A Question for Calvinists? Or, Non-Calvinists As Well?

On a forum I frequently visit, the following question was posed as a ‘Calvinism question’:

1. Did God create some people for hell?

On the surface, such a question may appear to be directed only to Calvinists, with the possible inclination of leading into an attack upon it. The idea of election, foreknowledge, predestination, and possibly limited atonement may come to mind rather quickly, but that is limiting the scope of the question to one set of teachings, namely Calvinism. But, the question actually supersedes Calvinism, and encompasses also non-Calvinist Christian theology regarding the salvation and punishment of sinful man.

Sometimes the non-Calvinist will confront a Calvinist, immediately claiming that the Calvinist theology makes God a tyrant that chooses to create some persons just to go to hell. Just the thought of such would make most people cringe. How could a holy God create a person and predestine them to go to hell? How can holy God do such a thing, and not be guilty of sin Himself?

The answer may come in a variety of ways, ranging from ‘I don’t fully understand it myself’, to the quoting of scripture such as Romans 9:19-24 regarding vessels of wrath and mercy.

With this, the non-Calvinists may find themselves puffing out their chest, considering they have exposed the flaw of Calvinism once and for all. Prideful they smile; sharing with everyone it is they who hold to the true doctrines of the faith regarding salvation and punishment.

Now, pose again the question to a non-Calvinist, and one will most likely answer, ‘No.’ Whereby I must ask, ‘How so?’

Most Christians (at least that I know – whether Calvinist or not) hold to the belief that God is omniscient (all knowing), and therefore His foreknowledge would include having knowledge of who will and will not accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior before they are ever created. If God creates a person knowing they will not accept Christ, has He not basically created one for hell? A non-Calvinist cannot escape such a question, without denying the perfect foreknowledge of God. So, the question becomes more personal, and cannot be simply directed at others.


* The purpose of this post was not to prove, disprove, or explain the question, but to show that this question [Did God create some people for hell?] is more than just a Calvinist one. It is a question that needs much prayer and meditation in the Word of God, and not just something that can be tossed about like a grenade to seemingly crumble another’s theology without also causing one to take a look at their own.

Does Scripture Hinder a Woman from Political Office?

After reading my posts entitled, Gospel Today Gets Adult Magazine Treatment, covering the topic of women pastors, a friend of mine then asked me the following:

‘I haven't seen any blog posts from you on whether or not it's good to have a woman running for Vice President. Do you have an opinion?’

I am not sure if I have made up my mind on a definite answer as of yet, but let’s consider the following…

Woman: Creation
Eve, the first woman, was created by God from the rib of the first man, Adam. The precedence of marriage was set forth here with God bringing Eve unto Adam. Thus it was written, ‘Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.’

Woman: The Fall
Adam and Eve decided to taste the forbidden fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, of which God had commanded against. Because of their disobedience, each received punishment from God. Eve’s judgment was, ‘I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.’

Woman: Marriage and the Home
By the account of Creation we see the man is to cleave unto his wife, and by the account of The Fall we see the man is to rule over his wife. We also see at creation, woman was created for ‘the man’ and was to be a ‘help meet’ for ‘him’. The younger women are asked to ‘marry, bear children, guide the house, give none occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully,’ and the ‘aged women’ are to ‘teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children, To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.’ We further find the idea of marriage, having the man love the wife and the wife submitting to the man, found in the similitude of Christ and the church.

Woman: Church
Most probably know the verses which say, ‘Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.’ We also find such scriptures as, ‘Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection’ and ‘I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.’ My second post to this blog was concerning women in the church, and there was some good discussion concerning the topic. It would probably be better if one were interested to visit that posting than for me to try and explain the entire discussion here.

Woman: Political Office
There are plenty more scripture we could visit, but this should suffice for the present. We must remember in such a discussion we are not deciding whether a woman is inferior or worth less than a man, for what we find are the roles of men and women here in scripture. Our roles have been set forth by God based on his choice, not on our worth, for He indeed called woman a ‘help meet’ for the man, not a lesser. From what I gather, I am not sure the scriptures directly reject the serving of a woman in a political office over men in the secular world, though I believe it does speak clearly as to whether that should be her goal or desire.

From scripture, it would appear that a woman’s first desire after serving God should be her husband, then her children and her home. It is also clear from scripture that the woman is not to rebel against her husband. Something which is so important that scripture says, ‘ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives.’ We also find that a woman is not to usurp authority over a man, which could be reference to just within the church, but would this even be wise in the secular world?

So, from the above, we can conclude, that a woman is not to be over the man, but in subjection to, when it comes to the home and the church for sure. This would seem to include both material and spiritual matters of both. We don’t need to take this to the legalistic extreme, but we do need to remember our example is Christ and the church. Notice the woman is able to care for the home and the children, for the man does trust her to do what is wise, though it is the man who is required to make the final decision if both are not agreed.

Therefore, I assume we are left with the following questions:

If a woman’s desire is to God, husband, child(ren), and home, would she have time left to care for the worries of political office? I mean, the man is called upon to support the family not the wife, and President or Vice President is not the same as a part-time or 9 to 5 job. I am not here advocating that a woman cannot work outside of the home, and this post has become rather lengthy already to tackle that avenue here.

If a woman is not to rule over man in the home or in the church, is it wise for a woman to seek or man to give woman an office which will put her in authority over men? She would not be usurping authority, but men would then be in subjection to her. Again, we are not discussing whether a woman can do the job, but whether it is wise or right for one to do so, according to scripture.

Possibly it all comes down to a heart issue as do all things. Why does the woman seek the office, and why does man desire to have her lead?

Gospel Today Gets Adult Magazine Treatment

Apparently making reference to Hillary’s cracks and Palin’s shattering of a glass ceiling, the Gospel Today hits stores with headlines such as ‘Breaking the Glass Ceiling.’ Included in such a headline is the topic ‘Female Pastors’ and such is why the magazine has found its way from the store front to under the counter. Like those ‘adult’ magazines that are usually out-of-sight and should be out-of-mind, this issue of Gospel Today has seemingly been pulled from the shelves and either removed or must be asked for hidden behind the counter.

The problem is not with the individuals themselves (meaning the 5 women), but Scripture and the office they claim to hold in the church. The magazine could have chosen any other women who also consider themselves pastors to place on the cover, and the results of Southern Baptists would have been the same. So, it is not the individual, but the claim.

When considering the idea of whether or not a woman should run for public office, etc. that is somewhat different from that of one claiming to desire the office of pastor of a church. There are some who believe a woman should never hold an office giving them authority over a man, whereas some believe it is in church where the woman cannot hold certain offices but can hold offices outside of the church such as political, etc. Though, I will not be considering these at present, for the article is based on women holding the office of pastor in a church and whether such is biblically or unbiblically founded.

We must also realize that we are not saying that God cannot or does not use women to further the gospel or minister to people, nor are we saying women are lower and less important than men. What we must understand is that when it comes to Scripture and the local churches made of those who profess Christ, the Scripture must be our guide and any variance leads us to sin.

Scripture declares full well the qualifications for both a bishop (pastor) and a deacon. Both in respect are given clear meaning that each is to be a man, for they are to be ‘the husband of one wife’. Regardless of ones conviction to the meaning of ‘the husband of one wife’ there is a surety that no woman can ever be ‘the husband of one wife.’

It is quite spiritually immature on the part of any Christian to claim men that still hold to Scripture on this issue are being sexist or unfair to women. There are no biblical grounds whereby these qualifications maybe dismissed or overruled to allow such corruption to work its way into the local church or Church body as a whole.

Such references to Chloe and Deborah do show God using women, but fails to give any creditability that Scripture allows a woman to hold the office of a pastor or deacon. There is no reason to get into a debate over the word ‘servant’ and such in the Greek, because no matter what conclusion one may choose, we are still left with the Scripture declaring in Acts 6, 1 Timothy 3, and Titus 1 such offices must be filled by men.

I would also like to ponder the thought of Chris Turner’s (a spokesman for Lifeway Resources) comment ‘It is contrary to what we believe.’ If that be the case and reason for pulling the magazine from the shelves of Lifeway book stores, then surely they have created a ‘committee’ (pun intended) to search all the literature and rid the stores of all non Southern Baptist teachings.

Ref:
http://www.gospeltoday.com/
http://www.ajc.com/living/content/living/stories/2008/09/18/gospel_magazine_pulled.html
http://www.benedictionblogson.com/2008/09/20/sbc-lifeway-bookstores-put-gospel-today-under-the-counter/

Christians vs. Atheists – Does God Exist – Debate

Apparently on May 5, 2007 at debate between Christians Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron and Atheists Brian Sapient and "Kelly" (who apparently did not want to give her real name) took place at Calvary Baptist Church in New York City.

The debate is to air on ABC News Now tomorrow afternoon and Nightline tomorrow night on Wednesday, May 9, 2007.

Informing articles:

http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/story?id=3130360&page=1
http://www.christianworldviewnetwork.com/article.php/1972/Patrick_Burwell

I haven’t seen the debate, but according to the link above, “Kelly” had a “wardrobe malfunction” that was most inappropriate for such a place (church) and situation (intellectual debate).

Interestingly it seems that this Brian Sapient and “Kelly” are a part of the following:

“The Rational Response Squad challenges people to take the Blasphemy Challenge in which they make videos of themselves denouncing or blaspheming the Holy Spirit, and then post them on YouTube.”

In my opinion, it is one thing to claim to be an atheist by which you believe there is no God, but to coherence teens (or anyone) into “denouncing or blaspheming the Holy Spirit” – which an atheist claims not to believe exist – there must be a deeper agenda. Yes, I believe, an underlying purpose must exist for such a motivation to move a group.

Tune-in and let’s see what we can glean from this.

What Heaven Is That : Genesis 1:1

I was recently in a discussion, actually a different topic and it moved to a discussion about Genesis 1 and heaven. I mentioned I believe Genesis 1:1 is talking about the creation of heaven where God is and earth where we are.

I was told “You really need to find a good commentary brother. You have apassion for God, but you need some help in how to interpret the Bible”, which is fine, but the majority of things I believe have come from books, preachers, and/or teachers of the Baptist type. So, there is probably only a small portion of ideas I may hold that originated out of thin air (for a better quote) from reading the Bible without any previous knowledge of such from another person.

I have been told that “the heaven” in verse 1 is “the deep dark expanse of outer space...where the stars, the moon, the planets, the solar systems, etc., are located”. Also that “the firmament” of day 2 “was the area which held the water described on day 2”.

I was also given this:
Strong's,
Extended surface (solid), expanse, firmament
Expanse (flat as base, support)
Firmament (of vault of heaven supporting waters above)
Considered by Hebrews as solid and supporting 'waters' above
It does not exist to day, because it's part of what God used in the flood, later in Genesis.

Let me say that I do believe the firmament separated water above and below itself as scripture claims in Genesis 1:7 and I do believe that the waters above the firmament were used in the flood of Noah’s day. YET, scripture does not say the firmament held the water, but that the water was “above” and “below” the firmament.

I was also asked “you think the birds fly in the same firmament as the one where you’ll find the sun, moon and stars? I take it you never studied astronomy andthe different ‘spheres.’”

Here is my reply:

This is why I am being confused by what is being said.

In verse 1 it is said that God created the heaven and the earth; therefore they come into existence. So, at the beginning, we have "the heaven" and "the earth".

In verse 6 God creates a firmament between the waters and calls this firmament "Heaven" (8).

So now we have "the heaven", "the earth", and "firmament" (called heaven).

In this same firmament now called heaven (8) (not the original in vs. 1, for vs. 1 was already created in the beginning) he places the sun, moon, stars, etc. (14-18). In this same firmament we see fowl flying (20).

I am unclear as to how one can say the firmament can be removed without removing also the sun, moon, stars, etc. that God placed there. In vs. 14-18 God clearly puts the sun, moon, stars, etc. in the firmament that is created on day 2, not in the heaven created "in the beginning".

I also fail to see how the firmament created in verse 8 can be the same heaven in verse 1, whereas we don't take the mention of earth in vs. 1 and then in vs. 2 as two different earth's being created.

The closet thing I can pull is as it says "the firmament in the heaven" meaning the firmament (called heaven) is in the midst of the heaven He created "in the beginning".

So I pose the question here to the reader:

Is the heaven created in Genesis 1:1 where God lives or not? In your opinion, of course.

Thoughts Opposing Homosexuality = Hate Crime?

In a recent article at BPNews.net, here, the House just passed a law, by a vote of 237-180, for the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act. It appears that the Senate believes it will pass when brought to them, but Bush has the power to veto.

Interesting:

Current hate crimes law protects traits such as race, religion and national origin, but the bill's opponents say the new legislation would grant protection based on lifestyle. They also say it would move federal law toward punishing thoughts and beliefs, since the motivation of a person charged with a hate crime would have to be evaluated. In addition, some critics warn it eventually could result in suppression of speech that describes homosexual behavior as sinful.

Two concerns I have:

1] “protection based on lifestyle”
If indeed protection is granted on the basis of lifestyle, where would it stop? Would there then be protection for bestiality also in the near future? Are we as Americans really ready to protect every lifestyle there is?

2] “punishing thoughts and beliefs”
If this comes about, not only Christians, but anyone not in line with the law makers would suffer. It would be as easy as one saying, “You think homosexuality is wrong, well then you have the potential of harming them so we must lock you up.”

Scripture is clearly against homosexuality. There is no doubt for anyone that believes the Bible that homosexuality is immoral and a sin according to God [Leviticus 20; Romans 1]. BUT I AM NOT PROMOTING THE HARMING OF ONE.

I am not speaking about whether a homosexual can/will get saved; I may on a different post.

Here I am talking about the preaching, teaching, and thinking opposed to homosexuality. Is it really to be considered a hate crime? I believe it can be used as such, but not limited to always.

There are those that use the Bible teaching against homosexuality but go to extremes by taunting them, physically or emotionally hurting them, etc., but by enlarge it is not real Christians or what Christianity is all about.

Brothers and Sisters in Christ, if the government limits the free speech of proclaiming the Scriptures concerning homosexuality (as in some countries), be sure the message of the gospel will soon bring forth persecution also, as maybe a “hate-crime” against atheists and agnostics.

Baptists and Child Abuse

An article by the Christian Post was recently brought to my attention, here. It is quite disturbing to see the actions of proclaimed Baptists being used to pose questions such as:

“It seems to me that a more compelling story would focus on the bridge between faith and abuse. Of course, I am not claiming that faith inevitably leads to abuse. However, there is reason to explore the possibility of some connection.” [Link]

Not so much that people are claiming such, but that we as Christians are bringing such a negative thought pattern toward God, our Savior Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit, and the Scriptures.

The world has a right to say, “You are supposed to be a Christian, why are you doing that?” Even Christ said, “Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.” [Matthew 7:20]

We as Christians can’t just sit back and say, “Well, non Christians do it too.” Dare we make the same claim as them, “You’re no better than I am.” Indeed we are not. Do we as Christians not have the Father, Christ, and the Spirit working in us to do that which is right? We are not strong in the flesh [Romans 7:18], but in the Spirit.

Sure there are those that claim to be Christian that may only be liars or lost in their on conceits, but the true Christians should be such a light to the world that the fakes are overshadowed to the point that even the lost knows them to be but false witnesses.

As Christians we should help each other and the world with regard to our local churches. I don’t think we need a security team from the SBC coming in and searching each individual church to see what is going on, but there must be accountability.

We must have communication with our children and be on guard, for the Lord has graciously given them to us as parents to “bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.” [Ephesians 6:4]

I am not claiming that we need to be overly suspicious of everybody we are around, but we cannot be negligent in our thinking that those we consider more spiritual than ourselves are unable to sin either. Sometimes I wonder if it is simply selfishness on the part of the parent in that they send their kids off with others just so they can do as they please.

As a local church, especially of the SBC which do in fact have a Convention, we should record offences of serious type and if that individual leaves our church, I dare say, it should be made known to other churches so that they are not caught unaware. Before one stands up against such, we do have a “Letter” that is supposed to be used for such things already in place within our local churches. Is it being used correctly?

Friends we as Christians are losing the battle of winning lost souls to Christ as the world points its fingers at us saying, “If this is Christianity, I don’t need it.” God help us!

Prayer In School

In the wake of the Virginia Tech incident and for years hearing the claim that by taking prayer out of school we have taken God out of school, I would like to ponder this topic today.

Has taken prayer out of school caused such incidents as that at Virginia Tech and the lack of morality we see across America today?

Honestly, I am not convinced of such. We have Christian schools and colleges that have prayer, preaching, Bible classes, teaching, and studying and ashamedly find that we have most things in common with public schools and colleges that do not have prayer and Bible in them.

For one, we should not expect the school system to be the ones to teach our children how to pray or to teach them the importance of prayer. According to scripture, this is the responsibility first to the parent [Deuteronomy 6:7; Deuteronomy 11:19], second to the church [Ephesians 4:11-12].

Although a person may be told that they cannot pray out loud where the entire school must pause for a moment of silence, they have not told the student they cannot pray at all. Does prayer actually have to be done out loud for God to hear it?

My point is not to be in favor of no prayer in school, but to point out that is not why there is a moral decline in America. Christian morality is digressing, not progressing and for this cause we are seeing a swing into an anti-God era. The more Christians preach to the lost to change while we show no change in ourselves, society will continue to decline – even if prayer were still aloud in all the schools.

Are you teaching your child how and why to pray? If not, then don’t be mad at the school system. If you are, then make sure they know that it doesn’t have to be out loud for all to see.

Remember God said it begins with His people [2 Chronicles 7:14], not the world. Do your job as a godly parent and don’t rely on the school system.

Creationist, Atheist, and Morality

Morality – “conformity to the rules of right conduct; moral or virtuous conduct.”
Moral – “of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong”

It has been noted in some atheist’s circles that they feel Christians promote themselves as “morally superior (maybe not perfect, but certainly better) to atheists” simply because they are a Christians.

For the moment I would like to discuss the idea of morality. Let it be noted that this particular argument will not be for/against any, but basically my thoughts of what I perceive of the issue. Feel free to share your thoughts, in good taste, and show where you agree or disagree with my view.

Two stipulations are that we are discussing morality in America and the Christian God in this context and not the other gods of cults, etc.

First, I would like to remove names and place people into three basic groups.
Group 1 = those that do not believe in God.
Group 2 = those that believe in a God, but do not serve him.
Group 3 = those that believe in a God, and do strive to serve him.

Second, please ask yourself into which group you fall so that we may proceed. There is no need to lie to yourself, for no one else will know, if you have a hard time choosing between Group 2 and Group 3. Either you do or you don’t strive to serve God. This is not a call to perfection. If you go through life doing what you like but not really wanting to hurt anyone else choose Group 2, if you go through life reading, studying, and trying to follow what is laid out in scripture choose Group 3. Group 1 is obvious.

Thirdly, please ask yourself most likely where did your thoughts of morality most likely arrive from. Did it come from your own reading or did it come from your friends, parents, family (grandparents, etc.), teachers (school or church), church (pastors, etc.), society programs (YMCA, etc.), etc.?

Most likely we have all been given the same (or mighty close) general rules when it comes to morality: don’t lie, cheat, or steal; don’t hurt or kill someone; don’t abuse children; don’t have sex with other people’s spouses. Sure there are some varied states such as sex before marriage, but more is in common than not.

The “golden rule” known as “do unto others as you would have them do unto you” seems to appear in all three Groups above, which in most cases is how one judges morality, and how they perceive themselves as a “good person”. In the groups above we find that people compare themselves to other people to distinguish how they find themselves more or less moral than another; therefore the idea of morality becomes an individual one.

By this I mean one group cannot conclude that all in another group is totally immoral or that they personally are more moral than an entire group. Such blanket statements are not made by wisdom, but by pride.

Morality in a person can and does occur with or without a conversion to salvation. For one, God (although some deny) has said that he has given us all a conscience [John 1:9], which can be seared [1 Timothy 4:2]. When one does something against morality, they feel guilty, but over time the more one does against their conscience the less they feel guilty. This is not the same as being convicted by the Holy Spirit. This is a built in process we are born with. If not, mankind would have long ago killed each other off along with creation itself. [Genesis 6:5]

[Case 1] In the mindset of all groups, it seems obvious that Group 3 should be the MOST moral. By this I mean they claim there is a God, they claim they have trusted in Christ and that he has changed them. They claim they have the Book which gives instructions on how to live right and be moral. For this reason they are easy targets for Group 1 and 2, for it is almost as if they wait in the gap for every moment to yell, “Hypocrite” when one from Group 3 falls short of morality. It is sad, but the failures of Group 3 lead to Group 1 and 2 not wanting to come over to Group 3.

[Case 2] In like manner, Group 3 proudly explains how moral they are since they follow the Book and are saved, and claim that Group 2 is only partial moral and Group 1 is immoral to the core.

Is either case real?

In reality, yes Group 3 should be acting morally superior to Group 1 and 2. Not simply because they claim to be a Christian, but because they do have a God they love and should have a desire to follow what is in his Book. Contained in the Book is the understanding that morality lies within the individual concerning obedience to the law (God’s law which covers more and may vary from man’s law) both physically and mentally. One in Group 3 realizes that God judges both the act and the motive. Group 3 should also realize that others are not the standard, but Christ is. Group 3 should not be parading around as if they have obtained for they believe it is not them but Christ which is doing the good through them and that they are very capable of immoral acts for their flesh is still corrupt and in it dwells no good thing [Romans 7:18]. Group 3 should expect Group 1 and 2 to be less biblically moral, because Group 2, although believe there is a God, they do not take time to study the Book nor live over the morality set by society, and Group 1 denies such a God and therefore denies the authority of the rules in the Book. Group 3 should have a more moral lifestyle than Group 1 and 2 for the simply fact they are to obey the laws of society and the laws of God laid out in his Book.

In reality, Group 1 and 2 will most likely be less moral than Group 3 for the mere fact that although they may follow the laws of society, the concepts and teachings of Christ found in the Book are most likely not considered or looked at. An example is sex before marriage. All of Group 3, if honest, will have to say this is immoral according to God and the Book. Whereas individuals within Group 1 and 2 may say it is bad or it is okay based on individual preference or teaching and Group 2 may site the Book, but Group 1 would not.

I apologize. At the start I did not realize that this would linger on so long.

I will close with this thought.

Although we can look at Groups and say what we believe should be the norm, the issue of morality lies in the actions of each individual person. Evidence shows that individuals in Group 1, 2, and 3 can lie, cheat, still, adultery, abuse kids, etc., etc. etc. As I stated before, it should be that Group 3 is more moral than Group 1 and 2, and Group 1 and 2 should be able to see such without crying “Hypocrite”, but Group 3 should remember that it is Christ working in them and reframe from saying “all are immoral but me.” Let it be noted that there are those in Group 1 which are more moral than some which profess Group 2 and 3 at times.

One difference should be noted and it was taught well in a movie called Time Changers. Morality is a great thing and without it mankind could not survive. Where morality comes from is what separates one from another. If morality is simply of man, then it is based on what man sees as right and wrong and can vary from person to person. If morality is based on God and his Book then it is fixed upon what he has said regardless of whether man agrees or disagrees with it.

Group 1 – I ask you to remain as moral as you can for the sake of yourself and others. I would also ask that you consider acknowledging God and trusting in Christ, his son.

Group 2 – I ask you to live that which you profess. If you believe in God then obey his Book, trust in Christ if you have not, and live a life pleasing to God.

Group 3 – I ask you to live a life that Group 1 and 2 would see Christ in you and desire to know him. Don’t let your testimony be as one that pushes them away from God.

Morality: What is the standard and where do you see yourself?

Do All Babies Go Heaven? If So, Why?

Sometime back the topic of "all babies going to heaven" came up in a group that I frequently visit. Recently a person present me with the notes they had that one had used to proved that indeed all babies go to heaven because they are innocent. Below I have color the notes in blue with my comments being in green.

Please feel free to agree or disagree and present your case.

As I begin this reply, please keep in mind that I am NOT saying all babies go to hell, some babies go to hell, or no babies go to hell. I do firmly believe ALL must go through Christ, whether baby, child, youth, or adult and therefore it is not simply because they are innocent.

Are Babies safe? Babies can not be saved in the normal sense
I really don’t understand the answer here. I am not sure what the “normal sense” means. If they are speaking of walking an isle, praying a prayer, confessing sin, etc. I guess not, but neither did the OT saints who are just as saved as any NT saint is. We must remember that John the Baptist was filled with the Holy Spirit from his mother’s womb [Luke 1:15] and Isaiah was called from the womb [Isaiah 49:1]. As mentioned later.


Are they under a special plan? Deut 1:39.. No knowledge of good and evil
To use this as a proof text that all children get to go to heaven, one could also use Moses being refused the opportunity to enter this same land as a Christian losing salvation and not being able to go to heaven – and for 1 sin.


James 4:17 Is it not sin if he doesn't know good and evil?
This verse speaks of a Christian that knows what is good and does not do it is sinning in disobedience of what God says he SHOULD do. This reference is not talking about what God has said NOT to do.


Jer 19:4-5 the small children and babies sacrificed were called innocents (clean, blameless, guiltless, exempted)
This is speaking of the fact that babies (it only says sons) had done nothing worthy to be offered as sacrifices. This is not speaking of sin, for even an adult would have been innocent of not being worthy of being sacrificed to false gods. It means it was not their choice.


I Cor 5:10 judgement according to works, sin committed during this life.
This reference is telling Christians who not to have company with. This deals with nothing concerning about babies or judgment of works.


If God sent a baby to Hell he'd be basing judgement on something else. His mercy and grace would be violated. There would be no divine judgement as the child would have no idea what he'd done.
First, mercy IS NOT giving someone something they DO deserve.
Second, grace IS giving someone something they DO NOT deserve.
If by reason we are saying babies are not “saved in the normal sense” and are “under a special plan” because they don’t “know good and evil” and we are only judged by “sin committed during this life” – it would bear to reason this person is saying they do not need mercy or grace at all, for they have done nothing wrong to require either.


God deals with his creations according to what they are and what they have done. He remains just, righteous, merciful
Adam disobeyed God, therefore a sin nature and dead spirit is passed down to every child when they are conceived, not when they reach an undisclosed time often called “the age of accountability”. There is not a single baby conceived that is innocent in the eyes of God, because fellowship has already been broken with mankind with Adam.


Sin is transgression...willful, knowingly, stubbornly choosing to cross the line. Infants and small children are not capable of this
Consider John 3:18, He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
So then, are we condemned because we sin or because we do not have faith in Christ? So granted, John the Baptist and Christ preached repentance to the world, for those in the world have sins to turn away from. Though repentance is not enough to save, for clearly faith in Christ is preached. Yet the wicked speak lies from the womb [Psalm 58:3].


Jer 1:5 The prophet had a special relationship with God before his birth.So did John the Baptist. If these two had died before birth would they have gone to Heaven?
This is only proof that these men were chosen by God for a purpose, not a standard of “all babies go to heaven”, especially since these did not die, but lived to obey God. What if’s don’t prove anything.


"Therefore the death of an infant is proof of its salvation" (R.A.Webb)
A statement of personal thought, with no biblical support. What about death of a 10 year old?


Luke 18:15-17 Jesus prays over the little children told disciples to forbid them not to come, to allow them
1) We know adults must come like little children
2) a child's faith is enough, the right kind, quality
3) There is a special relationship between Jesus & babes
4) "of such is the Kingdom of Heaven" Is Heaven occupied by billions ofsouls of babies?
I agree Christ told them to bring him the child and forbid them not to come. Christ did not say heaven was full of babies. He said, “Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child shall in no wise enter therein.” [17]. Christians are called the children of God. As a child puts faith if what their father says and believes him, so must we with the heavenly Father.


II Sam 12:7-10, 14-18. 23 David's child
Babies are safe because
1) they do not meet the conditions of judgement
2) God takes note of their innocence
3) Jesus claimed a special relationship with babies
This text is most likely of all the text presented that babies may all go to heaven. For we know that David went to Paradise and so met his child there. Although, it could be that God gave David special revelation as to that fact for his child alone. Both are “white page” reading at best. Even if we take the passage to conclude all babies go to heaven, it does not anywhere in the text or context state that they are received by Christ into glory based on their innocence – again, if that be the case, they need no Savior.


With that said, I truly believe that scripture teaches even babies (including aborted babies) must believe in Christ to go to heaven. Now before I draw negative feedback saying I believe they go to hell because someone says, “But they can’t get saved because they can’t hear or understand the word preached” – I gave examples of John the Baptist and Isaiah, and even David speaks of God being his from his mother’s womb [Psalm 22:10].

We must remember God is the creator, not us, therefore it is possible for the Spirit to draw babies (aborted or not) to have faith in Christ.

There is no scriptural support for one to claim babies get a free ride into heaven because they don’t know good and evil, because they are innocent of sin, and/or because they are pure – for that, my friend, would mean they need no Savior at all.

It has also been brought to my attention that babies cannot confess as Romans 10:9, 10 says they should:

9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

We must remember this was Paul talking to those which have recently denied Christ. They must now believe and confess Him.

Also if we make this the standard, we are saying most deaf and mute are unable to get saved.

God forbid...

Ethnic Diversity

Who hasn’t asked the question, “Where do races come from”? It is amazing what one may hear sometimes. There was even one that made it into a magazine that someone showed me one day that was very interesting, not that is was scriptural or true, but that a “religious” group actually held this view. I currently know of three different views I would like to present now.

[1] I have heard it said that there was a race separation between the children of Adam and Eve, namely Seth and Cain.

The problem I see with this is that there are only two children mentioned and there are more than two races, so then we would have to have a division of one or both of the children to properly consider the races we have.

---

[2] I have heard it said that the races came from Noah and his three sons, namely Shem, Ham, and Japheth. This view holds stronger than the Seth/Cain view for the simple fact that Noah, his wife, his three sons, and their wives (8) were the only survivors of the old world. It has even been said that there is only three basic races.

Whereas it may be true that there is only three basic races (yet I am not sure), I still find a problem with this view. One problem I see is that although Noah had three sons, I find it difficult to believe that he and his wife had three children that were difference races. Although it could be possible that their wives were each a different race, that leaves a lot of white page reading.

---

[3] I have heard it said that races were formed at the tower of Babel. At this time the world was of one language, one speech, and I believe still the one race from Noah. Here they decided to build a tower unto heaven. The LORD decided to come down to “confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech” and “scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth”.

In my opinion, this is where scripture is the clearest of the separation/creation of races. We have a separation of language and a separation of location. Before we were able to travel as we are able in recent times, pretty much races where divided by language and location.

---

Granted, it may very well be the case as in [2] that the races have come from the three sons of Noah [Genesis 10], but I believe biblically this did not take place until the tower of Babel, since at that time [Genesis 11] they were still of one language.

What have you heard and how do you agree or disagree?

Easter: Good Thursday or Friday

It is easy to acknowledge Christ must have risen on a Sunday, for scripture tells us it was on the first day of the week. As for Good Friday, I think we might have a small miscalculation, as do others, in the timeline.

Matthew 12:40
For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

Mark 8:31
And he began to teach them, that the Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders, and of the chief priests, and scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again.

John 2:19
Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.

I would agree that a portion of a day would count as a day, meaning I don’t believe it would have to consist of all twelve (12) or twenty-four (24) hours to be consider a day.

And counting of the days is easy.
Friday end of day (1) + Saturday all day (1) + Sunday early morning (1) = 3 days.

Where the problem lies is in how one reads Matthew 12:40. Whereas the other scriptures claim “after three days” and “in three days”, this verse adds “and three nights”. It would be easy to dismiss the “and three nights” to hold true to tradition, but should tradition override scripture?

We must remember that this is Christ speaking. Had He meant to say “For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be [three days] in the [grave, tomb, etc.]” He clearly would have. This is God in the flesh, not a mere man that rambles on with no intention in his speech.

Jonah was the only sign given to that generation concerning the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ [Luke 11:29; Luke 11:30], and Jonah as in the whale “three days and three nights” not just “three days”.

Here lies the problem.
Friday all night (1) + Saturday all night (1) = 2 nights.

By this I suppose we have four choices:
1] Christ didn’t mean exactly what He said.
2] All Bible translations are in error concerning this verse.
3] Our tradition supersedes scripture.
4] Admit error.

Location of Hell Examined (Conclusion)

Conclusion:

I tried my best to simplify my belief concerning the Location of Hell, and use mostly scripture. There is a lot more concerning the issue if one would only take the time to study. Comparing science about the earth and further scripture concerning pit, earth, fire, hell, etc., I personally believe that scripture indeed clearly locates hell in the center of the earth.

Concerning one question that may arise, “If the earth is destroyed one day according to 2 Peter 3:10 for the new heavens and new earth, then wouldn’t that mean that hell is destroyed too?”

Revelation 20:14,
And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.


I have presented my case of scripture, it is up to you to decide if you believe scripture is telling us the location of hell is within the center of the earth or not. As admitted early, this is not a necessary belief for salvation, or a reason to break fellowship over.

All I ask is that you consider the scripture presented and consider the validity of whether the possibility exist that hell could very well be in the center of the earth. Remember before you cast it aside as a far out idea, please remember all of the supernatural things we have written within the Word of God, and ask yourself are all things possible with God.

And remember, just because I believe it does not make it so, but neither does ones unbelief make it not so.

As always, thanks for tuning in and have a nice day!

Don’t be afraid to share your beliefs with others!

Location of Hell Examined (Pt. 5)

Point 5: “The heart of the earth”, not just the grave.

There are 3 recordings of the word “paradise” in scripture.

Christ told one of the others crucified with Him that they would be together that very day in paradise.

Luke 23:43,
And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be with me in paradise.

Yet Christ also told the people that He would not rise for three days.
Matthew 27:63; Mark 8:31

Paul said that paradise was in the third heaven [2 Corinthians 12:4], and the apostle John says it has the tree of life and those that overcome will be able eat of it [Revelation 2:7] in the city [Revelation 22:14]. Interestingly the tree of life was in the mist of Eden [Genesis 2:9].

We know that Christ did not ascend into heaven within the three days following the crucifixion, for He told Mary that He had not as of yet on the day of His resurrection [John 20:17].

If paradise was in the third heaven (1 – where birds fly, 2 – moon and stars, 3 – God), then did Christ lie to the man on the cross with Him? No.

Remember the story of the rich man and Lazarus? (I am aware than some consider this to be only a parable, which I disagree)

The rich man and Lazarus were in the same corporate location, but Lazarus was in Abraham’s bosom (rest) and the rich man was in torment. They were separated by a gulf that neither could cross [Luke 16].

As Christ died, He said He would go to “the heart of the earth” [Matthew 12:40], but not be left in hell [Acts 2:31]. Yet Christ did not tell the one crucified with Him, “We will be together today in the grave”, but “We will be together today in paradise”.

During the three days between the crucifixion and the resurrection, Christ also “preached to the spirits in prison” [1 Peter 3:18-20].

Consider Ephesians 4:8-10,
8 Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men.

9 (Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth?

10 He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things.)

In the above verses, we see that Christ, at His crucifixion, He “descended first into the lower parts of the earth” and then “ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men”.

Christ did not lie, but indeed met the thief in paradise (Abraham’s bosom) that day they both died, and upon the ascension He brought with Him paradise, the saints of old, to the third heaven, whereby it was seen by Paul.

Location of Hell Examined (Pt. 4)

Point 4: Jonah and Christ.

Luke 11:30,
For as Jonas was a sign unto the Ninevites, so shall also the Son of man be to this generation.

Jonah:

Jonah 1:17,
Now the LORD had prepared a great fish to swallow up Jonah. And Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights.

Jonah 2:1, 2, 6,

1 Then Jonah prayed unto the LORD his God out of the fish's belly,

2 And said, I cried by reason of mine affliction unto the LORD, and he heard me; out of the belly of hell cried I, and thou heardest my voice.

6 I went down to the bottoms of the mountains; the earth with her bars was about me for ever: yet hast thou brought up my life from corruption, O LORD my God.


Christ:

Matthew 12:39, 40,
39 But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas:

40 For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

Acts 2:31,
He [DAVID] seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his [CHRIST] soul was not left in hell, neither his [CHRIST] flesh did see corruption.


Point 5: “The heart of the earth”, not just the grave.

Location of Hell Examined (Pt. 3)

Point 3: The Pit and Hell are together.

Job 33:28,
He will deliver his soul from going into the pit, and his life shall see the light.

Psalm 16:10, For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.

Isaiah 14:15,
Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.

Ezekiel 31:16,
I made the nations to shake at the sound of his fall, when I cast him down to hell with them that descend into the pit: and all the trees of Eden, the choice and best of Lebanon, all that drink water, shall be comforted in the nether parts of the earth.

Revelation 9:1, 2, 11
1 And the fifth angel sounded, and I saw a star fall from heaven unto the earth: and to him was given the key of the bottomless pit.

2 And he opened the bottomless pit; and there arose a smoke out of the pit, as the smoke of a great furnace; and the sun and the air were darkened by reason of the smoke of the pit.

11 And they had a king over them, which is the angel of the bottomless pit, whose name in the Hebrew tongue is Abaddon, but in the Greek tongue hath his name Apollyon.

Revelation 11:7,
And when they shall have finished their testimony, the beast that ascendeth out of the bottomless pit shall make war against them, and shall overcome them, and kill them.

Revelation 17:8,
The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition: and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is.

Revelation 20:1, 3
1 And I saw an angel come down from heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand.

3 And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season.

Point 4: Jonah and Christ.

Location of Hell Examined (Pt. 2)

Point 2: The Pit and Hell extends to the lower and nether parts of the earth with bars.

Deuteronomy 32:22,
For a fire is kindled in mine anger, and shall burn unto the lowest hell, and shall consume the earth with her increase, and set on fire the foundations of the mountains.

Jonah 2:6,
I went down to the bottoms of the mountains; the earth with her bars was about me for ever: yet hast thou brought up my life from corruption, O LORD my God.

Psalm 86:13,
For great is thy mercy toward me: and thou hast delivered my soul from the lowest hell.

Ezekiel 26:20,
When I shall bring thee down with them that descend into the pit, with the people of old time, and shall set thee in the low parts of the earth, in places desolate of old, with them that go down to the pit, that thou be not inhabited; and I shall set glory in the land of the living;

Ezekiel 31:14,
To the end that none of all the trees by the waters exalt themselves for their height, neither shoot up their top among the thick boughs, neither their trees stand up in their height, all that drink water: for they are all delivered unto death, to the nether parts of the earth, in the midst of the children of men, with them that go down to the pit.

Ezekiel 31:16,
I made the nations to shake at the sound of his fall, when I cast him down to hell with them that descend into the pit: and all the trees of Eden, the choice and best of Lebanon, all that drink water, shall be comforted in the nether parts of the earth.

Ezekiel 32:18,
Son of man, wail for the multitude of Egypt, and cast them down, even her, and the daughters of the famous nations, unto the nether parts of the earth, with them that go down into the pit.

Amos 9:2,
Though they dig into hell, thence shall mine hand take them; though they climb up to heaven, thence will I bring them down:


Point 3: The Pit and Hell are together.

Location of Hell Examined (Pt. 1)

Point 1: The Pit and Hell are down.

Numbers 16:30,
But if the LORD make a new thing, and the earth open her mouth, and swallow them up, with all that appertain unto them, and they go down quick into the pit; then ye shall understand that these men have provoked the LORD.

Job 11:8,
It is as high as heaven; what canst thou do? deeper than hell; what canst thou know?

Psalm 28:1,
Unto thee will I cry, O LORD my rock; be not silent to me: lest, if thou be silent to me, I become like them that go down into the pit.

Psalm 30:3,
O LORD, thou hast brought up my soul from the grave: thou hast kept me alive, that I should not go down to the pit.

Psalm 55:15,
Let death seize upon them, and let them go down quick into hell: for wickedness is in their dwellings, and among them.

Proverbs 15:24,
The way of life is above to the wise, that he may depart from hell beneath.

Isaiah 5:14,
Therefore hell hath enlarged herself, and opened her mouth without measure: and their glory, and their multitude, and their pomp, and he that rejoiceth, shall descend into it.

Isaiah 14:9,
Hell from beneath is moved for thee to meet thee at thy coming: it stirreth up the dead for thee, even all the chief ones of the earth; it hath raised up from their thrones all the kings of the nations.

Isaiah 14:15,
Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.

Isaiah 38:18,
For the grave cannot praise thee, death can not celebrate thee: they that go down into the pit cannot hope for thy truth.

Matthew 11:23,
And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted unto heaven, shalt be brought down to hell: for if the mighty works, which have been done in thee, had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day.


Point 2: The Pit and Hell extends to the lower and nether parts of the earth with bars.

Location of Hell Examined (Intro)

Preface:
This post is not meant to prove the existence of hell, but is for the purpose of examining where I believe scriptural evidence points as to the location of hell. I would ask that you please reframe from arguing your current position – There is no hell - until a later date when I may post the subject of Does Hell Exist.

Purpose:
To share with others my view, with the use of scriptural support, that hell is indeed within the center of the earth.

Introduction:
For what I once thought was common knowledge appears to not be as wide spread as I imagined. Let it be noted that this is not a new idea or concept, but has actually been around quite sometime. I would ask that you please consider the concept, before just simply dismissing it on the basis that you have never heard it or that you currently believe differently. Although I believe the knowledge of hell is important, the location may not be as important and is definitely not something to break fellowship over.

Because of length I have decided to break it down into sections, or days. Hoping this will allow for separation of points, easier and quicker reading, and comments to each day to be made. Please feel free to share your pro/con points. I will limit the writing to only scripture unless necessary.

Point 1: The Pit and Hell are down.
Point 2: The Pit and Hell extends to the lower and nether parts of the earth with bars.
Point 3: The Pit and Hell are together.
Point 4: Jonah and Christ.
Point 5: “The heart of the earth”, not just the grave.
Conclusion

Once Saved Always Saved or Perseverance of the Saints

Eternal Security, the belief that when a person is genuinely converted to salvation by putting their faith in the finished work of Christ, that they are kept by the power of God and sealed by the Holy Spirit whereby it is impossible for them to lose that salvation and be separated again from the love of God. Although one may sin, as all do, following conversion, unconfessed sin is dwelt with by God through chastisement and not the loss of ones gift of salvation.

Within the camps of Eternal Security believers, there lies in this corner Once Saved Always Saved (OSAS) and in this corner Perseverance of the Saints (POTS). At face value one might assume that they mean the same thing just different terminology. But that, my friend, would be an incorrect assumption, for they are very much different. Whereas the ends may meet as the individual crosses over into glory unable to lose his salvation, the means or actions by which he took while on this trip up the narrow road is indeed different.

For the sake of length and clarity, I will do my best to simplify both corners without a multitude of words. This is not a defense of either, but a simple act of trying to show that by no means are they the same. Please feel free to express your thoughts and correct me if you believe my understanding to be wrong.

Once Saved Always Saved (OSAS)
This position holds that a person may be genuinely saved by Christ and become a born again believer. Although saved, one may then return back into their fallen sinful state as if they had never been regenerated. They may have a lifestyle of the unsaved, yet because at one point in their life the trusted Christ, regardless of how they live their life or die, they are saved forevermore. An example would be while witnessing to a person they bow their head and ask Christ to save them, yet they never come to church or display any Christian qualities for the rest of their lives. This position claims that “if they really meant it”, then regardless that they never acted as a Christian, they are indeed one by virtue of them at one point in their life asking Christ to save them. No one can 100% say that they are saved or are not saved, by ones actions, for only God knows our hearts and if someone has actually asked Him to save them then they are indeed saved.

Perseverance of the Saints (POTS)
This position agrees that a person is genuinely saved by Christ and becomes a born again believer. It also agrees that nothing, including sin, can separate a believer from the love of God and that it is impossible for one to fall from grace. Where this camp disagrees is that a true believer cannot and will not return to or remain in their previous unregenerate lifestyle. Not that a believer will be sinless, but that their lifestyle will become and remain that of a person striving to serve God, rather than that of a lost person disobeying God. It is not the individual which causes this, but the working of God within them. Lifestyle of the believer appears to be the difference. Because of the work of God within them, the believer’s desires shall be to serve God, even though they may faultier, yet they never turn to rejection of God, or a total non-desire, and back into their depravity. Although they may agree no one can know 100% who is and is not saved, one can know them almost positively by their fruits, their works and lifestyle.

I have been told that my thinking above is incorrect, but I have sat under teaching that believes one may be saved without acting like a Christian, whereas the others says when one is saved they will act like a Christian. In my opinion that is not the same teaching...

Further reading…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perseverance_of_the_saints