Do aborted babies go to heaven?

[SPF]

Douglas:

Can not the crying and "being difficult" of an infant be considered their sinning, their NOT honoring their parents, etc.? They are in sin like everyone in the world.

Based on this, I would assume you don't actually have any children, right? Baby's, as you might imagine, don't speak when they're first born. The way that they communicate is by crying. As a parent, you can learn to distinguish the types of crying that a baby does.

Anyway, it seems like your position is the standard pro-choice position that the human life inside the womb is not considered a human person, and therefore does not possess any inherent moral rights. You, like most pro-choice advocates have created an arbitrary and subjective distinction between a human being and a human person.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but what I've been able to understand from your position is basically this:

P1 - All human beings possess inherent moral value and worth.
P2 - All human life existing inside a womb is not yet a human being.
Conclusion - The human life inside a womb does not possess inherent moral value and worth.

Is the above accurate? If so, and if my assumption about you being a Christian is true, then I would assume your support for P2 would be theological, correct (P1 as well, but we agree on P1)? If so, do you have some sort of formal Biblical argument to support that? And out of curiosity, do you actually have any sort of formal Biblical education?

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

As far as I understand, dictionaries are not classified as "pro-life", so I really don't understand you comments.

Regardless, if you feel that life cannot be clearly defined in the womb, it is infinitely better to preserve life in the womb than to destroy life in a most brutal and horrific way.

Fetus | Definition of Fetus by Merriam-Webster
Dictionary and Thesaurus | Merriam-Websterfetus
1. Definition of fetus. : an unborn or unhatched vertebrate especially after attaining the basic structural plan of its kind; specifically : a developing human from usually two months after conception to birth — compare embryo 1b.
Fetus | Define Fetus at Dictionary.com
www.dictionary.com/browse/fetus
1. The unborn offspring of a mammal at the later stages of its development, especially a human from eight weeks after fertilization to its birth. In a fetus, all major body organs are present.
Fetus - Wikipedia
Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaFetus
A fetus is a stage in the prenatal development of viviparous organisms. In human development ... In biological terms, however, prenatal development is a continuum, with no clear defining feature distinguishing an embryo from a fetus. The use ...
‎
Urban Dictionary: fetus www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=fetus
Top Definition. Fetus. Justin Bieber. Justin Bieber is a fetus. #justin #bieber #fetus ... fetus. 1. a young child/person; but can also be used to refer to anyone ...

So you can see that there is a choice whether one wants to have a definition that is sympathetic to pro-life (what you presented) calling a fetus a baby (even to the extension of calling a grown person a fetus!) and one that does NOT.
I.e. DICTIONARIES CANNOT RESOLVE THE ISSUE.

Please note Joe: I DO NOT: "feel that life cannot be clearly defined in the womb..."
"LIFE" is not what is at issue.
What is in the womb is alive, there is no question about that. (Unless it is dead, and then there is no issue.)
The whole question is whether that LIFE should be invariably preserved.

The question is whether there is an alive HUMAN BEING in the womb.
A "man" in the sense of Romans 5:12, for instance.
I have recently pointed out that the earliest womb contents (zygote) is NOT EVEN FLESH AND BLOOD. Is that really a human being, an animal, without any flesh whatsoever?

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

Do you have children? I have a hard time believing you do because I don't know of any parent that would refer to their newborn as autonomous. Can you define what you mean by that? Why does the baby that is 1 hour away from birth possess a different moral worth than the baby that is 1 hour beyond birth?

I personally found that my wife had a lot more free time prior to the births of our children. Indeed, our infants seem a lot more dependent upon us for survival than in the womb.

I apologize for missing this #179 earlier.

AUTONOMY of the newborn is what is particularly noticed, I would think. It has its own mind, will cry when IT (he or she) wants to, etc. Demands attention in a way the fetus is never able to, let alone requires.

"Why does the baby that is 1 hour away from birth possess a different moral worth than the baby that is 1 hour beyond birth?"
Because the newborn is a breathing human being (autonomous and "its own" animal). It has the breath of life God first gave to humans.
It is an actual member of the human species, an animal.
It is not a matter of dependency - it is a matter of the nature of the entity involved.
In partial reply to your post #203, this distinction is NOT "arbitrary and subjective," but very clearly and distinctly seen IN REALITY.
And, I make NO DISTINCTION between a human being and a human person. My understanding is that a human being IS a person.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

Douglas: Based on this, I would assume you don't actually have any children, right? Baby's, as you might imagine, don't speak when they're first born. The way that they communicate is by crying. As a parent, you can learn to distinguish the types of crying that a baby does.

Anyway, it seems like your position is the standard pro-choice position that the human life inside the womb is not considered a human person, and therefore does not possess any inherent moral rights. You, like most pro-choice advocates have created an arbitrary and subjective distinction between a human being and a human person.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but what I've been able to understand from your position is basically this:

P1 - All human beings possess inherent moral value and worth.
P2 - All human life existing inside a womb is not yet a human being.
Conclusion - The human life inside a womb does not possess inherent moral value and worth.

Is the above accurate? If so, and if my assumption about you being a Christian is true, then I would assume your support for P2 would be theological, correct (P1 as well, but we agree on P1)? If so, do you have some sort of formal Biblical argument to support that? And out of curiosity, do you actually have any sort of formal Biblical education?

I have some, but my Biblical education is not really the issue.
And it is mostly an understanding of WHAT IS THE CASE INSIDE THE WOMB AND OUT on which I am putting forth the arguments you see in this thread. I am somewhat prepared to discuss Biblical arguments if someone cares to put them forward - I do not find any of them to have much anti-abortion substance.

Oh, BTW, I do agree with your P1 and P2, but perhaps not the "conclusion" so much in that I have indicated elsewhere that a fetus may have moral worth as a precursor for a child if the latter is morally justified (on the basis of parenting ability, etc.).

 

[SPF]

Oh, BTW, I do agree with your P1 and P2, but perhaps not the "conclusion" so much in that I have indicated elsewhere that a fetus may have moral worth as a precursor for a child if the latter is morally justified (on the basis of parenting ability, etc.).

Wouldn't the moral worth of the fetus be based upon the nature of the fetus itself and not something outside of it? All human beings have an innate moral worth because all human beings are created in the image of God, right? If that is the case, which I think we can agree upon, then my moral worth comes from God, and would not be influenced or altered by anything outside of that, correct?

From what I can see, we essentially have one fundamental disagreement, and that is when a human being comes into existence. I think it's at conception, you think it's at some point after conception, certainly no later than birth, but possibly under certain circumstances prior to birth, right?

 

[Adstar]

Where does it say that in scripture??

Well it does not say it like that in scripture but scripture reveals it non the less..

Ask yourself when did the first humans become unacceptable to exist in the garden of eden?
Would you agree it was when they came to possess the knowledge of good and evil?
The Bible says once they obtained that knowledge they where cast out of the garden of eden meaning they where no longer ""good"" and when i say Good i mean it in a Biblical way.. For we also read Jesus declaring in the gospel that Only God is Good...

Ok now if little ones exist for a time without the knowledge of good and evil would you say that they where still in a state of Goodness as human beings? And if you read in scripture God telling of little ones who had no knowledge of good and evil would you believe it and thus conceed that for a time after birth little ones are good and if they die during this period then they having never sinned would be totally acceptable to God in eternity?

So we read the following scripture..

Deuteronomy 1: KJV
34 "And the LORD heard the voice of your words, and was wroth, and sware, saying, {35} Surely there shall not one of these men of this evil generation see that good land, which I sware to give unto your fathers, {36} Save Caleb the son of Jephunneh; he shall see it, and to him will I give the land that he hath trodden upon, and to his children, because he hath wholly followed the LORD. {37} Also the LORD was angry with me for your sakes, saying, Thou also shalt not go in thither. {38} But Joshua the son of Nun, which standeth before thee, he shall go in thither: encourage him: for he shall cause Israel to inherit it. {39} Moreover your little ones, which ye said should be a prey, and your children, which in that day had no knowledge between good and evil, they shall go in thither, and unto them will I give it, and they shall possess it."

The above passage was talking about the time of the Exodus when the Hebrews had come to the border of the promised land and had sent scouts into the land and they brough back reports about it and the hebrews refused to enter the land out of fear of the people who possesed the land.. Gods wrath was raised and he forced the people to walk in the desert for 40 years untill all the generation that rebelled against His will had died.. But He said of the Little Ones which in that day the day of that rebellion had no knowledge between good and evil Meaning the little ones where trully innocent not knowing good or evil having no knowledge of it.. Thus they where acceptable to enter the promised land.. Just as little ones who die as innocents also have the right to enter into the Kingdom of God..

 

[SPF]

AUTONOMY of the newborn is what is particularly noticed, I would think. It has its own mind, will cry when IT (he or she) wants to, etc. Demands attention in a way the fetus is never able to, let alone requires.

A human in the womb, towards the end of its experience there has its own mind. Surely you would acknowledge that the developmental level of a human mind is little different from 1 day before birth to 1 day after birth. So it is a difficult thing to use the development of the mind as the line in which we have a human life and a human being. You are correct in that a newborn baby is able to demand attention in a way that a fetus is unable to in that it is able to make vocal sounds. However, we can easily say that an toddler is also able to demand attention in a way a newborn is not able to on account that a toddler can speak, and we could do this for each developmental label we want to apply - adolescent vs teenager, teenager vs young adult, etc... So using the way in which we demand attention does not seem to be a credible criteria when determining the difference between a human life and a human being.

"ME: Why does the baby that is 1 hour away from birth possess a different moral worth than the baby that is 1 hour beyond birth? DOUGLAS:

Because the newborn is a breathing human being (autonomous and "its own" animal). It has the breath of life God first gave to humans.

Is breathing the key determining factor you believe separates a human life from a human being? This on its own seems arbitrary if it's the case. I would assume this belief would be theological in nature as opposed to anything else. Correct?

I make NO DISTINCTION between a human being and a human person. My understanding is that a human being IS a person

This comes down to semantics and why you and others often end up talking across each other. For your sake, I have used the terms "human life" and "human person" as they seem to be your preferred terms. However, I could be having the exact same conversation with the standard pro-choice adherent and I would be using "human being" and "human person". The distinction is essentially the same, regardless of how you want to word it. Meaning, you acknowledge that the life growing inside a womb is a human life, you just don't think it has moral value until it reaches developmental stage X (I'm still trying to discern what X is, btw).

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

Wouldn't the moral worth of the fetus be based upon the nature of the fetus itself and not something outside of it? All human beings have an innate moral worth because all human beings are created in the image of God, right? If that is the case, which I think we can agree upon, then my moral worth comes from God, and would not be influenced or altered by anything outside of that, correct?

From what I can see, we essentially have one fundamental disagreement, and that is when a human being comes into existence. I think it's at conception, you think it's at some point after conception, certainly no later than birth, but possibly under certain circumstances prior to birth, right?

Never prior to birth.

You answer your first question right away with, "human beings have an innate moral worth." "Based upon the nature of the fetus itself," which I understand to NOT be a human being. (Ever!)

You may want to characterize all MORAL WORTH to be from God, and certainly since everything is from God, is created by God ...
Seems to me the fact human beings find something useful or desirable (VALUABLE) contributes to it having MORAL WORTH.

The way I see the reality of things, on your terms you are right, THE FETUS HAS NO MORAL WORTH.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

The distinction is essentially the same, regardless of how you want to word it. Meaning, you acknowledge that the life growing inside a womb is a human life, you just don't think it has moral value until it reaches developmental stage X (I'm still trying to discern what X is, btw).

NO, the life inside the womb (at whatever stage of growth) is NOT "a human life." It is "human life," and that is a VASTLY DIFFERENT THING. Like I pointed out in a post above, IT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN YOU, AND YOUR INTACT FINGERNAIL. I.e., both are human life but the fingernail is not a human life.

 

[SPF]

Douglas, I think the difficulty in having conversations with you, and it seems to not just be me from what I've read, is that honestly, you've created your own terminology that the rest of the world doesn't use, and then you're incredible uncharitable with how you speak, not leaving any room to actually speak to the meaning of what people say. So I'm doing my best here to utilize your unique terminology. I wonder though where your heart is in these discussions, because you don't come across as someone who is irenic in the least bit.

I think what I need to understand more, and I tried asking is this - Can you provide a concrete point in time in which you believe the human life inside the womb transitions into a human being? I challenged what your position for a little more clarity in my reply 209, and so it seems that your response is that a human being does not exist so long as its location is inside a womb, but the moment it is outside the womb it becomes a human being. Does this capture your position accurately?

And if it does - my question is simple, why is it at birth that the human life becomes a human being? Your answer, I would assume, has to be theological in nature, right?

 

[St_Worm2]

Matthew 5:27-28 "You have heard that it was said, 'You shall not commit adultery.' (28) But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart. God judges our actions, yes. But God also judges the heart as shown above. Actions come from the heart. A child is born/conceived with an unregenerate heart, he or she has to be made a new creation by the grace of God.

Hi Joe, an unborn child developing in their mother's womb (or an infant) lusts after...................what exactly Obviously, nothing, since their extremely young minds are not capable of forming these kinds of complex thoughts.

Lusting in one's heart is sinful because it is something that we willfully choose to "do" (and know that it is wrong to do), and we can be held accountable for such thoughts from a very young age, but this cannot be true of toddlers, infants, and unborn children. Their thinking is still instinctive as their minds are not developed enough to be capable of rational thoughts (or even irrational ones ).

God's grace cannot be demanded. We are saved by God's grace, but grace that is demanded is not grace at all.

Obviously an unborn child "demands" nothing in the sense that an adult does. An infant cries, for instance, because it hurts or is in need, of something like food, and that's the only means it has to communicate. Surely you understand this, yes? A baby cannot "sin". It does not act out of selfishness when it cries, it cries because it's needs something (love, affection, food, it hurts, etc.).

John 3:18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. You don't seem to grasp the fundamental nature of man. Man is not innocent from conception. His nature is that of sin. As you yourself said you agreed that we are under the federal headship of Adam.

I don't disagree with you about our fallen nature, it is the most universal thing among all of us, but the adult reprobate is not judged on the basis of his/her "nature", rather, they are judged and condemned on the basis of their sinful actions and thoughts. Babies don't sin, nor do they formulate sinful thoughts because they aren't capable of such a thing. They are innocent of personal wrongdoing. There is no basis for judging and condemning them that I can see. Romans 2 doesn't say that all who have a sin NATURE will be judged and perish, it says that all who SIN will be judged and perish on that basis, yes?

Genesis 6:5 The LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

and John 3:18 again, God does indeed judge by our nature.

Neither Genesis 6:5 nor John 3:18 speak of a judgment according to our "nature", rather, judgment comes on the basis of our sinful thoughts/actions, as well by our failure to believe and trust in Christ to save us. Babies do not have sinful intentions or thoughts because, again, they are not capable of such a thing, nor do they have the necessary understanding and knowledge of the law (or even of right and wrong) to be judged on that basis (even if they were capable of forming a selfish thought).

If what you believe is true, what reason do you believe God will give at the Great White Throne to an aborted child or an infant child about why He is condemning them to burn forever in pain and torment? Since they are personally innocent of misdeed/sinful thoughts, what, exactly, do you believe God will tell them they are being punished for

Thanks!

--David

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

SPF "ME: Why does the baby that is 1 hour away from birth possess a different moral worth than the baby that is 1 hour beyond birth?
DOUGLAS:
Because the newborn is a breathing human being (autonomous and "its own" animal). It has the breath of life God first gave to humans.

Is breathing the key determining factor you believe separates a human life from a human being? This on its own seems arbitrary if it's the case. I would assume this belief would be theological in nature as opposed to anything else. Correct?

"A human life" is a human being; they are one and the same. So of course breathing does not distinguish them. It distinguishes the "merely human," that is, consisting of human cells, from the human being, first existing at birth.

"Being" is a vital indication: it is AN ANIMAL being we are talking about, the actual member of a species. (Why "human being" even more obviously does not apply in the case of the single cell zygote when there is only invisibility and no flesh. NO ACTUAL ANIMAL there!)
The relative independence (autonomy) of the actual born human being is useful to notice here. It is AN IMMENSE CHANGE to be alive in the kingdom of light rather than imprisoned in darkness, tethered very securely and "not going anywhere." There is not yet the animal, the animal being, being free upon the earth and no longer living in a very parasite situation inside the host, the pregnant woman.


It obviously has a theological component that I indicated: God breathed into Adam, and this breath of life "gave him a living soul," or however you want to phrase it.
BREATHING IS CERTAINLY NOT SOME ARBITRARY THING AND COMES EXACTLY AT BIRTH. Not even it's timing is in any way arbitrary.
Another way it is not arbitrary is that WITHOUT IT YOU DIE. I.e., it truly is what determines a human beings life.

Of course breathing is one indication of the AUTONOMY I mentioned. It gets its own oxygen from the air, which is not the case in the womb.

 

[St_Worm2]

All who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law because they already stand condemned. They haven't had the ability to hear the Word, get reborn, and won't face the second death. So if they are "already" condemned, then they can "never" be "saved," which is the rebirth, new creation, renewing of the mind, washed by the word, whatever words you would like to put here that equate and hence they "perish." If you "perish" you don't make it to the kingdom from my understanding. Only those who have "eternal life." What is eternal life (a.k.a. heaven, age ge to come, kindgom)?

John 17:3 3 Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.

Can't have "eternal life" in heaven if you aren't reborn and washed clean by the word. Reborn of "fire and the Holy Spirit." Now beyond that, explain to me where it says anyone never reborn makes it to heaven?

John 3:18 says that those who do not "believe" stand condemned in their unbelief (because they are sinners w/o hope outside of Christ), not those who do not possess the Law of Moses. Babies CANNOT "believe", nor do they have the capacity to think sinful thoughts or perform sinful deeds. So if they are condemned by God to burn in everlasting agony in Hell, then they are judged worthy of this punishment even though they a) were incapable of "believing" (or even understanding their need for a Savior) and b) were incapable of knowing or understanding the law, any law, or the difference between right and wrong.

IOW, in your scenario, God condemns the personally "innocent" (in both deed and thought) for something they 1) didn't do and 2) couldn't do. Do you really think that God will condemn those who die in infancy or in the womb to such a horrible and everlasting fate?

 

[SPF]

Douglas, to be clear, your position is that the human life growing inside a mother's womb, no matter where it is in its development is not a human being. Therefore, abortion at any stage of development and for any reason by the mother is acceptable. Correct?

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

Douglas, to be clear, your position is that the human life growing inside a mother's womb, no matter where it is in its development is not a human being. Therefore, abortion at any stage of development and for any reason by the mother is acceptable. Correct?

Such "clarity" might be a bit too much around here. If I indicated "acceptable" that might be construed as "promoting abortion," which is very much a no no in these forums.
Better that you provide objections to what you think is my position, or defenses for your position. Or in other words, tell me on what basis a fetus should be considered a human being.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

Douglas, I think the difficulty in having conversations with you, and it seems to not just be me from what I've read, is that honestly, you've created your own terminology that the rest of the world doesn't use, and then you're incredible uncharitable with how you speak, not leaving any room to actually speak to the meaning of what people say. So I'm doing my best here to utilize your unique terminology. I wonder though where your heart is in these discussions, because you don't come across as someone who is irenic in the least bit.

I think what I need to understand more, and I tried asking is this - Can you provide a concrete point in time in which you believe the human life inside the womb transitions into a human being? I challenged what your position for a little more clarity in my reply 209, and so it seems that your response is that a human being does not exist so long as its location is inside a womb, but the moment it is outside the womb it becomes a human being. Does this capture your position accurately?

And if it does - my question is simple, why is it at birth that the human life becomes a human being? Your answer, I would assume, has to be theological in nature, right?

Thank you for you frank appraisal of your's truly. It is probably the sort of thing you and all of us should avoid, however, since it can be construed as a PERSONAL ATTACK. Also it is OFF THE TOPIC of the thread, not the thing to do around here.

Nevertheless I will respond a bit to it: first of all, as to being "irenic," I suppose that means you think one should try to be conciliatory which to me seems in the direction of compromise - compromising with the truth.
I am most concerned to seek out the truth, mostly by uncompromisingly attacking untruth, which I perceive the "pro-life" position to be seriously and totally infected with.
I try to praise somebody if they show evidence of coming to have appreciation for the truth, but if they just keep throwing something that does not amount to anything of an argument I admit I probably don't show much sympathy for it.

You are better than most, especially in the way you continue to seriously discuss and continue to seek clarification. I really appreciate that!

You say: "... you've created your own terminology that the rest of the world doesn't use, and then you're incredible uncharitable with how you speak, not leaving any room to actually speak to the meaning of what people say."
I suspect the reason you characterize what I say as my "own terminology" is that anyone immersed in a "pro-life" position, who thinks and writes it, indeed has a specialized terminology. Where no distinction is made between "life" and "human life" and "a human being"; these expressions seem to be thrown in whenever it sounds good and they think it sounds right - I have pointed out to people that "HUMAN LIFE" IS NOT "A HUMAN LIFE" and had some whose intellect I generally respect say well yes it's not quite strictly true but that's the way we speak.

For instance I wrote Hank Hanegraaff after he proclaimed on his radio program that "Life begins at conception" and pointed out that conception just is the LIFE that the sperm and the egg bring to it. THERE IS NO NEW LIFE. At least I got a response - one of his helpers said well yes I was strictly speaking correct, but... And of course he keeps repeating it.
There is life with new genetics, but even that truth cannot be acknowledged. Can't be correctly annunciated.
I find this sort of thing systemic in anti-abortion arguments, and I truly believe it is the only reason they seem to work, the only reason they are subscribed to. IT IS THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE I APPEAL TO AND WOULD LIKE TO SEE PEOPLE CONFORM TO BETTER, not some private language of my own.

Perhaps I am too demanding of precision, but it is fine distinctions that must be properly maintained if we are to correctly and fully understand the matter. (I have a masters degree in philosophy that I always have considered "sharpening my tools.")

"...not leaving any room to actually speak to the meaning of what people say." is difficult for me to understand. It seems to look like something in the direction of "try to understand what they actually mean, and that is something different from what the words they use actually mean"? BUT, "Life" is not to be confused with "human life," for instance. Some life may be human life, but that does not mean we can use the terms interchangeably.

 

[St_Worm2]

What do you make of Romans 5:12 David?
Romans 5:12 Wherefore, as by on man sin entered into the world, and death by sin, and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned.

"ALL MEN," are infants men? Have sinned, or are in sin? One thing it notices is that sin entered into the world; does that relate to the fetus which has NOT entered into the world? Is not the import of Scriptures here in Romans that ALL are in sin, born in sin. Even conceived in sin, i.e. the sin of the mother. She does the conceiving, it is HER conceiving, she is the one with agency to sin.

What I am particularly pointing to is that this SIN NATURE is the nature of all men; if that means all human beings (it would certainly include women, right?), can it include those who have no human agency, i.e. those not born? That is, it is saying among other things that they are NOT men, are not human beings?
Can not the crying and "being difficult" of an infant be considered their sinning, their NOT honoring their parents, etc.? They are in sin like everyone in the world.

Sorry David, I seem to not have gotten this posted right.

I think our sin nature as indicated by Romans 5:12 above IS the basis of God's condemnation. If we are NOT covered by the blood of Christ.
Are we to think that what goes on in Hell is anything God attends to? What ends up there is NONE OF HIS; would not the encompassing nature of God be alien there, such that He would not even look upon it?
Or what - he cares that the roasting of those NOT HIS OWN goes on? When it is "concluded in judgment"?

Hi again Douglas, much (to say the least) has been written about Romans 5:12, and that certainly includes what is taught at the end of the verse, "because all sinned". What I believe is this, we are all, every man, woman and child (save One, of course ) conceived with a sin nature. Therefore, we sin because we are sinners, not the other way around

However, I also believe that those outside of Christ will be judged/condemned at the Great White Throne on the basis of their personal/sinful thoughts and deeds, not their fallen nature .. i.e. Romans 2:6. I believe the Bible is clear about this, but I am certainly willing to entertain other ideas if you think I have missed something important in regard to this.

I also believe that the elect, the saints of God, deserve the same fate as the reprobate, but that we will receive mercy from God instead through faith in Christ (and in all He did for us), as well our belief & trust in the Father's promise to graciously save us on that basis alone.

Again, this is what I believe, though I am open to hearing new ideas if you have any. Quite frankly, if the intended meaning of the second half of Romans 5:12 was as crystal clear as the first half of the verse, I'm certain that far less would have ever been written about it

Yours in Christ,
David

Matthew 16
27 The Son of man shall come in the glory of His Father with His angels; and then shall He render unto every man according to his deeds.
.​

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

I recommend you read the quotes from the biology and embryology text books I provided. They are quite clear.

Seems to me they are clearly an APPEAL TO AUTHORITY, (a logical fallacy), that their claims that you like are not at all substantiated.

If you think any one of those quotes is anything more than an appeal to authority, actually is based on evidence (RATHER THAN SOME MYSTERY, WHO KNOWS WHAT, THAT BIOLOGISTS MUST HAVE DISCOVERED!), please show it to me. Thanks!

In other words, pick the best one and let's see what we can make of it. See if I am mistaken and you have something here, or not.

 

[redleghunter]

Seems to me they are clearly an APPEAL TO AUTHORITY, (a logical fallacy), that their claims that you like are not at all substantiated.

Settled Science is like that.

I have presented scientific fact. You have presented nothing in response to refute the iron clad scientific evidence.

 

[JoeP222w]

Hi Joe, an unborn child developing in their mother's womb (or an infant) lusts after...................what exactly Obviously, nothing, since their extremely young minds are not capable of forming these kinds of complex thoughts.

You misunderstand my point. No, it is not likely a baby in the womb lusts. My point was that God judges the heart, not just actions.

Obviously an unborn child "demands" nothing in the sense that an adult does.

Again, you misunderstand my point. I was not saying the baby is demanding grace. The one who claims that all babies that are aborted are saved by God because it would not be fair if God did not give them grace, is the one who is demanding God's grace.

A baby cannot "sin". It does not act out of selfishness when it cries, it cries because it's needs something (love, affection, food, it hurts, etc.).

I disagree completely. It is a form of an act of selfishness when a baby demands attention, and not just because it is hungry or needs a diaper change. Granted that act of selfishness is very different from an 8 year old boy who will not share his toys with other children, nonetheless, it is selfishness. Similarly, a very young child never has to be taught how to lie, it is inherent in their nature.

Babies don't sin, nor do they formulate sinful thoughts because they aren't capable of such a thing.

Again, you agreed that they have an Adamic nature in a previous comment, so they do sin. You are being inconsistent.

You are also claiming that you can read a babies mind. I will grant that babies do not form complex thought processes until later, but I would suspect that nonetheless, babies have thoughts.

judgment comes on the basis of our sinful thoughts/actions,

And, again, thoughts and actions come from the persons nature.

If what you believe is true, what reason do you believe God will give at the Great White Throne to an aborted child or an infant child about why He is condemning them to burn forever in pain and torment?

I see emotional pleading in your question, so are you fairly examining the issue?

Does God not have the sovereign right to do with His creation as He wills or does He have to fit your requirements? Where in the Bible does that say the age of the individual ever effects God's judgment of His creation?

Romans 9:15-23 For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." (16) So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. (17) For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth." (18) So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills. (19) You will say to me then, "Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?" (20) But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, "Why have you made me like this?" (21) Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? (22) What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, (23) in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory—

Since they are personally innocent of misdeed/sinful thoughts, what, exactly, do you believe God will tell them they are being punished for

Again, the Bible does not say that babies are innocent, but that they are born with an Adamic (sinful) nature.