Did Jesus Die on The Cross for The Just/Elect/Saved Whose Names Are Written in The Book of Life OR

  • 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.

rogerg

Well-known member
Jul 13, 2021
3,672
570
113
Your analogy is lame is because God rescues dead people by resurrecting them, which is one way eternal life is expressed. Or the other way is by the new birth which is expressive of the process of birth . No one has anything to do with the new spiritual birth anymore than you had anything to do with your natural birth.

Also, you conveniently overlook the truth that God rescues the HELPLESS -- people without power -- like the ancient Hebrews in Egypt. Totally powerless to help themselves.
Don't confuse him with biblical truth, Rufus, it messes up his example.
 

Cameron143

Well-known member
Mar 1, 2022
19,184
6,606
113
62
How can you possibly know He didn't, isn't or won't, if you believe He is outside time?
I don't. But it appears that He didn't. Large swaths of humanity over long periods of time seemed never to have heard of Jesus, and had no Bible in their native tongue. Such is the report of missionaries. But they probably can't be trusted.
It's not a matter of God not being able to reach them. The question is...did He? If He did, it wasn't by the way He prescribed in the Bible. And you, too, are free to believe as you will.
 

HeIsHere

Well-known member
May 21, 2022
5,891
2,284
113
If I am drowning and a woman throws me a rope and I grab it and she drags me to a boat and to safety, how does my grabbing the rope, by which I cooperated with her, make her no longer my saviour? Please explain.
I like this analogy. :)

However I am thinking the "inability people" would argue that the person is unable to recognize they are drowning so the point is moot, this is why grace must be irresistible.
A supernatural force takes them out of the water and places them in the boat.
 

studier

Well-known member
Apr 18, 2024
1,189
233
63
Is God obligated to provide the Gospel of Jesus Christ to every Creature, even those who have rejected Him in spite of what He's done for and in all of us? Do we consider what being in His image and having what He implanted in all men actually means and how much of our being and faculty and function has to presuppose Him to even function a reasoning human being?

When we consider His omniscience and eternality and that He has always known all men, why do we place upon Him some burden to present the Good News of His Son to every creature who He knows has rejected Him and will never accept Him? Has He not shown us in His written revelation that He will remove from history individuals, groups, races, and all but 8 as He sovereignly determines?

I don't think we consider deeply enough the implications of Rom1 and what in fact is a mind that totally rejects Him? I also think it's clear that not all men do.
 

Attachments

BillyBob

Active member
Dec 20, 2023
404
173
43
Texas
I am not dead in the question I posed? This is surreal. Why can't you just answer the question i posed? Why are you wasting everybody's time with these endless deflections?

PaulThomson said:
If I am drowning and a woman throws me a rope and I grab it and she drags me to a boat and to safety, how does my grabbing the rope, by which I cooperated with her, make her no longer my saviour? Please explain.
You have a habit of relying on silly analogies when desperate to prove your point.
However, as to your analogy, God has so blessed man with a natural instinct to preserve his own life. Perhaps that's why we stop when we get to the edge of a cliff.
In your analogy, the man grabs for whatever is near. Without that rope he would have a hand full off air or perhaps water. So, yes the woman saved his life.
But, when you try to use such foolishness to make a spiritual point, you must keep in mind that man comes into this world without the spiritual desire to preserve his life or to please God in any way!! In other words – he is spiritually dead!
Perhaps you should use scripture in the place of an analogy!
 

studier

Well-known member
Apr 18, 2024
1,189
233
63
But, when you try to use such foolishness to make a spiritual point, you must keep in mind that man comes into this world without the spiritual desire to preserve his life or to please God in any way!! In other words – he is spiritually dead!
Perhaps you should use scripture in the place of an analogy!

Perhaps you should provide Scripture to prove what you say others must keep in mind.

Your saying we must accept as truth a certain view of spiritual death is not truly a must that anyone needs to accept apart from Scripture teaching this. Maybe your concept of spiritual death is an incorrect analogy. Can you prove otherwise? I'm not being rhetorical and saying you cannot, but can you?

Your disclaimer is a good one.
 

BillyBob

Active member
Dec 20, 2023
404
173
43
Texas
Perhaps you should provide Scripture to prove what you say others must keep in mind.

Your saying we must accept as truth a certain view of spiritual death is not truly a must that anyone needs to accept apart from Scripture teaching this. Maybe your concept of spiritual death is an incorrect analogy. Can you prove otherwise? I'm not being rhetorical and saying you cannot, but can you?

Your disclaimer is a good one.
Thanks for your reply. I must agree that it would be better for me to have backed up what I stated with a reference to scripture. However, I am not an avid poster. I do not spend as much time as others in back and forth discussions. I guess that is the very reason that I have a disclaimer.
However, if and when others disagree with me, I will try to listen and lean from what they have to say.
By the way, I enjoy reading your posts!
 

studier

Well-known member
Apr 18, 2024
1,189
233
63
Thanks for your reply. I must agree that it would be better for me to have backed up what I stated with a reference to scripture. However, I am not an avid poster. I do not spend as much time as others in back and forth discussions. I guess that is the very reason that I have a disclaimer.
However, if and when others disagree with me, I will try to listen and lean from what they have to say.
By the way, I enjoy reading your posts!

We should probably all have similar disclaimers and your avatar persona I think fits all of us.

I wish we were all better at letting Scripture in context (not just simple proof-texting / verse referencing) do our correcting of one another, but from these forums it seems it's a dying practice that will not end well as time advances.

Thanks for the kind response and humility. Again, such things are sadly lacking among us.
 

PaulThomson

Well-known member
Oct 29, 2023
3,474
455
83
You have a habit of relying on silly analogies when desperate to prove your point.
However, as to your analogy, God has so blessed man with a natural instinct to preserve his own life. Perhaps that's why we stop when we get to the edge of a cliff.
In your analogy, the man grabs for whatever is near. Without that rope he would have a hand full off air or perhaps water. So, yes the woman saved his life.
But, when you try to use such foolishness to make a spiritual point, you must keep in mind that man comes into this world without the spiritual desire to preserve his life or to please God in any way!! In other words – he is spiritually dead!
Perhaps you should use scripture in the place of an analogy!
A claim was made by rogerg. (and by Cameron and Rufus, and now it seems by you). The claim was that to make any claim to have assisted in any way with one's own rescue by another is to claim to have saved oneself and makes the rescuer no longer one's rescuer. It was a blanket claim, which he was then applying to scripture to "prove" a theological claim of his system..

Their argument is -
Premise A: A saviour is a person who rescues someone from some harm.
and Premise B: A person who can do everything needed to save himself on his own does not need saving.
therefore, conclusion C: Someone who rescues a person who contributed something to their own rescue cannot be truly that person's saviour.

However, "a person who can do everything needed to save himself on his own does not need saving," implies that "a person who cannot do everything needed to save himself on his own does need saving". This in turn implies that "a person who can do something needed to save himself, but not everything needed to save himself on his own, does need saving."

The reasonable thing to do to test the validity of the argument and the soundness of the conclusion, is to test whether the conclusion derives logically from the premises by looking for a counter-example to the syllogism. I gave a counter-example to the syllogism, a situation where the two premises apply, but a different conclusion applies: Someone who rescues a person who contributed something to their own rescue could still be truly that person's saviour..

The reasonable thing for my interlocutor to do, would be to give some explanation for why my conclusion in my example is false, which I invited them to do. They could not do that, so instead they deflected, and merely complained that, because the counter-example did not fit comfortably as an analogy within their theological system, I obviously do not understand what the Bible teaches.. They spent all their time trying to show that my example should be dismissed by spiritually alive readers, because it cannot be made to conform to their theological presuppositions with a one to one correspondence. All they have offered is question-begging and moralistic arguments. .
 

Rufus

Well-known member
Feb 17, 2024
2,429
263
83
OK, I'm looking:

Looking ahead glancingly I'm seeing your male & female analogy.

The Spirit is neuter. The Word (whom John says is Jesus Christ) is masculine.

The Spirit impregnated Mary. I hope we're not going to say the Spirit impregnated the Word which is Jesus Christ.

So, the female Wisdom becomes the masculine Word - Jesus Christ, so the neuter Spirit can impregnate her/him.

This is sounding pretty current day gender ideology.

  • So, are the sons of men unbelievers?
    • Unbelieving God-Haters who want nothing to do with God and do not seek God are seeking objective Truth as the neuter Spirit aka wind leads them?
    • Or are these regenerate unbelieving men with the neuter Spirit aka who leads them?






Wow! You wrote an awful lot to press my analogy beyond the boundaries of absurdity. You could have simply written that poor ol' Rufus is out to lunch and been done with it. :rolleyes:

As far as "eisegetical meditation" goes, I'm sure you'll be able to supply us with solid proof from Special or Natural Revelation that everyone one us played a key role in our own physical births, right?. Or how all the people who were raised from the dead in the OT and NT cooperated with God so that He could pull off his "semi-miraculous" work. I think I read somewhere that you likened the unregenerate's role in their own salvation as "collaborating" with God? Really? The Walking Dead collaborated with God so he could raise them from their spiritual tombs?

It's no wonder Jesus said to Nicodemus, who himself was a wee bit short in the Understanding Dept.:

John 3:10-12
10 "You are Israel's teacher," said Jesus, "and do you not understand these things? 11 I tell you the truth, we speak of what we know, and we testify to what we have seen, but still you people do not accept our testimony. 12 I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things?
NIV

And this is YOU! Because you refuse to draw the obvious, common sense parallels between physical birth and spiritual birth, and between physical resurrection and spiritual resurrection, you wind up with a synergistic salvation: Dead Men, in Adam, who hate the light and love the darkness, willingly and actively and lovingly (I suppose?) cooperate with God and allow him to save them!? That's your carnal idea of God's great salvation? Men willingly and eagerly "collaborate" with God? Salvation is a joint effort? Salvation is cheapened to a quid pro quo arrangement between the Creator and the creature? I guess somewhere in the terms of the New Covenant, it is written: "I the Lord will save you if you cooperate with Me. I'll do My part when you do yours"?

And you are so stuck on your false gospel that you persist in misrepresenting my position on the unregenerate's, natural, ungodly, unloving disposition of heart with which they all come into this world. I never said what you stated above. Don't you know that all men come into this world with a natural antithapy to godly wisdom, which makes them lovers of Death (Prov 8:36)? Didn't Jesus himself declare:

John 3:19-21
19 This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. 20 Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. 21 But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God."
NIV

Men either love the Light or hate it! Very simple to understand. And who is the light, if not Jesus himself? So, when men love the darkness (a/k/a Death) they simultaneously hate The Light of the World. And since they hate him, they hate his Father, as well! But this is very inconvenient truth for you isn't it? And we should't forget what Paul said about the darkness:

Eph 5:8
8 For you WERE once darkness , but now you are light in the Lord. Live as children of light
NIV

It would be bad enough if Paul had "merely" said, "you were once in the darkness"! But he went beyond that to make a statement about the Ephesisans' former unregenerate ESSENCE! They were formerly darkness themselves -- their hearts, minds and souls. There was no light in them. And as I argued in my Exodus Typology posts, darkness is just another way to desribe Death! The Ephesisans formerly had neither light or life in them! Yet, in spite of these handicaps (which apparently are relatively minor to you), these Dead Zombies were not helpless or powerless, as scripture portrays, since they collaborated with God to help save themselves -- they partnered with Him. They played a key role in the resuce process. And if you doubt that Darkness equates with Death, then you might want to consider why there will never be any visible darkness in the eternal, visible kingdom! Methinks there's at least an outside chance that it might have something to do with the permanent destruction of Death (Rev 21:4).

Soo...Dead Zombies can and do "seek" after their versions of God. The Dead can be very religious, moral, loving parents, law-abiding citizens, self-righteous law-keepers and still be God-haters because they live a faithless lifestyle that is in perpetual violation of the Greatest Commandment! The one thing the Dead absolutely hate is having their Pride crushed! They don't like being humilated or humbled. They hate being told that they are sinners who cannot perform the Ultimate Good for which we were created, which is to live a life that glorifies their Creator. They have this innate proclivity to determine who is good and who is bad by making horizontal comparisons, instead of comparing themselves to the Creator -- or even more precisely to comparing themselves to the Second Adam.

And you're so adverse to this sad truth about the dismal state of man's heart that you wrote recently that "enmity" with God is = to man 's inability to keep the law perfectly? Seriously? That's it? When did natural men get the ability to love their enemies, most especially their chief enemy (God)? Have you never read Rom 5:10? And how many passages are there in scripture that speak about God's enemies? Yet, you're doing your darndest to get us to believe that the unregenerate also come into this world, having a lovingly, disposition toward their Creator.

And, again, I would remind you that spiritual death has only been bridged by One Man -- the One who is The Way. Adam was banished from the Garden because God would not permit him to eat of the Tree of Life, so God set cherubim with a flaming sword which made it impossible for Adam to embrace life! And then we have the account of poor Lazarus in Abraham's bosom and the Rich Man in torment in hades -- and the gulf that separated them and that neither of those two could breach. And finally, we are told about the Second Death in Revelation who will forever and forever be separated from the Righteous in the Restored Eden. In short: No man can conquer Death, except the One who gives Life to whom he wishes (Jn 5:21), then they, too, will oversome it throuh Him.

P.S. What I just said is all in scripture.
 

Rufus

Well-known member
Feb 17, 2024
2,429
263
83
A claim was made by rogerg. (and by Cameron and Rufus, and now it seems by you). The claim was that to make any claim to have assisted in any way with one's own rescue by another is to claim to have saved oneself and makes the rescuer no longer one's rescuer. It was a blanket claim, which he was then applying to scripture to "prove" a theological claim of his system..

Their argument is -
Premise A: A saviour is a person who rescues someone from some harm.
and Premise B: A person who can do everything needed to save himself on his own does not need saving.
therefore, conclusion C: Someone who rescues a person who contributed something to their own rescue cannot be truly that person's saviour.

However, "a person who can do everything needed to save himself on his own does not need saving," implies that "a person who cannot do everything needed to save himself on his own does need saving". This in turn implies that "a person who can do something needed to save himself, but not everything needed to save himself on his own, does need saving."

The reasonable thing to do to test the validity of the argument and the soundness of the conclusion, is to test whether the conclusion derives logically from the premises by looking for a counter-example to the syllogism. I gave a counter-example to the syllogism, a situation where the two premises apply, but a different conclusion applies: Someone who rescues a person who contributed something to their own rescue could still be truly that person's saviour..

The reasonable thing for my interlocutor to do, would be to give some explanation for why my conclusion in my example is false, which I invited them to do. They could not do that, so instead they deflected, and merely complained that, because the counter-example did not fit comfortably as an analogy within their theological system, I obviously do not understand what the Bible teaches.. They spent all their time trying to show that my example should be dismissed by spiritually alive readers, because it cannot be made to conform to their theological presuppositions with a one to one correspondence. All they have offered is question-begging and moralistic arguments. .
My claim is that your analogy involving rescue is lame because I don't find any text in the bible about any of the dead who were raised from their graves participating in their own resurrection. (Maybe you can find one?) A far better and biblical analogy would be someone who has gone into cardiac arrest, stops breathing and then is subsequently resuscitated. Such a person is totally unable to assist with the rescue. But...in your world and others here, Death only means slightly maimed, a little injured, a wee bit crippled, etc. But that is not the way normal people understand physical death in the real world, nor how the bible speaks to spiritual death.
 

selahsays

Well-known member
May 31, 2023
2,796
1,484
113
Well, to tell the truth, I still can’t accept total depravity. The way I see it, it just isn’t supported by Scripture.

Let’s start with Abel? Was he not described as being righteous in Matthew 23:35?
"that on you may come all the righteous blood shed on the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar.

And not only that; there is even a contrast made between Abel and Cain in the book of Hebrews 11. What about Enoch and Noah and Abraham? God was extremely pleased with these men. So what does Scripture say? Well let’s read it:

By faith Abel offered to God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, through which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts; and through it he being dead still speaks. By faith Enoch was taken away so that he did not see death, "and was not found, because God had taken him"; for before he was taken he had this testimony, that he pleased God. But without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him. By faith Noah, being divinely warned of things not yet seen, moved with godly fear, prepared an ark for the saving of his household, by which he condemned the world and became heir of the righteousness which is according to faith. By faith Abraham obeyed when he was called to go out to the place which he would receive as an inheritance. And he went out, not knowing where he was going.

- Hebrews 11:4-8
 

rogerg

Well-known member
Jul 13, 2021
3,672
570
113
My claim is that your analogy involving rescue is lame because I don't find any text in the bible about any of the dead who were raised from their graves participating in their own resurrection. (Maybe you can find one?) A far better and biblical analogy would be someone who has gone into cardiac arrest, stops breathing and then is subsequently resuscitated. Such a person is totally unable to assist with the rescue. But...in your world and others here, Death only means slightly maimed, a little injured, a wee bit crippled, etc. But that is not the way normal people understand physical death in the real world, nor how the bible speaks to spiritual death.
Excellent, Rufus, and thank you for all of your posts. They are spot on!
 

Cameron143

Well-known member
Mar 1, 2022
19,184
6,606
113
62
A claim was made by rogerg. (and by Cameron and Rufus, and now it seems by you). The claim was that to make any claim to have assisted in any way with one's own rescue by another is to claim to have saved oneself and makes the rescuer no longer one's rescuer. It was a blanket claim, which he was then applying to scripture to "prove" a theological claim of his system..

Their argument is -
Premise A: A saviour is a person who rescues someone from some harm.
and Premise B: A person who can do everything needed to save himself on his own does not need saving.
therefore, conclusion C: Someone who rescues a person who contributed something to their own rescue cannot be truly that person's saviour.

However, "a person who can do everything needed to save himself on his own does not need saving," implies that "a person who cannot do everything needed to save himself on his own does need saving". This in turn implies that "a person who can do something needed to save himself, but not everything needed to save himself on his own, does need saving."

The reasonable thing to do to test the validity of the argument and the soundness of the conclusion, is to test whether the conclusion derives logically from the premises by looking for a counter-example to the syllogism. I gave a counter-example to the syllogism, a situation where the two premises apply, but a different conclusion applies: Someone who rescues a person who contributed something to their own rescue could still be truly that person's saviour..

The reasonable thing for my interlocutor to do, would be to give some explanation for why my conclusion in my example is false, which I invited them to do. They could not do that, so instead they deflected, and merely complained that, because the counter-example did not fit comfortably as an analogy within their theological system, I obviously do not understand what the Bible teaches.. They spent all their time trying to show that my example should be dismissed by spiritually alive readers, because it cannot be made to conform to their theological presuppositions with a one to one correspondence. All they have offered is question-begging and moralistic arguments. .
Wow...it was made plain to you that the objection to your scenario was simply that it didn't reflect the reality of the condition of fallen man, and, thus, didn't fit biblical salvation. As an example of a helpless swimmer, no one objected.
 

rogerg

Well-known member
Jul 13, 2021
3,672
570
113
Well, to tell the truth, I still can’t accept total depravity. The way I see it, it just isn’t supported by Scripture.

Let’s start with Abel? Was he not described as being righteous in Matthew 23:35?
"that on you may come all the righteous blood shed on the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar.

And not only that; there is even a contrast made between Abel and Cain in the book of Hebrews 11. What about Enoch and Noah and Abraham? God was extremely pleased with these men. So what does Scripture say? Well let’s read it:

By faith Abel offered to God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, through which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts; and through it he being dead still speaks. By faith Enoch was taken away so that he did not see death, "and was not found, because God had taken him"; for before he was taken he had this testimony, that he pleased God. But without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him. By faith Noah, being divinely warned of things not yet seen, moved with godly fear, prepared an ark for the saving of his household, by which he condemned the world and became heir of the righteousness which is according to faith. By faith Abraham obeyed when he was called to go out to the place which he would receive as an inheritance. And he went out, not knowing where he was going.

- Hebrews 11:4-8
Not sure if this will answer your question, selahsays, but weren't those mentioned above already saved, and therefore, righteous through Christ?

Would the following be an accurate depiction of their spiritual condition prior to being saved, as with all of the unsaved?
If so, would it qualify as total depravity?

[Rom 3:10-18 KJV]
10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.
12 They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
13 Their throat [is] an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps [is] under their lips:
14 Whose mouth [is] full of cursing and bitterness:
15 Their feet [are] swift to shed blood:
16 Destruction and misery [are] in their ways:
17 And the way of peace have they not known:
18 There is no fear of God before their eyes.
 

PaulThomson

Well-known member
Oct 29, 2023
3,474
455
83
I'm sure you'll be able to supply us with solid proof from Special or Natural Revelation that everyone one us played a key role in our own physical births, right?.
"During the last part of your pregnancy, your baby's lungs mature and he or she puts on a protective layer of fat, taking on the characteristic chubbiness of a newborn. Researchers now believe that when a baby is ready for life outside his mother's uterus, his body releases a tiny amount of a substance that signals the mother's hormones to begin labor (Condon, Jeyasuria, Faust, & Mendelson, 2004). In most cases, your labor will begin only when both your body and your baby are ready."

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1948087/

Does the baby birth itself? No. Does the baby play a part in its own birth? Yes. Maybe our faith is the spiritual "chemical" we release to initiate our birth. Maybe.
 

PaulThomson

Well-known member
Oct 29, 2023
3,474
455
83
My claim is that your analogy involving rescue is lame because I don't find any text in the bible about any of the dead who were raised from their graves participating in their own resurrection. (Maybe you can find one?) A far better and biblical analogy would be someone who has gone into cardiac arrest, stops breathing and then is subsequently resuscitated. Such a person is totally unable to assist with the rescue. But...in your world and others here, Death only means slightly maimed, a little injured, a wee bit crippled, etc. But that is not the way normal people understand physical death in the real world, nor how the bible speaks to spiritual death.
It wasn't an analogy. It is a simple English sentence you are afraid to interpret on its face, because you fear it might be then used as an analogy.
 

PaulThomson

Well-known member
Oct 29, 2023
3,474
455
83
Wow...it was made plain to you that the objection to your scenario was simply that it didn't reflect the reality of the condition of fallen man, and, thus, didn't fit biblical salvation. As an example of a helpless swimmer, no one objected.
It wasn;'t presented as an analogy of fallen man.
 

selahsays

Well-known member
May 31, 2023
2,796
1,484
113
Not sure if this will answer your question, selahsays, but weren't those mentioned above already saved, and therefore, righteous through Christ?

Would the following be an accurate depiction of their spiritual condition prior to being saved, as with all of the unsaved?
If so, would it qualify as total depravity?

[Rom 3:10-18 KJV]
10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.
12 They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
13 Their throat [is] an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps [is] under their lips:
14 Whose mouth [is] full of cursing and bitterness:
15 Their feet [are] swift to shed blood:
16 Destruction and misery [are] in their ways:
17 And the way of peace have they not known:
18 There is no fear of God before their eyes.
Thank you, Roger.

…But Paul is not referring to the Elect here in the book of Romans 3. He’s talking about the tares, methinks.
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things. Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting; being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving, unmerciful; who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them.

Romans 1:18-32

Then they said to Him, "Where is Your Father?" Jesus answered, "You know neither Me nor My Father. If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also." These words Jesus spoke in the treasury, as He taught in the temple; and no one laid hands on Him, for His hour had not yet come. Then Jesus said to them again, "I am going away, and you will seek Me, and will die in your sin. Where I go you cannot come." So the Jews said, "Will He kill Himself, because He says, 'Where I go you cannot come'?" And He said to them, "You are from beneath; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world. "Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for if you do not believe that I am He, you will die in your sins." Then they said to Him, "Who are You?" And Jesus said to them, "Just what I have been saying to you from the beginning. "I have many things to say and to judge concerning you, but He who sent Me is true; and I speak to the world those things which I heard from Him." They did not understand that He spoke to them of the Father. Then Jesus said to them, "When you lift up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am He, and that I do nothing of Myself; but as My Father taught Me, I speak these things. "And He who sent Me is with Me. The Father has not left Me alone, for I always do those things that please Him." As He spoke these words, many believed in Him.

- John 8:19-30
 

Cameron143

Well-known member
Mar 1, 2022
19,184
6,606
113
62
"During the last part of your pregnancy, your baby's lungs mature and he or she puts on a protective layer of fat, taking on the characteristic chubbiness of a newborn. Researchers now believe that when a baby is ready for life outside his mother's uterus, his body releases a tiny amount of a substance that signals the mother's hormones to begin labor (Condon, Jeyasuria, Faust, & Mendelson, 2004). In most cases, your labor will begin only when both your body and your baby are ready."

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1948087/

Does the baby birth itself? No. Does the baby play a part in its own birth? Yes. Maybe our faith is the spiritual "chemical" we release to initiate our birth. Maybe.
The baby doesn't cause the release; God does. God also opened the womb for life to exist. The baby isn't aware of any of the things God has done.