Can unsaved people get into Heaven?

[Kait]

So it's either that all babies go to hell, or some or all of them go to heaven the same way that we do: They trust in the atoning work of Christ on their behalf.

You have a very cruel idea of god. >.>

Yes, God, as the sovereign ruler of the universe, ultimately decides who will hear the gospel and who won't, and, consequently, who He will save and who He won't; but by no means does that mean that we shouldn't spread the gospel.

This seems fairly contradictory and I don't feel like anything you said really answered John's question. You just kind of repeated it.

To use a personal example, I believe that He determined that I would be saved...

So you are one of the choice lucky ones, but there are plenty of people who God "chooses" NOT to save? Instead, he sentences arbitrary people to suffer for eternity in hell, joining all the innocent babies, children (and probably all of the mentally disabled who also don't have the choice to accept the gospel or not). Yes. That sounds like a very loving and just god.


I think your theology is very faulty.

In the Old Testament when God refuses to let the Israelites into the Promised Land because of their unbelief, he makes an exception for the children saying:

—

When Jesus' disciples were trying to prevent parents from bringing their children to him, Jesus said:

—

Just because you believe a baby dies with a sinful nature, doesn't mean that God won't still have mercy on that child. You cannot accept what you do not know, and it seems incredibly cruel and unjust for people to be punished FOR ETERNITY for that.

[Anna><>]

actually I don't think people are acountable of what they do till they are like 7. when they are around that age that is when they need to make the decsion for themselves, and if they turn the wrong way then they will go to hell. So I belive that babies go to heaven espically if they didn't even get a chance to live.

Joash was a king at 7 years of age. Josiah was king at 8. I don't know where you're getting this magical age of accountability of 7 years old. When I was 4 years old I knew when I was doing right from wrong. If my mom told me not to touch something and I did, I wasn't stupid. I knew that I wasn't supposed to touch it. I know for a fact that as a 5 year old I knew what guilt was after I stole a toy from my friend and felt bad so I gave it back. The 3 year olds that I teach know when they're misbehaving. You were telling people "just go look at the Bible" about stuff earlier. But stuff like this isn't necessarily clear cut in the Bible. Now, I'm not saying that I believe babies who die will go to hell, I'm just saying that if you're going to throw out an age like 7 you should be able to justify it Biblically, like you're expecting other people to do.

What about mentally disabled people? Are they accountable? I honestly don't know the answer to this and I am not sure if it is explained in the Scriptures. What the Bible is clear about is that the wages of sin is death. It's clear that some people are not saved (why else would anyone ask "what must I do to be saved?").

@Christian A: When you say God "determined" that your pastor would preach and "determined" that you would become a Christian it makes it sound like we're all just puppets that God is controlling. Is that what you mean? Because sure, God is all knowing and he knew those things would happen, but did he make them happen or did you and your pastor have a choice?

[Dasi]

actually I don't think people are acountable of what they do till they are like 7. when they are around that age that is when they need to make the decsion for themselves, and if they turn the wrong way then they will go to hell. So I belive that babies go to heaven espically if they didn't even get a chance to live.

Joash was a king at 7 years of age. Josiah was king at 8. I don't know where you're getting this magical age of accountability of 7 years old. When I was 4 years old I knew when I was doing right from wrong. If my mom told me not to touch something and I did, I wasn't stupid. I knew that I wasn't supposed to touch it. I know for a fact that as a 5 year old I knew what guilt was after I stole a toy from my friend and felt bad so I gave it back. The 3 year olds that I teach know when they're misbehaving. You were telling people "just go look at the Bible" about stuff earlier. But stuff like this isn't necessarily clear cut in the Bible. Now, I'm not saying that I believe babies who die will go to hell, I'm just saying that if you're going to throw out an age like 7 you should be able to justify it Biblically, like you're expecting other people to do.

What about mentally disabled people? Are they accountable? I honestly don't know the answer to this and I am not sure if it is explained in the Scriptures. What the Bible is clear about is that the wages of sin is death. It's clear that some people are not saved (why else would anyone ask "what must I do to be saved?").

@Christian A: When you say God "determined" that your pastor would preach and "determined" that you would become a Christian it makes it sound like we're all just puppets that God is controlling. Is that what you mean? Because sure, God is all knowing and he knew those things would happen, but did he make them happen or did you and your pastor have a choice?

well actually I said that wrong sorry. what I meant is that more like accepting Jesus. like I think they make that desion when that are around that age. you know like accepting Jesus and living for Him, then it's their desion what they do with the[r lives. and seeing as babies can't make that descion I totally belive that babies go to Heaven. I also Belive that mentally disabled people do. I hope they do because I had a brother who was a mentally disabled person me died before I was born but I hope for my mom's sake that he is in heaven so she can see him again. but I'm like really really sure that they do. I know they were born with sin but idk I just think that they probably do. I mean mentally disabled people can't make the desion to make Jesus their savior cause they are mentally disabled. and it would be harsh if they went to hell but never even got the chance to know about Jesus.

[John Chrysostom]

Otherwise, why would babies die to begin with? I will say again, the wages of sin is death. If they die, it must be because of some sin.

I would say it is not because they are born with original sin but because they are born into a world polluted with sin.

If any go there, it is because of God's great mercy. But the thing is, God doesn't just sweep sin under the rug. Justice must be served.

Justice must be served? Why? If God hates sin so much that He can't allow babies into heaven how did He come down to earth and live with us? How did He deal with all the sin? Christ ate with prostitutes and tax collectors but when a baby dies and comes before the judgement seat God sends him away? Dude, let the children go to Christ, stop denying the kingdom to them.

He also determined that my pastor would follow His command to preach the gospel.

He is sovereign over all events, but we still make voluntary choices--whether according to what He has commanded us in His Word, or in rebellion against it.

Both of these statements cannot be true, either God determined that your pastor would preach the gospel or your pastor made a voluntary choice to preach the gospel. You cannot have it both ways.

[Christian A.]

Ugh. Why didn't I just keep my mouth shut? I should have known this would happen, just like it always does. And I'll end up spending time that I don't have for days, trying to answer all of these objections that I've answered in the past...

So it's either that all babies go to hell, or some or all of them go to heaven the same way that we do: They trust in the atoning work of Christ on their behalf.

You have a very cruel idea of god. >.>

I think I can see why you say that, but I did leave it completely open for a chance that all babies go to heaven. But I just said I don't think God merely lets them in. Acts 4:12 makes it clear that Jesus is the only Name that saves. If any babies are saved, they are saved because they trust in the Name of Jesus. I believe that it's certainly possible that this is the case.

Honestly, I think a much crueler god would be one who isn't consistent with his justice. If he can choose at times to overlook justice and let lawbreakers into heaven, then I don't know if I can trust him to be faithful in his promises to me. He might decide that when I sinned last week, it disqualified me for heaven, even though he's said that nothing could ever separate me from his love. I think a god like that would be much more scary than One Who holds to what He says, no matter what.

Yes, God, as the sovereign ruler of the universe, ultimately decides who will hear the gospel and who won't, and, consequently, who He will save and who He won't; but by no means does that mean that we shouldn't spread the gospel.

This seems fairly contradictory and I don't feel like anything you said really answered John's question. You just kind of repeated it.

Lol. Maybe you could include the rest of what I said. Sure, if you cut out the majority of the paragraph, it's going to look like I didn't answer the question. I said that God ordains the means as well as the ends. He ordains that certain people will be saved, but He also ordains how they will be saved, i.e. through someone sharing the gospel with them. Therefore, we must obey the call to share the gospel.

To use a personal example, I believe that He determined that I would be saved...

So you are one of the choice lucky ones, but there are plenty of people who God "chooses" NOT to save? Instead, he sentences arbitrary people to suffer for eternity in hell, joining all the innocent babies, children (and probably all of the mentally disabled who also don't have the choice to accept the gospel or not). Yes. That sounds like a very loving and just god.

Again, when you cut off most of what I said, yes that seems like a very arrogant statement. But I deserve to be condemned to hell just as much as... Adolph Hitler. For some reason, though, God saw it fit, to further His own glory, to save me. I may never know why. And again, I never said that God will not save babies and mentally disabled people. I just said that He would have to do it in a manner consistent with His justice.

I think your theology is very faulty.

In the Old Testament when God refuses to let the Israelites into the Promised Land because of their unbelief, he makes an exception for the children saying:

—

When Jesus' disciples were trying to prevent parents from bringing their children to him, Jesus said:

—

Just because you believe a baby dies with a sinful nature, doesn't mean that God won't still have mercy on that child. You cannot accept what you do not know, and it seems incredibly cruel and unjust for people to be punished FOR ETERNITY for that.

I was under the impression that you didn't accept the infallibility of the New Testament, Kait, but whatever, I'll go with it. For one thing, I don't think these verses are saying that all babies automatically go to heaven until a certain age/level of accountability. God specifically says in many places in Scripture that there are specific people that He has chosen to inherit eternal life. Does this mean that these infants/young children were elected...only until they got old enough to choose between right and wrong, and then they weren't elect anymore? And who determines when a baby is old enough to choose between right and wrong? My little 1-year-old brother can very overtly disobey when he wants to, even when he knows what consequences are coming. Is he eligible for hell at this point then?

I just don't feel right with this double standard that we're imposing on God here. Sure, God is rich in mercy, and He loves to see people saved from hell. But that doesn't mean that He will circumvent His justice. God is never under obligation to be gracious. He is, however, under obligation to be just. "The Judge of all the earth shall do right."

Otherwise, why would babies die to begin with? I will say again, the wages of sin is death. If they die, it must be because of some sin.

I would say it is not because they are born with original sin but because they are born into a world polluted with sin.

I figured as much. Which is why I knew you wouldn't agree with any of this.

If any go there, it is because of God's great mercy. But the thing is, God doesn't just sweep sin under the rug. Justice must be served.

Justice must be served? Why? If God hates sin so much that He can't allow babies into heaven how did He come down to earth and live with us? How did He deal with all the sin? Christ ate with prostitutes and tax collectors but when a baby dies and comes before the judgement seat God sends him away? Dude, let the children go to Christ, stop denying the kingdom to them.

Haha, nicely put. Well, as for your last sentence, I addressed that with Kait above. But as for your other point about God coming to earth, the Son of God came to save us. Everything He did while He was alive was a picture of the salvation He was bringing. When He ate with prostitutes and other sinners, He was demonstrating that God can forgive anyone; His grace isn't just for religious people. Jesus being around sin on earth was a whole lot different than God tolerating sin in heaven. Are you saying that there will be sin in heaven?

He also determined that my pastor would follow His command to preach the gospel.

He is sovereign over all events, but we still make voluntary choices--whether according to what He has commanded us in His Word, or in rebellion against it.

Both of these statements cannot be true, either God determined that your pastor would preach the gospel or your pastor made a voluntary choice to preach the gospel. You cannot have it both ways.

You know we've had this debate over and over again. God predestined everything that would happen before time began, but He predestined that it would all come to pass based on voluntary choices that humans make according to their natures. Before we're saved, our natures can only choose to do evil (and even our good deeds are stained by our fallen nature, so nothing is spiritually good in His eyes); and after we're saved, with a new nature wrought in us by the Holy Spirit, we can choose to do good. So my pastor chose to preach the gospel, but God was the One Who ordained that he would have the ability to perform that action.

[John Chrysostom]

Honestly, I think a much crueler god would be one who isn't consistent with his justice. If he can choose at times to overlook justice and let lawbreakers into heaven, then I don't know if I can trust him to be faithful in his promises to me. He might decide that when I sinned last week, it disqualified me for heaven, even though he's said that nothing could ever separate me from his love. I think a god like that would be much more scary than One Who holds to what He says, no matter what.

I never said that God would stop loving us, He loves everyone, but I know that there are times where I don't love Him back. I'm never afraid that God will abandon me, I'm afraid that I'll abandon Him.

For some reason, though, God saw it fit, to further His own glory, to save me.

Let's also talk about the fact that people who believe in predestination never think they're the ones predestined for God's wrath, no they're always saved. They damm others to hell but never themselves. I mean they'll say Oh I'm like Hitler I'm so bad then say in the same breath, but I'm totally saved, no question about that.

God specifically says in many places in Scripture that there are specific people that He has chosen to inherit eternal life.

There are many places in Scripture that you interpret as God saying only specific people have been chosen to inherit eternal life. Let's be totally clear about that.

God is never under obligation to be gracious. He is, however, under obligation to be just.

God is under no obligation, you cannot oblige God. This makes no sense, you're literally screaming to the heavens "God, send this baby to hell, if you don't then you aren't just!" In your mind justice is sending a baby to hell.

Jesus being around sin on earth was a whole lot different than God tolerating sin in heaven. Are you saying that there will be sin in heaven?

I'm not saying there will be sin in heaven, I'm saying we are all sinners but we're made perfect by Christ. We can't be perfect before we get to heaven. Saying that God can't tolerate sin in heaven is thinking about sin in the wrong way of course there won't be sin in heaven but not because we're perfect on our own, or as you think, because God took away our sin nature and free will so we can't do anything wrong.

We've had the other discussion before so I'll just restate my belief on this point. You have turned us into robots. Our lives mean nothing if what you say is true. If God is experiencing time the same as the rest of us, and He has to be for your point of view to work, then we are nothing more than puppets on strings. Free will is an illusion and nothing in the life matters, literally nothing.

[The Old Judge]

Time to get some questions answered!

Christian: You believe that people are predestined by God's choice to go into Heaven?

Also, I do believe that babies, or even small children that die before the age of accountability (which is not seven. It's different for each person), go to Heaven. I'm not going to go into the maternity ward at a hospital and try to explain the Gospel and the plan of salvation to an infant. They wouldn't understand even if they wanted to. But if a baby dies a day or only several days after being born, I honestly do not think it would burn for eternity in Hell when it couldn't comprehend what could save it. Your reply, monsieur?

[Christian A.]

Honestly, I think a much crueler god would be one who isn't consistent with his justice. If he can choose at times to overlook justice and let lawbreakers into heaven, then I don't know if I can trust him to be faithful in his promises to me. He might decide that when I sinned last week, it disqualified me for heaven, even though he's said that nothing could ever separate me from his love. I think a god like that would be much more scary than One Who holds to what He says, no matter what.

I never said that God would stop loving us, He loves everyone, but I know that there are times where I don't love Him back. I'm never afraid that God will abandon me, I'm afraid that I'll abandon Him.

No, you didn't say that. But you did say: "Justice must be served?" I was pointing out what a terrible life we could have as Christians if we couldn't trust that God would always be just and remain faithful to His promises.

For some reason, though, God saw it fit, to further His own glory, to save me.

Let's also talk about the fact that people who believe in predestination never think they're the ones predestined for God's wrath, no they're always saved. They damm others to hell but never themselves. I mean they'll say Oh I'm like Hitler I'm so bad then say in the same breath, but I'm totally saved, no question about that.

Have I ever damned someone to hell? I may have said to someone, "God will send you to hell, if..." but I've never said, "You are one of the reprobate, whom God has passed over and will not ever save." (By the way, I do not believe in double predestination. God predestines some to eternal life, and merely passes over the others. He doesn't predestinate them to eternal hell; they earn it for themselves by their sin. He passively just doesn't save them.) I fully believe that every person on earth right now has just as full a chance as salvation as I do. For all I know, Hitler may have repented of his sins and submitted to God before he died. I'm not condemning anyone to hell; all I can do is share the message of salvation: what God has done in my life by saving me and what He can do in everyone else's. I don't know whom He has chosen to save, so my call is to preach the gospel to all and trust God with the rest.

God specifically says in many places in Scripture that there are specific people that He has chosen to inherit eternal life.

There are many places in Scripture that you interpret as God saying only specific people have been chosen to inherit eternal life. Let's be totally clear about that.

Well, I worded it the way I did because I thought you would at least agree that there are verses that talk about predestination and election. But you would interpret them differently than I would. You would say that God elected those whom He foresaw would choose Him, correct?

God is never under obligation to be gracious. He is, however, under obligation to be just.

God is under no obligation, you cannot oblige God. This makes no sense, you're literally screaming to the heavens "God, send this baby to hell, if you don't then you aren't just!" In your mind justice is sending a baby to hell.

"The Judge of all the earth shall do right." That is pretty clear. I'm not obliging God to do right. He is obliging Himself. To not act in a manner consistent with His justice would be to go against His character and cease to be God. "I will not clear the guilty." That's also very clear. If babies are guilty of original sin, then they will not be cleared. Unless they are saved by the same means we are, which I believe is certainly possible. I'm not condemning any babies to hell; I'm saying that they deserve hell; whether or not they go there I do not know for certain.

Jesus being around sin on earth was a whole lot different than God tolerating sin in heaven. Are you saying that there will be sin in heaven?

I'm not saying there will be sin in heaven, I'm saying we are all sinners but we're made perfect by Christ. We can't be perfect before we get to heaven. Saying that God can't tolerate sin in heaven is thinking about sin in the wrong way of course there won't be sin in heaven but not because we're perfect on our own, or as you think, because God took away our sin nature and free will so we can't do anything wrong.

No, I never said that. We still have our sin nature when we're saved. Otherwise why would Christians ever sin? We can do wrong things, but the point is, we can do right things. The ability to do good in God's sight comes with the new heart we are given at our conversion. Before, with our old heart, we could only do wrong things in His sight. The only way we make it into heaven, therefore, is because God sees us through the perfect righteousness of Christ.

We've had the other discussion before so I'll just restate my belief on this point. You have turned us into robots. Our lives mean nothing if what you say is true. If God is experiencing time the same as the rest of us, and He has to be for your point of view to work, then we are nothing more than puppets on strings. Free will is an illusion and nothing in the life matters, literally nothing.

And I will restate that you are twisting my words to make them say something I'm not saying. I never even touched upon the idea of God and time. He decreed everything that was to happen before He created the world. Everything happens now because of what He decreed. But, at the same time, "He upholds everything by the Word of His power." So in some way now, He is active in His creation, but I don't think it's to make us do what He wants us to do. We act according to the natures He has either allowed us to have (the sin nature) or given us (the redeemed nature). No robots, no puppets. Just creatures, who have a Creator, Who, according to Romans 9, can do whatever He sees fit with them.

@ Old Judge: I don't really have time to answer your objections. I've answered both of your questions above, if you would please read the above posts.

[John Chrysostom]

Being just does not mean giving everyone exactly what they deserve, otherwise no one would be saved. God is just but He is also merciful, more importantly He is not mean. God can stay true to His promise and not resemble some hanging judge who only follows the letter of the law and never shows mercy.

It's good to hear you don't believe in double predestination.

That is correct.

But again, God is not some uncaring judge because just does not mean uncaring. His mercy is just a much a part of His nature as His justice. Doing right does not equal casting babies down to hell. And of course I don't believe they're guilty of original sin, so that makes a big difference.

If we can do nothing right then how is anyone saved? Isn't the very act of believing in God something right?

We act according to the natures He has either allowed us to have (the sin nature) or given us (the redeemed nature).

So essentially no free will, I'm not twisting your words. You have made it clear that we have no choice in the matter. And if we can't choose what we do then we make no choices in our life, hence a meaningless life.

[Samantha14]

I was discussing this in the ToO chat today with a couple of the other chatters, one who wished to remain anonymous. However, I still wanted you guys to see it. I thought it might add to the conversation some.

18:14 <Anonymous>: okay, you start: what do you believe is the answer to that question?
18:28 <Sam>: I believe that yes, God is a god of justice. However, He's also a God of mercy and love. I believe that He at least gives those who have never heard, or couldn't hear or understand even if they wanted to, a chance before condemning them or something. I mean, if a person spent their life worshiping idols or denying any belief of any god, whether true or not,
18:28 <Sam>: he's probably likely to end up in Hell, sure. I don't know for sure, but it's likely. However, when things like abortion happen, where a child never even got the chance to see a chance to hear about, much less believe in God, I don't think God's going to just never give them a chance. I mean, he's a God of mercy and compassion. He believes everyone gets a
18:28 <Sam>: second chance. He gave us as sinners a second chance, didn't He? So I think He does. I also don't believe in that whole "The parents sins are stained on us before we are even born so we never have a chance". Sure, we're born in sin, but that's why God send his Son to die in our place. He washed our sins away. Does that mean we'll never sin? No. But I don't
18:28 <Sam>: But I don't think that others actions, even our parents, are pressed onto us. Not entirely, anyways. I mean, if your best friend steals an apple, does that make you guilty of thievery? As long as you didn't tempt him, you had nothing to do with it. So, just like that, our parents sins cant keep us from having a chance. Especially when it comes to those who
18:28 <Sam>: those who were killed before even getting the chance to live for Him. After all, isn't it Jesus Himself who says to have faith through the eyes of a child? So pure and innocent. Does that mean they'll never mess up? No. But I don't think God is just going to send every challenged man and his brother to Hell just because he is "a God of justice". We aren't
18:29 <Sam>: puppets. It's our choice.
18:29 <Sam>: Well... That was a lot more than I thought it would be...
18:31 <Anonymous>: Would you like a verse to back your opinion up?
18:32 <Sam>: You mean you have one, or you want me to find some? 'Cause if you give me time, I could probably find some.
18:32 <Anonymous>: http://www.blueletterbible.org/study/ts ... v=23&t=KJV
18:34 <Anonymous>: Sam, look at the link I put.
18:34 <Sam>: I did
18:35 <Anonymous>: okay, what can you get from that verse?
18:37 <Sam>: I'm thinking, Anonymous
18:39 <Anonymous>: do you want me to tell you what I get from the verse Sam?
18:39 <Sam>: Sure, Anonymous. Though I now know what it's from...
18:40 <Anonymous>: David says that the baby won't come back to him, meaning the baby won't be coming back to earth.
18:40 <Anonymous>: but David says that he (David) will go to the baby.
18:40 <Anonymous>: David is going to heaven, we can assume.
18:40 <Anonymous>: therefore if David is going to heaven,
18:40 <Anonymous>: and " I shall go to him"
18:41 <Sam>: The child must be in heaven, even if he was born of sin.
18:41 <Anonymous>: we can derive that when David goes to heaven, the baby will be there because David is "going to him"
18:41 <Anonymous>: does that help?
18:41 <Sam>: Yeah.. Actually, that helps a lot. =]
18:41 <Skid>: Or they're both going to the grave.
18:42 <Anonymous>: it doesn't answer for what reason the baby goes to heaven, but we do know that babies do go to heaven at that age.
18:42 <Anonymous>: everybody that ever lives goes to the grave, we don't all end up in the same place.
18:42 <Sam>: Would you mind if I posted this conversation on that topic? I'd like to see some responses.
18:42 <Anonymous>: I believe the Bible is open-source and non copyrighted.
18:42 <Skid>: We all end up in the ground.
18:43 <Anonymous>: nope, Gene Roddenberry was cremated and sent into space.
18:43 <Skid>: Well, there is the rare exception.
18:43 <Anonymous>: so yes, @Sam, I don't care.
18:43 <Anonymous>: but one exception invalidates a universal statement.
18:43 <Anonymous>: and all universal statements are wrong.
18:43 <Sam>: Thanks =]
18:44 <Skid>: Including that one?

[Christian A.]

But... that's the very essence of the gospel! We are saved because God poured out His justice on Christ! You are correct, if everyone were left to themselves and God did not intervene, then we would all end up in hell. But God made Him Who knew no sin to be sin for us, so that in Him we might become the righteousness of God. God still remained just, because the full punishment that we deserved was taken, but He was then able to show mercy to us, because our ransom had been paid; we were redeemed by Christ's blood. But what you said seems contradictory. How can God stay true to His Word, which says that He will always act in accordance with justice, but then not be totally just?

It's good to hear that you're glad to hear that.

Okay. That's what I thought. So my original point remains: If God has this people whom He calls His elect, is every member of the human race at one time part of that elect, until they get old enough to be responsible for their own sinning?

Right. And because you don't believe in original sin, there's no way we could ever get anywhere on this topic. I believe babies deserve hell; you don't. So it's really no use whatsoever trying to argue the idea.

If we can do nothing right then how is anyone saved? Isn't the very act of believing in God something right?

Is that seriously an honest question? Because if I haven't ever communicated this to you before, then I'm sorry. My belief would seem totally contradictory if I haven't shared this part of it before. Yes, the act of putting trust in Christ is a very good act. But we cannot do that of our own volition before we are regenerated, because we still have a fallen, evil heart that can only want and choose to do evil. But that is why salvation must be initiated by God. He comes powerfully by His Spirit to regenerate our hearts and give us a new nature that is able to choose to obey Him. Only when our heart has been replaced can we trust in Christ.

Wait a second... I think I may have just realized that you meant something else when you asked that question. But I'll leave it at what I said and see if you want to further explain.

We act according to the natures He has either allowed us to have (the sin nature) or given us (the redeemed nature).

So essentially no free will, I'm not twisting your words. You have made it clear that we have no choice in the matter. And if we can't choose what we do then we make no choices in our life, hence a meaningless life.

Let me ask you this: does anyone really have free will--even in your view? Can we do absolutely anything we desire? Can we fly or breathe underwater or run faster than the speed of light? Of course not. Everyone knows that we are only free to do what our natures allow us to do. My point is simply that. We have free will, but that free will, like all volition, is limited. We cannot natively do anything but sin, because that is all our nature allows. After conversion, our will becomes less limited, because we are now able to choose between right and wrong, not just between wrong and other wrongs. Real choice is always involved.

[John Chrysostom]

Hey Sam, thanks that does add to the discussion. I agree that we aren't puppets and the example of David is a good one.

But... that's the very essence of the gospel! We are saved because God poured out His justice on Christ!

I don't think that is the very essence of the Gospel. I think that if God were only just then yes that would be how He acted but God is not only just, He is merciful too. But more importantly, instead of defining God in positive, not to be confused with good but positively i.e. He is this, or He is this, we also need to define God apophatically or what God is not. And for me at the very center of it all, God is not mean. God doesn't look at a dead baby and say "yuk, you have sin all over you, go to hell." Being just does not always mean following the letter of the law exactly, that is tyranny not true justice.

I would say this about the elect, I don't know for sure babies go to heaven. I sure hope so and for me it lines up with what God is not, but at the same time I wouldn't try to say well if we look at this Bible verse and add this other Bible verse we can solve the formula of the age of accountability. I think it's handled on a case by case basis. I do think everyone has been offered the chance to be one of the elect.

So no one decides to become a Christian? Could someone who is regenerated decide to reject God? And doesn't that mean that God could save everyone? Why doesn't He? Also, does this mean you believe in double predestination?

I understand your argument about nature. Of course deciding between good and evil is different than running faster than light. But of course we still come back to the problem that somehow we are born with our nature switched to evil because Adam chose evil once and sin is a sexually transmitted disease. This brings up an interesting question, if Christ was fully human and fully man wasn't He born with this sin nature and unable to do right?

[Christian A.]

Out of curiosity, what is your definition of mercy? Would you say that mercy is laying aside justice to satisfy a feeling of compassion?

I actually would agree with the majority of your third paragraph. I don't know for sure either. I can only hope. But I know that whichever way God chooses to go, it's consistent with His justice and His mercy. And I think the "age of accountability" argument is lacking as well. So I've sought to show you what I believe can be deduced from Scripture.

Everyone who is converted made the choice to be converted, but it was only after God changed their hearts, and then they couldn't resist Him. See, before we're saved, we do everything we can to resist Him. We don't want to be saved. If we had our way, we would rebel against the true God until the day we died. But God has mercy upon us, so He changes our hearts so that we want to be reconciled to Him! Which would be more merciful: to leave it up to us and thus prevent us from ever knowing Him, or to impose Himself upon us, so that we may know Him, Whom to know is eternal life! The latter necessitates an overriding of the human will, which you would see as a travesty, but if God didn't do it that way, we couldn't and wouldn't ever come to Him.

You're going to burn me at the stake for this, but I actually do believe that sin is sexually transmitted, in a way--if that's the way you want to put it. That's how Jesus was devoid of a sinful nature. He was not born of a natural union between a man and a woman. There is another argument that says that the way Jesus circumvented the sinful nature is because the Holy Spirit overshadowed Mary and protected Him when He was being conceived. Either way, it becomes evident that somehow, the sinful nature is transmitted either from the father and the mother together, or merely one or the other. It's a complex subject, and I still don't have my head fully wrapped around it in a way that I'm content with, but that's basically what I believe.

[John Chrysostom]

I would say mercy is not enforcing the letter of the law without consideration.

So if we can't resist God after He works in our hearts then why isn't everyone saved? If the only thing stopping everyone from being saved is God. Because if the answer is nothing then that is a travesty above anything else.

That idea totally destroys the point of Christ's incarnation. If God was not fully human then His sacrifice means nothing. As St. Gregory of Nazianzus said: "That which He has not assumed He has not healed; but that which is united to His Godhead is also saved. If only half Adam fell, then that which Christ assumes and saves may be half also; but if the whole of his nature fell, it must be united to the whole nature of Him that was begotten, and so be saved as a whole." Under your interpretation only half of our nature has been saved, Christ was not fully human.

[Samantha14]

Hey Sam, thanks that does add to the discussion. I agree that we aren't puppets and the example of David is a good one.

I understand your argument about nature. Of course deciding between good and evil is different than running faster than light. But of course we still come back to the problem that somehow we are born with our nature switched to evil because Adam chose evil once and sin is a sexually transmitted disease. This brings up an interesting question, if Christ was fully human and fully man wasn't He born with this sin nature and unable to do right?

Firstly, you're welcome, and thank you.


Secondly, That's a good question. Though, wouldn't that contradict with this?

Luke 1:35 The angel answered, “The Holy Spirit will come on you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God.

In the Catholic (And probably others in the Eucharist) belief, Mary was given grace that no other had been or could be given, thus making her sinless and indeed full of grace. Making her the perfect vessel for which Christ could be carried, because she 'was born without original sin'. Etc. Making Christ's birth not of sin to begin with.

While it's not the same for Protestant belief, we still believe that Mary accepted the role of the one to carry the Christ child, therefore the Holy Spirit came upon here, making her womb a place "safe" for Jesus to be until He was born. Still making this the fact that the birth was not originally of sin to begin with.

While my words may be pointless, I still decided to say them. I would say no, that He wasn't born of the same sin. And He is able to do right because He is right. Not because of Mary, but because of the fact that He is one and the same with God. The holy spirit protected him, and because of this covering in Mary's womb, he was even born with his still divine nature.

As far as sexually transmitted sin, I'm not sure what to think about that. It would make sense, in a way, but it also doesn't. I'll have to get back to you guys on that one.

[Christian A.]

The definition of mercy that I've always heard is "withholding a justly deserved consequence." I think another word for it would be "forbearance." God, in mercy, withholds the punishment we deserve, and yet remains just in doing so because Christ took our punishment on the cross. Mercy does not circumvent justice; it is possible because of Christ.

I do agree, in one sense. I don't fully know why God doesn't save everyone. I do know that in Romans 9 He says that He created some people for the sole purpose of making His wrath and power known, presumably when they burn in hell. I don't know why He does that. Why doesn't He just get the glory He desires by demonstrating His mercy and grace in saving the whole human race. I don't know. But I don't see that as a travesty. "Our God is in the heavens and He does whatever He pleases." If God did it, then, for some reason, it must be ultimately good and right. That's how I see it, anyway. I'm sure you disagree.

I don't think that Christ's lack of a sinful nature makes him less a man than we are. Hebrews says that He was tempted in all ways as we are. So the main difference between us and Him was that He didn't have the flesh to tempt Him from within. He was still tempted, however, and so I think that's the core of what it meant for Him to be human. He experienced the same things we do and yet lived the life that we couldn't. He was the true Man, the way Man was supposed to be. That's why He's called the Second/Last Adam by Paul. He was the only other Man who lived with the ability to choose good, and He succeeded where Adam failed! Adam represented us, and so we all fell together. Christ represents His people, and so we all become reconciled to God because of the righteous life He lived.

-- July 29th, 2013, 9:31 pm --

As far as sexually transmitted sin, I'm not sure what to think about that. It would make sense, in a way, but it also doesn't. I'll have to get back to you guys on that one.

Yeah, that's pretty much how I feel about it. It doesn't sound right...but it's the only way I know to describe it.

[John Chrysostom]

@Sam First off, to clarify. The belief in the Immaculate Conception is specifically Roman Catholic. My Tradition which is also Eucharistic does not believe that. I'm also not seeing this whole idea of overshadowing preventing sin nature, as I said before, if Christ only took on half our nature then we are only half saved. I think it is more the case that He took on our entire human nature but that His human nature was in perfect obedience to His divine nature, just as we attempt to be in perfect obedience to Him now. Christ's life would not be an example to us if He lived a life completely different from us.

@Christian I agree with this first paragraph, except for the part about taking our punishment on the cross of course

I do disagree, very much so, it was this belief that caused me to stop believing in God. For me that makes God a caprices tyrant who is not worthy of worship. I define God by what He is not, more than what He is, and while to you a just God creates humans for destruction I stand by my claim that God is not mean. I really don't see how you can say creating people for destruction is good.

How was Christ tempted without a sin nature? Isn't that what tempts us? And if He just "felt" temptation but it wasn't "real" then how was He human? If that's the case then God could have sent a robot down and programed it to "feel" human feelings.

[Christian A.]

I do disagree, very much so, it was this belief that caused me to stop believing in God. For me that makes God a caprices tyrant who is not worthy of worship. I define God by what He is not, more than what He is, and while to you a just God creates humans for destruction I stand by my claim that God is not mean. I really don't see how you can say creating people for destruction is good.

I will only ask you then what you do with verses like these:

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? 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, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory

They stumble because they disobey the word, as they were destined to do.

God is angry with the wicked every day.

Christ's temptations were very real. Our temptations come from within and without. Christ was tempted from without, with just as much intensity as we are. Honestly, though, that doesn't sound totally convincing to me either. So I'll have to get back to you on that.

[John Chrysostom]

If we look at the context we'll see that it is talking about the promises made to the Jewish people and now how that promise has been given to the Gentiles.

I again think this is talking about the Jewish people.

God is angry with the wicked, okay not sure how that translates to creating them for destruction.

I would be interested to hear your thoughts on that, once you've considered it for awhile.

[Termite]

I must say this: Mary was in no way without sin, nor was her womb 'protected'.

In the conception of the baby, the seed from the male is what produces blood. Life. We are all of Adam's seed before Christ, being born of 'corruptible seed' because of the blood being 'polluted'. Christ being perfect and sinless really had nothing to do with Mary, but by being born of a virgin His blood was untarnished, and He was able to stand against every temptation. That's why His blood was our atonement, because it was without fault. *shrug* Something else to consider. I think it's right, but that's my opinion.