Jump to content

areader

Members
  • Content count

    9
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

3,721 Excellent

About areader

  • Rank
    Junior Member

Gender

  • Gender
    Male

Denomination

  • Den
    Not sure yet
  1. areader

    Do children who die in infancy go to Heaven?

    I'ts very different indeed: while I believe to be saved and you, in charity, believe so too, I think we both agree netiher of us can know whether I am saved or not -we trust and pray so God wills it that way. However, what you claim is that we can positively know that individuals dead under a certain, but yet to be determined, age are doubtlessly saved. Since you hold that there can be no doubt about it, while we both agree we can doubt the fate of dead adults, it follows that the optimal outcome for a human is early decease in order to grant salvation. This is the third time I explain this, do we agree now that there is a difference? Of course, I just wanted to point out that, luckily, the register of Christian discussion is wide enough as to allow what I posted. Did you read the passages quoted by @William ? Scripture strongly hints otherwise. I still haven't seen any biblical evidence supporting the salvation of every dead child, only the record of two particular cases, such as there are particular cases of redemption for dead adults -and I'm sure neither of us supports universalism. The word used is 'mikron', which AFAIK can be understood as 'litlle' in several ways: not only of age but, quite proper in the context of Mark 9, of littler power, worldly authority or wealth -a humble one. Earlier you referred to the Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven. Honestly, I think only if you already hold this belief of necessary redemption of the young dead ones could you read it as an statement supporting it. If you contrast several translations (I cannot read Koine) you'll see He clearly means of those who are like children. Now, beware because using this as support for your claim could mean something dangerously akin to Pelagianism: that we are born sinless. What is to be understood here, methinks, must be in line with the sermon on the Mount of Olives: not to be innocent as children, since they're not, for everybody is under the curse, lusting against the Spirit and capable of nothing but evil -but to be as them in their careless trust and cheerful hope in the promise:Therefore take no thought, saying, What shall we eat? or, What shall we drink? or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed? -As children, who trust their father to provide such things. Don't you think this posits an additional problem to this theory? This will probably be my last reply in this thread, since I genuinely see no point in a dispute where one of the stances cannot provide sound biblical support. I thank you, in particular, for your patience with me.
  2. areader

    Do children who die in infancy go to Heaven?

    Supposing all children who die are saved, imagine what a paragon of virtues would be someone executing them, risking the most precious thing, his own salvation, to grant that of others; such love would be something amazing to see, even the angels would beg for his pardon! It would be rather coward and selfish not to follow that example. Stupid, right. But then I cannot understand why someone would hate this consecuence while agreeing with the belief that causes it. To show how dangerous and contrary to Scriptures such idea is. I'm genuinely surprised that my words are more shameful to you than the unscriptural, carnally minded teaching I was mocking. I assume you have readed (and ejoyed doing so) Luther, so you know he wrote truth in astonishingly harsh ways, making my playful thought experiment pale in comparison. I don't think we should be as weak as to be offended by somehting like that. Then I wonder again what are we arguing, since this I hold true too, that some infants are elect. As some adults are. Oh... but that's a different thing altogether! Where do you find support for such assumption? And then again, where do you set the limit between children and adult? Has it always been the same, even when people lived for centuries? And, finally, how does such proposition (i.e. that all who die young are saved -presuming we all agree on when a child stops being a child) deny that logical follow-up that annoys you so much? Please, do avoid labelling my words as scandalous again were you as kind as to reply, since that would add nothing to the discussion and distract from its goal.
  3. areader

    Do children who die in infancy go to Heaven?

    I'm sorry, I fail to see what are you arguing here. It looks like you missed the point of my post, which was to show the inconsistency of a belief bordering Pelagian heresy. I saw people getting incredibly emotional when @William posted some basic truths in the other thread and I felt the need to weight in so it doesn't end up like the other; it's too soon to assess the development of this thread but it doesn't look too bright right now either. God's choice is unconditional, so no matter how long or short a life is, some are born to redemption and some, well, there's only one alternative... Whether one fate or the other befalls upon a singular child, only God in his secret will knows. Infering the existence of a law by which all children (again, at which age are we setting the bar and why?) who die are saved out of a particular case in the Bible doesn't hold against the Word of God, which time after time states the perversity of all mankind. All. No one is good. I apologise if my previous post offended some sensibilities, but I thought a bold way was best to expose the problems implied by such theory of an Universal Immaculate Conception -not to talk about the absolute lack of biblical support, but that we all knew already. Dead kids going straight to hell is an abhorrent thought for us, but God is right and our limited understanding cannot be an excuse to build up soteriology out of thin air just to please our consciences -we are to reject the carnal mind. Maranatha.
  4. areader

    Do children who die in infancy go to Heaven?

    Shouldn't Christians be all for abortion if children are unblemished? Donating to planned parenthood must be all the rage here. And exactly at which age do we become corrupt? Looks like children are time bombs; a loving father should let them take advantage of their privilege before it's too late and send them straight to the Kingdom. That which is born of flesh is flesh and flesh lusts against the spirit. Even in the womb. Total depravity. Sola gratia.
  5. areader

    Do children who die in infancy go to Heaven?

    Romans 9:10-14 'And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac, (for the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;) it was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated. What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.' Is there really any room for discussion?
  6. areader

    60 Hard Truths about "Liberals"

    When I started frequenting forums with an important American user base I was very surprised to find out what a twisted and corrupted concept of Liberalism they had, while for me it meant the most prudent way to conduct the Government according to the most respectable tradition of bold thought (Kant, Burke, Hegel, etc.). Liberalism meant to accept that humans are devil's feces and we need a Law to live in peace (as Kant put it, man is the only animal who needs a Master in order to live with his own kind), to learn to live with failure, never expecting (nor trying to enforce on others) sanctity, understanding with Mandeville that out of the interaction of particular interests the greater good is produced; But the so-called liberals now are nothing but political Pelagianist fanatics who believe we can achieve perfection (whatever it is according to their own distorted mind) they themselves have reached thanks to the pureness of their heart if enough rules are enforced, and failure to achieve so is ill-will, bigotry, machismo, racism and whatnot which deserve to be severely punished. Now, those who remain true to the concept, being the word stolen by a truly ill set of people, are being marked as right-wingers, which currently means anyone has the right to slay you wherever they find you (remember, it's okay to punch a nazi, and a nazi is whoever isn't up to their demented demands); sometimes I think I'm very lucky not to be an American! I see that thanks to Trump and his brave supporters there's a change of tide and slowly but surely Republicanism in its pure sense is coming back as a living political project -and that makes me wish I was American! Also, we cannot forget how the new liberals are the disciples of those who formerly supported the "dictatorship of the proletariat" -and now they support the worldwide caliphate! From Stalin to Mao to Muhammad, the enemies of the Constitutional Republic keep changing its shape, but the content is always the same hubris. I'm glad to have found this forum where truth isn't compromised by political correctness (zombifying mental hygiene).
  7. areader

    Greetings

    Thanks, @William, I didn't know that tool.
  8. areader

    Greetings

    Thank you all for the welcome, and thank you, @theophilus, for pointing out this massive work. I see I have a long way before me.
  9. areader

    Greetings

    Hello, I'm from Spain, although currently living in Sofia (yes, from a Catholic to an Orthodox country, though I've never professed either of them) and I've found and registered in this forum with a very specific purpose in mind: to ask you what to read. As I'm not sure where to post my enquiry, I'll take advantage of this salutation to expose it, and please address me to the proper subforum should its discussion here be avoided. A decisive book in my relationship with the Bible has been De servo arbitrio, which I read in a beautiful Catalan translation; as the translation I daily read is the KJV, I would like to have a copy of an English On the bondage of the will to study, but I know not which edition is the best for my purporse. It looks like Henry Cole did a good job with an annotated edition and elegant wording, but I wanted to have an informed opinion -so I'm very glad to have found this forum. Also, I would be very interested in an annotated compilation of Luther more explicit political writings (i.e. those on the Peasants' War). That is the first part of my question -which is the best English edition of De servo arbitrio. Now, the second: what should I read from Calvin? I should remark that I want to read him, and not just about his teachings (though some secondary sources would be welcome, of course). Unlike most users here, my background as you can imagine is weak on Protestant teachings -so you may be tempted to offer me milk instead of meat, but please don't do so. Give me both if you think it necessary, but don't keep me away from the sunlight. Therefore, what I'm asking for is to know whether there's, let's say, an equivalent to De servo arbitrio in Calvinian production, such a work that synthetyses the foundations of his faith. Thank you.
×