# Billy Graham.



## gordon 2

Billy Graham.


----------



## Mako22

The Father of neo evangelism who denied the existence of a literal place of fire and torment, held hands with the pope and preached a soft gospel that left sin out. Im way more impressed with his son than I was with him.


----------



## formula1

*re:*

God's working in his ministry is one of the reasons I am in Christ today as a result of a 1973 crusade in Atlanta, GA.

Grateful that he is a man that introduce many to Christ.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

Woodsman69 said:


> The Father of neo evangelism who denied the existence of a literal place of fire and torment, held hands with the pope and preached a soft gospel that left sin out. Im way more impressed with his son than I was with him.



https://billygraham.org/answer/where-did-the-idea-of-CensoredCensoredCensoredCensored-come-from/



> Q:
> 
> 
> Where did the idea of CensoredCensoredCensoredCensored come from? I don't believe there is such a thing because God is for life and for love, not destruction and hate, like some people seem to think.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A:
> 
> 
> It might surprise you to learn that the person in the Bible who spoke the most about ****’s reality was Jesus. He repeatedly warned us not to take it lightly: “Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in ****” (Matthew 10:28).
> 
> Is CensoredCensoredCensoredCensored just an idea someone dreamed up — or is it real? The Bible’s answer is clear: CensoredCensoredCensoredCensored is real just as real as heaven. You and I will live forever because God gave each of us an eternal soul or spirit. Death isn’t the end; when we die, we will enter eternity either with God in heaven, or separated from Him forever in the place the Bible calls CensoredCensoredCensoredCensored.
> 
> Yes, you’re right up to a point; God is a God of love. But He is also a God of justice. Do you honestly believe God will overlook the horrors committed by a Hitler or Stalin? Do you honestly believe God will overlook the evils and injustices that ravage our world? The Bible warns, “All will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness” (2 Thessalonians 2:12).
> 
> These are sobering words. But the Bible tells us something else about CensoredCensoredCensoredCensored: You and I don’t need to go there! Jesus Christ came to destroy sin and death and CensoredCensoredCensoredCensored and when we put our faith and trust in Him, haven’s door opens before us. Don’t be deceived, but turn to Christ and accept the salvation He offers you today.




https://billygraham.org/story/billy-grahams-answer-what-is-sin-are-all-sins-equal-in-gods-eyes/



> When once asked, ‘What is the definition of sin?’ Billy Graham gave the following answer:
> 
> 
> 
> A sin is any thought or action that falls short of God’s will. God is perfect, and anything we do that falls short of His perfection is sin.
> 
> The Bible actually uses a number of examples or “word pictures” to illustrate what this means. For example, it tells us that sin is like an archer who misses the target. He draws back his bow and sends the arrow on its way—but instead of hitting the bull’s-eye, it veers off course and misses the mark. The arrow may only miss it a little bit or it may miss it a great deal—but the result is the same: The arrow doesn’t land where it is supposed to.
> 
> The same is true of sin. God’s will is like the center of that target—and when we sin, we fall short of His will or miss the mark. And this is something we do every day; as the Bible says, “For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23). Even when we aren’t aware of it, we commit sin by the things we do (or fail to do), or by the way we think.
> 
> This is why we need Christ, for only He can forgive us all our sins, and only He can help us live the way we should. We can’t forgive ourselves, nor can we change our hearts and make ourselves better in God’s eyes.
> 
> 
> Mr. Graham has also been asked whether all sins are equal in God’s eyes. This was his answer:
> 
> It is always difficult and dangerous to attempt to list sins according to their degree of seriousness. In one sense, all sins are equal in that they all separate us from God. The Bible’s statement, “For the wages of sin is death …” (Romans 6:23), applies to all sin, whether in thought, word, or deed.
> 
> At the same time, it seems obvious that some sins are worse than others in both motivation and effects, and should be judged accordingly. Stealing a loaf of bread is vastly different than exterminating a million people. Sins may also differ at their root.
> 
> Theologians have sought for centuries to determine what the essence of sin is. Some have chosen sensuality, others selfishness, and still others pride or unbelief. In the Old Testament, God applied different penalties to different sins, suggesting variations in the seriousness of some sins. A thief paid restitution; an occult practitioner was cut off from Israel; one who committed adultery or a homosexual act or cursed his parents was put to death (see Exodus, chapter 22 and Leviticus, chapter 20).
> 
> In the New Testament Jesus said it would be more bearable on the day of judgment for Sodom than for Capernaum because of Capernaum’s unbelief and refusal to repent after witnessing His miracles (Matthew 11:23-24). The sins of Sodom were identified in Ezekiel 16:49-50 as arrogance, gluttony, indifference to the poor and needy, haughtiness, and “detestable things.”
> 
> When Jesus spoke of his second coming and judgment, he warned that among those deserving punishment some would “be beaten with many blows” and others “with few blows” (Luke 12:47-48). He also reserved His most fierce denunciations for the pride and unbelief of the religious leaders, not the sexually immoral (Matthew 23:13-36).
> 
> However, remember that whether our sins are relatively small or great, they will place us in CensoredCensoredCensoredCensored apart from God’s grace. The good news is that Jesus paid the penalty for our sins and the sins of the whole world at the Cross. If we will repent and turn to Jesus in faith, our sins will be forgiven, and we will receive the gift of eternal life.



Some people     

Makes you wonder if people just take EVERYTHING they hear as truth.


----------



## gordon 2

formula1 said:


> God's working in his ministry is one of the reasons I am in Christ today as a result of a 1973 crusade in Atlanta, GA.
> 
> Grateful that he is a man that introduce many to Christ.



Now that is a very positive thing!  I am grateful also...


----------



## Big7

Woodsman69 said:


> The Father of neo evangelism who denied the existence of a literal place of fire and torment, held hands with the pope and preached a soft gospel that left sin out. Im way more impressed with his son than I was with him.



What has holding hands with The Pope got to do with it?


----------



## Artfuldodger

Yeah, it's not like he was friends with Oprah.


----------



## Artfuldodger

Woodsman69 said:


> The Father of neo evangelism who denied the existence of a literal place of fire and torment, held hands with the pope and preached a soft gospel that left sin out. Im way more impressed with his son than I was with him.



I think he said it could be a literal fire or it could be symbolic. His biggest thing on He11 was that it was separation from God.

I've often wondered how one could go to He11 as a spirit or soul and burn in a literal fire. Unless one waits and goes there after his physical resurrection.


----------



## matt79brown

In the 60's Billy Graham was preaching against things that are now supported by Franklin's ministry. Was He wrong then or is Franklin wrong now?


----------



## SemperFiDawg

matt79brown said:


> In the 60's Billy Graham was preaching against things that are now supported by Franklin's ministry. Was He wrong then or is Franklin wrong now?





Quotes of examples, in context, with links please, because I find this highly doubtful.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes

Woodsman69 said:


> The Father of neo evangelism who denied the existence of a literal place of fire and torment, held hands with the pope and preached a soft gospel that left sin out. Im way more impressed with his son than I was with him.



Many Christians are going to be shocked as to what their behavior and beliefs on Earth does or does not earn them in the end. Especially those that are convinced that their judgmental beliefs are superior to all others.


----------



## gordon 2

Artfuldodger said:


> Yeah, it's not like he was friends with Oprah.



The souls in heaven who are familiar with the US of A are probably grinnin.


----------



## formula1

*re:*

He who is not against us is for us!


----------



## matt79brown

Back in the day Billy simply offered a message from God's word and preached take it or leave it style. No ''gimmick'' was offered. No concert then we'll tell 'em about Jesus, no festival then we'll tell 'em about Jesus, nope it was just telling them about Jesus. Folks came knowing it was about Jesus. Will this not work any longer? Do we have to entertain to slip the message in? If so, why?


----------



## gordon 2

For those who don't know, this song ( poem) was first sung by George Beverly Shea-- if my understanding is correct.


----------



## Artfuldodger

Arthur Smith, the Guitar Boogie guy, opened a recording studio in Charlotte. It was quite successful. George Beverly Shea recorded there as well as Billy Graham.
Billy Graham's Hour of Decision radio program was first produced in Smith's studio.
Smith himself had or has been on a few radio and TV shows as well. I can remember watching one of his weekly shows when he was older.

Arthur Smith was a big part of the "Singing on the Mountain" yearly sing on Grandfather Mountain back in the 50's and 60's.
Admission is free with the motto remaining the same for 89 years: “Whosoever will may come.”

Now another Billy Graham connection. In 1962 it was the 38th annual sing and Dr. Graham was to give the sermon. They have a sermon at every one of these things beings it's on Sundays.
On that day thunderstorms threatened the event. 
The clouds parted as Graham stepped up to the microphone and the sun shone brightly on the gathering while he shared his message of God’s amazing grace.


----------



## gordon 2

Artfuldodger said:


> Arthur Smith, the Guitar Boogie guy, opened a recording studio in Charlotte. It was quite successful. George Beverly Shea recorded there as well as Billy Graham.
> Billy Graham's Hour of Decision radio program was first produced in Smith's studio.
> Smith himself had or has been on a few radio and TV shows as well. I can remember watching one of his weekly shows when he was older.
> 
> Arthur Smith was a big part of the "Singing on the Mountain" yearly sing on Grandfather Mountain back in the 50's and 60's.
> Admission is free with the motto remaining the same for 89 years: “Whosoever will may come.”
> 
> Now another Billy Graham connection. In 1962 it was the 38th annual sing and Dr. Graham was to give the sermon. They have a sermon at every one of these things beings it's on Sundays.
> On that day thunderstorms threatened the event.
> The clouds parted as Graham stepped up to the microphone and the sun shone brightly on the gathering while he shared his message of God’s amazing grace.



I had forgotten about this "Billy Graham's Hour of Decision radio program" . Thanks.


----------



## Mako22

Miguel Cervantes said:


> Many Christians are going to be shocked as to what their behavior and beliefs on Earth does or does not earn them in the end. Especially those that are convinced that their judgmental beliefs are superior to all others.



I just believe the bible which Billy did not fully do.


----------



## Water Swat

matt79brown said:


> Back in the day Billy simply offered a message from God's word and preached take it or leave it style. No ''gimmick'' was offered. No concert then we'll tell 'em about Jesus, no festival then we'll tell 'em about Jesus, nope it was just telling them about Jesus. Folks came knowing it was about Jesus. Will this not work any longer? Do we have to entertain to slip the message in? If so, why?



Is some good musoc before a preacher not worth it to reach a new generation? Most churches sing before the preaching time dont they?


----------



## matt79brown

Yea I was wrong, watched a Billy Graham ''classic crusade'' where he had Johnny Cash sing a song about the American flag before his sermon. Not sure what the connection between the gospel of Jesus Christ and a song about a flag is. But hey if that's your thing go for it!


----------



## Artfuldodger

matt79brown said:


> Yea I was wrong, watched a Billy Graham ''classic crusade'' where he had Johnny Cash sing a song about the American flag before his sermon. Not sure what the connection between the gospel of Jesus Christ and a song about a flag is. But hey if that's your thing go for it!



What year was it? If during the Vietnam War maybe Graham was trying to show is patriotic or political side. Maybe it was Cash's idea.

Gospel, Country, and Patriotic genres have always been associated together of sorts. Well they were back in the 50's and 60's. Most Country singers did gospel and patriotic songs. Depending on if a war was going on, patriotic songs were popular as well. I think 9/11 inspires a few.

Church in general has always had music before the preachin'. Music was a big part of Billy Graham's crusades. If I recall, he had a choir. George Beverly Shea was a regular. 

Some preachers were gospel singers before they became Preachers. Naturally music is a big part of their program.


----------



## matt79brown

Ozzy had one called the Warpigs. Why not let Ozzy open the show? At least Ozzy's song does mention God and the Day of judgement. But that wouldn't have been very patriotic would it. "Render to Ceaser what belongs to Ceaser, give to God what belongs to God.'' Jesus wasn't very patriotic was He?


----------



## Israel

Vessels...all. If tarnish we see, it is to our own reproval. And warning.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

Woodsman69 said:


> I just believe the bible which Billy did not fully do.



Well if you have to pick someone to be beneath you in order to make you feel better about yourself at least you aimed high.


----------



## gordon 2

Water Swat said:


> Is some good musoc before a preacher not worth it to reach a new generation? Most churches sing before the preaching time dont they?




 Ephesians 5:19 Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord;

---------

I personally understand that to confess vocally is powerful not only to the individual speaking or singing but also for all surrounding. It is an act of kindness also towards the social aspect of our nature.  Also, I personally understand that when one activates the jaw with song it gets happier chemicals activated in the brain more conducive to fellowship, learning and worship. It sort of washes the soul of the fear of being vulnerable. It voids the world's harbored trespasses we sheath by habit. In song even enemies can find commonality to a shared humanity. I have to wonder if there is a book called the Joy of Singing on Amazon?


----------



## Flash

Did anyone ever prove one way or another what Mr Graham believed concerning the "bad place"?     

Didn't he write numerous books? 

I would think he'd address that in at least one


----------



## stringmusic

SemperFiDawg said:


> Well if you have to pick someone to be beneath you in order to make you feel better about yourself at least you aimed high.



Lol


----------



## SemperFiDawg

Flash said:


> Did anyone ever prove one way or another what Mr Graham believed concerning the "bad place"?
> 
> Didn't he write numerous books?
> 
> I would think he'd address that in at least one



Post #4.


----------



## gemcgrew

Flash said:


> Did anyone ever prove one way or another what Mr Graham believed concerning the "bad place"?
> 
> Didn't he write numerous books?
> 
> I would think he'd address that in at least one


"Similar to the cults of our generation, Dr. Graham has employed terminology concerning he11 that is familiar to the Scriptures, but he utilizes a different dictionary. In redefining this vital Bible doctrine, Billy Graham has declared his allegiance with the blasphemous apostasy of our day."


http://www.baptistpillar.com/article_435.html


----------



## Artfuldodger

I've read some vague things where Dr. Graham questioned whether the fire or flames were real or not. I think he has always thought He11 was a real place though.
Maybe he went back and forth on the issue. In his book written in 2015, he said this about He11;

“As a Christian and a preacher of the Gospel, I am always grieved to have to interrupt a marvelous picture, such as eternal life in Heaven, to talk about another eternal place that Jesus calls He11,” Graham writes. “It has no similarities to what is typically called home, nor is He11 a resting place, a holding place, or a graveyard. He11 is a burning inferno.”

"Where I Am: Heaven, Eternity, and Our Life Beyond," by Billy Graham

https://religionnews.com/2015/10/02/billy-graham-warns-of-fire-and-brimstone-in-final-book/


----------



## Artfuldodger

Dr. Graham said this in time magazine in 1993;

ON HE11. The only thing I could say for sure is that he11 means separation from God. We are separated from his light, from his fellowship. That is going to be he11. When it comes to a literal fire, I don't preach it because I'm not sure about it. When the Scripture uses fire concerning he11, that is possibly an illustration of how terrible it's going to be--not fire but something worse, a thirst for God that cannot be quenched. 

http://www.angelfire.com/zine/baptistsurfer/TimeGraham.html


----------



## matt79brown

Hellifino.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

gemcgrew said:


> "Similar to the cults of our generation, Dr. Graham has employed terminology concerning he11 that is familiar to the Scriptures, but he utilizes a different dictionary. In redefining this vital Bible doctrine, Billy Graham has declared his allegiance with the blasphemous apostasy of our day."
> 
> 
> http://www.baptistpillar.com/article_435.html



Oh brother!!!  I'll say this.  Despite what the critics say, Billy Graham has done more to win more people to Christ than anyone else.  Do you guys with your superior understanding of scripture think your intellect is gonna win you grace.  Theres a scripture somewhere that says something along the lines of "to the one whom much is given, much is expected".  Based on this should we not expect more from you than Billy and his "blasphemous apostasy".  So when's your next televised evangelical event?

Personally I've always had the understanding that we are judged and rewarded on how WE RESPOND TO WHAT WE DO COMPREHEND, and not HOW MUCH WE CORRECTLY COMPREHEND.  The gospel is so easy to understand even a child can comprehend it and share it.   
What do you have to brag about greater than that.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

gemcgrew said:


> http://www.baptistpillar.com/article_435.html



Self described as "Canadas ONLY TRUE BAPTIST PAPER".

That in itself would give most reason for pause, but I think its pretty clear that it says more about you than the subject at hand.


----------



## welderguy

SemperFiDawg said:


> Oh brother!!!  I'll say this.  Despite what the critics say, Billy Graham has done more to win more people to Christ than anyone else.  Do you guys with your superior understanding of scripture think your intellect is gonna win you grace.  Theres a scripture somewhere that says something along the lines of "to the one whom much is given, much is expected".  Based on this should we not expect more from you than Billy and his "blasphemous apostasy".  So when's your next televised evangelical event?
> 
> Personally I've always had the understanding that we are judged and rewarded on how WE RESPOND TO WHAT WE DO COMPREHEND, and not HOW MUCH WE CORRECTLY COMPREHEND.  The gospel is so easy to understand even a child can comprehend it and share it.
> What do you have to brag about greater than that.



Does the Bible teach that every single person will go to heaven?


----------



## Artfuldodger

welderguy said:


> Does the Bible teach that every single person will go to heaven?



I think Dr. Graham believes as you do. That God can call people out in the world who has never heard the Gospel from another man. That they hear directly from God.

I did find this in relation to how he believes God can call;

Billy Graham made an incredible statement in a Robert Schuller television interview. Graham said:  “He’s calling people out of the world for His name, whether they come from the Muslim world, or the Buddhist world, or the Christian world, or the non-believing world, they are members of the Body of Christ, because they’ve been called by God. They may not even know the name of Jesus, but they know in their hearts that they need something that they don’t have, and they turn to the only light that they have, and I think they are saved, and that they’re going to be with us in heaven.”


----------



## SemperFiDawg

welderguy said:


> Does the Bible teach that every single person will go to heaven?



No.  If you're suggesting BG taught that, I would be interested in the quote, including context and source.


----------



## welderguy

SemperFiDawg said:


> No.  If you're suggesting BG taught that, I would be interested in the quote, including context and source.



I'm not suggesting anything about Billy Graham. I was curious about what you believe, based on the remarks you were making.

If every single person is not going to heaven, where are those, who are not, going?(details please)


----------



## gemcgrew

SemperFiDawg said:


> Self described as "Canadas ONLY TRUE BAPTIST PAPER".
> 
> That in itself would give most reason for pause, but I think its pretty clear that it says more about you than the subject at hand.


And what does it say about you, that you would rather attack me than the article?


----------



## matt79brown

The question is not where does Billy Graham stand in the sight of God. The question is..... where do I stand in the sight of God. What I think about 'em won't make 'em or break 'em. Let God be God. I didn't agree with 'em on all the subjects, but then again I'm not the authority on all the subjects. Him and Johnny Cash may be pickin' and a grinnin' as we speak. If so, I can't wait to join 'em!


----------



## SemperFiDawg

welderguy said:


> I'm not suggesting anything about Billy Graham. I was curious about what you believe, based on the remarks you were making.
> 
> If every single person is not going to heaven, where are those, who are not, going?(details please)



I believe in a literal Heaven and a literal He11 as the Bible clearly teaches.  Those who have heard of Christ will be judged of whether they responded to his sacrifice.  Those who haven't heard of him will be judged based on how they responded to their understanding of the general revelation of God.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

gemcgrew said:


> And what does it say about you, that you would rather attack me than the article?



I'm not attacking you.  Rather pointing out the obvious.
If I posted a lewd picture and you pointed out the obviousness of it as well as the fact that it reflects on me, it wouldn't be an attack, but just a stating of the obvious based on what it revealed about my character.


----------



## welderguy

SemperFiDawg said:


> I believe in a literal Heaven and a literal He11 as the Bible clearly teaches.  Those who have heard of Christ will be judged of whether they responded to his sacrifice.  Those who haven't heard of him will be judged based on how they responded to their understanding of the general revelation of God.



How will the aborted and stillborn babies be judged? Or the mentally challenged ones or deaf and blind children that die without seeing the light of day?


----------



## gemcgrew

SemperFiDawg said:


> I'm not attacking you.


Did you not read post #33?


----------



## SemperFiDawg

welderguy said:


> How will the aborted and stillborn babies be judged? Or the mentally challenged ones or deaf and blind children that die without seeing the light of day?



How do you think a Just and Loving God would judge them.  What does your heart say?
Can a person incapable of comprehending right from wrong, be held accountable.  To those there are no right and wrong.  Like Adam and Eve before the fall.  They became responsible for their actions WHEN they became cognizant of the rules.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

gemcgrew said:


> Did you not read post #33?



No.  I wrote it, and I'll stand by it.  You posted a false and disparaging quote about a person that I and countless others hold in very high regard.  I think it's quiet fair and reasonable to ask you, as his critic, to show us your superior works through this supposed superior theology you possess.  Didn't James say something regarding showing your faith through your works? Well let's see them, and we should be able to easily judge whose works are
better served by their faith:  your's or Billy's.


----------



## gemcgrew

SemperFiDawg said:


> No.  I wrote it, and I'll stand by it.  You posted a false and disparaging quote about a person that I and countless others hold in very high regard.  I think it's quiet fair and reasonable to ask you, as his critic, to show us your superior works through this supposed superior theology you possess.  Didn't James say something regarding showing your faith through your works?


I am happy to see that you are still not attacking me.


SemperFiDawg said:


> Well let's see them, and we should be able to easily judge whose works are
> better served by their faith:  your's or Billy's.


Just how would we easily judge this? If our standard is the number of "televised evangelical event", I can save us some time.


----------



## welderguy

SemperFiDawg said:


> How do you think a Just and Loving God would judge them.  What does your heart say?
> Can a person incapable of comprehending right from wrong, be held accountable.  To those there are no right and wrong.  Like Adam and Eve before the fall.  They became responsible for their actions WHEN they became cognizant of the rules.



Are you saying every person conceived has the blood of Jesus covering their sins until a certain point in their lives, but then suddenly, according to something they do or do not do, they can lose this redemption? 

Maybe you should stop following your heart and check this by the scriptures.


----------



## NE GA Pappy

welderguy said:


> Are you saying every person conceived has the blood of Jesus covering their sins until a certain point in their lives, but then suddenly, according to something they do or do not do, they can lose this redemption?
> 
> Maybe you should stop following your heart and check this by the scriptures.



so, who is responsible for their actions until they can understand the 'rules'?

(hint, I would start my search with the term "and all his household')


----------



## Israel

For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.


http://forum.gon.com/showthread.php...hen+commandment+came+sin+revived+died&page=33


----------



## SemperFiDawg

welderguy said:


> Are you saying  every person conceived has the blood of Jesus covering their sins until a certain point in their lives, but then suddenly, according to something they do or do not do, they can lose this redemption?
> 
> Maybe you should stop following your heart and check this by the scriptures.




Come on man,  let’s stick with the truth huh?  Quit putting words in my mouth.  That’s nowhere near what I stated, which is plainly stated above.  If we’re gonna have a serious discussion you can’t do this.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

gemcgrew said:


> Just how would we easily judge this?



Dunno dude.  You’re the one who posted disparaging comments about Billy Graham by ‘the only TRUE’ source.  Given this superior doctrinal understanding, I assumed you would have an idea how to differentiate between the two.  The whole world knows of Billy Graham’s works and thus his faith.  Where’s the works that speak toward your “only true” doctrine.


----------



## welderguy

SemperFiDawg said:


> Come on man,  let’s stick with the truth huh?  Quit putting words in my mouth.  That’s nowhere near what I stated, which is plainly stated above.  If we’re gonna have a serious discussion you can’t do this.



Ok. Maybe I misunderstood you. I hope I did. Peace brother.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

gemcgrew said:


> If our standard is the number of "televised evangelical event", I can save us some time.



What about spreading the gospel, sharing the love and grace of Christ, and thus winning souls to Christ?  I expect you can save us some time there also.  

Tell me the truth.  Did you even read the article or research the author of the article you quoted, or did you just post the first “hit” piece you could Google, because I did.  Hint:  you may want to.


----------



## Artfuldodger

NE GA Pappy said:


> so, who is responsible for their actions until they can understand the 'rules'?
> 
> (hint, I would start my search with the term "and all his household')



Then is there some type of universal salvation for everyone who doesn't know the rules? Perhaps all babies who die were of the Elect because of this. They didn't understand the rules. 
Then can we apply this to grown-ups who have never heard? Some say Romans 1:20 tells us they have heard. They may know of God but what about Jesus?

Will the judging be different according to what we know? Will the judging be based on just how we reacted to what we know? 

Dr. Graham says that God can call people out of the world for His name, whether they come from the Muslim world, or the Buddhist world, or the Christian world, or the non-believing world.

So when do people become accountable? I do not know. To many there is know knowledge. To some they just don't understand the knowledge of the Gospel. Their eyes are blind. I think Saul was like this. I think God can let anyone know and can call directly from the Muslim world or a non-believing part of the world. Even Dr. Graham though this and him an evangelist.

I think Dr. Graham was good as saying about things like this and even Heaven or He11, is "we just don't know, scripture doesn't tell us this."


----------



## NE GA Pappy

Art, go look at how sin was treated in the old testament within the confines of the family.  Also look in the NT about salvation coming to an entire household, then look at Pauls writings on household salvation.

I haven't found a comfortable resting place in all this yet, but from what I have read and studied, it seems that the determining factor in whether a child is saved depends on the standing of the male leadership in the household.  

Acts 16:31
They replied, “Believe in the Lord Jesus and you will be saved, you and your household.


----------



## welderguy

Israel said:


> For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.
> 
> 
> http://forum.gon.com/showthread.php...hen+commandment+came+sin+revived+died&page=33



Is Paul not speaking of his conscience regarding his sins before and after the law was "written in his heart" ?

because we know...

Psalm58:3 
3The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.


----------



## welderguy

NE GA Pappy said:


> so, who is responsible for their actions until they can understand the 'rules'?
> 
> (hint, I would start my search with the term "and all his household')



I think I know you better than to believe you are implying that our natural father is responsible for our eternal salvation until we are old enough to save ourselves by our understanding and following of the rules.
Surely you are not saying this.


----------



## Artfuldodger

welderguy said:


> Is Paul not speaking of his conscience regarding his sins before and after the law was "written in his heart" ?
> 
> because we know...
> 
> Psalm58:3
> 3The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.



How can a baby "speak lies?" I guess what you are showing is that the wicked are born wicked and the good are born good. Therefore all babies are not part of the elect. 

What if they never lived long enough to perform their wicked deeds? Would not this mean they were part of the Elect? That all of the babies who died were part of the Elect? That their destiny was to never live long enough to perform wicked deeds. Therefore their destiny was Election.


----------



## welderguy

Artfuldodger said:


> How can a baby "speak lies?" I guess what you are showing is that the wicked are born wicked and the good are born good. Therefore all babies are not part of the elect.
> 
> What if they never lived long enough to perform their wicked deeds? Would not this mean they were part of the Elect? That all of the babies who died were part of the Elect? That their destiny was to never live long enough to perform wicked deeds. Therefore their destiny was Election.



It's saying the state they are in, even while still in the womb is one of wickedness and estrangement.(a foreigner)


----------



## NE GA Pappy

welderguy said:


> I think I know you better than to believe you are implying that our natural father is responsible for our eternal salvation until we are old enough to save ourselves by our understanding and following of the rules.
> Surely you are not saying this.



I think we dismiss the fathers role of leading his household and being responsible for the actions of his household to lightly.

Look at the example in Number 16 of what happened to the household of Korah.  Even his children were consumed for his sin.  Not a sin they committed, but the sins of their father.

31As he finished speaking all these words, the ground that was under them split open; 32and the earth opened its mouth and swallowed them up, and their households, and all the men who belonged to Korah with their possessions. 33So they and all that belonged to them went down alive to Sheol; and the earth closed over them, and they perished from the midst of the assembly.…
New American Standard Bible

The Bible seems to convey the thought that the punishment for sins of one generation can be passed to future generations. 

At Christ's trial, the jews yelled out... His blood be on us and our children.

Another thought... God commanded Joshua to totally wipe out entire cultures.  The men, women,children and even the animals.  What was the purpose of killing 0-12 month old babies?  What sin could they have committed?  They couldn't have died for their own sins, because they weren't old enough to have committed sins purposely.  So who's sin was it.

Christ was asked about a handicapped person... Who sin was it that caused this man to be born this way... His or his fathers?  Christ didn't tell them they were wrong for thinking the sins of the father could be the reason... He said it was so God could receive glory.

Like I said, I haven't reached a comfortable resting spot on this subject, but several examples in the Bible show children punished because the father was not in right standing with God.    There are several examples of salvation coming to an entire household because of the fathers belief. 

If I am ever able to settle this thought process in my own mind, I will let you know, but I have been mulling this over for several years now.   About the only conclusion I can make is that I need to live as close to Christ as I can, be an example to my family, and pray for them daily.   

I am not the judge and I don't know all the facts, so I tend to let God judge , comfortable in know that He is just, merciful, and extends new grace to us every morning.

God be praised


----------



## NE GA Pappy

welderguy said:


> It's saying the state they are in, even while still in the womb is one of wickedness and estrangement.(a foreigner)



So, if they are born in sin, and are born sinners, what is their salvation before they are old enough to understand and comprehend the process?


----------



## SemperFiDawg

NE GA Pappy said:


> So, if they are born in sin, and are born sinners, what is their salvation before they are old enough to understand and comprehend the process?





Watching this intently.  I'm very curious as to what comes of it.  I have my thoughts, but I want to see what others say.


----------



## Artfuldodger

welderguy said:


> It's saying the state they are in, even while still in the womb is one of wickedness and estrangement.(a foreigner)



Isn't it "from the womb?"


----------



## Artfuldodger

I have noticed households saved in the Bible or households punished in the Bible. Nations punished in the Bible and nations rewarded in the Bible. 
That's another one of those things I don't understand. I often wonder if there is scripture alluding to national salvation vs individual salvation.

Why would God destroy a whole town to include the children and the animals of the wicked? 

Yet in the wilderness, didn't God promise that the children could go to the promise land? The adults couldn't but their children could? It's like the children could because they had not done the sins of their fathers?


----------



## NE GA Pappy

Artfuldodger said:


> Yet in the wilderness, didn't God promise that the children could go to the promise land? The adults couldn't but their children could? It's like the children could because they had not done the sins of their fathers?



a great point... and one to ponder.

maybe because the sin was doubt rather than a mortal sin?

I believe that the severity of sin is another topic for another thread however.


----------



## gordon 2

Artfuldodger said:


> I have noticed households saved in the Bible or households punished in the Bible. Nations punished in the Bible and nations rewarded in the Bible.
> That's another one of those things I don't understand. I often wonder if there is scripture alluding to national salvation vs individual salvation.
> 
> Why would God destroy a whole town to include the children and the animals of the wicked?
> 
> Yet in the wilderness, didn't God promise that the children could go to the promise land? The adults couldn't but their children could? It's like the children could because they had not done the sins of their fathers?



My first instinct is that the peoples ( individuals and social groups)  of a nation who put the nation and culture before a wholesome relation with God ( even when they claim to trust in God, but rather trust more into their violent ways of life)  they are in for a rude reckoning at some point, don't care if your a big shot country or a //// hole one.


----------



## Israel

gordon 2 said:


> My first instinct is that the peoples ( individuals and social groups)  of a nation who put the nation and culture before a wholesome relation with God ( even when they claim to trust in God, but rather trust more into their violent ways of life)  they are in for a rude reckoning at some point, down care if your a big shot country or a //// hole one.




Can't count the times, in referring to whatever incident so affects a generation, I have heard the expression "loss of innocence." I think I heard it first, in my own "real time" hearing when Kennedy was shot. But the references to it are manifold, stretching across decades, and now, centuries.

The country in which I presently live has had so many _losses of innocence_ one would either have to suppose that like the promiscuous cheerleader innocence is renewable upon demand or there was resident such a great abundance of innocence in exceeding measure to all others, that this well could be tapped over and over again, without a true and final loss.

I think it's a self flattery, a presumption if you will, that there was ever a _true innocence_ to begin with. It justifies then, what follows the perceived loss _thrust_ upon it. A something has stolen our innocence, and therefore now by right (and excuse) any devolution into suspicions, cynicism and any measures of self preservation (even preemptively) are above reproach. In that sense, I don't think nations are any different than individuals...merely, writ large.

A nation's "ooops, my bad(s)" are confessed to with a sort of naivete born of such. Not unlike, at many times, my own. Nations, perhaps like individuals, are loathe to think of themselves (and their motives) in anything less than the most flattering light. But others? No, their malignity is born of deepest intent to harm, always and only; gladly losing sleep to come up with some new form to do evil.

Perhaps to some this appears as the greatest naivete, a denial of sorts that evil does seek to flourish and must be met with a righteous resistance. I am simply persuaded that if we are to be true, our investigations and resistance to such, should always begin closer to home than we care to admit to our own comfort. Who, in all creation, could possibly give comfort in such an undertaking that appears so absolutely, and unbearably _right_? Who could defend, preserve...uphold...
if not we our own selves, while lost in such occupation?

To what, or to Whom do we acknowledge ultimate authority to discomfit us...that in His time, He would heal us?


----------



## welderguy

NE GA Pappy said:


> I think we dismiss the fathers role of leading his household and being responsible for the actions of his household to lightly.
> 
> Look at the example in Number 16 of what happened to the household of Korah.  Even his children were consumed for his sin.  Not a sin they committed, but the sins of their father.
> 
> 31As he finished speaking all these words, the ground that was under them split open; 32and the earth opened its mouth and swallowed them up, and their households, and all the men who belonged to Korah with their possessions. 33So they and all that belonged to them went down alive to Sheol; and the earth closed over them, and they perished from the midst of the assembly.…
> New American Standard Bible
> 
> The Bible seems to convey the thought that the punishment for sins of one generation can be passed to future generations.
> 
> At Christ's trial, the jews yelled out... His blood be on us and our children.
> 
> Another thought... God commanded Joshua to totally wipe out entire cultures.  The men, women,children and even the animals.  What was the purpose of killing 0-12 month old babies?  What sin could they have committed?  They couldn't have died for their own sins, because they weren't old enough to have committed sins purposely.  So who's sin was it.
> 
> Christ was asked about a handicapped person... Who sin was it that caused this man to be born this way... His or his fathers?  Christ didn't tell them they were wrong for thinking the sins of the father could be the reason... He said it was so God could receive glory.
> 
> Like I said, I haven't reached a comfortable resting spot on this subject, but several examples in the Bible show children punished because the father was not in right standing with God.    There are several examples of salvation coming to an entire household because of the fathers belief.
> 
> If I am ever able to settle this thought process in my own mind, I will let you know, but I have been mulling this over for several years now.   About the only conclusion I can make is that I need to live as close to Christ as I can, be an example to my family, and pray for them daily.
> 
> I am not the judge and I don't know all the facts, so I tend to let God judge , comfortable in know that He is just, merciful, and extends new grace to us every morning.
> 
> God be praised



I appreciate thisâ�«,and I recognize and wholeheartedly agree on the importance of the father's role in leading his family. But, this has nothing to do with eternal salvation. The salvation associated here is of a temporal nature. In other words, good raising can keep a child from all sorts of bad stuff(in this life).

On another note, consider this. The "promised land" of the OT is often thought of as a "type" of heaven. I disagree with this. I see it as a rest. A rest that we " labor to enter into" in this life. It's a pressing into the kingdom, which "is at hand". We must destroy the idols of our heart and herald the King on the throne of our heart. The kingdom(rest) is within us.


----------



## welderguy

NE GA Pappy said:


> So, if they are born in sin, and are born sinners, what is their salvation before they are old enough to understand and comprehend the process?



I believe an unborn child can "hear" the call of the Holy Spirit just as effectually as a highly intelligent adult. Lack of intelligence has no bearing on God's ability to quicken a spiritually dead sinner.

(ie: John the Baptist)


----------



## gordon 2

Israel said:


> Can't count the times, in referring to whatever incident so affects a generation, I have heard the expression "loss of innocence." I think I heard it first, in my own "real time" hearing when Kennedy was shot. But the references to it are manifold, stretching across decades, and now, centuries.
> 
> The country in which I presently live has had so many _losses of innocence_ one would either have to suppose that like the promiscuous cheerleader innocence is renewable upon demand or there was resident such a great abundance of innocence in exceeding measure to all others, that this well could be tapped over and over again, without a true and final loss.
> 
> I think it's a self flattery, a presumption if you will, that there was ever a _true innocence_ to begin with. It justifies then, what follows the perceived loss _thrust_ upon it. A something has stolen our innocence, and therefore now by right (and excuse) any devolution into suspicions, cynicism and any measures of self preservation (even preemptively) are above reproach. In that sense, I don't think nations are any different than individuals...merely, writ large.
> 
> A nation's "ooops, my bad(s)" are confessed to with a sort of naivete born of such. Not unlike, at many times, my own. Nations, perhaps like individuals, are loathe to think of themselves (and their motives) in anything less than the most flattering light. But others? No, their malignity is born of deepest intent to harm, always and only; gladly losing sleep to come up with some new form to do evil.
> 
> Perhaps to some this appears as the greatest naivete, a denial of sorts that evil does seek to flourish and must be met with a righteous resistance. I am simply persuaded that if we are to be true, our investigations and resistance to such, should always begin closer to home than we care to admit to our own comfort. Who, in all creation, could possibly give comfort in such an undertaking that appears so absolutely, and unbearably _right_? Who could defend, preserve...uphold...
> if not we our own selves, while lost in such occupation?
> 
> To what, or to Whom do we acknowledge ultimate authority to discomfit us...that in His time, He would heal us?





Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom.

Now my problem is that what that Spirit is about is not the same  depending on what discomfit u talk to...  and I don't know yet what  or whom to ask why this is so...?


----------



## Artfuldodger

welderguy said:


> I believe an unborn child can "hear" the call of the Holy Spirit just as effectually as a highly intelligent adult. Lack of intelligence has no bearing on God's ability to quicken a spiritually dead sinner.
> 
> (ie: John the Baptist)



I've mentioned this before and not a question we can answer, but in relation to the father of a household or parents of a child, why do you reckon God elects more children of  Elected parents than say non-elect parents?

Billy Graham said that God can call from Muslims, Buddhist, or even a non-believing world. 

Maybe his children from those worlds are as great as they are from the Christian world and we just don't know it. So it may appear that Elect parents produce more Elect children than Muslims but we really don't know for sure.
Heaven may have more Eskimos in it than any other nation. Maybe even India. Might even be Israel. The Potter can have mercy on whom he will have mercy. Election is not based on works, or learning, or even understanding.
Definitely not based on what nation you are from.

This brings me back to nations. Yet you say rewards according to nations is just of a temporal nature such as what children may receive from Christian parents. That there may be a temporal salvation of a certain nation and maybe a temporal punishment of a certain nation. While maybe the children of said punished nation were all of the Elect and received salvation.

In other words there is no greater chance of Christian parents producing Christian children. The only advantage children have of Christian parents is temporal.

Likewise the only blessings a Christian nation has is temporal. Any blessings Israel may have received was temporal. There is no blessing that your child will be called just because you were. No better chance your child will go to Heaven because they have heard the Gospel directly from you. The Hindu has the same chance. Chance definitely not being the correct word.

When it comes from salvation from eternal death, our only hope is God's lottery. Not what nation we live in. Lottery not being the correct word.
Not who God blinded. Not what religion our parents are.
Just like Saul, our only hope can be God has chosen to show us the light. To un-blind us like he did Saul.

Our hope can only be as Israel's hope may be. That God will un-blind us.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

I think there are essentially 3 classes of people on earth.

Those who have heard the gospel and have either accepted or rejected him.  For those who accept him, the blood of Christ atones for their sins.

Those who have never heard of Christ, but are none the less privy to God's 'general revelation'.  Of these, those who have heard and lived by what they know of God and have faith (like Abraham)  have the blood of Christ applied for their sins.  

Those who, either through immature age or mental retardation are not capable of cognititon of the moral law, but are still under condemnation via the original sin and curse of Adam have the blood of Christ applied for their condemnation being son's of Adam.  

What you will notice is that when cognition of the morality is present (the first 2 cases above) the decision and consequences rest solely with the individuals faith decision.

That's my take.  Comments?


----------



## Artfuldodger

Judgement?
Kinda hard to talk about Heaven and He11 without judgement. Judgement seems to be based on actions. Evil actions vs. righteous actions. The separation of the sheep and goats comes to mind. The resurrection. Those who have done good to a resurrection of life. Those who have done evil to a resurrection of condemnation.
So in a way we can divide it all up as saved and unsaved but the 
Bible sometimes divides it up as between the good and evil.

Yet we know that salvation isn't based on ones actions of good or evil. If that was the way it was there would be lots of Hindus and Buddhist in Heaven based on their actions and not their awakening by the Holy Spirit. Yet they have received some kind of "light" that makes them good compared to evil.

Which brings me back to children or retarded people or people who have never heard the gospel. Somehow something must be related to our actions as well as what we believe.

There has to be some relation to our actions and our judgement.


----------



## Artfuldodger

SemperFiDawg said:


> Those who have never heard of Christ, but are none the less privy to God's 'general revelation'.  Of these, those who have heard and lived by what they know of God and have faith (like Abraham)  have the blood of Christ applied for their sins.
> 
> That's my take.  Comments?



In this group, what about the ones who haven't heard? Such as Native Americans 1,000 years ago? Individuals that believe in God and try to please him by good actions. They worship him and praise him. They live a peaceful life and help others. They forgive their trespassers.


----------



## NE GA Pappy

welderguy said:


> I appreciate thisâ�«,and I recognize and wholeheartedly agree on the importance of the father's role in leading his family. But, this has nothing to do with eternal salvation.



I am not sure that I would agree with this statement.  

Let me try to explain where I am coming from, and the struggle I have with this entire thought process.

1.  The presumption that everyone has salvation from the day of conception until the day they can comprehend good/evil.

2.  The presumption that the authority that was given to Adam as the moral leader of his family has somehow diminished and no longer applies to current day fathers.

Here is some of my thoughts and concerns.  I am not trying to sway anyone to my beliefs, just putting out there for consideration and correction if I am wrong.

God created this world, and had all authority over everything.  All of creation. Heaven, earth, solar system, and universe, He held all authority.    When he created all the animals, plants and such, He continued to hold the authority, but when He created Adam and Eve, He gave His authority over living things to Adam.  
Gen 1:28
 Then God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”

Adam was given the law directly from God.  Pretty simple, don't eat of one tree or you will die. It was Adam's responsibility to teach this law to Eve and to their children.  Somewhere along the way, Adam screwed up his teaching to Eve, because when Satan appeared to her, she believed the lie, rather than the truth God had given Adam.  She did this even though she and Adam walked in the garden daily with God.  She bought the lie. And she convinced Adam to buy into the lie also.   The entire purpose of Satan in this situation was to deceive Adam and deform the authority that God had given to them.

We know this authority over earth returned to Jesus when he resurrected from the grave.  Matt 28:18  And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth."

The authority line runs like this   God - Adam - Adams family.  We as fathers carry this authority now.  God has given each father the authority and responsibility to teach his family. 

Deut 4:9-10  "Only give heed to yourself and keep your soul diligently, so that you do not forget the things which your eyes have seen and they do not depart from your heart all the days of your life; but make them known to your sons and your grandsons. 10"Remember the day you stood before the LORD your God at Horeb, when the LORD said to me, 'Assemble the people to Me, that I may let them hear My words so they may learn to fear Me all the days they live on the earth, and that they may teach their children.'…

Plainly, fathers are given the authority to be the leader that points their offspring to God.  Deut 11:19  Teach them to your children, talking about them when you sit at home and when you walk along the road, when you lie down and when you get up.

Just as God held Adam responsible for teaching his family, he holds each father responsible for teaching his family.   Now, since God holds me responsible for teaching this, how does this affect my children before they become responsible for their own sins?  This is where I begin to struggle.   God condemned all of Adams family because of Adam's sin.  Cain and Able had not sinned of and by themselves.  They receive the punishment for a sin committed by Adam.  The Curse.  Death.  God condemned not only Adam's offspring, but all of creation for one sin. 

There are numerous accounts in the Bible where entire families were destroyed because of the sin of the father.  There are multiple accounts where God commanded that every living soul of a nation be destroyed because of sin.

There are also multiple accounts where the Bible says the entire household was saved because of the repentance of the father.  

So..... my struggle in a nut shell.....If God declared all of creation cursed because of Adams sin, and God dealt the punishment of Adam's sin to his children and cursed them, and God punished entire nations, every living creature including livestock, because of the sins of the fathers, why doesn't God judge my children by the sins of their father?


----------



## Artfuldodger

1 Corinthians 7:14
For the Christian wife brings holiness to her marriage, and the Christian husband brings holiness to his marriage. Otherwise, your children would not be holy, but now they are holy.

Holy but not saved? 

Makes me wonder about the children of the unbelievers during the Flood, Sodom and Gomorrah. Not holy but saved?


----------



## NE GA Pappy

Artfuldodger said:


> 1 Corinthians 7:14
> For the Christian wife brings holiness to her marriage, and the Christian husband brings holiness to his marriage. Otherwise, your children would not be holy, but now they are holy.
> 
> Holy but not saved?
> 
> Makes me wonder about the children of the unbelievers during the Flood, Sodom and Gomorrah. Were these children holy?



isn't something that is declared holy totally accepted by God?  So if the children are holy, aren't they accepted by God as pure and undefiled?


----------



## Artfuldodger

NE GA Pappy said:


> isn't something that is declared holy totally accepted by God?  So if the children are holy, aren't they accepted by God as pure and undefiled?



Could it be they are holy until a certain age? Hey, I'm with you on the struggle of this issue. If it's mentioned that "otherwise they are not holy" in 1 Corinthians 7:14, then they must not have been. Regardless of their age.

So one could be saved as a child, as some see it, and lose this salvation later when they become an adult. Even a child of a Muslim parent. He would be saved until he started believing in Allah. Then he would loose his salvation.
But 1 Corinthians 7:14 says they were not holy because of their parents unbelief.

Hard questions.

Back to Sodom and Gomorrah, all of those kids losing their salvation because of their parents per 1 Corinthians 7:14.  Yet Lot's two daughter's get to escape the city. They don't appear to be the best of Godly individuals but make it out on the faith of their Father? 

Leviticus 26:43-45
They will pay for their sins because they rejected my laws and abhorred my decrees. Yet in spite of this, when they are in the land of their enemies, I will not reject them or abhor them so as to destroy them completely, breaking my covenant with them. I am the Lord their God. But for their sake I will remember the covenant with their ancestors whom I brought out of Egypt in the sight of the nations to be their God. 

Nations? They get punished but God still shows mercy. Some get destroyed depending on their actions. Some receive mercy depending on their genealogy.

Does God show mercy to the families and descendants of righteous people? Sometimes even if those descendants aren't righteous.


----------



## NE GA Pappy

Artfuldodger said:


> Does God show mercy to the families and descendants of righteous people? Sometimes even if those descendants aren't righteous.



you betcha He does.  The blessings of God can flow down generations just like the curses do.  

Example.... the children of Joseph's brothers... God certainly blessed those children with food and shelter during a severe drought, and their parents were certainly not righteous.  

They had lied to Jacob, sold their brother into slavery and kept up the deceit for something around 20 to 25 years before it was revealed.   Yet the brothers and their families received the blessings because of Jacob and Joseph.


----------



## NE GA Pappy

Artfuldodger said:


> Could it be they are holy until a certain age? Hey, I'm with you on the struggle of this issue. If it's mentioned that "otherwise they are not holy" in 1 Corinthians 7:14, then they must not have been. Regardless of their age.
> 
> So one could be saved as a child, as some see it, and lose this salvation later when they become an adult.




This is part of my struggle also.... How can they be holy in and of themselves or some action on their part.  It can't be.  They are infants and babies that can't repent, or change their actions.  They have to grow and learn.  So, from where does their redemption grow?  

According to this scripture, it seems that they are covered because of the repentance and faith of their father until the time that they are capable of making the moral decisions that they face.  It looks to me like the punishment for sins flow downward to the children, and the forgiveness of sins flow downward to the children depending on the status of the father.

Man, that is some sure 'nuff serious stuff.   If this thought process is correct, then the children of unrepentant fathers are condemned.   A big, big struggle for me.

but, didn't God condemn Cain and Able because of Adam's sin?


----------



## SemperFiDawg

Artfuldodger said:


> In this group, what about the ones who haven't heard? Such as Native Americans 1,000 years ago? Individuals that believe in God and try to please him by good actions. They worship him and praise him. They live a peaceful life and help others. They forgive their trespassers.



THAT is why only an all knowing God can judge.  They are still responsible for general revelation and only he can possible know and judge.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

NE GA Pappy said:


> I am not sure that I would agree with this statement.
> 
> Let me try to explain where I am coming from, and the struggle I have with this entire thought process.
> 
> 1.  The presumption that everyone has salvation from the day of conception until the day they can comprehend good/evil.
> 
> 2.  The presumption that the authority that was given to Adam as the moral leader of his family has somehow diminished and no longer applies to current day fathers.
> 
> Here is some of my thoughts and concerns.  I am not trying to sway anyone to my beliefs, just putting out there for consideration and correction if I am wrong.
> 
> God created this world, and had all authority over everything.  All of creation. Heaven, earth, solar system, and universe, He held all authority.    When he created all the animals, plants and such, He continued to hold the authority, but when He created Adam and Eve, He gave His authority over living things to Adam.
> Gen 1:28
> Then God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”
> 
> Adam was given the law directly from God.  Pretty simple, don't eat of one tree or you will die. It was Adam's responsibility to teach this law to Eve and to their children.  Somewhere along the way, Adam screwed up his teaching to Eve, because when Satan appeared to her, she believed the lie, rather than the truth God had given Adam.  She did this even though she and Adam walked in the garden daily with God.  She bought the lie. And she convinced Adam to buy into the lie also.   The entire purpose of Satan in this situation was to deceive Adam and deform the authority that God had given to them.
> 
> We know this authority over earth returned to Jesus when he resurrected from the grave.  Matt 28:18  And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth."
> 
> The authority line runs like this   God - Adam - Adams family.  We as fathers carry this authority now.  God has given each father the authority and responsibility to teach his family.
> 
> Deut 4:9-10  "Only give heed to yourself and keep your soul diligently, so that you do not forget the things which your eyes have seen and they do not depart from your heart all the days of your life; but make them known to your sons and your grandsons. 10"Remember the day you stood before the LORD your God at Horeb, when the LORD said to me, 'Assemble the people to Me, that I may let them hear My words so they may learn to fear Me all the days they live on the earth, and that they may teach their children.'…
> 
> Plainly, fathers are given the authority to be the leader that points their offspring to God.  Deut 11:19  Teach them to your children, talking about them when you sit at home and when you walk along the road, when you lie down and when you get up.
> 
> Just as God held Adam responsible for teaching his family, he holds each father responsible for teaching his family.   Now, since God holds me responsible for teaching this, how does this affect my children before they become responsible for their own sins?  This is where I begin to struggle.   God condemned all of Adams family because of Adam's sin.  Cain and Able had not sinned of and by themselves.  They receive the punishment for a sin committed by Adam.  The Curse.  Death.  God condemned not only Adam's offspring, but all of creation for one sin.
> 
> There are numerous accounts in the Bible where entire families were destroyed because of the sin of the father.  There are multiple accounts where God commanded that every living soul of a nation be destroyed because of sin.
> 
> There are also multiple accounts where the Bible says the entire household was saved because of the repentance of the father.
> 
> So..... my struggle in a nut shell.....If God declared all of creation cursed because of Adams sin, and God dealt the punishment of Adam's sin to his children and cursed them, and God punished entire nations, every living creature including livestock, because of the sins of the fathers, *why doesn't God judge my children by the sins of their father?*



Regarding your very last sentence:

Pappy are you referring to children who are mature enough to be cognizant of the moral law, children who aren't or both?

I ask in the context of what Ezekiel 18 says.  I won't cut and paste because it's extensive, but please review it and let me know.  Thanks.


----------



## Israel

There's an excellent _teaching tool_ found here.

As in all the Lord's_ word_ it is simply too marvelous in the way it works.

Just when we think we can go no farther...


Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.


We can all take that as very far as we can, and none of us can then boast...for what remains...remains for all.


----------



## gordon 2

The problem with individual sin is that it is not individual in influence. People are social. Social nurture is powerful to the point that it can instill as a  value from a premise of evil and call it of God's righteousness.

Isaiah 5:20 Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.

1 Corinthians 15:33 - Be not deceived: evil communications corrupt good manners.

 Conversely an evil generation can be turned to good by the deeds of one good (faithful and positive) individual.

Proverbs 4:27 - Turn not to the right hand nor to the left: remove thy foot from evil.

Caleb saw opportunity to overcome. And Joshua warned of and refused a rebel, against the Lord, with deed.


----------



## NE GA Pappy

SemperFiDawg said:


> Regarding your very last sentence:
> 
> Pappy are you referring to children who are mature enough to be cognizant of the moral law, children who aren't or both?
> 
> I ask in the context of what Ezekiel 18 says.  I won't cut and paste because it's extensive, but please review it and let me know.  Thanks.




I am speaking of immature children, ones that are not able to understand the meaning of sin.

The one that are old enough to understand are certainly responsible for their own sins / repentance/ relationship with God.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

NE GA Pappy said:


> I am speaking of immature children, ones that are not able to understand the meaning of sin.
> 
> The one that are old enough to understand are certainly responsible for their own sins / repentance/ relationship with God.




OK.  Gotcha.  I think you answered your own question.  I'm not sure I buy everything you stated, but if you believe that.



> 2. The presumption that the authority that was given to Adam as the moral leader of his family has somehow diminished and no longer applies to current day fathers.





> So..... my struggle in a nut shell.....If God declared all of creation cursed because of Adams sin, and God dealt the punishment of Adam's sin to his children and cursed them, and God punished entire nations, every living creature including livestock, because of the sins of the fathers, why doesn't God judge my children by the sins of their father?



In light of this:



> We know this authority over earth returned to Jesus when he resurrected from the grave. Matt 28:18 And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth."



Shouldn't this:



> The authority line runs like this God - Adam - Adams family.



actually read:



> The authority line runs like this God - Adam - Adams family - *Christ Jesus*


?

And if so wouldn't this:



> We as fathers carry this authority now.



be an incorrect assumption?  

But the answer to this question



> why doesn't God judge my children by the sins of their father?



is readily apparent: the authority rest with Christ, not you.

BTW, I agree with your first presumption and also feel it is the DUTY of the father to lead his family to Christ.  I don't know that I disagree with anything you stated, just have never thought about it that in-depth.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

On the lighter side

Billy Graham Converts Thousands To Christ While Waiting In Line To Get Into Heaven

http://babylonbee.com/news/billy-graham-converts-thousands-christ-waiting-line-get-heaven

And this is very appropriate for this thread.

Man Criticizing Billy Graham Has Never Preached Gospel One Single Time.  Looking at you Gem.

http://babylonbee.com/news/man-criticizing-billy-graham-never-preached-gospel-one-single-time/


----------



## Israel

SemperFiDawg said:


> On the lighter side
> 
> Billy Graham Converts Thousands To Christ While Waiting In Line To Get Into Heaven
> 
> http://babylonbee.com/news/billy-graham-converts-thousands-christ-waiting-line-get-heaven
> 
> And this is very appropriate for this thread.
> 
> Man Criticizing Billy Graham Has Never Preached Gospel One Single Time.  Looking at you Gem.
> 
> http://babylonbee.com/news/man-criticizing-billy-graham-never-preached-gospel-one-single-time/




That's odd. To make the assumption that GEM (or any other on this board) has never done that.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

Israel said:


> That's odd. To make the assumption that GEM (or any other on this board) has never done that.



Post 29

Brother Gem's quote.  



> "Similar to the cults of our generation, Dr. Graham has employed terminology concerning he11 that is familiar to the Scriptures, but he utilizes a different dictionary. In redefining this vital Bible doctrine, Billy Graham has declared his allegiance with the blasphemous apostasy of our day."



They're others by other posters.  You just have to read the thread.


----------



## Israel

Oh.  It just appeared to me that GEM was being "looked at" as one never having shared the gospel "One Single Time".


----------



## hobbs27

If a chicken has a spot of blood on it, other chickens will peck and attack it until it's dead. Unfortunately Christians behave in this manner too.


----------



## NE GA Pappy

hobbs27 said:


> If a chicken has a spot of blood on it, other chickens will peck and attack it until it's dead. Unfortunately Christians behave in this manner too.



I was told once that Chrisitains are the only army that kills its wounded.


----------



## gemcgrew

SemperFiDawg said:


> Looking at you Gem.


SF, if you need help refuting the article, just say so. Attacking me, the Author of the article or the website, does not refute the article.


----------



## NE GA Pappy

SemperFiDawg said:


> OK.  Gotcha.  I think you answered your own question.  I'm not sure I buy everything you stated, but if you believe that.
> 
> BTW, I agree with your first presumption and also feel it is the DUTY of the father to lead his family to Christ.  I don't know that I disagree with anything you stated, just have never thought about it that in-depth.



So, If you believe this, then what is the method of salvation for those infants and small children who can't made their own decisions?

Are all children conceived and born in holiness and have no sin? And when they understand the sin/repentance process, all the back sins are recognized and charged to them?

Or are all children conceived and born in sin, but have Christ's forgiveness imputed to them until the day they can understand the sin/repentance process.

Or  are all children conceived and born in sin, but God has some other method of viewing them and their sins?  Just as God views my sins thru the lens of Christ blood and mercy?

BTW, I am not really interested in opinions on this subject.  I am interested in what God and scripture says about the subject.  After all, Scripture is the only truth we have in this world.


----------



## welderguy

NE GA Pappy said:


> So, If you believe this, then what is the method of salvation for those infants and small children who can't made their own decisions?
> 
> Are all children conceived and born in holiness and have no sin? And when they understand the sin/repentance process, all the back sins are recognized and charged to them?
> 
> Or are all children conceived and born in sin, but have Christ's forgiveness imputed to them until the day they can understand the sin/repentance process.
> 
> Or  are all children conceived and born in sin, but God has some other method of viewing them and their sins?  Just as God views my sins thru the lens of Christ blood and mercy?
> 
> BTW, I am not really interested in opinions on this subject.  I am interested in what God and scripture says about the subject.  After all, Scripture is the only truth we have in this world.



Gal.3:22
22 But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe

Rom.3:10
10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:

Rom.3:23
 23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;


----------



## Artfuldodger

Acts 16:31
They replied, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved--you and your household."

1 Corinthians 7:14
For the Christian wife brings holiness to her marriage, and the Christian husband brings holiness to his marriage. Otherwise, your children would not be holy, but now they are holy.

With these two verses plus the ones Welder posted, I'd say even little children are doomed, unless their Fathers are saved.

The question I have is what happens when they become men? Is the salvation granted them for being the children of Christians taken away?

1 Corinthians 7:14 tells us there are children out there that are not holy. Based on this verse not all children are saved if being holy means salvation.


----------



## Artfuldodger

Acts 11:14                                                                                           He will bring you a message through which you and all your household will be saved.

John 4:53
Then the father realized that this was the very hour in which Jesus had told him, "Your son will live." And he and all his household believed.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

NE GA Pappy said:


> So, If you believe this, then what is the method of salvation for those infants and small children who can't made their own decisions?
> 
> Are all children conceived and born in holiness and have no sin? And when they understand the sin/repentance process, all the back sins are recognized and charged to them?
> 
> Or are all children conceived and born in sin, but have Christ's forgiveness imputed to them until the day they can understand the sin/repentance process.
> 
> Or  are all children conceived and born in sin, but God has some other method of viewing them and their sins?  Just as God views my sins thru the lens of Christ blood and mercy?
> 
> BTW, I am not really interested in opinions on this subject.  I am interested in what God and scripture says about the subject.  After all, Scripture is the only truth we have in this world.



Sorry Pappy, but there is no scripture that clearly delineates this subject that I am aware of.  Sooooo speculation is pretty much the best you are gonna get.
Personally I believe very similar to this:



> ....all children are conceived and born in sin, but have Christ's forgiveness imputed to them until the day they can understand the sin/repentance process.



I think Adam's sin (original sin) is imparted to all people, but that one is not held accountable for personal sin until
one is cognizant of the moral law of God.  For those who never reach this stage of development due to age or mental defects, I can only believe that a loving and merciful God who sees all applies Christ's sacrifice toward their original sin.  Again, I'm at a loss to 'prove' this via scripture.  We do know that Christ's sacrifice was enough to pay the debt for everyones sin, and we know that God is able to apply that atonement to whom he choses.  Based on this I can only assume that this is what is done in those cases.

I can only point to Romans 4:15

Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression

and 5:12

12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned—
13 To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law.


----------



## Artfuldodger

There are also countless verses where God kills the children in wicked cities and nations. I guess we could assume the children were holy from ignorance. Maybe God did it to punish the grownups and the children go to heaven.
David did say that he would see his son again one day.

Psalm 137:9
Happy is the one who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks.

1 Samuel 15:2-3 
Thus says the Lord of hosts, ‘I have noted what Amalek did to Israel in opposing them on the way when they came up out of Egypt. Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.’”


----------



## NE GA Pappy

welderguy said:


> Gal.3:22
> 22 But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe
> 
> Rom.3:10
> 10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
> 
> Rom.3:23
> 23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;



how does this relate?  Gal3:22 plainly doesn't apply since the children are not old enough or have the IQ to believe

Rom 3:10.. I totally agree, no one is righteous, but how does this apply to salvation for infants and babies?

the same applies to Rom 3:10.. I agree, but how does it apply?


----------



## NE GA Pappy

Artfuldodger said:


> Acts 16:31
> They replied, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved--you and your household."
> 
> 1 Corinthians 7:14
> For the Christian wife brings holiness to her marriage, and the Christian husband brings holiness to his marriage. Otherwise, your children would not be holy, but now they are holy.
> 
> With these two verses plus the ones Welder posted, I'd say even little children are doomed, unless their Fathers are saved.
> 
> The question I have is what happens when they become men? Is the salvation granted them for being the children of Christians taken away?
> 
> 1 Corinthians 7:14 tells us there are children out there that are not holy. Based on this verse not all children are saved if being holy means salvation.




See, this is where I struggle.  These are questions I haven't totally worked out in my mind.


----------



## NE GA Pappy

SemperFi,

I haven't found any scripture that would relate that God has forgiven the imputed sins of a child, except the verses that say if the father is saved, his household is saved, and the scripture about the offspring being holy if the parents are holy.  

I don't find anything that offers any proof of what I was taught and believed for years and years - that a child was automatically ushered straight into heaven because they are innocent.  Yet the scriptures say that all have sinned... and in iniquity we are conceived and in iniquity we are born.  

So, I am left with the dilemma where I began this conversation.  I can't be sure that salvation is granted to infants and babies from scripture, yet that is what I wish to believe.  It is much more comfortable to believe that God grants immunity to them than to believe that they may be judged guilty because of the actions of their fathers. But some scriptures do seem to lead down that pathway. 

At this point all I can do is recognize that Gods ways are above my way, and Gods thoughts are above my thoughts.  Faith and trust in His promises and decrees is the only thing I can cling to, and that must be sufficient.

I would love to have someone educate me to the point I can be comfortable with this topic, but it seems this topic is one where the answers are not clear


----------



## hobbs27

That's a tough one for folks that believe in one of two outcomes.  Eternal life in heaven or eternal life in torments.  I'm glad I don't have to consider that as the options.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

NE GA Pappy said:


> SemperFi,
> 
> I haven't found any scripture that would relate that God has forgiven the imputed sins of a child, except the verses that say if the father is saved, his household is saved, and the scripture about the offspring being holy if the parents are holy.
> 
> I don't find anything that offers any proof of what I was taught and believed for years and years - that a child was automatically ushered straight into heaven because they are innocent.  Yet the scriptures say that all have sinned... and in iniquity we are conceived and in iniquity we are born.
> 
> So, I am left with the dilemma where I began this conversation.  I can't be sure that salvation is granted to infants and babies from scripture, yet that is what I wish to believe.  It is much more comfortable to believe that God grants immunity to them than to believe that they may be judged guilty because of the actions of their fathers. But some scriptures do seem to lead down that pathway.
> 
> At this point all I can do is recognize that Gods ways are above my way, and Gods thoughts are above my thoughts.  Faith and trust in His promises and decrees is the only thing I can cling to, and that must be sufficient.
> 
> I would love to have someone educate me to the point I can be comfortable with this topic, but it seems this topic is one where the answers are not clear



What do you think about Romans 4 and 5 I mentioned above.  It doesn't mention children specifically, but do you think it's wrong to infer that they fall under the context of what Paul is speaking of here?


----------



## welderguy

NE GA Pappy said:


> how does this relate?  Gal3:22 plainly doesn't apply since the children are not old enough or have the IQ to believe
> 
> Rom 3:10.. I totally agree, no one is righteous, but how does this apply to salvation for infants and babies?
> 
> the same applies to Rom 3:10.. I agree, but how does it apply?



Are you suggesting that John did not believe when he lept for joy in his mother's womb at the salutation of Mary/Jesus?


----------



## NE GA Pappy

SemperFiDawg said:


> What do you think about Romans 4 and 5 I mentioned above.  It doesn't mention children specifically, but do you think it's wrong to infer that they fall under the context of what Paul is speaking of here?



but we have the law, therefore we recognize sin.  

I don't think you can say that children fall under this heading.  If that where so, it would seem the best way to make sure that everyone possible ended up in heaven would be to quit telling anyone about the gospel.

Ignorance is bliss... or in this case ignorance is salvation.

this seems to fall in the I hope it's so category rather than I believe category to me.


----------



## NE GA Pappy

welderguy said:


> Are you suggesting that John did not believe when he lept for joy in his mother's womb at the salutation of Mary/Jesus?



What did John believe at this point, and was John offered salvation before birth?

Sure the scripture speaks of John leaping for joy when Mary entered the room.  We all would probably leap for joy if we were in the same room as Christ.  But does this mean John was offered and accepted salvation or that all children are offered and accept salvation before birth?


----------



## gemcgrew

NE GA Pappy said:


> What did John believe at this point, and was John offered salvation before birth?
> 
> Sure the scripture speaks of John leaping for joy when Mary entered the room.  We all would probably leap for joy if we were in the same room as Christ.  But does this mean John was offered and accepted salvation or that all children are offered and accept salvation before birth?


"For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb."


----------



## NE GA Pappy

gemcgrew said:


> "For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb."



isn't this scripture applied to John only, or does it apply to all children?

If all children are saved before/after birth, wouldn't it be best if they died in infancy? 

If all children are innocent and blameless, why is it a bad thing for them to be aborted?  isn't that a way to insure they reach heaven?  After all, if they grew up to be unbelievers they wouldn't go to heaven.  

Something doesn't add up here


----------



## Artfuldodger

hobbs27 said:


> That's a tough one for folks that believe in one of two outcomes.  Eternal life in heaven or eternal life in torments.  I'm glad I don't have to consider that as the options.



Why is it easier for someone who believes the unsaved die when they die? Wouldn't you wonder if you had a child to die at an early age if they had everlasting life?


----------



## gemcgrew

NE GA Pappy said:


> isn't this scripture applied to John only, or does it apply to all children?


Your question was regarding John. I am not applying it to all children.


NE GA Pappy said:


> If all children are saved before/after birth, wouldn't it be best if they died in infancy?


That is a big "if", but it is best that they die at their appointed time. 


NE GA Pappy said:


> If all children are innocent and blameless, why is it a bad thing for them to be aborted?  isn't that a way to insure they reach heaven?  After all, if they grew up to be unbelievers they wouldn't go to heaven.
> 
> Something doesn't add up here


Murder is wrong.

Scripture does not show much interest in this topic. We probably shouldn't either.

God's purpose according to election will stand.


----------



## Artfuldodger

NE GA Pappy said:


> but we have the law, therefore we recognize sin.
> 
> I don't think you can say that children fall under this heading.  If that where so, it would seem the best way to make sure that everyone possible ended up in heaven would be to quit telling anyone about the gospel.
> 
> Ignorance is bliss... or in this case ignorance is salvation.
> 
> this seems to fall in the I hope it's so category rather than I believe category to me.



That's something I've thought of as well. If children or retarded people are granted salvation based on ignorance then what about all the people who haven't heard of Jesus? Even if they know God, they don't know Jesus.
Jesus is the only way.

Side note; I believe Romans 1:20 is about Israel. They knew God and didn't worship him.
The reason I believe this is because they "exchanged" the worship of God for that of idols.
This passage is not related to Native Americans. God didn't give Native Americans up to the desires of their hearts.


----------



## Artfuldodger

welderguy said:


> Are you suggesting that John did not believe when he lept for joy in his mother's womb at the salutation of Mary/Jesus?



Why is it that all of God's elect don't have an effectual calling from the womb or even as a toddler? I've seen more effectual callings of teenagers and adults than infants.
I do realize this is up to God giving John and Jesus as examples as being called from the womb.

1 Corinthians 7:14
For the Christian wife brings holiness to her marriage, and the Christian husband brings holiness to his marriage. Otherwise, your children would not be holy, but now they are holy.

Do you see this verse as a key as to why God appears to call children of the elect more than say Muslim children?


----------



## NE GA Pappy

gemcgrew said:


> Scripture does not show much interest in this topic. We probably shouldn't either.
> 
> God's purpose according to election will stand.



I am not sure this solves anything.  Ignoring a valid question because scripture doesn't 'show much interest' in the subject seems dangerous to me.

God's purpose will always stand.  I am not sure I believe in election as to people having no choice in the matter.


----------



## gemcgrew

Artfuldodger said:


> Jesus is the only way.


Not according to Billy Graham(this is a Billy Graham thread). Paul said that the believer has the mind of Christ. Billy said that the believer does not even have to be conscious of Christ.


----------



## Artfuldodger

Another example, Samson;

Judges 13:15
You will become pregnant and give birth to a son, and his hair must never be cut. For he will be dedicated to God as a Nazirite from birth. He will begin to rescue Israel from the Philistines."

His effectual calling was at birth.


----------



## gemcgrew

NE GA Pappy said:


> I am not sure this solves anything.  Ignoring a valid question because scripture doesn't 'show much interest' in the subject seems dangerous to me.
> 
> God's purpose will always stand.  I am not sure I believe in election as to people having no choice in the matter.


I am not ignoring the question. When our fist baby was miscarried, this topic weighed heavy on me. I searched and searched and searched for a definitive answer on the matter.

The end result was trusting God.


----------



## Artfuldodger

gemcgrew said:


> Not according to Billy Graham(this is a Billy Graham thread). Paul said that the believer has the mind of Christ. Billy said that the believer does not even have to be conscious of Christ.



I think he said they may not know the name of Jesus. He said "they are members of the Body of Christ because they have been called by God."
Isn't that how election works? God can call from the Muslim community? You can't make it to every person in the Muslim community but God can call from it his Elect.


----------



## gemcgrew

Artfuldodger said:


> I think he said they may not know the name of Jesus. He said "they are members of the Body of Christ because they have been called by God."
> Isn't that how election works? God can call from the Muslim community? You can't make it to every person in the Muslim community but God can call from it his Elect.


God draws them to Christ.


----------



## Artfuldodger

If one "knows" God, and they would have to be called in order to "know" God , then surely they would "know" Jesus since they are one in the same. 
So when God calls an Eskimo, he knows Jesus by knowing God.


----------



## Artfuldodger

gemcgrew said:


> God draws them to Christ.



I would agree, did Noah "know" Jesus?


----------



## NE GA Pappy

gemcgrew said:


> I am not ignoring the question. When our fist baby was miscarried, this topic weighed heavy on me. I searched and searched and searched for a definitive answer on the matter.
> 
> The end result was trusting God.



I am sorry for you loss Gem.  Miscarriage has affected my nephews family also, and then they lost a baby boy at 5 days of age from trisomy 13.    It is a very difficult thing, and I am not sure how a family can endure it without trusting that God is in control and that He has everything under control.  

I have found thru my own life and that of my family that God is enough.  When times are good, He is enough. When times are bad, He is enough.  His mercy is new every morning, and His grace is sufficient for me.


----------



## welderguy

Artfuldodger said:


> I would agree, did Noah "know" Jesus?



Yes 

John14:6 
6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

NE GA Pappy said:


> but we have the law, therefore we recognize sin.



“We” , you and I have the law because we are competent enough to comprehend it.  People NOT competent to do this don’t have it.  I think that’s what (in part) Paul was speaking to in Romans 4-5.

Guess we disagree on this one.  I couldn’t hold someone who’s not mentally/devolpmentally competent to comprehend the Law responsible for keeping it, and God is infinitely more loving and merciful than me.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

NE GA Pappy said:


> I am not sure I believe in election as to people having no choice in the matter.



One thing is for sure regarding election, we have enough free will to be culpable before God.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

hobbs27 said:


> That's a tough one for folks that believe in one of two outcomes.  Eternal life in heaven or eternal life in torments.  I'm glad I don't have to consider that as the options.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

NE GA Pappy said:


> Ignorance is bliss... or in this case ignorance is salvation.



I think this is true only where it pertains to the incompetent persons, again the unborn, mentally deficient, and children not “of age”.  Those who have not heard of the Gospel of Christ but not one of the above are still culpable for General Revelation according to Roman’s 1.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

gemcgrew said:


> Billy said that the believer does not even have to be conscious of Christ.



Again, a quote, in context, with a source/link would be appreciated.  Paul said the same thing regarding Abraham and his faith.  Was this the same context?  If so was Paul wrong?  If not, in what context was he speaking?   

I GET the fact that you don’t care for Billy Graham’s theology, I just haven’t found anything that you state about it true.   That’s a problem.


----------



## Artfuldodger

SemperFiDawg said:


> I think this is true only where it pertains to the incompetent persons, again the unborn, mentally deficient, and children not “of age”.  Those who have not heard of the Gospel of Christ but not one of the above are still culpable for General Revelation according to Roman’s 1.




I think you may have stated how God will judge those that are ignorant of the Law just from having a general revelation only as per Romans 1. Such as Native Americans born 2,000 years ago. 
What is your feelings on this aspect of not being competent enough to understand the Law? In a way they are not mentally competent enough to understand fully.

How do you see 1 Corinthians 7:14 in relation to the children of Sodom? 

For the Christian wife brings holiness to her marriage, and the Christian husband brings holiness to his marriage. Otherwise, your children would not be holy, but now they are holy.


----------



## Artfuldodger

Artfuldodger quote; Originally Posted by Artfuldodger View Post
I would agree, did Noah "know" Jesus?



welderguy said:


> Yes
> 
> John14:6
> 6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.



Then when God calls one of his elect as Dr Graham suggest from the Muslim or Buddhist world, this person would be aware of Christ in the same way Noah was aware of Christ.

But what you and Gem are saying is that they would be aware of Christ at their effectual calling. Graham said they wouldn't be conscious of Jesus before this effectual calling. 
I'm pretty sure that after their effectual calling they were aware just as Noah was made aware. Either that or they knew Christ because they knew God.


----------



## gemcgrew

SemperFiDawg said:


> One thing is for sure regarding election, we have enough free will to be culpable before God.


God has determined to judge us.

We are culpable because we are not free.


----------



## gemcgrew

SemperFiDawg said:


> Again, a quote, in context, with a source/link would be appreciated. Paul said the same thing regarding Abraham and his faith.


I see you.


SemperFiDawg said:


> I GET the fact that you don’t care for Billy Graham’s theology, I just haven’t found anything that you state about it true.   That’s a problem.


I don't care for Billy Graham. I do praise God for men like Charles Finney, Billy Graham, etc.

God used them in a powerful way.


----------



## NE GA Pappy

SemperFiDawg said:


> I couldn’t hold someone who’s not mentally/devolpmentally competent to comprehend the Law responsible for keeping it, and God is infinitely more loving and merciful than me.



So children, conceived and born in sin, are given a free pass until they are old enough to understand the gospel, but there is no mention or teaching on this in the entire Bible.  

Yet we have some scripture that seem to say their salvation is dependent on the fathers standing before God, yet that can't be true.

Strange.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

NE GA Pappy said:


> So children, conceived and born in sin, are given a free pass until they are old enough to understand the gospel, but there is no mention or teaching on this in the entire Bible.



Again, I see Romans 4-5 addressing this.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

C.S. Lewis put it this way



> "Here is another thing which used to puzzle me. Is it not frightfully unfair that this new life should be confined to people who have heard of Christ and been able to believe in Him? But the truth is God has not told us what His arrangements about the other people are. We do know that no man can be saved except through Christ [see: John 14:6]; we do not know that only those who know Him can be saved through Him."


----------



## NE GA Pappy

SemperFiDawg said:


> Again, I see Romans 4-5 addressing this.



I am guessing you meant Rom 4:15 that you referenced a few pages back.

If you look at it in context, is it saying that lacking knowledge of the law results in no sin?

I think, rather it is saying that faith is the necessary ingredient of salvation, rather than knowledge of the law.
It is necessary for 14 and 15 to be read together as one sentence


13 For the promise that he would be the heir of the world was not to Abraham or to his seed through the law, but through the righteousness of faith. 14 For if those who are of the law are heirs, faith is made void and the promise made of no effect, 15 because the law brings about wrath; for where there is no law there is no transgression.
16 Therefore it is of faith that it might be according to grace, so that the promise might be sure to all the seed, not only to those who are of the law, but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all


----------



## NE GA Pappy

One thing for sure about this subject.... I am glad it is not up to me to decide on the salvation for anyone.  Thank you Lord Jesus.

I just would like to understand, but may not be able to on this side of eternity


----------



## SemperFiDawg

NE GA Pappy said:


> One thing for sure about this subject.... I am glad it is not up to me to decide on the salvation for anyone.  Thank you Lord Jesus.
> 
> I just would like to understand, but may not be able to on this side of eternity



amen


----------



## Artfuldodger

SemperFiDawg said:


> C.S. Lewis put it this way



Quote:
"Here is another thing which used to puzzle me. Is it not frightfully unfair that this new life should be confined to people who have heard of Christ and been able to believe in Him? But the truth is God has not told us what His arrangements about the other people are. We do know that no man can be saved except through Christ [see: John 14:6]; we do not know that only those who know Him can be saved through Him." 

So CS Lewis who writes: "although Jesus is the only way to Heaven, this does not necessarily imply that Jesus cannot save those who don't acknowledge Him through no fault of their own."(end quote)

This perhaps being children, retarded people, and foreigners to the Gospel?

I've considered this concept and it is not anything new.

It sounds like everyone who hasn't heard may get saved. Every child, every retarded person, every foreigner to the gospel. Based on "Is it not frightfully unfair."

What about those blinded to the light by their own religion? Even someone who is an enemy to the Church such as Saul?

Graham said: “He’s calling people out of the world for His name, whether they come from the Muslim world, or the Buddhist world, or the Christian world, or the non-believing world, they are members of the Body of Christ, because they’ve been called by God. They may not even know the name of Jesus, but they know in their hearts that they need something that they don’t have, and they turn to the only light that they have, and I think they are saved, and that they’re going to be with us in heaven.” 

This by Graham is more in line with Election. God is calling them out of  various worlds. They may not know the "name" Jesus but they are called by God none the less.
Maybe it's similar to what CS Lewis is saying.

Similar to God calling Saul or when he will  pour out on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the Spirit of grace and of supplication.
Like when he saved Lot's two daughters but took David's son.


----------



## gemcgrew

NE GA Pappy said:


> One thing for sure about this subject.... I am glad it is not up to me to decide on the salvation for anyone.  Thank you Lord Jesus.
> 
> I just would like to understand, but may not be able to on this side of eternity


Yes. It is God who makes a sinner and it is God who saves a sinner.

God's work alone.


----------



## matt79brown

Stillborn, aborted, mentally ill, 3 years old or a 60 year old bible scholar well grounded in the scripture and above reproach in his conduct all need the same thing. GRACE. Unmerited favor. If you don't get this then you probably are still trying to earn a free gift. Salvation is of God. He can do what He wants, when He wants, with whom He wants and is not subject to mine or your understanding of HIS word.


----------



## NE GA Pappy

the potter can make the vessel look anyway He wishes.  How can the clay say I want to be a vase, when the potter needs a cup?


----------



## matt79brown

Exactly Pappy!


----------

