-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Absolutely not! That doctrine directly contradicts Jesus' own words when He said, "Suffer the little children to come unto Me..." and if that was to be true, there would be no need for the great commission Jesus gave us. It also implies that if I am one of the chosen, I can live any way I want to and I'll still go to heaven because I'm one of the "chosen".
Children seem to have a sense that realizes God, or maybe it is their innocence showing. We brought our children up trying to train them up in the way they should go, as the Bible says, but this was not a subject we taught our children anything about when they were young because it never occurred to us that it would ever be questioned. However, our son was in second grade in a parochial school where the teacher tried to teach this very thing. He spoke up and said it was absolutely "not true that aborted babies go to hell!" The teacher kept insisting, and our son insisted right back. As his parents we were called to a conference with the principal. We were unapologetic for his beliefs and proud that our normally quiet child was bold enough when a test came to stand for God's truth in front of all his classmates. He did not get expelled but a note was put on his record. The next year, the kids went to a public school. A few months later the teacher had a nervous breakdown and moved to another state.
Many are called but few are chosen because few are willing to live every day, all day, everywhere, as God expects those claiming to be His, to live.
Children seem to have a sense that realizes God, or maybe it is their innocence showing. We brought our children up trying to train them up in the way they should go, as the Bible says, but this was not a subject we taught our children anything about when they were young because it never occurred to us that it would ever be questioned. However, our son was in second grade in a parochial school where the teacher tried to teach this very thing. He spoke up and said it was absolutely "not true that aborted babies go to hell!" The teacher kept insisting, and our son insisted right back. As his parents we were called to a conference with the principal. We were unapologetic for his beliefs and proud that our normally quiet child was bold enough when a test came to stand for God's truth in front of all his classmates. He did not get expelled but a note was put on his record. The next year, the kids went to a public school. A few months later the teacher had a nervous breakdown and moved to another state.
Many are called but few are chosen because few are willing to live every day, all day, everywhere, as God expects those claiming to be His, to live.
Last edited:
Acts 2:21 (KJV)
[SUP]21 [/SUP]And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.
Romans 10:13-14 (KJV)
[SUP]13 [/SUP]For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
[SUP]14 [/SUP]How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?
Mark 8:34 (KJV)
[SUP]34 [/SUP]And when he had called the people unto him with his disciples also, he said unto them, Whosoever will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.
Joel 2:32 (KJV)
[SUP]32 [/SUP]And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the LORD shall be delivered:
These verses don't seem to be discriminate. Just sayin'
[SUP]21 [/SUP]And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.
Romans 10:13-14 (KJV)
[SUP]13 [/SUP]For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
[SUP]14 [/SUP]How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?
Mark 8:34 (KJV)
[SUP]34 [/SUP]And when he had called the people unto him with his disciples also, he said unto them, Whosoever will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.
Joel 2:32 (KJV)
[SUP]32 [/SUP]And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the LORD shall be delivered:
These verses don't seem to be discriminate. Just sayin'
David was a God fearing man who made a mistake that caused the death of his baby. When his baby died he did not worry if the baby was in heaven or not because he said, 2 Samuel 12:23 But now he is dead. Why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he will not return to me.
God said David was a man after his own heart, David knew where he would go after death and he knew he would see is baby.
God said David was a man after his own heart, David knew where he would go after death and he knew he would see is baby.
I have seen this concept insinuated in "live chats" and it brought nothing but absolute despondency & demoralization to those women who's babies were lost to spontaneous miscarriage & those women who have had abortions but have since become saved.
If a bible verse is needed to substantiate that babies go to heaven - refer to 2 Samuel 12:23 (NLT)[TABLE="class: mainbk, width: 100%, align: center"]
[TR]
[TD="class: bluebk3, width: 98%, bgcolor: #FFFEFD"][TABLE="width: 100%"]
[TR]
[TD][TABLE="width: 100%"]
[TR]
[TD="class: btext, colspan: 2, align: justify"]But why should I fast when he is dead? Can I bring him back again? I will go to him one day, but he cannot return to me.
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
Here, King David states unequivocally where his newly born son who has died - has gone.
H E A V E N!
Unless you are of the mind set that David went to hell, this is pretty explanatory and elementary.
If a bible verse is needed to substantiate that babies go to heaven - refer to 2 Samuel 12:23 (NLT)[TABLE="class: mainbk, width: 100%, align: center"]
[TR]
[TD="class: bluebk3, width: 98%, bgcolor: #FFFEFD"][TABLE="width: 100%"]
[TR]
[TD][TABLE="width: 100%"]
[TR]
[TD="class: btext, colspan: 2, align: justify"]But why should I fast when he is dead? Can I bring him back again? I will go to him one day, but he cannot return to me.
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
Here, King David states unequivocally where his newly born son who has died - has gone.
H E A V E N!
Unless you are of the mind set that David went to hell, this is pretty explanatory and elementary.
Fact is, is that predestination is promised for those who truly believe. Where the mistake come in, is that it happens after being born again, not before. Predestination is a promise for those that believe. The argument comes form having the time sequence wrong. I take into account those, (particularly in the Old Testament) who are chosen to do a specific work like the prophets, the judges, etc. That is not predestined as described in this New Testament scripture, for this is after the fulfillment of the promise through Christ Jesus.
Romans 8:29-30 (KJV)
[SUP]29[/SUP] For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
[SUP]30[/SUP] Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.
Yes God knows who will chose Him with a sincere heart, but accordingly we have to take this scripture into its proper context. My God would NEVER want anybody to be eternally separated from Him! NO ONE!
2 Peter 3:9 (KJV)
[SUP]9 [/SUP]The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that ALL should come to repentance.
Jeremiah 29:11-14 (KJV)
[SUP]11[/SUP] For I know the thoughts that I think toward you, saith the LORD, thoughts of peace, and not of evil, to give you an expected end.
[SUP]12[/SUP] Then shall ye call upon me, and ye shall go and pray unto me, and I will hearken unto you.
[SUP]13[/SUP] And ye shall seek me, and find me, when ye shall search for me with all your heart.
[SUP]14[/SUP] And I will be found of you, saith the LORD: and I will turn away your captivity, and I will gather you from all the nations, and from all the places whither I have driven you, saith the LORD; and I will bring you again into the place whence I caused you to be carried away captive.
Some people will say that seeking God is a manifestation of our own works and that it's egotistical. I don't agree. God has given all mankind the opportunity to choose His promises. Just because we have a choice to respond, doesn’t mean we have created our own salvation by our own works.
Romans 8:29-30 (KJV)
[SUP]29[/SUP] For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
[SUP]30[/SUP] Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.
Yes God knows who will chose Him with a sincere heart, but accordingly we have to take this scripture into its proper context. My God would NEVER want anybody to be eternally separated from Him! NO ONE!
2 Peter 3:9 (KJV)
[SUP]9 [/SUP]The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that ALL should come to repentance.
Jeremiah 29:11-14 (KJV)
[SUP]11[/SUP] For I know the thoughts that I think toward you, saith the LORD, thoughts of peace, and not of evil, to give you an expected end.
[SUP]12[/SUP] Then shall ye call upon me, and ye shall go and pray unto me, and I will hearken unto you.
[SUP]13[/SUP] And ye shall seek me, and find me, when ye shall search for me with all your heart.
[SUP]14[/SUP] And I will be found of you, saith the LORD: and I will turn away your captivity, and I will gather you from all the nations, and from all the places whither I have driven you, saith the LORD; and I will bring you again into the place whence I caused you to be carried away captive.
Some people will say that seeking God is a manifestation of our own works and that it's egotistical. I don't agree. God has given all mankind the opportunity to choose His promises. Just because we have a choice to respond, doesn’t mean we have created our own salvation by our own works.
The teaching of the destruction of "non-elect" infants goes back to Augustine of Hippo in the Fourth Century.
Augustine of Hippo contended that...
Augustine, A Treatise Against Two Letters of the Pelagians, Book 2, Ch. 14
Augustine also stated...
Augustine, On Predestination, Book 1, Ch. 24
Augustine taught that believers "believed" because God chose and therefore elected them to believe.
Augustine, On Predestination, Book 1, Ch. 34
Augustine viewed that the guilt and thus the condemnation due Original Sin was washed away via by Baptism. In his mind sin was a malady or sickness associated with the flesh itself, and that this sickness was inherited from Adam.
It is important to understand that Augustine was schooled in Neo-platonist philosophy from his youth and was also an adherent to the Manichean philosophy for almost a decade prior to his conversion under the influence of Ambrose. While Augustine came to a position where he rejected the pagan notions of astrology he never departed from the pagan notions of dualism.
Dualism taught that human beings had a two-fold nature in that the soul, while being distinct from the material flesh, was restrained by the material flesh. Basically the Manichean's viewed the universe in a dualistic fashion, to them there was a god of light and a god of darkness. The material realm (matter) was ruled over by the god of darkness whilst the spiritual realm was ruled over by the god of light. Evil in humankind was necessitated by matter itself because it was matter which suppressed light. Thus under this view sin was not a "moral issue" but rather a "matter issue."
It was out of dualism that asceticism was born. Asceticism basically teaches that the soul must be freed from its material surroundings and thus ALL bodily impulses and pleasures must be denied. You can see rudiments of this teaching with the monks in their monasteries, some even going so far as self-flaggelation. Asceticism was really born out of Neopythagorean philosophy which was in turn a further development of Plato's system of forms (dualism is rooted in Platonic philosophy).
Thus under this influence and upon his conversion, Augustine would approach the Bible with a dualistic mindset. This is where we distinctly find the concrete development of "Original Sin" within the Christian context. Before Augustine certain writers had described an Adamic "vice of origin" (Tertullian) or even an Adamic shared guilt (Irenaeus speaking within a corporate context) but no-one (in Christian orthodoxy) had suggested that sin was actually necessitated by the flesh. The early church clearly and unequivocally upheld the notion that man was born with the capacity of free agency and that sin was a choice not a human malady.
It is key to understand that Augustine used the Latin Vulgate to formulate his theology and it is in the Latin Vulgate that Augustine found support for dualism. When I say "it is key" to understand this I cannot emphasise this point more because I am speaking of the underlying ROOT ERROR of both the Reformed/Calvinist and Arminian/Wesleyian systems of theology. BOTH systems are founded upon the Augustinian notion of Original Sin.
Augustine used the Latin Vulgates mistranslation of this one verse...
Rom 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: (KJV)
Augustine read that verse as follows...
Rom 5:12 Wherefore as by one man sin entered into this world and by sin death: and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned. (Latin Vulgate)
That one error of "IN WHOM" which appears in the Latin (instead of "for that" or "because all" which appears in the Greek) was to Augustine the Bliblical prooftext he needed that supported the notion of dualism which he had learned from his involvement with Neo-platonism and Manichaeism. Thus with that one error cemented in his mind he then was able to build his theology due to viewing the Scriptures through FATALISTIC eye glasses.
As to the reason why Biblical scholars and the popular theologians don't focus on this is beyond me. Popularity and conformity must take precedence over the truth in their minds. ANYONE can read the Ante-Nicene writings and see for themselves how Christianity CHANGED over time. The Gospel we have commonly preached today has practically NOTHING to do with what the early Church taught.
I have listened to seminary lectures where the speaker brashly claims that the early church was in error because they were a simplistic people who had not developed a systematic theology as of yet and thus they ought to be dismissed where they contradict modern theology. Augustine is practically worshipped and the early church is much maligned.
All this is certainly a parallel of what happened in Israel in regards to how they religious establishment apostasised from the truth EVEN THOUGH they still apparently (ie. superficially) esteemed Scripture.
Now going back to your initial question. We need to keep in mind that while influential theologians like John Calvin were heavily influenced by the writings of Augustine and thus basically espoused the Augustinian fatalistic view, a view which was solifidified as orthodox at the Council of Dort, most of these theologians do reject many of the tenets of Augustine's system such as infant baptism.
This is why you'll have 5-Point Calvinists like John MacArthur teaching the following (I know it is a little long but I don't want to minimise the context)...
John MacArthur, Sermon "Why Jesus Blessed the Little Children."
https://www.gty.org/resources/print/sermons/41-50
So what is my conclusion on the matter?
Well I believe babies are innocent. They are morally pure (undefiled by rebellion). Babies are neither separated from God (in an individual sense though they are in a corporate sense being subject to the curse) nor do they share in Adam's guilt and thus they are not condemned. The condemnation is a rejection of the light (Joh 3:19-21) and babies simply do not have the capacity to do that. They are a blank slate, morally neutral, ignorant and innocent.
Babies are subject to the pasions and desires of their flesh and thus are naturally inclined to seek gratification of those desires. Yet the gratification of the flesh is not sin. Rebellion to God is sin. Walking according to the lusts of the flesh in rebellion to God is sin. Sin can only slay a human being via KNOWLEDGE. Hence Adam could not sin until God had given him the command of "thou shalt not." Sin then took occasion by the commandment and wrought all manner of evil desire (temptation to do the wrong thing) and then when yielded to brought death (spiritual) and condemnation.
Babies are neither righteous nor unrighteous simply because vice and virtue are ACTS OF THE WILL. Vice is rooted in being defiant to God while virtue is rooted in being compliant with God.
The righteous submit themselves to the light they are given and thus allow God to lead them. The unrighteous submit themselves to their own selfish motivations and thus refuse to be lead by God.
It is very simple.
Augustine of Hippo contended that...
Augustine, A Treatise Against Two Letters of the Pelagians, Book 2, Ch. 14
Augustine also stated...
Augustine, On Predestination, Book 1, Ch. 24
Augustine taught that believers "believed" because God chose and therefore elected them to believe.
Augustine, On Predestination, Book 1, Ch. 34
Augustine viewed that the guilt and thus the condemnation due Original Sin was washed away via by Baptism. In his mind sin was a malady or sickness associated with the flesh itself, and that this sickness was inherited from Adam.
It is important to understand that Augustine was schooled in Neo-platonist philosophy from his youth and was also an adherent to the Manichean philosophy for almost a decade prior to his conversion under the influence of Ambrose. While Augustine came to a position where he rejected the pagan notions of astrology he never departed from the pagan notions of dualism.
Dualism taught that human beings had a two-fold nature in that the soul, while being distinct from the material flesh, was restrained by the material flesh. Basically the Manichean's viewed the universe in a dualistic fashion, to them there was a god of light and a god of darkness. The material realm (matter) was ruled over by the god of darkness whilst the spiritual realm was ruled over by the god of light. Evil in humankind was necessitated by matter itself because it was matter which suppressed light. Thus under this view sin was not a "moral issue" but rather a "matter issue."
It was out of dualism that asceticism was born. Asceticism basically teaches that the soul must be freed from its material surroundings and thus ALL bodily impulses and pleasures must be denied. You can see rudiments of this teaching with the monks in their monasteries, some even going so far as self-flaggelation. Asceticism was really born out of Neopythagorean philosophy which was in turn a further development of Plato's system of forms (dualism is rooted in Platonic philosophy).
Thus under this influence and upon his conversion, Augustine would approach the Bible with a dualistic mindset. This is where we distinctly find the concrete development of "Original Sin" within the Christian context. Before Augustine certain writers had described an Adamic "vice of origin" (Tertullian) or even an Adamic shared guilt (Irenaeus speaking within a corporate context) but no-one (in Christian orthodoxy) had suggested that sin was actually necessitated by the flesh. The early church clearly and unequivocally upheld the notion that man was born with the capacity of free agency and that sin was a choice not a human malady.
It is key to understand that Augustine used the Latin Vulgate to formulate his theology and it is in the Latin Vulgate that Augustine found support for dualism. When I say "it is key" to understand this I cannot emphasise this point more because I am speaking of the underlying ROOT ERROR of both the Reformed/Calvinist and Arminian/Wesleyian systems of theology. BOTH systems are founded upon the Augustinian notion of Original Sin.
Augustine used the Latin Vulgates mistranslation of this one verse...
Rom 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: (KJV)
Augustine read that verse as follows...
Rom 5:12 Wherefore as by one man sin entered into this world and by sin death: and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned. (Latin Vulgate)
That one error of "IN WHOM" which appears in the Latin (instead of "for that" or "because all" which appears in the Greek) was to Augustine the Bliblical prooftext he needed that supported the notion of dualism which he had learned from his involvement with Neo-platonism and Manichaeism. Thus with that one error cemented in his mind he then was able to build his theology due to viewing the Scriptures through FATALISTIC eye glasses.
As to the reason why Biblical scholars and the popular theologians don't focus on this is beyond me. Popularity and conformity must take precedence over the truth in their minds. ANYONE can read the Ante-Nicene writings and see for themselves how Christianity CHANGED over time. The Gospel we have commonly preached today has practically NOTHING to do with what the early Church taught.
I have listened to seminary lectures where the speaker brashly claims that the early church was in error because they were a simplistic people who had not developed a systematic theology as of yet and thus they ought to be dismissed where they contradict modern theology. Augustine is practically worshipped and the early church is much maligned.
All this is certainly a parallel of what happened in Israel in regards to how they religious establishment apostasised from the truth EVEN THOUGH they still apparently (ie. superficially) esteemed Scripture.
Now going back to your initial question. We need to keep in mind that while influential theologians like John Calvin were heavily influenced by the writings of Augustine and thus basically espoused the Augustinian fatalistic view, a view which was solifidified as orthodox at the Council of Dort, most of these theologians do reject many of the tenets of Augustine's system such as infant baptism.
This is why you'll have 5-Point Calvinists like John MacArthur teaching the following (I know it is a little long but I don't want to minimise the context)...
John MacArthur, Sermon "Why Jesus Blessed the Little Children."
https://www.gty.org/resources/print/sermons/41-50
So what is my conclusion on the matter?
Well I believe babies are innocent. They are morally pure (undefiled by rebellion). Babies are neither separated from God (in an individual sense though they are in a corporate sense being subject to the curse) nor do they share in Adam's guilt and thus they are not condemned. The condemnation is a rejection of the light (Joh 3:19-21) and babies simply do not have the capacity to do that. They are a blank slate, morally neutral, ignorant and innocent.
Babies are subject to the pasions and desires of their flesh and thus are naturally inclined to seek gratification of those desires. Yet the gratification of the flesh is not sin. Rebellion to God is sin. Walking according to the lusts of the flesh in rebellion to God is sin. Sin can only slay a human being via KNOWLEDGE. Hence Adam could not sin until God had given him the command of "thou shalt not." Sin then took occasion by the commandment and wrought all manner of evil desire (temptation to do the wrong thing) and then when yielded to brought death (spiritual) and condemnation.
Babies are neither righteous nor unrighteous simply because vice and virtue are ACTS OF THE WILL. Vice is rooted in being defiant to God while virtue is rooted in being compliant with God.
The righteous submit themselves to the light they are given and thus allow God to lead them. The unrighteous submit themselves to their own selfish motivations and thus refuse to be lead by God.
It is very simple.
He's referencing the verse - "I was born in sin, and in iniquity did my mother conceive me."
No, this was a cry from David to God.
To pardon his sin, which was lust conceived.
David is harkening back to the primal desire to copulate.
Saying it was the same desire his mom and dad had when they conceived him.
Somewhat of a sorry excuse to his adulterating with Bathsheba.
No baby is even close to the age of accountability.
But, being an artist and poet, David stretched the comparison to the limit of incredulity,
- (Like we don't). Many of his psalm verses are complaints - (like our prayers aren't).
David did alot of this, that's what made him the sweet psalmist of Israel.
Though he was a man after God's own heart, he was still a man.
That's why we can be succoured by his psalms.
He showed the weakness in all of us yet with reliance on the tender mercies and saving grace of God.
- God might have allowed that to be put in the Book for a reason 'ey?
- - But with these bellows also comes the praises of a champion, prophet and king.
No, this was a cry from David to God.
To pardon his sin, which was lust conceived.
David is harkening back to the primal desire to copulate.
Saying it was the same desire his mom and dad had when they conceived him.
Somewhat of a sorry excuse to his adulterating with Bathsheba.
No baby is even close to the age of accountability.
But, being an artist and poet, David stretched the comparison to the limit of incredulity,
- (Like we don't). Many of his psalm verses are complaints - (like our prayers aren't).
David did alot of this, that's what made him the sweet psalmist of Israel.
Though he was a man after God's own heart, he was still a man.
That's why we can be succoured by his psalms.
He showed the weakness in all of us yet with reliance on the tender mercies and saving grace of God.
- God might have allowed that to be put in the Book for a reason 'ey?
- - But with these bellows also comes the praises of a champion, prophet and king.
Last edited: