So are there degrees of punishment in hell?
as in Dante's inferno?
That was pure speculation.
Hence easy and real answer. I prefer the easy answer, but Christ complicates things a little bit!
Upvote
0
Inclusivism
- Thread starter Hammster
- Start date
Hence easy and real answer. I prefer the easy answer, but Christ complicates things a little bit!
Hence easy and real answer. I prefer the easy answer, but Christ complicates things a little bit!
Destiny Lake of Fire, the second death. For it is appointed for men to die once and then comes judgement.
Lake of fire I Imagine is a lake of fire where they go who are not believers and what happens is they all share the same fate in that same lake. I wonder if they can swim around, all speculation what it is like, but not a pleasant ending to your life.
We also have this mentioned in Rev 13
So then perhaps that place, lake of fire, is very visible to those in heaven, even into the age of the New Heavens and New earth, the age to come.
Which is also in agreement with Isaiah last chapter v24 about seeing it real time. Those who are God's, who worship the Lord, will come before Him and they shall see the sinners, the transgressors in the fire.
Upvote
0
My question wasn't about unbelieving spouses, but about children. Are you saying that any child who dies before they can have a real faith in Christ is damned?
I understand that you don't think *all* children are saved. My question is whether any are. If the only way to be saved is through explicit faith in Christ, then it would seem not.
Upvote
0
I presume 1 Cor 7 was your proof text, and if it were, you would have had to adopt that conclusion.
The only way to be saved is by faith in Christ, apart from faith in Him no one, anywhere, at any time, in any culture, at any time in history, at any age, is saved.
Upvote
0
Ignatius21
Can somebody please pass the incense?
Which makes faith a matter of intellectual assent, and not of trust, dependence and love. Infants cannot mentally process data. They can, however, trust and depend upon their parents in love.
I cannot reconcile that notion of faith with Scripture.
Upvote
0
Leave this in God's care. I dont see or read about people preaching to infants. all the people preached to in scripture, were able to respond either in belief or unbelief, and some had doubt, questions. There was an interaction between people of faith and people who had none.
A principle from scripture, recall ancient Israel wandering in the wilderness. God was displeased with all the men-women of that generation. And God told them they would die, and not inherit the promises of God, but their children would. So dont worry about what God will do, because God knows what He is doing and all His decisions are just true righteous holy and no one can say to Him what are your doing or why did you do that..
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Folks who teach salvation of infants typically quote several different texts, but that's certainly one of them
You haven't actually answered, but I understand you as saying that infants can't be saved. Or perhaps you're simply saying you don't know, but if it happens it happens through faith.
Lutherans, of course, believe specifically in infant faith. I'm not aware of any other group teaching this explicitly. However it's hard to see how an infant's faith could be faith specifically in Christ. The best option I can think of is to say that faith is our bond to Christ, but that in some cases it isn't intellectual. But that would result in the possibility of some adult non-Christians being saved. I believe this is true of any concept of infant faith.
Upvote
0
Psalm 22, for infants, especially Infants who are of God, note what it says,
'From My mother’s womb, You have been My God.'
'For trouble is near, and there is none to help.'
Such is the state of infants, and those yet unborn, who truly have no help but God.
[This psalm speaks also of Christ, if you read the entire psalm..]
'From My mother’s womb, You have been My God.'
'For trouble is near, and there is none to help.'
Such is the state of infants, and those yet unborn, who truly have no help but God.
[This psalm speaks also of Christ, if you read the entire psalm..]
Upvote
0
I'd disagree. It is not about intellect and we already know that God works through life circumstances. So, if someone is born in Timbuktu 1000 years ago and the Gospel ever reached there, it belongs to the secret judgments of God that He hardens whom he He chooses to harden and has mercy on whom He has mercy.
Upvote
0
Yes, Our salvation or not is up to Him.
v16 is especially good. God shows mercy and we are saved. And for those who are saved, they have obtained mercy from God to be saved.
The only answers we have are in the scriptures for these things, and we better heed and pay close attention to them. Otherwise we get led about by strange and various teachings of men who are of corrupt mind.
Romans 9
1 Peter 1
1 Peter 2
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
And it is a bad one to quote because it leads to conclusions we know to be wrong.
I think Tim Conway has a good explanation of this issue. "All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness." So, if the Bible doesn't talk about it, God does not deem it important for us to know.
This is how I view infant salvation. It is theoretically possible, it is certainly not out of God's power, because nothing is. However, being that we have no indication infants can accept Christ after their deaths, it is just a bad presumption, certainly not one people should be confidently gloating about (like John MacArthur who in response to the question said without hesitating "instant heaven.")
Further, it presents some major theological problems, which you yourself are aware of. Being that no one merits their own salvation, all are saved plainly by God's grace. So, if God randomly saves some babies, then why can't inclusivism be true? Or, if God saves all babies, why can't unviersalism be true?
Further, holding to the idea forces us into an inconsistent hermeneutic. The Scripture says believing comes from hearing. How does this become untrue for babies? To me it is special pleading.
Ultimately that is not the faith Scripture speaks of. Scripture speaks of calling on Jesus' name. Never hearing of Jesus or being incapable of even comprehending Him means it is much more likely and consistent to view that people such as these are faithless.
Upvote
0
So, wouldn't it stand to reason that if someone dies in infancy, they were not part of the elect? Calvinists have no problem believing that all men deserve to go to hell and God has mercy only on a few. If the vast majority of people went to hell throughout history, why is it objectionable if infants, who are equally human, join their ranks?
Upvote
0
It is true that the wicked go astray as soon as they are born speaking lies.
Psalm 58
And this is also true that some are God's elect from the womb.
Psalm 22
And this is also true
Psalm 37:28
Some are the Lord's from their birth. He does not forsake His saints, they are preserved for eternal life at whatever age they are taken.
Blessed is the man whom the Lord does not impute to them their sins. (age has no bearing on that)
Would Jesus have laid His hands on little children to bless them if they were not to be blessed?
Abraham entreats the Lord God, "Far be it from You to do such a thing as this, to slay the righteous with the wicked, so that the righteous should be as the wicked; far be it from You! Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?”
I still will leave this in His hands to judge. It is not an age of accountability thing with me, it is purely a matter of His will to be done on earth as it is in heaven.
What did Calvin say about infants? I am curious would you respect what He wrote?
http://www.reformedtheology.ca/baptism.html
This is something I think I will read up on some more.
Upvote
0
I am aware of some of those arguments. On the most part, I feel the position of infant inclusivism forces us to abrogate or add to Scripture. More details of my thought on it are here.
See, I find it possible to read Psalm 22 and understand that David is speaking of being part of the elect, even from the womb, simply because He was chosen before the womb. This is not illogical. However, how can we read Romans 10:14 if there are people that are saved apart from hearing? I think infant inclusivism requires us to ignore was verse and to read Psalm 22 another way, while admitting infant inclusivism as false allows a consistent hermeneutic where both can be true.
Further, the idea that children of Christians are saved is an old idea indeed (going back to Prosper of Aqutaine and Augustine). However, if someone is saved because of the faith of someone else (the parents), I think this leads to an inconsistent soteriology where people are saved by faith in very different ways.
Lastly, how can all be born from the womb not seeking God (Romans 3:11) but somehow, CHristian children are the exception? It opens up tons of interpretive problems.
I appreciate if you read my link, you would get more of the Scripture that I am pulling from in which constitutes my understanding.
See, I find it possible to read Psalm 22 and understand that David is speaking of being part of the elect, even from the womb, simply because He was chosen before the womb. This is not illogical. However, how can we read Romans 10:14 if there are people that are saved apart from hearing? I think infant inclusivism requires us to ignore was verse and to read Psalm 22 another way, while admitting infant inclusivism as false allows a consistent hermeneutic where both can be true.
Further, the idea that children of Christians are saved is an old idea indeed (going back to Prosper of Aqutaine and Augustine). However, if someone is saved because of the faith of someone else (the parents), I think this leads to an inconsistent soteriology where people are saved by faith in very different ways.
Lastly, how can all be born from the womb not seeking God (Romans 3:11) but somehow, CHristian children are the exception? It opens up tons of interpretive problems.
I appreciate if you read my link, you would get more of the Scripture that I am pulling from in which constitutes my understanding.
Upvote
0
I will read it.
"However, how can we read Romans 10:14 if there are people that are saved apart from hearing?"
You say faith comes by hearing and it does!
But what are they hearing on the inside?
Jesus says those who are of God hear 'God speak' to them.
I started a thread on this a while ago.
http://www.christianforums.com/t7816694/
God gives them spiritual ears to hear spiritual words of God spoken to their spirit. If they hear that, then they are of God.
Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God. In the Greek, Word there is a rhema word from the Holy Spirit, a spoken living Word as opposed to Logos. Can you say an infant does not perhaps understand a rhema Word God would speak to them? If God chooses to do something like this, His Word would accomplish the purpose whereby He sent it.
John leaped in the womb, the babe leaped in her womb for joy!
You can not say it is not possible that an infant could not hear God speak.
This passage it is spoken twice that the babe leaps in her womb. Let everything be established by at least 2 witnesses. The Holy Spirit imparts something into that unborn baby. I think God spoke a living Word of God there.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
I hear your point, and I hope you're right, but God also spoke through Balaam's donkey so we don't exactly have a smoking gun.
Upvote
0
On Rom 10:14. Please read on. After he talks about the need to preach, and says, but is true that anyone hasn't heard? And his answer is no. He quotes Ps 19:4 LXX. Assuming he's not quoting out of context, the voice that has gone throughout the world is the heavens that tell God's glory. So this is consistent with Rom 2, which speaks of Gentiles who heard God in their heart.
In summary, Rom 10 should be cited as in support of inclusivism.
In summary, Rom 10 should be cited as in support of inclusivism.
Upvote
0
Being that you are a Presbyterian, you should know what Paul is saying in the following:
Their voice has gone out into all the earth,
And their words to the ends of the world.
But I say, surely Israel did not know, did they? First Moses says,
I will make you jealous by that which is not a nation,
By a nation without understanding will I anger you.
Paul is speaking about people groups, not the totality of the population. Paul speaks of in Romans going to preach the Gospel where it has never been preached before (i.e. Spain). This completely discounts any inclusivist conclusions you can draw, because Paul's Rom 10:14 rhetorical question's answer isn't "yes" but "no."
In fact, if you are following Paul's logic, he is simply stating that the Israelites are without excuse and now the gentiles are being drawn into to move them to envy until the full fold of Israelites, both ethnic and by faith, are brought in. This is the whole argument of Rom 9-11. To misunderstand this point is to render the whole section incomprehensible.
Upvote
0
Yes, the only ones who are included are those God has made acceptable in the Beloved.
Otherwise there is no inclusivism. It is very clearly shown that He has predestined us before the world was for what reason?
v6
6 to the praise of the glory of His grace, by which He made us accepted in the Beloved.
I think some people are looking in the mirror, but when they walk away they forget what manner of man they are, what God has done. So it is good to continually reassure our hearts before Him by going back to His word and meditating therein of the goodness of our God.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Please note that I've never said, nor do I believe, that everyone is saved. So surely Paul is not saying that everyone is saved. I agree that there's an Israel vs the world context here. But still, Paul is arguing, as he did in Rom 1, that God's creation is enough for Gentiles to know God. Just as he did in Rom 1:19-21, he is saying that even Gentiles know enough about God to be responsible for following him, which makes the sin of Israel, which in fact had heard, more serious.
On Rom 10:18, the Word commentary says that syntactically "A question introduced by μή expects a negative answer (as in 9:14), but where the main verb is itself negated (μὴ … οὐ
an affirmative answer is anticipated (BDF §427.2)." Surely the context indicates that anyway, since 18 is followed by the quotation from Ps which talks about God's creation being a witness. That makes no sense if the answer is no.You refer to Calvin:
Calvin's comment on 10:18: "I then take his quotation according to the proper and genuine meaning of the Prophet; so that the argument will be something of this kind,—God has already from the beginning manifested his divinity to the Gentiles, though not by the preaching of men, yet by the testimony of his creatures; for though the gospel was then silent among them, yet the whole workmanship of heaven and earth did speak and make known its author by its preaching. It hence appears, that the Lord, even during the time in which he confined the favour of his covenant to Israel, did not yet so withdraw from the Gentiles the knowledge of himself, but that he ever kept alive some sparks of it among them."
Of course Calvin is not normally considered an inclusivist. In his commentary on Rom 1, he says that God made himself sufficiently known in creation that people should have been able to have faith in him. But they did not, no doubt due to his plan, which did not include bringing them to faith until Christ. However given Calvin's understanding you can't say that Rom 10:14 means that people can't come to faith through the what we see of God in creation. However Calvin would say that God's plan was primarily to call them through the Gospel, so even though in principle it wasn't needed, it was the method that God chose. But he leaves an opening for God to act as he chooses:
He comments on 10:14 "But were any on this account to contend that God cannot transfer to men the knowledge of himself, except by the instrumentality of preaching, we deny that to teach this was the Apostle’s intention; for he had only in view the ordinary dispensation of God, and did not intend to prescribe a law for the distribution of his grace." That's as close to inclusivism as Calvin comes, and it's actually fairly close.
I believe that puts Calvin in opposition to the use you made of 10:14.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
