Hold your horses wrote:
You are again evading the point that I am making. I have already conceded that we are all born sinners. Original sin is not the issue to hand. The standard of judgement to be used on the day of Judgement is the issue. If God, who is wholly righteous, tells us that he will judge what we have done in the flesh, then that is the acid test. So my question to you is what have babies (whether new born or those still in the womb) done or not done that would merit condemnation and hell? Will the judge of all the earth not do right by them?
You are making God out to be a monster, and this is an argument that Spurgeon also uses in his article viz. that no person in his right mind would attribute such a terrible act to God. But then he had not met you ;-)

So, do you think original sin condemns one to hell, or do you think it is only AFTER a person commits a sin that he goes to hell? You have to answer this question, because only then will I know where you are coming from.

If original sin does not condemn one to hell, then what does?

Hold your horses wrote:
on the day of judgement it is the deeds done in the flesh that will be judged. If you can find any other standard of judgement in the Scriptures, then provide your proof. But, if what I maintain is correct, then what deeds have babies (in the womb or otherwise) ever done that you consider evil?

If that is not what you believe, what makes a sinner a sinner. WHEN does a person BECOME a sinner?

And, do any babies who die in infancy ever go to hell? If so, what would be the reason, since they never "did" anything wrong?
_________

DJ,

I yield the argument to you concerning the time frame for Noah building the ark. I guess we don't know how long the actual construction took, but, we do know that it was 120 yrs. prior to the flood that God said, "I will destroy..."

And, I don't see where the others were invited in. But, don't ya think, if they had asked, God would have allowed them on board?

DJC49 wrote:
Candle Lit
You're making stuff up now.
There was NO invitation to others to get aboard the Ark. AND the Ark was NOT being built for 120 yrs. You must be using an old Scofield Reference Bible!
And whether or not the babies born were any more "wicked" than any other baby who was ever born is NOT the issue.
The issue: were any of these infants ELECT? (Election is NOT based on merit!)

Gotta go for a walk.

Hold your horses wrote:
What a dreadful statement!! Babies wicked?!!!!!! And not all the babies would have been "born". Many would still have been in the womb!
a)the babe in the womb was also wicked from your stand point!!!

Hey, if it were up to me, I'd have them all be saved. But, it's not! And, I am not more LOVING than God, so what I think doesn't count. What God says, counts!

a) I didn't say it. God's word says it "The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they are born.." Psalm 58:3

Do you argue with God's word?
__________

DJC49 wrote:
The fact remains, John, that hundreds, perhaps thousands of children below the age of (say) 4-years old perished in The Flood. Were ANY of these perhaps ELECT of God? If not, why not?
Or did God have some sort of obligation to physically save these children and infants from dying by being passengers aboard Noah's Ark?

DJC49 wrote:
So ...
Have you guys resolved the issue at hand yet?
I take it that *John UK* believes that ELECT infants can be/are saved even if they die before and without ever hearing the Gospel. Correct?
I don't know about *Candle Lit* though. She hasn't been very forthcoming with a straight answer one way or the other.
_____
And why not, John?
If you grant that God eternally saves ELECT infants in our post-Crucifixion times, can He not save ELECT infants PRE-Crucifixion? ... even if those infants were born before The Flood?
Why do you have a problem with that?
Or are you categorically stating that God had NO ELECT infants prior to The Flood?

John UK wrote:
Hold your horses
Are you seriously expecting me to believe that more than eight souls were eternally saved?

Just because 8 were saved physically, does not mean that all 8 were eternally saved.

Just wanted to clarify my thumbs up to *Hold your horses.*
______________

DJ,

I just read your post - and, I'm thinking of Abraham's conversation with the Angel of the Lord. He asked, "Will God destroy the righteous with the wicked?" And, the answer was "NO - God would not destroy the righteous with the wicked."

Hold your horses wrote:
The text does not say 8 were eternally saved, but 8 were temporally saved. Huge difference, would you not say!!
Ditto the case of Sodom and Gomorrah, who says that what happens to people in this world mirrors what happens to them in the next?

John UK wrote:
Interesting points Candle Lit...
It came to mind while reading your post about the great flood when the entire population of the world bar eight perished. Who is going to say that all the infants who perished were elect, and therefore saved? No-one I should think, because the NT records that only eight were saved.

John UK wrote:
Alas, despite having the deepest respect for Mr Spurgeon, surely he has gone too far in this sermon, imagining that all dying infants are elected by God unto salvation. I agree with him without a problem in that God can save an infant without due repentance or faith, and surely he does, if they are elect; but to say that all infants are elect if they die in infancy is a bridge too far for me.

7xSeven wrote:
The reason for preaching the Gospel is, A] because GOD commanded it, and B] because God may use it in the conversion of souls.
And
NOT because human faculties can somehow convert it into their own salvation.
WHY will you people keep stealing from the glory of God and the merits of Christ and the work of the Holy Spirit in the heart.
Z)Sinners cannot save themselves nor contribute to salvation. Christ does and did all that is necessary for that.

Z) Misrepresentation of what is being said!!!!

What do you think the Gospel is?

REPENT....and, believe on the Lord Jesus Christ!

Is this a CALL for ACTION, or WHAT?

Please give me YOUR presentation of the Gospel, and I will see if it lines up with what Jesus said, not some past or current professor of Theology who has told you what it is.

7xSeven wrote:
I did not switch the issue Mike.
It is you who wants human action to be an essential must in the process of salvation. OR IT DOES NOT WORK!!!
God saves the elect whatever age or ability HE gives them.
Your Arminian style leanings are revealed in your objection to God saving whom HE wants to.

DJC49 wrote:
Now tell me, if you started getting letter after letter from someone you never met or knew previously and he told you how much he loved you, would you believe him? Do you think that maybe he could fool you?

What we were talking about is how a Christian communicates the love of God to other Christians and non-Christians in forum exchange.

We can show kindness, and understanding. We can be generous and assume the best of the other person. We can show patience. We can show humility, even sweetness in our speech. We are told in Scripture to let our speech be seasoned as it were with salt. All of these are characteristic of love. Love in action is demonstrated by how we speak to another. Do we demean them? Or, do we build them up?

DJC49 wrote:
What's personally interesting to me about your post, *Candle Lit*, is that you cite the VERY 1st Scripture passage I ever memorized as a yute:
1 Corinthians 13:1-13
An 8th grade sister of St. Joseph (a nun) gave me the assignment of memorizing this passage of Scripture. Perhaps, even then, she knew something about me which was lacking. Then again, maybe she didn't.
Anyhow ... it's amazing to me how you (or anyone) can perceive LOVE over the internet especially since we are all using an ALL-TEXT medium! And I can't imagine how "love" enters the picture when discussing theological issues and debating Scriptural interpretations.
Perhaps I should use more "smileys" in my posts!
Perhaps I should sugar-coat my disagreements that I have with others.
Perhaps I should refrain from using so much sarcasm, wit, and "reductio ad absurdum" as a debating style.
Perhaps the majority of posters on these forums are just overly-sensitive, thin-skinned wusses.
Perhaps I've told you "too much" in my emails to you.

How would you read a letter from a loved one if you can't perceive love?

The thing that I see lacking in you is LOVE. I see your giftedness for debate, but your abilities cannot overcome your lack of love. My prayer for you is that you would KNOW the LOVE of God shed abroad in your heart.

1 Cor. 13 says, "Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity (love), I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.

And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity (love), I am NOTHING.

And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity (love), it profiteth me nothing.

Charity (love) suffereth long, and is kind; charity (love) envieth not; charity (love) vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up,

Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own way, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil;

Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth;

Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.

Charity (love) never faileth; but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.

Your Scripturally based argument for God having fulfilled the land promises to Israel is compelling, and I can't answer your related questions.

DJC49 wrote:
And the LORD gave unto Israel ALL THE LAND WHICH HE SWARE TO GIVE UNTO THEIR FATHERS; and they possessed it, and dwelt therein. And the LORD GAVE THEM REST ROUND ABOUT, according to all that he sware unto their fathers: and there stood not a man of all their enemies before them; the LORD delivered all their enemies into their hand. There failed not ought of any good thing which the LORD had spoken unto the house of Israel; ALL CAME TO PASS. (Jos 21:43-35)
"So Joshua took THE WHOLE LAND, ACCORDING TO ALL THAT THE LORD SAID UNTO MOSES; and Joshua gave it for an inheritance unto Israel according to their divisions by their tribes. And the land rested from war. (Jos 11:23)
Thou art the LORD the God, who didst choose Abram, and broughtest him forth out of Ur of the Chaldees, and gavest him the name of Abraham; And foundest his heart faithful before thee, and madest a covenant with him to give the land...9cut)... to give it, I say, to his seed, AND HAST PERFORMED THY WORDS; for thou art righteous (Neh 9:7,8)
Observe:
ALL CAME TO PASS!

DJC49 wrote:
*Candle Lit* --
As far as I can tell, this world is careening into the very last days of this age and headed for the final "falling away" as described and prophesied in 2 Thess 2:3. Rev 20:7-9 is "right around the corner" and NOT some 1007+ years off into the distant future!
All this "happytalk" that I constantly hear churchpeople babble on about by saying: "Oh, I just can't wait for the Rapture!" makes me nauseous. They don't realize that when the Biblical rapture comes, it's NOT going to be during a time PRECEDING the Great Tribulation, but rather, at the very END of the worst deception and tribulation the world has ever seen!
Besides that, talk of "the Rapture" sounds utterly foolish to the unsaved. Better that Christians talk about the "foolishness" of the cross instead of this Dispy brand of Rapture nonsense!

And, to the unbelievers, - our message should be centered on the work of Jesus on the Cross, His resurrection, and His coming again to judge.

DJC49 wrote:
It's a matter of Biblical TRUTH - Sound Doctrine.
Doctrine matters!
Because of this erronous teaching, classical Dispyism put forth that Christ's death was merely "PLAN B" and that the Church was an unforeseen parenthesis in Redemptive history! This inferred that God made decisions based upon what MAN DID rather than what He sovereignly chose. Also, there were/are TWO ways of salvation: one of grace, the other by works of the Law. From this, we can establish that God Himself IS changeable and capricious.
The Bible teaches that there are ONLY two categories of people: the saved and the lost;

I don't think God has a "Plan B" or that God makes decisions on what MAN DID, or that there are TWO ways of salvation; NOR does John MacArthur believe such and he is pre-trib/pre-mill.

I know there are only two categories of people - the saved and the lost, and I would say that JM would say that also.

The errant teaching that you describe would not apply to all those who believe in the pre-trib/pre-mill interpretation.

To be in the Kingdom of God means that we have a relationship with the Living God by the Spirit and made possible through the atoning work of Jesus Christ on the Cross, and that that relationship will NEVER be severed. It is eternal.

We look forward to the Kingdom of God coming in Glory because there will then be an end to the effects of the curse of sin -

"..Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and He will dwell with them, and they shall be His people, and God Himself shall be with them, and be their God. And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away." Rev 21:3,4

The more I hear this debated, the more I just want to rest in the Lord Jesus Christ. He is my salvation! He redeemed me. He has a plan for my life. And, I can trust Him to get me home.