Steve, It sounds as though you have certainly had times of need, and I'm thankful that you were able to find comfort in Jesus in those times. In His Grace, Nancy >From: "Steve Fuchs (on MSN)" <SteveF_MS@...> >Reply-To: soundofgrace@... >To: <soundofgrace@...> >Subject: RE: [soundofgrace] Infant Salvation >Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 11:48:41 -0800 > >I apologize if I sounded as though it mattered whether abortionist's are >comforted. > >Of course it doesn't, but it would be ironic. That was the point. > >I don't think anyone said we would/should kill infants to get them to >heaven. I believe that was a joke JGR shared to show the irony. > >What I said was that we would or should HOPE for a child's death before he >loses his salvation (which would be really ironic), and in the case of >Esau, >there should have been even greater hope for such an early death since it >would have been his only hope for salvation. > >I know the intentions to comfort parents are rooted in caring for brothers >and sisters who hurt. > >It's just that I have personally lost a child at birth, and as a youngster >had a young cousin lost to fire, and later another cousin lose his baby in >a >car accident. In each case, folks tried assuring all of us they were >guaranteed in heaven, and we were guaranteed to see them again there. > >But that hope was never really consoling, and it never turned those of us >hurthing to Christ AS our comfort. >When it then happened to me personally, I searched the scriptures and found >the 'guarantee' not to be there, but I did find it calling me to rest >completely in Him alone as my comfort, letting go of all else that I WANTED >to comfort me. > >It was then that I faced the dilemma. Will knowing Christ and receiving >Him >as my reward in eternal life be any less fulfilling if it's God's decision >that my child not be there? If my cousin's baby isn't there. If my burned >cousing isn't there. Will it be less glorious if my Roman Catholic parent >not be there? If my friend's autistic child who can't demonstrate saving >faith enough for me to see it, isn't there? > >The answer to such dilemmas are not in creating exceptions or absolute >tests >(like an age of accountability, or walking the aisle, or saying a >particular >prayer, or all babies and mentally handicapped must be in heaven, .....) >which we can apply to know for sure anyone's salvation but our own personal >soul. >For everyone else, I must simply be the witness God calls me to be, AND >leave the rest up to HIM. I have to let them go, into His sovereign hands. >Whatever He decides, (and sometimes it isn't for me to know) it is worked >out for my good, He DOES guarantee that. But whatever that means, eternal >life in Christ will be no more or no less glorious. I can live with the >ambiguity of final details. > >Whatever they turn out to be....He will be enough. He must be more than >enough. He must be my ALL. > >Praise be to God, for me that was far more comforting. > > > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Nancy Newcomb [mailto:nan_new39@...] >Sent: Sunday, December 28, 2003 7:36 PM >To: soundofgrace@... >Subject: RE: [soundofgrace] Infant Salvation > > >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 > > >-- >Read the Sound of Grace pages at >http://www.soundofgrace.com > >To unsubscribe, send ANY message to ><soundofgrace-unsubscribe@...> > >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 ><soundofgrace-unsubscribe@...> > >To view our online archive go to our web page at >http://www.associate.com/groups/soundofgrace > > > _________________________________________________________________ Have fun customizing MSN Messenger — learn how here! http://www.msnmessenger-download.com/tracking/reach_customize