What happens if someone dies before they became a believer, is it their fault?

[Hawkins]

For example, a young man just starting college is murdered. He didn't get to live a long life, while someone else becomes a believer in their 40's.

The person in their 40's had more time to accept Jesus, yet the young man didn't. It seems unfair, but what does the Bible say?

Was the young man probably never would have been a believer anyway? Are we sometimes saved not only because we accepted Jesus, but by chance we survived long enough to accept Jesus as our God? Or does this not make any sense?

Somehow that's how predestination works. Christians are somehow subject to the predestination, their fate will not end that way. Somehow names have been written in the Book of Life before creation.

 

[bling]

babies have a sinful nature that they need to be delivered from , so then they need a Savior. And as we see in 1 John 2:2 they have a Savior. He has them covered, thank God, and they have no need to "make a decision" to be covered by Christ. Babies do not make decisions

Did Adam and Eve have a sinful "nature" before they sinned?
Did Christ have a sinful "nature" while here on earth?
Maybe the reason they do not need "to make a decision", is because they are in a safe condition, but are you saying as is said in 1 John 2:2 " He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world." the baby has sinned"?

 

[bling]

Free will is either free or not free. There is no "sorta free". If the will is indeed free to do as it will, whether within bounds and limitations, then it operates independent of causes—and THAT is the problem. We do not operate independent of causes. Therefore, our choices are not entirely free, entirely spontaneous.

That is just your definition of free will, making it only totally free in every and all situations. Each choice can stand on its own, being a free will choice or not a free will choice. Humans are not God, having total free will.

Calvinists (again, I don't claim to be one) often say that a person is free to do what they want, but that is a different use of the word, "free". It doesn't imply causelessness. "Somewhat causeless"? What would that even mean? Yet that is what you seem to want us to agree to.

A man can lust in his heart for a woman of his own free will, but not have the free will ability to physically satisfy that lust, so man’s free will actions are very limited. The same person might keep from lusting after that same woman by lusting after another woman, avoid seeing the woman, and/or be busy doing some spirit filled work and not take the time to lust after the woman.

 

[RamiC]

It seems unfair, but what does the Bible say?

"6 God “will repay each person according to what they have done.” 7 To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. 8 But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger. 9 There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile; 10 but glory, honor and peace for everyone who does good: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. 11 For God does not show favoritism.

12 All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. 13 For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous." Romans 2 NIV

God's actual judgement is perfectly fair, life on earth is not, but that is is the fault of sin and will be so until the end of time.

​

 

[BobRyan]

Did Adam and Eve have a sinful "nature" before they sinned?

nope

Did Christ have a sinful "nature" while here on earth?

nope

Maybe the reason they do not need "to make a decision", is because they are in a safe condition, but are you saying as is said in 1 John 2:2 " He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world." the baby has sinned"?

I am saying that having a sinful nature (which the baby has) is having a nature that has a bent toward rebellion, evil. Even if we die too early to have ever sinned, we need that sinful nature removed.

 

[BobRyan]

Somehow that's how predestination works. Christians are somehow subject to the predestination, their fate will not end that way. Somehow names have been written in the Book of Life before creation.

Names get removed from the book of life at the judgment.

Jesus promises the saints "I will not remove your name from the book of life" Rev 3:5

 

[Mark Quayle]

Well, I didn't ask for your opinion to judge you, but you were kind of hiding in the shade brush so I figured I would whistle you out of there. lol

I can read between the lines, even if there are more than three there, and knew the stance but wasn't going to "speak for you." I definitely disagree and to say I have experienced God differently would be an understatement. I think every single case before God, souls that is, is judged individually by an absolutely perfect Judge. I think, and you can correct me if I'm wrong, you believe that also. At least that is what I'm gathering from what you have stated so far.

To posit my particular stance on this, I claim God to be a perfect and righteous Judge who is full of mercy and being more merciful than any of us would incline one to believe Him as a God who is love (1 John 4:7 - 1 John 4:8) to be merciful to children who have never committed any deeds physically, let alone sins, even though being born in sin, and that the blood of Jesus would give God the right to remove that sinful nature they are born with even more easily than He does ours who have committed many thousands upon thousands of sins over the course of our life.

Abraham calls God the Judge of all the Earth in Genesis 18:25, and cries out for Lot who is obviously (if we read Scripture later in Genesis of him upon the angels visit in Sodom) not the most righteous man in the Bible, and far from it if I'm to be blunt on the subject. Yet the righteous Judge had mercy on this man, living in the most sinful and one of the worst judged (if not the worst) cities to ever exist on this Earth.

We know that God forgave Lot because he is recorded in the New Testament differently than we read in the records of the Old Testament. In Hebrews 11 we find all of the saints / patriarchs of the Old Testament recorded as righteous and full of faith. Abraham was not always full of faith! Having doubted enough to try on his own through an alternative method of producing a son by means of Sarah's handmaid. Yet in Hebrews 11 Abraham is recorded as faithful and an example to follow. Lot in 2 Peter 2:7 is recorded the same way and is called a "righteous man" or "righteous Lot."

So then my own opinion on this is the character of God, who is love according to 1 John 4:8, who says we are nothing without love in 1 Corinthians 13:2, and who makes it clear the entire purpose of God's instructions to us is to bring us to the fullness of love itself in 1 Timothy 1:5, and finalizing it with Matthew 22:37 Matthew 22:38 Matthew 22:39 Matthew 22:40 Christ tells us that the entirety of the Law (Bible) hangs on these two commandments meaning God's Law is a Law of love.

So then, to say God would send a child (an infant) who even the secular world considers precious an innocent to Hell, how is He then more merciful than humans? If horrid sinners are appalled at the atrocity of children and babies being murdered, how could we ever make sense of God putting one in Hell? For His glory? In what sense? How does an infant in Hell bring glory to God and reveal His character and person of love? His infinite kindness and forgiveness and gentleness?

Maybe you have some answer to this, but I would certainly be curious as to how such a thing could even remotely be possible to bring glory to a God who is love. For a God who is willing to put His own Son on a cross (Romans 8:32), what rational reason would a person with that kind of love and sacrifice to save us who have sinned (not just been born in sin because of someone else's choices), why would someone that unimaginably kind and merciful ever send a child to literally be punished for an eternity but save Lot?

To throw one more out there for arguments sake, we are saying here (from your stance) that Paul who murdered men by his own testimony, and king David who did the same for personal reasons, and Moses also trying to save his brothers with his own strength and be a hero murdered a man are forgiven, but a little tiny baby who can't speak a word, think a clear thought, isn't fully conscious and can't even care for themselves somehow, in the most loving Person's eyes who has or will ever exist, deserves by His judgment to go to Hell?

In my view, that is exactly why Christ died on the cross, to free those born in sin, but who do not choose to accept it but repent. If no opportunity for repentance is available and sins have not been committed by these infants, why would a Judge who states His entire being, essence, and Law is based on love ever not cleanse them with His precious blood when He can forgive anyone He wants?

Oh I think they are forgiven for being "born in sin" for sure, and cleansed, and much faster and without a second thought by Christ.

With all respect intended, I think maybe some people are confusing an idea of Christ with the real Christ Jesus who said this about children:

Matthew 19:14
But Jesus said, “Let the little children come to Me, and do not forbid them; for of such is the kingdom of heaven.”

Nicely written, non-contentious, and I appreciate both.

You say you have experienced God differently. I'm curious how you think I have "experienced him", or what you mean by it. Try to believe me when I say that my experience of God is of overwhelming love and mercy that does not bow to my perverse and rebellious 'old man' nature, that is still constantly pushing me to take over the direction of "my own" life (as if it were mine). Just to try to describe this brings more emotion up than I can handle, and I have to turn away from the attempt—not regret, but sorrow and pain all the same ...and joy at his sovereign driven-yet-tender purpose and at his magnificent own joy in it.

Not that I don't write and think the same way, but your post mixes fact with reasoning —reasoning based on certain assumptions, among which is a kind of confidence in the status of "sentient sapient" as though we humans are (to exaggerate the point) the "purveyors of fact" (if we could only get it right). We are not. God's point-of-view is the only point-of-truth. You draw conclusions as to the status of the unborn or "before they knew enough to do right or wrong" according to your categories—hellbound and heavenbound, and according to whether they deserved it or not. It sounds to me, for example, that you consider an [apparently] innocent child to undergo hell would be unfair. But we have no valid notion of what hell would be like for that child, compared, for example, to hell for Hitler, or for me. Truth is, we don't know what even ourselves deserve—we are that ignorant of the depth of sin and quite what it means to be at enmity with God, before whose burning purity none of us could live. (It is that God who endures my never-ending drive to self-determine my own ends. I don't want to need him, which is one of things for which I desperately need him. Thank God that he doesn't take me as seriously as I take myself.)

But back to the argument, I really don't care much what secular view anyone has concerning the innocence of children, in this matter. Truth is, we all die, whether horribly or after a long drawn out suffering, or any other way—no way compares to what is to come. Be hopeful that the sufferer who ends up in Hell has received already that for which he will not be punished further. God takes my sin (not me) far more seriously than I do.

For whatever it may be worth for me to say it, I, who am constantly amazed by the loving mercy of our God, can hardly stomach the notion of unborn children in Hell. I'm almost (emotionally) at the point of rejection of the horror of one like Hitler or PolPot, or even Satan, who apparently is unable to repent even now of his unspeakable atrocities, but rather delights in them—the unimaginable horror of what awaits the enemies of God is more than I can deal with, and I gratefully leave it up to God. You are right that I believe (and thank him) that he is altogether just, and will reward to each precisely what, and no more than, they deserve. To the degree that those children do not deserve hell, they will not be punished.

But we are here for his purposes and not ours. We are not an end unto ourselves.

 

[Mark Quayle]

That is just your definition of free will, making it only totally free in every and all situations. Each choice can stand on its own, being a free will choice or not a free will choice. Humans are not God, having total free will.

Then, by that statement, free will is not 'libertarian' (uncaused) choice.

The will need not be uncaused, nor the inclination of the will uncaused, nor the decisions uncaused, for the choices to indeed be genuine.

A man can lust in his heart for a woman of his own free will, but not have the free will ability to physically satisfy that lust, so man’s free will actions are very limited. The same person might keep from lusting after that same woman by lusting after another woman, avoid seeing the woman, and/or be busy doing some spirit filled work and not take the time to lust after the woman.

Now what would cause that man to want to lust after that woman?

Nothing happens in a void.