How Tenuous is Your Salvation [Archive]

Real Realism

10-15-2013, 10:09 PM

So, I had to laugh when Elder Epley posted (I'm twisting his words slightly) "go to hell" in another thread.

But, it got me thinking: while I many of us oppose "once saved always saved" doctrine...at what point are you not "saved" anymore? I think this is something that people who "grow up in church" commonly struggle to understand. Receiving the Holy Ghost, and even being baptized under the age of 10 makes it difficult for one to comprehend having once been "lost in sin" and since redeemed. (For those who weren't raised in church, here's some context...imagine "getting saved" before having experienced puberty.)

It took me at least a decade into adulthood to come to grips with the assurity that my salvation is not predicated on my ability to behave well enough. I no longer need to live with my eyes on "what can I avoid doing wrong" or "I'd rather do X so that I'm demonstrating how 'sold out' I am". Instead , I recognize the power of the Spirit that's within me and follow his leading. When my flesh fights a battle and occasionally wins, I recognize the blood of Jesus Christ was shed to cover my sins...the ones I committed at 6 years old, the ones I committed at 18 years old, and the ones I'll commit tomorrow. How true Christ's word when he told us his yolk is easy.

But, it does make me think...sure, I'm going to mess up again in the future. And I no longer live in doubt that my next mistake will "revoke" my salvation...but when does one end up "falling away"? What does that look like? What does it take?

votivesoul

10-16-2013, 01:02 AM

I don't think it's a light switch that God turns off and on, depending on what we do or don't do, day to day, day in and day out.

But willful sin, which, once committed, if confronted by the Spirit or the Body, is ignored or not repented of, then someone has certainly endangered themselves. The longer one goes without returning and re-uniting with Christ, the less likely they ever will. Eventually, God will give them up to unclean-ness. At that point, such a person is filled with all unrighteousness. And just like that, his or her salvation is most certainly lost.

So, if I was being technical, except for reprobation, I might say that one doesn't lose one's salvation until they die and are judged lost by God. At any moment, in the life of a backslider, should he or she return in faith, humility, confession, and repentance, they can instantly be renewed and restored by the Father.

Fraxeas

10-16-2013, 04:17 AM

Amen! A Christian should be striving for, and have evidence of, coming closer to the 'fulness of God.' I was 'saved' for 20 years before I even found this path. You'll know when you have been adjudged to be not even trying to find it when you receive the sin unto death; which is never dying in your sleep peacefully.

"13 But evil men and impostors will proceed from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived."

Michael The Disciple

10-16-2013, 06:19 AM

Sometimes its not a matter of any certain sin. It may be just not bearing fruit in general. Jesus seems to be showing us that HERE.

6 He spake also this parable; A certain man had a fig tree planted in his vineyard; and he came and sought fruit thereon, and found none. 7 Then said he unto the dresser of his vineyard, Behold, these three years I come seeking fruit on this fig tree, and find none: cut it down; why cumbereth it the ground? 8 And he answering said unto him, Lord, let it alone this year also, till I shall dig about it, and dung it: 9 And if it bear fruit, well: and if not, then after that thou shalt cut it down. Luke 13:6-9

In this case 3 years was given to start bearing fruit. Then in great mercy the Lord granted another year! And yet after that if the fruit did not appear the tree "person" would be cut down.

And no Im not saying its that same time frame for everyone. Nonetheless everyone should take their walk with God very seriously. Altho he may give some people longer than 3 years he could give some less!

Let us fear as well as love God.

renee819

10-16-2013, 06:27 AM

Real R, at last, some very important questions.

While we do not believe in OSAS, I think we all know that we can't be unborn. So once 'born again' always born again, BUT, if a person backslides, leaves the Faith deliberately, their punishment will be grater than if they had never known the true way.

We must keep a repentant spirit. And that doesn't mean presumptuous sins. I've read and heard people that believe OSAS say, when they sin, “So what? All my sins are forgiven.”

We must with everything in us, keep from sin. Examining ourselves to see if there is any greed, hate, lies, pride, thoughts of immorality, covetousness, lurking in our thoughts, actions or speech.
I believe these are the things that trip us up. And these things creep into our minds by just rubbing shoulders with the world, and if we are unaware of the ways that these can trip us, then our ignorance can destroy us.

That is why, personal Bible study is so important. The Word, is a two-edged sword, showing us our sins.

I don't believe what you wear, where you go, what you see, is the problem. The problem lies in why do you wear the clothes that you wear? Why do you go to the places that you go to? Why do you read or watch the things that you see?

The REASON behind it all? To be seductive? To act and be like the world? Pride?
When does God let us go? I don't know.
Maybe it is when we feel restricted by trying to live a righteous and holy life, and want to be free to do anything that we desire. After so long, maybe God sets us free. And then we see people doing what they wanted to do all the time. Their conscience seered as with a hot iron, they no longer think or act as Christians should.

I don't believe any of us take our salvation as serious as we should.

seekerman

10-16-2013, 07:28 AM

Actually, to take it one step back, when is a person 'unsaved' originally? I've asked several times about when a person is actually redeemed, is it at birth, after they're born, at 12 years old (the alleged age of accountability)....when? The question isn't simply some theological exercise but is one of the most important truths facing humanity today.

So, the first question shouldn't be if a person can, or could, lose their salvation, the first question should be when is a person 'saved' to begin with.

crakjak

10-16-2013, 07:47 AM

Disciple4life

10-16-2013, 08:41 AM

Sometimes its not a matter of any certain sin. It may be just not bearing fruit in general. Jesus seems to be showing us that HERE.

In this case 3 years was given to start bearing fruit. Then in great mercy the Lord granted another year! And yet after that if the fruit did not appear the tree "person" would be cut down.

And no Im not saying its that same time frame for everyone. Nonetheless everyone should take their walk with God very seriously. Altho he may give some people longer than 3 years he could give some less!

Let us fear as well as love God.

Thanks Michael, I learned something today. What a great scripture!

Disciple4life

10-16-2013, 08:46 AM

Hebrews 10:31

It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

Fraxeas

10-16-2013, 09:22 AM

Thanks Michael, I learned something today. What a great scripture!Yes, very nice. Renee, too, ty.

Fraxeas

10-16-2013, 09:23 AM

Fraxeas

10-16-2013, 09:24 AM

And you guys please pardon my username; I was not aware of 'Praxeas' at the time. Trying to get it changed now.

Timmy

10-16-2013, 10:52 AM

seekerman

10-16-2013, 11:32 AM

When they believe that Christ is the Son of God, imo anyway.

That doesn't address the issue of the newborn, the child, or the aborted for that matter. When does a person become 'unsaved' in order for the to need to be saved? And I'm using the term 'saved' here in the sense of missing hell, being with God, not dying eternally....that kind of thing.

If an infant, or a child, is saved, how is that infant or child saved? They have no concept of Christ being the Son of God.

seekerman

10-16-2013, 11:34 AM

Real Realism

10-16-2013, 12:21 PM

So many good comments, I don't even know where to start.

I don't think it's a light switch that God turns off and on, depending on what we do or don't do, day to day, day in and day out.

But willful sin, which, once committed, if confronted by the Spirit or the Body, is ignored or not repented of, then someone has certainly endangered themselves. The longer one goes without returning and re-uniting with Christ, the less likely they ever will.

In general, this tends to be my view on the matter, as well. As Michael and Disciple4life posted, there are certainly passages that tell us there is the ability to "fall away." Of that, I have no doubt. Hebrews 10 is a wonderful chapter that illustrates the futility of the law - written on stone tablets - and the importance of the law now being written on our hearts. We are no longer bound by a list of minutia to "keep us from sinning," instead the sacrifice that Christ made for us must be honored by our desire to live a life free from sin:

"26 Dear friends, if we deliberately continue sinning after we have received knowledge of the truth, there is no longer any sacrifice that will cover these sins. 27 There is only the terrible expectation of God’s judgment and the raging fire that will consume his enemies. 28 For anyone who refused to obey the law of Moses was put to death without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. 29 Just think how much worse the punishment will be for those who have trampled on the Son of God, and have treated the blood of the covenant, which made us holy, as if it were common and unholy, and have insulted and disdained the Holy Spirit who brings God’s mercy to us."

But Seekerman brings up a very interesting angle on this - one I'd been thinking of myself when thinking about this topic again this morning:

Actually, to take it one step back, when is a person 'unsaved' originally? I've asked several times about when a person is actually redeemed, is it at birth, after they're born, at 12 years old (the alleged age of accountability)....when? The question isn't simply some theological exercise but is one of the most important truths facing humanity today.

So, the first question shouldn't be if a person can, or could, lose their salvation, the first question should be when is a person 'saved' to begin with.

It can't be as "black and white" as we try to make it.

Here's an interesting personal anecdote. I received the Holy Ghost at the age of 6. At the age of 7, I decided to be baptized, and my parents allowed me. A friend about my age was baptized as well, the same day. The very afternoon after our baptism, we got into an argument and socked each other a couple times. Was that behavior sinful - as in the sin that separates me from God? Or was it simply childish? At what point do my fleshly impulses "separate me" from God...is it when I stop trying to improve? Is it when I stop trying to seek his grace?

And then...for all who point to the scriptures that say "willful sin". What constitutes "willful sin"? When I read the New Testament, I see sin being described as behavior that fulfills the desires of the flesh in opposition to the fruit the Spirit wants to bear in your life (which brings me to Michael's post being an excellent study on the point of the real life parable of the fig tree). For example, Galations 5: "19 When you follow the desires of your sinful nature, the results are very clear: sexual immorality, impurity, lustful pleasures, 20 idolatry, sorcery, hostility, quarreling, jealousy, outbursts of anger, selfish ambition, dissension, division, 21 envy, drunkenness, wild parties, and other sins like these."

I don't see on here that what a woman choosing to put on her legs being a demonstration of sin. I don't see if a man chooses to watch or participate in sports activity being a demonstration of sin. While motivation CAN be sin, motivation is a heart issue. If what you're wearing leads to sexual immorality, there's a problem. If what you're doing leads to idolatry, there's a problem.

But when we try to create a checklist of how "sold out" we can be for Jesus, that's when the one-upmanship becomes contrary to the purpose of no longer being under the law (where the things you "do" or "don't do" have no connection to the state of your heart) instead of being under grace (where your primary goal is to make sure your heart - your desires - are aligned with the Spirit).

If someone is bearing fruit - love, joy, peace, patience, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, self-control - why do we feel the need to question their salvation, motives, maturity, because they don't refrain from some of the things that we do?

I think much of our fear over "losing our salvation" comes from the judging eyes of those around us, rather than a focus on heart-issues that we're called to in the Word.

Timmy

10-16-2013, 12:25 PM

Deliberate sins, eh? Well, all mine are accidental, so........

Esaias

10-16-2013, 01:25 PM

I don't think you can know if you are saved, and will remain saved till the end. You can only believe you are saved, and will remain saved. You can believe you understand the instructions (and have chosen the correct scriptures to follow), and you can hope you followed them correctly. But some will have guessed wrong, Jesus predicted. He'll tell them "Depart from me".

Jesus did not say 'some will have guessed wrong'. He said they were 'workers of iniquity', which is lawlessness, ie antinomians.

There is no 'guessing' in that context, they had the forms of religion and did 'many wonderful works in' His name, but they were 'workers of iniquity', ie they had obviously come to the conclusion that God's LAW was no longer valid for them and they could live according to the dictates of their own heart.

Jesus says they will be rejected.

This theme is repeated throughout the New Testament.

Now as to certainty, there are differing degrees of certainty. One cannot know as a TOTAL CERTAINTY anything until it happens, by the very nature of the thing. One cannot know a future event as a true unalterable certainty, because it is yet future, and therefore in its 'essence' is only a probability.

One can have a degree of 'certainty' however, in the sense one can be assured and have faith, hope, expectation that an event will happen. A person who believes the gospel and commits themself to the Lord's care can have expectation He will keep His Word and they will not be ashamed on 'That Day'. One must, however, maintain this expectation and not lose one's confidence.

A lot of people desperately need teaching on the basis for that confidence. It is not based on the fact one was baptised, or even on the fact one has believed.

It is based on the fact that Christ is truly risen from the dead, that God cannot lie, that God intends good for us not evil, that God has sworn by himself (as it were) to redeem us.

One's baptism, faith, spiritual experiences, current walk with God, etc are merely testifying to one's ACCEPTANCE and TRUST IN GOD'S PROMISE. Our confidence is in Him, not ourselves. We submit to His Word because we are confident in Him, not to create confidence in Him.

Our obedience to God is a sign we have taken him seriously.

Esaias

10-16-2013, 01:30 PM

I doubt Elder Epley will address the issue of when a person is 'unsaved' after they're born. At what point in their life. At birth? When they're 7 years old? 18 years old?

When does a person become accountable for their sins?

That seems to be the question you are asking.

I would suggest that when a person knows to do right, and does it not, they are accountable for what they know, and their actions.

Keep in mind, too, that salvation as presented in the bible does not present 'individual, personal salvation' as the be all, end all of 'salvation'. Salvation, redemption, is a covenant thing.

God redeemed a PEOPLE, a covenant nation. Salvation is only possible by membership in that covenant nation. Being outside that covenant nation one is automatically 'lost' to begin with.

But notice:

Isa 56:6
¶
Also the sons of the stranger, that join themselves to the LORD, to serve him, and to love the name of the LORD, to be his servants, every one that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it, and taketh hold of my covenant;

Isa 56:7
Even them will I bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer: their burnt offerings and their sacrifices shall be accepted upon mine altar; for mine house shall be called an house of prayer for all people.

Isa 56:8
The Lord GOD which gathereth the outcasts of Israel saith, Yet will I gather others to him, beside those that are gathered unto him.

and again:

Eph 2:12
That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:

Eph 2:13
But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.

Eph 2:14
¶
For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;

Eph 2:15
Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;

Eph 2:16
And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:

Eph 2:17
And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh.

Eph 2:18
For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father.

Eph 2:19
¶
Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;

The covenantal, national aspect of redemption has been SERIOUSLY overlooked by most professing Christians over the last 100 years or so.

Esaias

10-16-2013, 01:33 PM

... that's when the one-upmanship becomes contrary to the purpose of no longer being under the law (where the things you "do" or "don't do" have no connection to the state of your heart) ...

That is contrary to the teaching of Christ and his apostles.

1Jo 3:4
¶
Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

1Jo 3:5
And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin.

1Jo 3:6
Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him.

1Jo 3:7
Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous.

1Jo 3:8
He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.

1Jo 3:9
Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.

1Jo 3:10
¶
In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother.

Fraxeas

10-16-2013, 02:09 PM

That doesn't address the issue of the newborn, the child, or the aborted for that matter. When does a person become 'unsaved' in order for the to need to be saved? And I'm using the term 'saved' here in the sense of missing hell, being with God, not dying eternally....that kind of thing.

If an infant, or a child, is saved, how is that infant or child saved? They have no concept of Christ being the Son of God.Sorry, I could not read all that below your post, so not sure if you received any answer. I think your post highlights a non-issue, wadr, and shows thinking from man's perspective, rather than God's.

God is Love, first and foremost; and any human answer that does not take this into account is just acting out the consequences of the doctrines of man; original sin, etc.

As proof, I offer that 'it is what is in a man's heart that God will judge;' and the 'heart' meant here has not been developed by your examples. Other Scriptures support this, also.

Imo, any other arguments amount to 'how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.'

Fraxeas

10-16-2013, 02:15 PM

Fraxeas

10-16-2013, 02:19 PM

I doubt Elder Epley will address the issue of when a person is 'unsaved' after they're born. At what point in their life. At birth? When they're 7 years old? 18 years old?When they commit their first sin. Consciously. Doesn't matter if their symbology includes 'sin' yet; the principle still holds.

The moment I treat You like an object in order to further my desires, I have sinned. I'm not quite gathering why any believer has any issue with E Tolle?

Fraxeas

10-16-2013, 02:21 PM

um, with apologies to any 'original sinners,' I guess? not sure what kind of Apostolics frequent here, I'm assuming Pentecostal, but seen some Catholic, etc.

Michael The Disciple

10-16-2013, 02:28 PM

Jesus himself said "few" will find eternal life.

24 Strive to enter in at the strait gate: for many, I say unto you, will seek to enter in, and shall not be able. 25 When once the master of the house is risen up, and hath shut to the door, and ye begin to stand without, and to knock at the door, saying, Lord, Lord, open unto us; and he shall answer and say unto you, I know you not whence ye are: 26 Then shall ye begin to say, We have eaten and drunk in thy presence, and thou hast taught in our streets. 27 But he shall say, I tell you, I know you not whence ye are; depart from me, all ye workers of iniquity. Luke 13:24-27

The question is will WE be one of the few? Will we STRIVE to enter in? Or will we follow the teachings of the Evangelical Cults? Giving out a steady flow of "There's nothing you can do".

Basically the teaching popular today is if you are trying to do ANYTHING....you are guilty of legalism!

They have cut the heart and soul out of the teachings of Jesus Christ. Its time we called their doctrine out. It is heresy promoting a Christ of their own making rather than the Jesus of Biblical history.

Fraxeas

10-16-2013, 02:51 PM

Hmm, do you (not you, Michael) step over derelicts on your way to prayer, might be a good way to ask?

Michael The Disciple

10-16-2013, 02:54 PM

Hmm, do you (not you, Michael) step over derelicts on your way to prayer, might be a good way to ask?

A general comment would be, caring for the poor and down and out to the degree we can is certainly part of the gospel. Many will be lost on that basis.

renee819

10-16-2013, 03:53 PM

Real R. wrote,
But when we try to create a checklist of how "sold out" we can be for Jesus, that's when the one-upmanship becomes contrary to the purpose of no longer being under the law (where the things you "do" or "don't do" have no connection to the state of your heart) instead of being under grace (where your primary goal is to make sure your heart - your desires - are aligned with the Spirit).

If someone is bearing fruit - love, joy, peace, patience, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, self-control - why do we feel the need to question their salvation, motives, maturity, because they don't refrain from some of the things that we do?

I think much of our fear over "losing our salvation" comes from the judging eyes of those around us, rather than a focus on heart-issues that we're called to in the Word.

AMEN! That is why we are not to condemn one another. We are to judge, “to know those that work among us,” but not for condemnation. The person being condemned may have an honest heart, but not see the need to do or not do what you may feel is right, or not right. They may need loving teaching.

That is why I believe that God did away with the rituals of the Law. It got to be, no matter what their heart condition, if they followed the Law, they got the attitude of holier than thou.
And I believe that is exactly what is wrong with standards, especially of women's dress. It makes them feel that if the outward is passable, then they are holy. In that way, I see standards as an re-enactment of the law.

Esaias

10-16-2013, 04:04 PM

Real R. wrote,
.

AMEN! That is why we are not to condemn one another. We are to judge, “to know those that work among us,” but not for condemnation. The person being condemned may have an honest heart, but not see the need to do or not do what you may feel is right, or not right. They may need loving teaching.

That is why I believe that God did away with the rituals of the Law. It got to be, no matter what their heart condition, if they followed the Law, they got the attitude of holier than thou.
And I believe that is exactly what is wrong with standards, especially of women's dress. It makes them feel that if the outward is passable, then they are holy. In that way, I see standards as an re-enactment of the law.

God did away with the rituals of the law, as you call them, because they were types of Christ's redemptive, atoning work. Going about to establish one's own righteousness is not the same thing as 'keeping standards'. We all have standards, every one of us. We can become prideful and arrogant and say 'ha, my standards are stricter than yours, so I must be holier than you'. But we can also become prideful and arrogant in the other direction, as if to say 'ha, my standards are more liberal and free than yours, so I must be holier than you because I'm not as holier-than-thou as you.'

Scripture says 'the law is good if it is used lawfully'. We are enabled by the power of God to have the righteousness of the law fulfilled in us. We are to walk as Christ walked.

We do not make void the law through faith, we establish it.

Timmy

10-16-2013, 08:04 PM

Jesus did not say 'some will have guessed wrong'. He said they were 'workers of iniquity', which is lawlessness, ie antinomians.

There is no 'guessing' in that context, they had the forms of religion and did 'many wonderful works in' His name, but they were 'workers of iniquity', ie they had obviously come to the conclusion that God's LAW was no longer valid for them and they could live according to the dictates of their own heart.

Jesus says they will be rejected.

This theme is repeated throughout the New Testament.

Now as to certainty, there are differing degrees of certainty. One cannot know as a TOTAL CERTAINTY anything until it happens, by the very nature of the thing. One cannot know a future event as a true unalterable certainty, because it is yet future, and therefore in its 'essence' is only a probability.

One can have a degree of 'certainty' however, in the sense one can be assured and have faith, hope, expectation that an event will happen. A person who believes the gospel and commits themself to the Lord's care can have expectation He will keep His Word and they will not be ashamed on 'That Day'. One must, however, maintain this expectation and not lose one's confidence.

A lot of people desperately need teaching on the basis for that confidence. It is not based on the fact one was baptised, or even on the fact one has believed.

It is based on the fact that Christ is truly risen from the dead, that God cannot lie, that God intends good for us not evil, that God has sworn by himself (as it were) to redeem us.

One's baptism, faith, spiritual experiences, current walk with God, etc are merely testifying to one's ACCEPTANCE and TRUST IN GOD'S PROMISE. Our confidence is in Him, not ourselves. We submit to His Word because we are confident in Him, not to create confidence in Him.

Our obedience to God is a sign we have taken him seriously.

They will think they're in, but they're not. That's all that matters.

seekerman

10-16-2013, 08:19 PM

When does a person become accountable for their sins?

That seems to be the question you are asking.

I would suggest that when a person knows to do right, and does it not, they are accountable for what they know, and their actions.

Keep in mind, too, that salvation as presented in the bible does not present 'individual, personal salvation' as the be all, end all of 'salvation'. Salvation, redemption, is a covenant thing.

God redeemed a PEOPLE, a covenant nation. Salvation is only possible by membership in that covenant nation. Being outside that covenant nation one is automatically 'lost' to begin with.

But notice:

Isa 56:6
¶
Also the sons of the stranger, that join themselves to the LORD, to serve him, and to love the name of the LORD, to be his servants, every one that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it, and taketh hold of my covenant;

Isa 56:7
Even them will I bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer: their burnt offerings and their sacrifices shall be accepted upon mine altar; for mine house shall be called an house of prayer for all people.

Isa 56:8
The Lord GOD which gathereth the outcasts of Israel saith, Yet will I gather others to him, beside those that are gathered unto him.

and again:

Eph 2:12
That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:

Eph 2:13
But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.

Eph 2:14
¶
For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;

Eph 2:15
Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;

Eph 2:16
And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:

Eph 2:17
And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh.

Eph 2:18
For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father.

Eph 2:19
¶
Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;

The covenantal, national aspect of redemption has been SERIOUSLY overlooked by most professing Christians over the last 100 years or so.

No, that really wasn't my question. My question was concerning the issue of the newborn, the child, or the aborted for that matter. When does a person become 'unsaved' in order for the to need to be saved? And I'm using the term 'saved' here in the sense of missing hell, being with God, not dying eternally....that kind of thing.

If an infant, or a child, is saved, how is that infant or child saved? They have no concept of Christ being the Son of God.

votivesoul

10-17-2013, 01:29 AM

To: seekerman,

Towards your original question, I offer the following link:

http://www.hebrew-streams.org/works/misconceptions/havharah-sefer-hayyim.html

You may enjoy reading the article, and get an answer at the same time. :)

seekerman

10-17-2013, 01:39 AM

Esaias

10-17-2013, 06:57 AM

No, that really wasn't my question. My question was concerning the issue of the newborn, the child, or the aborted for that matter. When does a person become 'unsaved' in order for the to need to be saved? And I'm using the term 'saved' here in the sense of missing hell, being with God, not dying eternally....that kind of thing.

If an infant, or a child, is saved, how is that infant or child saved? They have no concept of Christ being the Son of God.

Seems to me I answered your question, then.

seekerman

10-17-2013, 08:22 AM

Seems to me I answered your question, then.

No, you answered only half of it. I'm assuming by your statement "I would suggest that when a person knows to do right, and does it not, they are accountable for what they know, and their actions" your view is that a person, at some point in their maturity, by their sinful actions, will lost their salvation, not go to heaven, ect.

This question remains though. If an infant, or a child, is saved, how is that infant or child initially saved? They have no concept of Christ being the Son of God or of right or wrong or the commandments of God.

Real Realism

10-17-2013, 08:31 AM

Plus, children know "right" from wrong at an early age, but are still developing the discipline and self-control to avoid the wrong - even having experienced the baptism of the Holy Ghost at a young age.

Did I know it was wrong to punch my friend at the age of 7, for shoving me aside to climb over my backyard fence before I could? Yep - even though I'd received the Spirit, spoke in tongues when I prayed, and chose to be baptized that very day. But I was childish and lacking self control. Were my actions sinful?

And if, as seekerman is questioning, I hadn't experienced anything of Christ at that point in my life, and I behaved in a selfish, hurtful manner (as children often do), would I at the age of 7 years old be "lost in my sins"?

Esaias

10-17-2013, 08:45 AM

No, you answered only half of it. I'm assuming by your statement "I would suggest that when a person knows to do right, and does it not, they are accountable for what they know, and their actions" your view is that a person, at some point in their maturity, by their sinful actions, will lost their salvation, not go to heaven, ect.

This question remains though. If an infant, or a child, is saved, how is that infant or child initially saved? They have no concept of Christ being the Son of God or of right or wrong or the commandments of God.

A few thoughts, not that I have all the answers...

1. Who says infants are 'saved' to begin with? You seem to be assuming they are 'saved' first, then at some point 'lose their salvation' requiring them to be re-saved. But who says so? Does the Bible say so?

2. I don't think we can lump all infants and small children in together as one big group of people. I think the bible indicates there is a difference between the children of those who are in covenant with God, and the children of those who are not. As I said, the modern emphasis on 'personal, individual salvation' seems lopsided and unbiblical.

3. Considering the goal of the gospel is not to 'get people to heaven', but to free them from the curse of sin and death and ignorance of God, perhaps we have the wrong focus here.

4. Ultimately, it doesn't matter, because if a person has heard the gospel, the question is not 'what if' or 'what about' but 'what say YE' The others are in God's hands, obviously.

Disciple4life

10-17-2013, 08:48 AM

[QUOTE=Esaias;1282013]

3. Considering the goal of the gospel is not to 'get people to heaven', but to free them from the curse of sin and death and ignorance of God, perhaps we have the wrong focus here.

QUOTE]

I was always told that the gospel was to "save them from hell"?

:smack :blah

Esaias

10-17-2013, 08:51 AM

A person can be either moral, immoral, or amoral. That is, they can have a good moral character, a bad moral character, or no moral character whatsoever (good or bad).

Is a child moral, immoral, or amoral?

On the one hand, the Bible seems to indicate children and infants have access to God, thus a child or infant is in a state of 'right standing' with God until they sin.

On the other hand, the bible seems to indicate that children of unbelievers are 'unclean' and thus not recipients of the benefits of the covenant.

God made a Covenant with Abraham, which included his whole household. The same was true of the Israel at Sinai. The NT seems to indicate the same is true - 'believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy household.'

Of course, there is also quite a bit of interaction with personal accountability, and as Paul says, circumcision is of the heart (ie this would require some degree of knowledge and wilfulness, thus infants would not be included in that description??).

Esaias

10-17-2013, 08:53 AM

I was always told that the gospel was to "save them from hell"?

:smack :blah

Hell, as in Hades/death, which is the wages of sin.

Hell, as in Gehenna/wrath of God which is the righteous judgement of God against the wicked.

Jesus came to 'save his people from their sins'.

We have been delivered from death, and are passed into Life.

The catholic doctrine of 'going to heaven to spend our days in a mansion of gold' comes straight from Pharisaic traditions of men.

seekerman

10-17-2013, 04:47 PM

A few thoughts, not that I have all the answers...

1. Who says infants are 'saved' to begin with? You seem to be assuming they are 'saved' first, then at some point 'lose their salvation' requiring them to be re-saved. But who says so? Does the Bible say so?

Yes, I'm assuming that infants and children are saved. No, the bible doesn't say so. They either are or they aren't. Examining both views results in very important conclusions though.

If we assume they aren't, then every person is lost until some point in their life whereby they 'get saved'. If this is the case, those that have lost infants, children, the aborted are in hell or hell bound. For some I guess this would be acceptable, for me it's not. Maybe I'm just making a decision based on emotion rather than truth though.

If we assume they are then there's a process whereby they're saved and they enjoy that salvation until some point in their life when they lose that salvation. A discarding of them by God.

Which view is correct? I think it's very important to find out.

Once we come to a conclusion on the two views, then we can better address your points.

Truthseeker

10-17-2013, 05:09 PM

My first baby believed babies went to hell.

Esaias

10-17-2013, 06:00 PM

Yes, I'm assuming that infants and children are saved. No, the bible doesn't say so. They either are or they aren't. Examining both views results in very important conclusions though.

If we assume they aren't, then every person is lost until some point in their life whereby they 'get saved'. If this is the case, those that have lost infants, children, the aborted are in hell or hell bound. For some I guess this would be acceptable, for me it's not. Maybe I'm just making a decision based on emotion rather than truth though.

If we assume they are then there's a process whereby they're saved and they enjoy that salvation until some point in their life when they lose that salvation. A discarding of them by God.

Which view is correct? I think it's very important to find out.

Why doesn't the bible just state the case, clearly?

Or does it?

On the one hand, one may say that babies are born in a state of innocence, neither holy nor unholy, neither righteous nor unrighteous. As they grow, they reach a point in which they become accountable moral agents. When that point is I do not presume to know, but it is probable that it is different for each person, as it would depend on their knowledge, mental development, understanding, etc. At this point, they become moral agents and are accountable for their actions. If their actions are sinful, then their moral character is no longer 'innocent' but 'sinful'. They have defiled themselves with their sin.

And thus are condemned, and without hope except in Christ. Meaning, they now need to be forgiven, saved, redeemed, etc.

On the other hand, one may argue that even if babies are born innocent, neither holy nor unholy, neither righteous nor unrighteous, nevertheless only the righteous and holy may inherit eternal life. Thus, if they die before the age of accountability, and thus before any meaningful exercise of faith in Christ is possible, unless God sanctifies them and declares them righteous, they will not enter into life.

One may suggest God does in fact do just that. God sanctifies all infants who die before being able to discern good and evil, able to exercise repentance and faith.

Or one may say that all infants are born not in a state of innocence, lacking moral character, but are regarded by God as holy until such time as they defile themselves by their sin. Thus, if they die prior to such time, they will inherit eternal life. such are in the state of Adam prior to his fall.

(Of course, if one believes in 'original inherited sin' one is led to the conclusion that all babies who die before exercising faith in Christ are most certainly not only going to suffer eternal death, but deservedly so, as they are 'born sinners.')

But then we get into the Covenant aspect. As I said previously, I do not think we can lump all people together. Consider this:

For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.

There appears to be a certain amount of 'sanctification' applied to the family of a believer, both to their unbelieving spouse, and their children. It would be absurd to suggest the spouse is therefore 'saved', because they are accountable for their own sins, but the children? If they are not accountable yet, then being 'holy' means they will receive eternal life if they die before they defile themselves with their own sins.

A difficult topic for sure, but I believe the Covenantal approach is the direction the truth lies.

Truthseeker

10-17-2013, 11:21 PM

My first baby believed babies went to hell.

Oops, meant my first pastor.

votivesoul

10-18-2013, 04:51 AM

I don't do links. If you could put it in your own words?

The article is about the sefer chaim or Book of Life.

It suggests that all souls are originally written in the Book of Life, but only subsequent to the introduction of sin through the knowledge of the law, does one find their name being "blotted out" as it were. At which point of course, salvation is necessitated, so that one's name can be written again.

There is much more to it than that, but that's what I'd call the nutshell version.

votivesoul

10-18-2013, 05:04 AM

It seems Romans 7:7-11 is appropriate at this point of the conversation.

7. What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.
8. But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead.
9. For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.
10. And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death.
11. For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me.

If we are talking children, babies, the unborn, and etc. we might accurately state that such have no knowledge of sin except through the law.

Adding Romans 3:20b to the mix:

...for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

we get a picture of people being morally innocent, i.e. just/righteous before God when they are born, up until the person in question becomes accountable to the law.

Once the law of God is perceived and understood, as Paul wrote, the other law (the law of sin) will, through the weakness of human flesh, take advantage of the situation and give rise to the first sinful act.

As Paul wrote: without the law he had once been alive (i.e. as a baby/child). But once the law was introduced, (the law of) sin revived or came alive and killed him, spiritually speaking, by leading him to commit the first of his many subsequent sins.

But notice what he said in verse 8. Without the law, sin was dead, that is dormant. The law of sin and the death that the wages of sin brings, had no power over him when he was without the law.

This only happens when people are babies/children.

So, no child needs to be "saved", as in rescued from sin and the destructive power it wields, since no child is inherently lost (i.e. unrighteous).

But there does come that age when everything changes. For me, it was about six or seven when I consciously lied to my mom, knew I was lying, knew it was wrong, knew there would be a terrible consequence for lying, and after considering all that, still told the lie.

Was I damned to hell at that moment? I cannot say.

But I will offer this:

2 Chronicles 36:9,

9. Jehoiachin was eight years old when he began to reign, and he reigned three months and ten days in Jerusalem: and he did that which was evil in the sight of the Lord.

Apparently an 8 year is capable of committing evil. But then again, an 8 year is capable of doing right, too:

2 Chronicles 34:1-2,

1. Josiah was eight years old when he began to reign, and he reigned in Jerusalem one and thirty years.
2. And he did that which was right in the sight of the Lord, and walked in the ways of David his father, and declined neither to the right hand, nor to the left.

So I would say that at the minimum (though not for every human ever) 8 years old seems to be the base age at which one "takes their soul into their own hands" as it were, and risks having their name being blotted out of the Book of Life.

Esaias

10-18-2013, 07:21 AM

Oops, meant my first pastor.

I've been trying to ponder what you meant ever since you first posted that, lol.

Esaias

10-18-2013, 07:23 AM

So, no child needs to be "saved", as in rescued from sin and the destructive power it wields, since no child is inherently lost (i.e. unrighteous).

Interesting take on the subject. But what about the issue of holiness? I quoted a verse earlier where Paul says 'otherwise your children were unclean, but now they are holy'.

How does that play into Romans 7?

seekerman

10-18-2013, 08:33 AM

Why doesn't the bible just state the case, clearly?

Or does it?

On the one hand, one may say that babies are born in a state of innocence, neither holy nor unholy, neither righteous nor unrighteous. As they grow, they reach a point in which they become accountable moral agents. When that point is I do not presume to know, but it is probable that it is different for each person, as it would depend on their knowledge, mental development, understanding, etc. At this point, they become moral agents and are accountable for their actions. If their actions are sinful, then their moral character is no longer 'innocent' but 'sinful'. They have defiled themselves with their sin.

And thus are condemned, and without hope except in Christ. Meaning, they now need to be forgiven, saved, redeemed, etc.

On the other hand, one may argue that even if babies are born innocent, neither holy nor unholy, neither righteous nor unrighteous, nevertheless only the righteous and holy may inherit eternal life. Thus, if they die before the age of accountability, and thus before any meaningful exercise of faith in Christ is possible, unless God sanctifies them and declares them righteous, they will not enter into life.

One may suggest God does in fact do just that. God sanctifies all infants who die before being able to discern good and evil, able to exercise repentance and faith.

Or one may say that all infants are born not in a state of innocence, lacking moral character, but are regarded by God as holy until such time as they defile themselves by their sin. Thus, if they die prior to such time, they will inherit eternal life. such are in the state of Adam prior to his fall.

(Of course, if one believes in 'original inherited sin' one is led to the conclusion that all babies who die before exercising faith in Christ are most certainly not only going to suffer eternal death, but deservedly so, as they are 'born sinners.')

But then we get into the Covenant aspect. As I said previously, I do not think we can lump all people together. Consider this:

For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.

There appears to be a certain amount of 'sanctification' applied to the family of a believer, both to their unbelieving spouse, and their children. It would be absurd to suggest the spouse is therefore 'saved', because they are accountable for their own sins, but the children? If they are not accountable yet, then being 'holy' means they will receive eternal life if they die before they defile themselves with their own sins.

A difficult topic for sure, but I believe the Covenantal approach is the direction the truth lies.

Interesting views, thanks for posting them. It's certainly a difficult topic for it seems that the bible isn't totally clear on the matter. I wouldn't disagree that it's a Conventional relationship in the process, but wouldn't that have an element of Calvinism in that particular view? I'm not suggesting that's a bad thing, but may be something to be considered.

seekerman

10-18-2013, 08:34 AM

The article is about the sefer chaim or Book of Life.

It suggests that all souls are originally written in the Book of Life, but only subsequent to the introduction of sin through the knowledge of the law, does one find their name being "blotted out" as it were. At which point of course, salvation is necessitated, so that one's name can be written again.

There is much more to it than that, but that's what I'd call the nutshell version.

Scripturally, I don't disagree with your nutshell version. Thanks for condensing it for me. :)

Esaias

10-18-2013, 09:00 AM

Interesting views, thanks for posting them. It's certainly a difficult topic for it seems that the bible isn't totally clear on the matter. I wouldn't disagree that it's a Conventional relationship in the process, but wouldn't that have an element of Calvinism in that particular view? I'm not suggesting that's a bad thing, but may be something to be considered.

Ha, I knew somebody was going to bring that up sooner or later! lol

Actually, I am not talking about the Calvinist view of covenant, ie the covenant of Works vs the Covenant of grace, etc. I am not sure that approach is even biblical.

By covenantal I meant the following:

1. Noah found grace in the eyes of God, so He saved Noah and his family.

2. God called Abraham, made a covenant with him, which included Abraham's family.

3. Ditto with Isaac and Jacob.

4. God called the extended family-nation of Jacob, then numbering in the millions, to Sinai and made a covenant with them. This covenant included their families, their children.

5. When Jesus met with Zacchaeus the Lord said 'salvation is come to this house', not just 'to this man'.

6. Paul and Silas told a gentile 'believe on the Lord and you will be saved, and your whole house'.

7. Paul taught 'but now your children are holy'.

All this seems to indicate the Old Testament pattern of 'household salvation' is continued in the NT, that is to say, God's covenant is not just with individuals, but with families, households. The Covenant is that God will have a people, which includes their families.

Now, it's true many Reformed people see much of the same thing, and therefore conclude (erroneously, in my opinion) that paedobaptism is the way to go, but I am not really looking at it from a Reformed position, just what I see in the bible about God's covenantal dealings with people (and their families).

Esaias

10-18-2013, 09:07 AM

Wow, I just found an article by Watchman Lee (I think) on this very subject -

http://www.neve-family.com/books/nee/HouseholdSalvation.html

God's promise of salvation takes the household as a unit, not the individual as a unit. If a newly saved person sees this from the very beginning, he will be spared many headaches, and he will gain much benefit for himself. When God saves man, He takes the whole family, rather than an individual, as a unit.

Concerning eternal life, the Bible takes an individual, not a household, as the unit. However, concerning salvation, it shows that men are saved household by household. The unit of salvation is the household. We want to spend a little time to consider several portions of the Word. This will show us clearly that salvation is for the whole household. We can inquire of God according to these words. We can deal with Him not only for ourselves individually but also for our whole family.

...

In the Bible, both on the positive side and on the negative side and both in the Old Testament and in the New Testament, all records show clearly that God deals with man by households. Brothers, we need to take care of how we live before God, because what we do individually can affect our whole household.

Much more at the link.

votivesoul

10-19-2013, 01:06 AM

Interesting take on the subject. But what about the issue of holiness? I quoted a verse earlier where Paul says 'otherwise your children were unclean, but now they are holy'.

How does that play into Romans 7?

I would say that since the unbelieving spouse is sanctified (set apart, able to experience the blessings of God) by the believing spouse, but is NOT SAVED, I don't think we can say that having sanctified children in the sense of 1 Corinthians 7 means that they are "saved' because of the saved parent.

Rather, I see it a matter of worrying that a married couple, one saved, the other not, caused some concern over whether or not the children were some kind of un-acceptable to God spiritual half-breeds.

Consider Ezra 10:1-5,

1. Now when Ezra had prayed, and when he had confessed, weeping and casting himself down before the house of God, there assembled unto him out of Israel a very great congregation of men and women and children: for the people wept very sore.
2. And Shechaniah the son of Jehiel, one of the sons of Elam, answered and said unto Ezra, We have trespassed against our God, and have taken strange wives of the people of the land: yet now there is hope in Israel concerning this thing.
3. Now therefore let us make a covenant with our God to put away all the wives, and such as are born of them, according to the counsel of my lord, and of those that tremble at the commandment of our God; and let it be done according to the law.
4. Arise; for this matter belongeth unto thee: we also will be with thee: be of good courage, and do it.
5. Then arose Ezra, and made the chief priests, the Levites, and all Israel, to swear that they should do according to this word. And they sware.

The Corinthians had obviously written to Paul with certain concerns (1 Corinthians 7:1), one of which I assume had to do with saints married to sinners and the status of their children.

Since the Corinthian assembly began as a synagogue (Acts 18), I would guess that the Jewish elders and leaders (e.g. Crispus, Gaius, Stephanas) were familiar with Ezra 10 and were worried that the saved saints might have to disown their unsaved spouses and children in order to be pleasing to God.

Paul's response is no; they are sanctified (not saved or born again) but accepted by God as legitimate family members to the saved spouse. The peace of God that comes with His presence in the life of the believing spouse is welcome in the home and as long as the unbelieving spouse is pleased to dwell with the saint, many of the rich blessings of God (supernatural protection, divine favor, and etc.) would fall to the family as well (i.e. unsaved spouse and children).

But otherwise, the children don't need to be saved, as in rescued from sin, death, and hell. They are morally pure, innocent and heaven-bound, up until their name gets blotted out of the Book of Life at the onset of the law of sin reviving and slaying them, as it were, spiritually speaking (at which point, salvation is necessitated since they are now fallen, just like Adam [in Adam all die, and etc.]).

renee819

10-19-2013, 04:41 AM

Esaias and Votivesoul, This is great teaching. I have often wondered about that scripture and knowing and seeing that blessings do come on the household where one or both parents are saved, yet we know that when a child reaches the age of accountability, they must make the decision themselves.

What is the age of accountability? Who knows? I believe it may be different ages as children mature in different stages. When it is 'time' then God starts dealing with them. And they have to make the decision.

seekerman

10-19-2013, 05:41 AM

Ha, I knew somebody was going to bring that up sooner or later! lol

I've been dancing around it for quite a while now and just couldn't contain myself anymore. :)

Actually, I am not talking about the Calvinist view of covenant, ie the covenant of Works vs the Covenant of grace, etc. I am not sure that approach is even biblical.

By covenantal I meant the following:

1. Noah found grace in the eyes of God, so He saved Noah and his family.

2. God called Abraham, made a covenant with him, which included Abraham's family.

3. Ditto with Isaac and Jacob.

4. God called the extended family-nation of Jacob, then numbering in the millions, to Sinai and made a covenant with them. This covenant included their families, their children.

5. When Jesus met with Zacchaeus the Lord said 'salvation is come to this house', not just 'to this man'.

6. Paul and Silas told a gentile 'believe on the Lord and you will be saved, and your whole house'.

7. Paul taught 'but now your children are holy'.

All this seems to indicate the Old Testament pattern of 'household salvation' is continued in the NT, that is to say, God's covenant is not just with individuals, but with families, households. The Covenant is that God will have a people, which includes their families.

Now, it's true many Reformed people see much of the same thing, and therefore conclude (erroneously, in my opinion) that paedobaptism is the way to go, but I am not really looking at it from a Reformed position, just what I see in the bible about God's covenantal dealings with people (and their families).

Let's take the familial view of salvation and apply it to a real bible situation, the death of the child of David and Bathsheba. Being only a few days old, would this child be saved (not go to hell, be eternally with God, ect) because he was a son of David, part of David's household? Conversely, those infants who were non-covenantial households would be lost (go to hell, burn, ect.). The result would be that the vast majority of children who died in the epochs of time will be, or are in, hell (eternally apart from God, buring in a pit, ect) simply because most were unfortunately born into the wrong family.

In this view, there would be a point in time where the child of a covenantial household, after reaching a certain maturity in life, would have to choose for himself/herself to enter into a covenantial relationship with God else their children would be lost (not be in heaven, not be with God, burn, ect). Salvation for an individual, for a period of time, would be dependent on the choices of someone else in other words.

I'm not saying this isn't scriptural for you've certainly made a case for it by the multiple scripture references in your response, but it certainly opens the door for many other questions.

renee819

10-19-2013, 08:11 AM

God is a good and righteous God. And I can not believe that any baby or child below the age of accountability would be sent to hell.

And even those that are above that age, I believe that God will judge them, according to their maturity, "works."

Esaias

10-20-2013, 09:47 AM

Let's take the familial view of salvation and apply it to a real bible situation, the death of the child of David and Bathsheba. Being only a few days old, would this child be saved (not go to hell, be eternally with God, ect) because he was a son of David, part of David's household?

I tend to think yes, the child will rise in the resurrection and will receive the promises, because he was included in the covenant. However, I am careful to be dogmatic about it because I do not know how this child would have turned out if it had lived, but I do believe God would have a much clearer view of that and the child's eternal destiny would be decided by God's view of the child.

Conversely, those infants who were non-covenantial households would be lost (go to hell, burn, ect.). The result would be that the vast majority of children who died in the epochs of time will be, or are in, hell (eternally apart from God, buring in a pit, ect) simply because most were unfortunately born into the wrong family.

Well, I think the supposition here involves an unwarranted assumption. Namely, that a person's birth is a matter of chance. You said 'unfortunately born into the wrong family'. Nobody is born into the 'wrong family', because nobody is born or conceived apart from the direct Providence of God. I believe the bible is clear on this - God forms each person in the womb, God controls the womb, therefore each person who is conceived is conceived in accordance with the will of God. Nobody comes into existence by 'chance'. In fact, there is no such thing as 'chance' (ie random events). God's Providence extends to all things.

Also, God says this: And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;

This tells me every ethnic group, culture, race, tribe, family, etc is where they are by the direct, Providential appointment of God. Again, there is no 'fortune' or chance involved. These two facts together - that nobody comes into existence apart from the will of God, and that no nation/tribe/etc exists apart from the will of God (including their location and the times of their existence) - combine to tell me that any child conceived or born, regardless of when or where or to whom, was conceived or born by the will of God.

Now, either all children everywhere have an age of accountability, before which they are innocent and therefore 'in the Book of Life', or else only the children of the Covenant are. In either case, whichever one it turns out to be, it is undoubted that (however the case may be) is the best arrangement of things. Obviously God is all-wise and loving, and therefore whatever arrangement He has made is the best for all concerned. Might not be the best as we want it to be, but then we are not as wise as God.

I would like to think all children everywhere at all times are 'saved' prior to an age of accountability. But I cannot help but notice a few facts:

1. Adults, morally accountable, who live where the gospel has never been mentioned, apparently 'have no hope'. Are they saved anyway? If so, then bringing the gospel to them is the worst thing that could be done, for it exposes them to eternal condemnation. If they are not, then we are faced with exactly the same dilemma - are people who cannot possibly hear and believe the gospel saved anyway?

2. The bible is clear - the gospel must be preached to all creatures. Therefore there is a need for the gospel to be preached to all. And if all need to have the gospel, then all need to be saved. And if all need to be saved, then all the people living in the 'unreached world' are lost until they hear and believe the gospel.

3. If an exception is made for all children and infants, then how can the exception not be righteously required of all adults as well who have no opportunity and thus no ability whatsoever to hear and believe the gospel, such as some tribesman living in 'darkest Africa' or whatnot?

Again, I am not saying I have the answers. In the end, unless we determine the Bible makes a clear statement, we have only our reasonings and speculations, and are left with relying on God to 'sort it all out' as He sees fit.

In this view, there would be a point in time where the child of a covenantial household, after reaching a certain maturity in life, would have to choose for himself/herself to enter into a covenantial relationship with God else their children would be lost (not be in heaven, not be with God, burn, ect). Salvation for an individual, for a period of time, would be dependent on the choices of someone else in other words.

Hmm, I see where you are going with that (I think) but do we not run the risk of another error, if we make salvation too dependent on our own choice? While I believe in personal responsibility, and the need to 'choose Christ' I also am afraid of running afoul of God's sovereignty in this matter. Salvation is eminently the work of God, depending entirely upon his making Atonement for our sins, making grace available to us, etc.

Now, suppose a child's salvation is dependent on their parents (until the child reaches the magical age of 'accountability', whatever it may be). What then? Does it remove responsibility from any adult who is accountable for their actions? A parent is responsible for their children as far as feeding them, clothing them, etc. And a parent is accountable for their child's actions (up to a point). Would it somehow impugn either the character of God, the nature of grace, or the element of personal responsibility for those who can actually have responsibility for themselves?

I'm not saying this isn't scriptural for you've certainly made a case for it by the multiple scripture references in your response, but it certainly opens the door for many other questions.

Also, I want to be clear - the covenant 'household salvation' concept I am exploring here does not, as far as I know, assert that anyone is guaranteed salvation just because mom or dad is saved...each will of course have to make their own decision.

As soon as a person thinks 'well, my parents are christians so I must be one too, which means I am saved' they are probably already at a point at which they must make their own decision to believe and follow Christ.

seekerman

10-20-2013, 10:50 AM

I tend to think yes, the child will rise in the resurrection and will receive the promises, because he was included in the covenant. However, I am careful to be dogmatic about it because I do not know how this child would have turned out if it had lived, but I do believe God would have a much clearer view of that and the child's eternal destiny would be decided by God's view of the child.

Yes, I agree that the child was probably saved. Could it be that not only David's child, but the children of the pagan tribes living at that time, including those here in America, would be saved according to God's view of them? Personally, I think so. It could just be my personal bias concerning children though and not scripturally sound.

Well, I think the supposition here involves an unwarranted assumption. Namely, that a person's birth is a matter of chance. You said 'unfortunately born into the wrong family'. Nobody is born into the 'wrong family', because nobody is born or conceived apart from the direct Providence of God. I believe the bible is clear on this - God forms each person in the womb, God controls the womb, therefore each person who is conceived is conceived in accordance with the will of God. Nobody comes into existence by 'chance'. In fact, there is no such thing as 'chance' (ie random events). God's Providence extends to all things.

Also, God says this: And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;

This tells me every ethnic group, culture, race, tribe, family, etc is where they are by the direct, Providential appointment of God. Again, there is no 'fortune' or chance involved. These two facts together - that nobody comes into existence apart from the will of God, and that no nation/tribe/etc exists apart from the will of God (including their location and the times of their existence) - combine to tell me that any child conceived or born, regardless of when or where or to whom, was conceived or born by the will of God.

I don't disagree. This certainly has a Calvinistic element to it and that's not a bad thing. It's simply how it is.

Now, either all children everywhere have an age of accountability, before which they are innocent and therefore 'in the Book of Life', or else only the children of the Covenant are. In either case, whichever one it turns out to be, it is undoubted that (however the case may be) is the best arrangement of things. Obviously God is all-wise and loving, and therefore whatever arrangement He has made is the best for all concerned. Might not be the best as we want it to be, but then we are not as wise as God.

I would like to think all children everywhere at all times are 'saved' prior to an age of accountability. But I cannot help but notice a few facts:

1. Adults, morally accountable, who live where the gospel has never been mentioned, apparently 'have no hope'. Are they saved anyway? If so, then bringing the gospel to them is the worst thing that could be done, for it exposes them to eternal condemnation. If they are not, then we are faced with exactly the same dilemma - are people who cannot possibly hear and believe the gospel saved anyway?

2. The bible is clear - the gospel must be preached to all creatures. Therefore there is a need for the gospel to be preached to all. And if all need to have the gospel, then all need to be saved. And if all need to be saved, then all the people living in the 'unreached world' are lost until they hear and believe the gospel.

3. If an exception is made for all children and infants, then how can the exception not be righteously required of all adults as well who have no opportunity and thus no ability whatsoever to hear and believe the gospel, such as some tribesman living in 'darkest Africa' or whatnot?

Again, I am not saying I have the answers. In the end, unless we determine the Bible makes a clear statement, we have only our reasonings and speculations, and are left with relying on God to 'sort it all out' as He sees fit.

Excellent points. Furthermore, if it takes the gospel and individual, personal, believing to be saved, then the majority of mankind is lost. If the majority of mankind isn't lost, then it doesn't take the gospel, on an individual, personal basis to be saved. Either view results in troubling conclusions.

Hmm, I see where you are going with that (I think) but do we not run the risk of another error, if we make salvation too dependent on our own choice? While I believe in personal responsibility, and the need to 'choose Christ' I also am afraid of running afoul of God's sovereignty in this matter. Salvation is eminently the work of God, depending entirely upon his making Atonement for our sins, making grace available to us, etc.

That sounds R.C. Sproul-ish. One of my favorite preachers, by the way. Do you attend a Reformed church?

Now, suppose a child's salvation is dependent on their parents (until the child reaches the magical age of 'accountability', whatever it may be). What then? Does it remove responsibility from any adult who is accountable for their actions? A parent is responsible for their children as far as feeding them, clothing them, etc. And a parent is accountable for their child's actions (up to a point). Would it somehow impugn either the character of God, the nature of grace, or the element of personal responsibility for those who can actually have responsibility for themselves?

Great questions of which I have no real answers. If a child's salvation is dependent upon the actions of the parent that would result in an unjust God relegating billions of children to hell (whatever that means) because of the failure of someone else. The idea of redemption would play a part in this in some way, I believe, whereby God does reconcile some, or all, to Himself. If all children, no matter the actions of their parents, are initially reconciled to God, then for them to be lost would require some future action on their part. But, as you pointed out, what if those children never heard the gospel to reject it?

What if God picked certain ones to redeem, knowing that they would live to accept Him at some point in time thereby continuing their salvation which began when they were born (or before?). The result of this would be billions of babies, children, in hell because God didn't chose them. God, in His sovereignty, chose some, didn't chose others. Is this actually what the bible teaches? Could be.

Also, I want to be clear - the covenant 'household salvation' concept I am exploring here does not, as far as I know, assert that anyone is guaranteed salvation just because mom or dad is saved...each will of course have to make their own decision.

But not as an infant, a child. If they're chosen, they will make that decision at the predestined (there, I said it!) time according to the view of some.

As soon as a person thinks 'well, my parents are christians so I must be one too, which means I am saved' they are probably already at a point at which they must make their own decision to believe and follow Christ.

Yes, but if that's the case, the plan of salvation suddenly changes from a familial covenant salvation (and I don't totally disagree with that view) to a salvation plan which is individual instead of familial. I'm not sure if that's a problem or not, but it's not part of mainstream soteriology, IMO.

That was a great, well thought out, response, Esaias. I appreciate you taking the time to consider the issue and post your views.

Esaias

10-20-2013, 11:16 AM

That sounds R.C. Sproul-ish. One of my favorite preachers, by the way. Do you attend a Reformed church?

I have serious problems with Reformed doctrine, however I find them to be the only ones in any significant way promoting the Sovereignty of God in all things. Although I disagree with their views on election and predestination and 'original sin', limited atonement, etc, I find them to be spot on with regards to the theonomic nature of God's government and His claims on nations and peoples, I tend to agree with the Regulative Principle of Worship (although I disagree somewhat with them on how that is to be understood, or applied) and applicability of the law of God to show people their need of Christ and as a benchmark for identifying sin.

If I wasn't what I am, I would probably be Reformed Covenanter (although I'd have to wrestle with the Solemn League and Covenant, and the National Covenant in their relations to my belief that America's War for Independence was a 'just war', but that's another issue... lol)

renee819

10-20-2013, 06:32 PM

Now I know this is going to sound, “far out.” But since so far, none of us knows for sure, I don't see anyplace in the Bible where it is certain, therefore we can only take what is written and I suppose we will come up with different assumptions.

We have heard so often, two places to go to, 'heaven or hell.' But that is not true.
We know there is another place, “The New Earth.” And where is the “Outer Darkness?”

Esaias wrote,
I would like to think all children everywhere at all times are 'saved' prior to an age of accountability. But I cannot help but notice a few facts:

1. Adults, morally accountable, who live where the gospel has never been mentioned, apparently 'have no hope'. Are they saved anyway? If so, then bringing the gospel to them is the worst thing that could be done, for it exposes them to eternal condemnation. If they are not, then we are faced with exactly the same dilemma - are people who cannot possibly hear and believe the gospel saved anyway?

That is the argument that one of my sons used against sending foreign missionaries.

2. The bible is clear - the gospel must be preached to all creatures. Therefore there is a need for the gospel to be preached to all. And if all need to have the gospel, then all need to be saved. And if all need to be saved, then all the people living in the 'unreached world' are lost until they hear and believe the gospel.

I believe this.

3. If an exception is made for all children and infants, then how can the exception not be righteously required of all adults as well who have no opportunity and thus no ability whatsoever to hear and believe the gospel, such as some tribesman living in 'darkest Africa' or whatnot?

Again, I am not saying I have the answers. In the end, unless we determine the Bible makes a clear statement, we have only our reasonings and speculations, and are left with relying on God to 'sort it all out' as He sees fit

Right, we don't have the answers, and God will sort it all out. One thing we can do, is weed out the false doctrines.

Even though God created us, I believe that because He withdrew His Spirit from Adam, every child that has been born since then, (except Jesus) is born with a dead spirit, therefore is a child of the Devil, until they are 'born again.' No one has to teach a child to sin, it is in them from the beginning.

John 8:44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

Why would Jesus call the Jews, sons of the Devil, that were trying to obey the Law? Because they were not born again? If the Jews that claimed God as their Father, were still the sons of Satan, what about the rest of the world?

Now back to my other point. If there was just Heaven and Hell, there would be no reason for the Judgment. God could just say, You sheep enter in to heaven. You goats, you are lost.

We have no way of knowing what the Judgment or outcome will be like.

Another hard to understand scripture,

Romans 2:14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
:15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)
:16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.

And this does not mean that I am saying there are other ways to be saved. There is only One Gospel, and only those that are born again, go with God, however, God's ways are so much higher than our ways that as we can see, there are many things that we can not know. But I am very sure that our good God, is not going to send any babies to hell.

Remember there is a new earth, and millions of planets. And God will judge each individual even by the secrets and thoughts of our hearts. And this is beyond my comprehension.