Jeff, That's quite true. Unbelievers are not normally living to please God. We know that God, in His providence, has revealed that it is wrong to murder. If abortionists use His promises of infants going to heaven (like they care!) as an excuse to justify their sin, so what else is new??? That has absolutely nothing to do with the issue. Nancy >From: Jeff Thomas <thomas64@...> >Reply-To: soundofgrace@... >To: soundofgrace@... >Subject: RE: [soundofgrace] Infant Salvation >Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2003 18:56:58 -0800 (PST) > >I agree Steve, but to be quite honest it doesn't matter what the secular >abort. drs think of us. They are going to justify their actions no matter >what we do. I would say that most abortionist do not need or desire to be >justify by us. They are rewarded by their god of greed and humanisn. > >Jeff > >"Steve Fuchs (on MSN)" <SteveF_MS@...> wrote: >For we believers, yes, but if the secular abortionist's latched onto the >idea that all babies go to heaven, they could put one more happy feather of >justification in their cap of false righteousness. > >When we tell the world infants are guaranteed heaven, we comfort the >abortionist more than the grieving parent. > >Steve > >-----Original Message----- >From: Jeff Thomas [mailto:thomas64@...] >Sent: Sunday, December 28, 2003 5:51 PM >To: soundofgrace@... >Subject: Re: [soundofgrace] Infant Salvation > > >But here's the problem even if all infants who died go to heaven. God has >still commanded us not to kill. That is unless that OT command doesn't >apply in the N.C. The Calvinist argues that the reason we preach the word >is >via the command of God. Doesn't the same logic apply here? > >Jeff > >John Reisinger wrote: >There used to be a Reformed professor in a seminary who claimed that if all >babies go to heaven we should practice "machine gun evangelism." > >If the "instant heaven" is true then it would seem that the abortionist >have, unknowingly, been the instrument for the greatest eternal blessing on >mankind. Would that not be ironical indeed? JGR > > > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Steve Fuchs (on MSN)" >To: >Sent: Saturday, December 27, 2003 2:25 PM >Subject: RE: [soundofgrace] Infant Salvation > > >I am not saying Hell is full of babies, and Heaven empty of them. But if >Hell is guaranteed to be empty of them, as you insist, then the Christian >parent should desire that his child die young, before he has the chance to >ruin his eternity, which scripture assures us he will do. > >Likewise, there should be great anxiety in his heart as his child matures, >especially in that ambiguous era when s/he might or might not yet be held >accountable. There is no comfort a pastor can give him during that time, >because we can't biblically nail down an age of accountability, and we >can't >force him to pray a prayer of salvation. These are all the reasons the >church at large has developed risky doctrine about 'age of accountability', >and 'easy believism'. Because rather than resting in Christ for sovereign >control of those around us, and His assurance to completely bring them to >heaven if they are chosen (whether we get to see that they are or not), we >trust more in our ability to persuade them, their walking the aisle, and >God >being fair enough to give them opportunity to demonstrate it for us to see. > >It's rather odd (IMHO) to say 'of course they deserve hell, but God won't >send them there because they haven't yet performed any deeds that scripture >says they'll be sent there for'. No matter how you slice it, you're saying >they really don't deserve it quite yet. And you're saying a baby cannot >perform any deeds that are sinful. > >That seems to be the crux of it. >Are we guilty because we inherit responsibility for Adam's sin, or are we >guilty because we are of Adam's stock, and like him, we are evil? We, being >Adam's descendents, possess a sinful nature just as he did. That means, >given the opportunity, we will commit the most horrendous of sins, but for >the grace of God holding us back. Our guilt is not just tied to what acts >of >evil we rack up over a lifetime, but in the fact that we are evil, and the >acts of sin themselves are merely the evidence that we are the sinners God >says we are. God doesn't need maturity in sin to know we are evil. It is we >who benefit from being tested so we can see just how evil we are. And even >then most of us still try to live in denial. 'Well, if I hadn't been put in >that predicament, I never would have fallen to that sin.' > >That is the point. Because I am evil, given the right circumstance I WILL >CHOOSE to SIN, and in the same circumstance, CHRIST DID NOT. > >Consider Pharaoh. >Many wrestle over God hardening his heart, and thinking somehow God is then >responsible for Pharaoh's sin. On the contrary; Pharaoh was already evil, >and God created a circumstance so Pharaoh would show off his true colors >and >God could show His power and judgment for us to see. > >Pharaoh was already evil. God didn't cause him to be more guilty. He simply >forced Pharaoh's hand, to demonstrate the truth and God's sovereignty, for >all of God's children to learn from. > >Infants are born inheriting the same evil nature we all inherit from Adam. >At it's root is selfishness, and one doesn't need to be with a newborn long >to experience the truth of that in them. Ask any new mother who longs for >just one full night's sleep. > >Both Jacob and Esau were already evil, even before their hand was forced to >demonstrate it for themselves or their parents. God, in His sovereignty, >chose to love and change Jacob for God's own glory. Esau He chose not to >change, but continue to hate as an enemy. He would have been just in >leaving >both of them as enemies. But He chose one, for the sake of His own name. >And >there was no comfort but a sovereign God for Isaac and Rebecca. If they >were >sure death as an infant would have trumped the plan and obtained heaven for >Esau, their only comfort would have been in letting him die helpless before >some mysterious age of accountability, after which he was guaranteed to >become guilty and never repent. > >Romans 9:10 And not only so, but also when Rebecca had conceived children >by >one man, our forefather Isaac, 11 though they were not yet born and had >done >nothing either good or bad--... 12 she was told, "The older will serve the >younger." 13 As it is written, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated." 14 What >shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part? By no means! 15 For he >says to Moses, *****"I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will >have >compassion on whom I have compassion."***** 16 So then it depends not on >human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. 17 For the Scripture >says >to Pharaoh, "For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show >my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth." 18 >So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he >wills. > >Our peace is shallow if it rests in God being fair. >It is endlessly deep if it rests in God's merciful choosing, and leaving it >for Him to decide. He can be trusted. I have peace when I live as though >that is true above everything else. > > > >Steve > > > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Chris Arnzen [mailto:carnzen@...] >Sent: Saturday, December 27, 2003 9:05 AM >To: soundofgrace@... >Subject: Re: [soundofgrace] Infant Salvation > > > > > > The word "such" is an indicator that Christ is not talking about > > children, but those who have child-like faith - which was the context > > of his >statement > > (Mark 10:15). > >[Chris] Agreed, but there is a reason why Christ desires our faith to be >CHILD-like, and there is a reason that "the kingdom of heaven belongs to >such as these" (those whose faith is CHILD-like). I don't believe Christ >would have compared those who are going to Heaven with little children if >hell is filled with them (and especially during that day and age, where I'm >sure infant mortality rates were much higher than today, this issue of the >destiny of infants must have been on the minds of most people). I don't >believe this is a paedobaptist argument at all, since Christ was not >baptizing these little children in the passage, nor was any of His >disciples. I actually think that speaks more loudly against infant baptism >than for it. I am finding it quite interesting to see how tenaciously and >passionately brethren are to attack the view of infant salvation, even when >some are merely agnostic over it. Why does it bother you so very much that >I >and other Calvinists have been convinced by the Scriptures that infants and >little children will not populate hell (especially the agnostics--just >because you are not convinced either way, it should not bother you quite so >much that some of us are)? > > > > >-- >Read the Sound of Grace pages at >http://www.soundofgrace.com > >To unsubscribe, send ANY message to > >To view our online archive go to our web page at >http://www.associate.com/groups/soundofgrace > > > > > > > > >-- >Read the Sound of Grace pages at >http://www.soundofgrace.com > >To unsubscribe, send ANY message to > >To view our online archive go to our web page at >http://www.associate.com/groups/soundofgrace > > > > >Jeff > > >-- >Read the Sound of Grace pages at >http://www.soundofgrace.com > >To unsubscribe, send ANY message to > >To view our online archive go to our web page at >http://www.associate.com/groups/soundofgrace > > > > >Jeff _________________________________________________________________ Tired of slow downloads? Compare online deals from your local high-speed providers now. https://broadband.msn.com