look at the sickness of the the statement I put in bold. Even if the baby through original sin deserved hell, it's lack of knowing WHY it was suffering would cheat justice :mshock: :mshock: :mshock: therefore - heaven it is.
Now there's some mighty fine logic for ya' :sigh:
Quote from: firstborn888 on November 26, 2008, 03:03:31 PM
Calvinism is a special brand of ET.
I guess they all attended to 'special schools' :laughing7:
QuoteIn their view - God pre-planned this whole salvation and damnation thing and who goes where and is thrilled with the outcome. But - look at the sickness of the the statement I put in bold. Even if the baby through original sin deserved hell, it's lack of knowing WHY it was suffering would cheat justice :mshock: :mshock: :mshock: therefore - heaven it is.
They seem to regret the mental capacity of the baby isn't high enough to fully enjoy the suffering. :flamebreath:
But still there is a very good reason for that.
God knew the baby would become really bad and ended up in hell anyway. Because the child died early God spare mankind of the crimes the baby would commit. The baby didn't commit the crimes so gets a less harsh punishment in hell.
That's another variation on the theme.
So basicly a win-win situation :sigh:
I imagine them waiting is a big room with: Waiting room for the doomed to be judged.
They look through the window to the other room of saved people and see their very heritic JW neighbor having a chat with the also elected Hitler and Stalin.
I wonder how they would think about of elect then :Chinscratch:
Passing judgement is always easier than recieving it...
Quote from: WhiteWings on November 26, 2008, 03:31:08 PM
I imagine them waiting is a big room with: Waiting room for the doomed to be judged.
They look through the window to the other room of saved people and see their very heritic JW neighbor having a chat with the also elected Hitler and Stalin.
I wonder how they would think about of elect then :Chinscratch:
Passing judgement is always easier than recieving it...
Well, here's where it gets even more weird. In Calvinism it's ALL by grace and election but living in sin is a sign that you are not elected. So you need to "make your calling and election sure". If there is not grace in your life to overcome sin then there is.... well... not grace in your life (and that
real bad news). So basically you end up working your butt off to prove it's all by the grace given you and not of works :sigh: all the while hoping it's a good enough sign for assurance of your election.
I've even seen Calvinists do congratulatory cyber high fives like: "Mornin' dude! Ain't it GREAT to be the elect?!!" *slap* and the reply comes "Yup, and wouldn't it suck to be the non-elect??!"
Something to read about Calvinism: http://www.digitalministries.us/steve_gregg/text/calvinism.pdf
The Distinctive Points of Calvinism and of Arminianism
The Doctrine of Human Free Will: A Historical Survey (or "how the 'Non-Calvinistic' beliefs of the first four centuries were replaced by 'Calvinistic' beliefs")
The Sovereignty of God in Scripture (as opposed to man-made theological systems)
What came first: Regenerating Grace or Saving Faith?
Total Depravity and Inability
The Election of God: Its Ground and Its Scope
Is Faith a Meritorious Good Work?
Double Predestination: Could God Unconditionally Elect Some Without Unconditionally Reprobating the Rest?
Did God Decree That Men Should Sin?
And some more chapters in this 26 page pdf
Quote from: firstborn888 on November 26, 2008, 03:03:31 PM
Here's reformed theologian (AKA Calvinist) John MacArthur, Jr. explaining children/babies and hell:
"Now, listen. Salvation then is by grace completely apart from works. Damnation is by works completely apart from grace. Infants have no sinful works to fill the books and condemn them. So I say this, if a baby dies, that baby is elect. Instant heaven.
....
Wonder if he's pro-life or pro-choice? I would be almost certain he is pro-life, which is logically inconsistent with the above statement. Yet another irony.
Although John MacArthur, Jr has in recent years show more affinity with Calvinism, seemingly through Puritan writers, it has been primarily around the doctrine of "Limited Atonement." (I have enjoyed the Puritans. For a start you could try Gurnall's The Christian In Complete Armor. Thomas Watson's book The Ten Commandments is esteemed by many to be the best on the subject. He's probably my favorite author. Rich!!!)
MadArthurt is a racial dispensationalist. How much he merges with certain Calvinist ideas remains to be seen. In the past, possibly the main reason the racial dispensationalists, ie., Arminianists and Calvinists ever relate to each other is the threat from low views of Biblical Inspiration, Redaction (editing) Criticism, and so on. They unite in the common enemy of what has become the norm in Roman Catholic and Old-line Protestant seminaries that used to be known as German higher textual criticism.
They have other affinities. During the Reformation of the 1500's the Calvinists figured that since the Roman Church had miracles they must all be spurious and threw the baby out with the bathwater. MadArthurt has an available book he wrote against spiritual gifts. Both camps are anti-supernaturalists, though racial Dispensationalists might claim otherwise. They say that not only the miraculous, but much of Scripture as well is not for us, but for another people: the racial Jew. The "signs following" confirmed to their racially Jewish audience of the first century that the writings of the N.T. were actually the oracles of God and Scripture just as the O.T. writings were. Then they ceased. So they may be called "Cessationists" along with the Reformed churches. These miracles will begin again, according to Dispensationalism, when the Church is out of the way via the "Rupture." God will then turn to the people He really loves, the racial Jew, and provide signs that they would believe, followed by a Jewish Millennium. I say there is no promise to a race of people. God's chosen people are known by the fact that He gives them the Holy Spirit.
Dispensationalisms entire view of the future is not only unBiblical, it is seriously warped. I recently heard MadArthur say that the Bible talks about hell much more than heaven, a lie so obvious it gets hard to believe somebody like him can be so ignorant. They get financially rewarded for preaching ceasless torture for ever. Without it, a lot of them would be out of a job. Racial Dispensational Eschatology is worth a lotta bucks too! Why they are so intolerant of any searching out of other views is hard to understand. They commonly throw you out of their synagogues as evil and pronounce anathemas against you if you're not aligned with their peculiar views about the close of this age. They add to foam at the mouth and turn purple if you don't believe in Hell for ever and ever. I know by repeated 1st hand experience.
Yeah, Reformer; I hear you. Even my pastor who is generally very level-headed, wise and spirit led turns into a near raving lunatic (totally out of character for him) when it comes to this stupid doctrine of eternal torment/ separation. The hold of tradition is so strong on him in this area, he can't even see it.
I mentioned in another thread that he did a four week sermon series against universalism when he found out I was exploring it and sharing it with others.
Unbelievable.
The re-in-forcing: verse,
1st John 02:27
this ties in to John 14: 26.
But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you,
and ye need not that any man teach you:
but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things,
and is truth, and is no lie,
and even as it hath taught you,
ye shall abide in him.
______________________________________
Quote from: rosered on November 25, 2008, 02:58:50 AM
QuoteGreat point in this post.
I was just thinking recently about how indoctrinated we've been (those of us growing up in the church) to think about things a certain way. Very hard to overcome indeed. The problem with systematic theologies is that they're all based on man's reason, and are our feeble attempts to understand a somewhat incomprehensible God.
exactly! :thumbsup: the doctrines/teachings of men ..
we need the Holy Spirit for guidance and help and comfort ,direction
Jesus said would dwell with us forever John 14;16
Jhn 14:26 But the Comforter, [which is] the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
Quote from: Kevin on November 27, 2008, 12:34:41 AM
The re-in-forcing: verse,
1st John 02:27
this ties in to John 14: 26.
But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you,
and ye need not that any man teach you:
but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things,
and is truth, and is no lie,
and even as it hath taught you,
ye shall abide in him.
______________________________________
Quote from: rosered on November 25, 2008, 02:58:50 AM
QuoteGreat point in this post.
I was just thinking recently about how indoctrinated we've been (those of us growing up in the church) to think about things a certain way. Very hard to overcome indeed. The problem with systematic theologies is that they're all based on man's reason, and are our feeble attempts to understand a somewhat incomprehensible God.
exactly! :thumbsup: the doctrines/teachings of men ..
we need the Holy Spirit for guidance and help and comfort ,direction
Jesus said would dwell with us forever John 14;16
Jhn 14:26 But the Comforter, [which is] the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
Great Kevin :icon_flower:, yes this too , wow
1Corinth 2 10For to us God revealed them through the Spirit; for the Spirit
searches all things, even the depths of God.
11For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him?
Even so the thoughts of God no one knows except the Spirit of God. 12Now we have received, not the spirit of the world,
but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may know the things freely given to us by God, 13which things we also speak, not in words taught by human wisdom,
but in those taught by the Spirit, combining spiritual thoughts with spiritual words. 14But
a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are
spiritually appraised. 15But
he who is spiritual appraises all things, yet he himself is appraised by no one.
16For WHO HAS KNOWN THE MIND OF THE LORD, THAT HE WILL INSTRUCT HIM?
But we have the mind of Christ. they witness/testify of the same things ''all things''
Quote from: firstborn888 on November 26, 2008, 02:53:12 PM
Quote from: rosered on November 26, 2008, 02:38:51 PM
Ecc 7:1 A good name [is] better than precious ointment; and the day of death than the day of one's birth.
I use that verse to show that the Genesis 3 account is what all the OT writers knew and believed.
Hi Firstborn888
I read Gen 3 and you have a great point , it was the day they ate of the tree of knowledge of good and evil and that brought death !
Quote from: Doc on November 26, 2008, 09:25:40 PM
I mentioned in another thread that he did a four week sermon series against universalism when he found out I was exploring it and sharing it with others.
Unbelievable.
Oh no - the dreaded "Sunday morning after" syndrome. That's no fun, getting preached at in public. :thumbdown: Did he make any eye contact w/you during the sermons?
Quote from: WhiteWings on November 09, 2008, 02:15:11 PM
Quote from: DeeDee on November 09, 2008, 01:36:20 PM
The children that is. Meant I really doubt He would condemn the children.
You will get many different answers on that question. On this board it will simply be that those childeren will enter heaven.
But I also have read ET visions/opinions....
The most morbid one was along these lines:
Someone was having a look into the seperate torture chambers of hell. All diffrent and all with different pain levels.
In a certain room there was a baby in an oven.
The baby was there because it died before it was baptized.
Now you might ask youself isn't that very unfair? The baby didn't sin yet!
The answer was that God knew the baby would have become some monster like Hitler.
So God showed his grace in two fold:
a] He protected society from the crimes the grown up baby would do.
b] And the baby was only in an oven now instead of a very hot fire if it was allowed to live a whole life.
So 6 billion people. 6 billion answers.....
I thought these people believed babies went to Heaven- doesn't the Bible teach that?
Quote from: Andromeda_Organa on November 28, 2008, 02:13:18 AM
Quote from: WhiteWings on November 09, 2008, 02:15:11 PM
In a certain room there was a baby in an oven.
The baby was there because it died before it was baptized.
Now you might ask youself isn't that very unfair? The baby didn't sin yet!
The answer was that God knew the baby would have become some monster like Hitler.
I thought these people believed babies went to Heaven- doesn't the Bible teach that?
I think this baby story is from an old Catholic children's book (!) since only those who 'believe and are
baptized' are saved. So it was just driving home church doctrine about baptism.
Calvin is widely (and possibly FALSELY) quoted as saying "There are babies a span long in hell". This could just be oral tradition and Arminian propaganda as there is no solid proof he ever said that. Clearly all modern Calvinist institutions have distanced themselves from concepts like this as it would greatly hurt their cause
Babies in hell or heaven poses problems for ET believers though because if God cannot allow sin in heaven and the Calvinistic adherence to 'sin nature' doctrine is to be kept how can God let them in? Thus, to keep God looking reasonably fair - pre-election gets extended to ALL who are mentally incapable of comprehending sin. However - some Calvinists I've met (very few) are fine with the concept of non-elect babies in torment. The rationale is that the sinful nature is all there in the baby - it just hasn't matured yet so, no big deal. I'll quote one from a conversation I had "If you start making exceptions for babies then you have to start making exceptions for the mentally ill, the old and incompetent, those who never heard - it just goes on and on and on" (!)
Quote[I thought these people believed babies went to Heaven- doesn't the Bible teach that?/quote]
Most ET churches teach that all that are not baptized go to hell, so they would tell you that a newborn baby that dies will go to hell. Only problem with that is that it does not make any sense at all. Not in a persons head or heart, so don't worry I seriously doubt God would punish innocent babies.
Quote from: firstborn888 on November 28, 2008, 04:54:03 AM
Quote from: Andromeda_Organa on November 28, 2008, 02:13:18 AM
Quote from: WhiteWings on November 09, 2008, 02:15:11 PM
In a certain room there was a baby in an oven.
The baby was there because it died before it was baptized.
Now you might ask youself isn't that very unfair? The baby didn't sin yet!
The answer was that God knew the baby would have become some monster like Hitler.
I thought these people believed babies went to Heaven- doesn't the Bible teach that?
I think this baby story is from an old Catholic children's book (!) since only those who 'believe and are baptized' are saved. So it was just driving home church doctrine about baptism.
Calvin is widely (and possibly FALSELY) quoted as saying "There are babies a span long in hell". This could just be oral tradition and Arminian propaganda as there is no solid proof he ever said that. Clearly all modern Calvinist institutions have distanced themselves from concepts like this as it would greatly hurt their cause
Babies in hell or heaven poses problems for ET believers though because if God cannot allow sin in heaven and the Calvinistic adherence to 'sin nature' doctrine is to be kept how can God let them in? Thus, to keep God looking reasonably fair - pre-election gets extended to ALL who are mentally incapable of comprehending sin. However - some Calvinists I've met (very few) are fine with the concept of non-elect babies in torment. The rationale is that the sinful nature is all there in the baby - it just hasn't matured yet so, no big deal. I'll quote one from a conversation I had "If you start making exceptions for babies then you have to start making exceptions for the mentally ill, the old and incompetent, those who never heard - it just goes on and on and on" (!)
Ugh! I'm mentally ill myself, and that just disturbs me! Schizophrenics would not be capable of understanding the Gospel, so how could they be held accountable?
Quote from: Andromeda_Organa on November 28, 2008, 09:11:25 PM
Ugh! I'm mentally ill myself, and that just disturbs me! Schizophrenics would not be capable of understanding the Gospel, so how could they be held accountable?
The whole 'chosen for eternal damnation from the beginning' is really the most repulsive and evil doctrine ever devised. At least with most pagan systems you get at least one chance to 'get it right :sigh:
Quote from: firstborn888 on November 29, 2008, 12:23:58 AM
Quote from: Andromeda_Organa on November 28, 2008, 09:11:25 PM
Ugh! I'm mentally ill myself, and that just disturbs me! Schizophrenics would not be capable of understanding the Gospel, so how could they be held accountable?
The whole 'chosen for eternal damnation from the beginning' is really the most repulsive and evil doctrine ever devised. At least with most pagan systems you get at least one chance to 'get it right :sigh:
RIght, exactly. And reincarnation gives you multiple chances. Although in Islam, you never get the assurance you'll go to Heaven, no matter how devout you are.