x-no-archive: yes
On Wed, 2 Jul 2008 13:17:57 -0700, "Chuck Stamford"
<shell-***@cox.net> wrote:
© 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Post by Chuck StamfordPost by john w <***@yahoo.com>x-no-archive: yes
On Wed, 2 Jul 2008 09:40:27 -0700, "Chuck Stamford"
© 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Post by Chuck StamfordPost by john w <***@yahoo.com>x-no-archive: yes
On Tue, 1 Jul 2008 17:45:01 -0700, "Chuck Stamford"
© 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Post by Chuck StamfordJohn, just wanted to point out that there are many theories about the
spiritual state of children who die before they reach the age of reason.
I agree. And I don't know why. I believe scripture-- though
obscure-- if you find the right passages, is quite clear.
I believe the scripture on this issue is very clear.
If you read the passage about the death of King David's infant son, I
don't see how the text could be any more clear.
You mean 2 Samuel 12:15:23? If so, you'll have to explain to me how you see
this as "clear" as to the spiritual state of the child, because I don't see
a word in this text concerning that.
Before we get into this or anything else, I want to address your
understanding that I suggested you would lie to comfort someone who had lost
a small child by telling them something you knew wasn't true. That's not
what I had in mind at all, John. I don't want to go into a whole big
explanation here, but there are a lot of things you don't know about me,
just as there are a lot of things I don't know about you, and one of the
things you don't know about me is how much time I've spent studying
epistemology; especially the modern Christian philosophers, such as
Plantinga and Alston. So when I say you would go beyond what you know to be
true, I'm not talking about you saying something other than what you believe
to be the case, which would be lying. I'm saying you believe you know, what
you don't actually "know" in the epistemological sense of "know".
I may be wrong in saying it, but I'm not suggesting you lie.
Now onto what you've got here for an argument for your position that all
small children go to heaven...
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>Certainly. It's certainly not my original thinking. And--
admittedly-- you must do a little " 2 + 2 = 4".
I assume by that you mean I'll need to apply a few self-evidently true
premises to what's actually given? If so, that's not a problem.
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>2SA 12:15 After Nathan had gone home, the LORD struck the child
that Uriah's wife had borne to David, and he became ill. 16 David
pleaded with God for the child. He fasted and went into his house and
spent the nights lying on the ground. 17 The elders of his household
stood beside him to get him up from the ground, but he refused, and he
would not eat any food with them.
2SA 12:18 On the seventh day the child died. David's servants were
afraid to tell him that the child was dead, for they thought, "While
the child was still living, we spoke to David but he would not listen
to us. How can we tell him the child is dead? He may do something
desperate."
2SA 12:19 David noticed that his servants were whispering among
themselves and he realized the child was dead. "Is the child dead?" he
asked.
"Yes," they replied, "he is dead."
2SA 12:20 Then David got up from the ground. After he had washed,
put on lotions and changed his clothes, he went into the house of the
LORD and worshiped. Then he went to his own house, and at his request
they served him food, and he ate.
2SA 12:21 His servants asked him, "Why are you acting this way?
While the child was alive, you fasted and wept, but now that the child
is dead, you get up and eat!"
I fasted and wept. I thought, `Who knows? The LORD may be gracious to
me and let the child live.'
23 But now that he is dead, why should I fast?
Can I bring him back again? ["No" ]
[[[[ This last 10 (or so ) words are the key. If we believe (as I
do, as you MUST), that King David is-- today-- in Heaven with all the
other FAITHFUL Jews (scripture calls him a "man after God's own heart)
If we believe that David is-- today-- in Heaven, and I do...
And if David was told (by God in this passage), "I WILL GO TO him! [
his son./ IOW, I will one day to go him where he went [ heaven]; he
will not RETURN to me (here on earth)
We KNOW David's destination. He's in heaven. If he's going where his
son has gone, and we KNOW David went to heaven, then that's where his
son MUST be.
Okay, I'm going to break in here, because what follows uses your conclusion
here as a true premise in your further argumentation below (i.e., the "Now
if David's 7 day old child went to heaven...etc.). That further argument
then would be invalid if this premise were not true, or couldn't be shown to
be true. So the question at this point is, have you shown it to be true,
under the inspiration of God (i.e. the Psalms, and perhaps one or two of his
recorded utterances in his personal history (basically 2 Samuel and 1
Chronicles, once we get past the genealogies of chapters 1-9 in 1 Chron.),
and the words of other inspired authors (the author of 1 Samuel and 1
Chronicles) recording the words he uttered in life. There is no question at
all from me that the former are inerrant, because they are inspired by God
according to my belief that all Scripture is inspired. The second category,
though, is not inspired, anymore than Moses was inspired to argue with God
that he couldn't go to Pharaoh and tell him to let God's people go, because
he was slow of speech. The examples of people in the Bible we are certain
are in heaven, saying things we know are wrong are quite numerous. Jesus
called Peter "Satan" for what he once said, and I've NO DOUBTS about Peter's
present spiritual state of being!
So it's POSSIBLE that when David said he would go to be with his son, he was
simply wrong. I'm not saying he was wrong. I don't have to. All I need
here for a defeater for your argument thus far is the "possibility" that
David was wrong, and that's being the case (that David was POSSIBLY wrong)
clearly has a great deal of biblical support.
^ ^ ^^ "clearly has a great deal of biblical support..."
^ ^ ^ I disagree.
I've just heard too many scholars say this: Unless other scripture
CLEARLY says OTHERWISE, we must take the text "at face value."
Many could argue, "well, there's FAR too much "SCIENCE" for us to
believe LITERALLY the Adam and Eve account. BUT, if we consider A & E
a "nice story" , a "metaphor", that "resolves a lot of questions."
^ ^ For a Christian, that "solution" creates more issues than it
resolves.
I won't go into that; it goes to far afield from MY Point.
Unless you can show me overwhelming evidence that newborns DON'T go
to heaven AUTOMATICALLY [ and you can't/ my mind is as closed as a
bear trap here: I WILL NOT believe that God would cast a 5-day old
infant into the pit!!]
There in fact is no further point in debating. I personally (me)
don't believe in endless debating.
I believe your view is QUITE Calvinistic. One thing I DON'T do is
get into LONG discussions (debates) with atheists, Calvinists, and
others of a "set in concrete" mindset.
Not intended for a "put-down."
I believe there are a vast number (more than I can count) of areas
where we Christians can sincerely DISAGREE.
We'll agreed to disagree on this one.
You have your reasons (you will call it "scripture") for why God
would ABSOLUTELY CAST A 5-DAY OLD INTO THE PIT FOR ETERNITY.
I have my reasons for believing He would not.
Without going into detail, an aunt of mine (dad's older sister) was
essentially "still-born". She lived-- I believe-- about 3 days. Don't
recall exactly how long she was "among us." But dad had a big sister
who "didn't make it." He ended up being the oldest child who survived.
It's been the family's hope (we're all Christians, at some level)
that dad's big sis is in Heaven. He obviously never knew his big
sister, and he refused to ever say much about her, other than what
he'd heard from his momma and daddy (deep South). But of what he'd
heard, he was deeply enamored of his "big sissy."
You're suggesting " she didn't necessarily get to Heaven."
Pardon me for not even entertaining that possibility.
Post by Chuck StamfordSo what your argument above boils down to is taking David's word for it that
his child was in heaven, and I've no more reason to do that than I have to
take your word for it that someone is in heaven.
If that works for you, I have no problem with that idea FOR you.
It doesn't work for me.
Even if I AGREE with you,
Post by Chuck Stamfordand believe someone is in heaven that you also believe is in heaven, I won't
have that belief based on your say so.
It's not "my say so."
Likewise, if you're wise, you won't
Post by Chuck Stamfordbelieve someone is in heaven on my say so. David was just as big a sinner,
and just as much in need of salvation by the grace of God as you or me.
He was likewise a prophet of God, and God "authorized him" to write
that into a book that has been preserved for the ages.
Post by Chuck StamfordTherefore, we would be foolish to grant his word an authority here it
simply doesn't have,and for which we have biblical example after example is
untrustworty.
"Ok." I hereby give you permission [ tap of sword on your noggin ]
to believe as it makes sense to you.
;-)
please see the friendly humor.
Post by Chuck StamfordIf you can find for me somewhere in the Psalms that Daivd says his son went
to heaven, either expressly and directly, or implicitly (so long as it's a
LOGICAL implication, and thus necessarily true), then THAT would be proof,
What I have showed you is sufficient for me.
I'm sorry if it doesn't work for you. One of our pastors (one of
the "Drs") pointed that out; I've been to so many churches, I can't
tell you which Dr pointed it out. Take your pick: Dr Carpenter, Dr
Pegg, Dr Fickett, Dr Wilson, Dr Moody, Dr Stringfellow...
The "non-Calvinists".
Post by Chuck Stamfordbecause THAT is the inspired word of God given through David. I believe we
can stand upon the inspired word of God to make our arguments, but we can't
stand on the word of man to do it...not even a man like David.
What I see, Chuck, is that you feel quite free to discard/ disregard
those passages you find "uncomfortable, ugly, disagreeable, or those
that take you where you don't wish to go."
Likewise, I'm going to feel free to disregard Paul's prohibitions on
adultery and fornication, and Jesus' prohibition on polygamy. I
personally think it would be a kick, if I had 100 Million dollars a
year income, to have at LEAST 5 wives!
He was
Post by Chuck Stamfordclearly a "man after" God's own heart, but whatever that means it can't mean
David was never wrong.
ok.
I just don't find nearly as much justification as others do to
disregard stuff we see in there that we don't like.
So I'm at LEAST going to discard any passages that forbid
fornication.
I've also decided now, that I'm going to take up bank robbery and
embezzling, and internet bank "cracking" as my new livelihoods.
;-)
If David CAN be wrong, we can't say with any
Post by Chuck Stamfordcertainly he was right to say his son was in heaven.
And this brings me to the second weakness in your argument above: since
David only says he will go to the place his son went when he died, just how
sure are we David meant heaven? We are, after all, talking about the same
Well, then, you are suggesting that David (who was, after all HUMAN)
didn't go to Heaven! You believe he's in Hell!
"Gotcha!"
Post by Chuck StamfordReturn, O LORD, deliver me! Oh, save me for Your mercies' sake! 5 For in
death there is no remembrance of You; In the grave who will give You thanks?
Psalms 6:4-5
There is an opinion circulating among some scholars that David--
and his famous wise son, were both bi-polar.
David wrote both from the mountaintop, and from his visions of the
grave during his "depression" phases.
One can't enjoy the "mountaintop " view if one hasn't likewise
experienced the grave through David's eyes.
Post by Chuck StamfordMy eye wastes away because of affliction. LORD, I have called daily upon
You; I have stretched out my hands to You. 10 Will You work wonders for the
dead? Shall the dead arise and praise You? Selah 11 Shall Your
lovingkindness be declared in the grave? Or Your faithfulness in the place
of destruction? 12 Shall Your wonders be known in the dark? And Your
righteousness in the land of forgetfulness? Psalms 88:9-12
Whatever the other theological and soteriological issues are here, clearly
David, as he writes the above, is at least entertaining the belief that he
will go to the grave when he dies,
I actually never saw it that way.
Go back and re-read, and see this as a vivid, very personal
introspection of David having a "depression " episode as a bi-polar.
You may not relate to that, but -- being bi-polar myself -- I
relate.
I have had days when I SOARED, and Earth was FAR beneath my feet.
I've had days when I was so low, I couldn't see the soles of your
shoes!
for that is what he is asking God to
Post by Chuck Stamfordrescue him from. So it may be the case that any belief David had that he
would go to heaven immediately when he died is something we project back
upon him from our vantage point in the history of God's salvation that he
didn't really have himself.
I think sometimes, we must project. I believe at other times, when
we project, we "get in the way " of what God's trying to say to us.
It has been by laying aside ALL my "understanding" of what scripture
actually SAYS that I was able to see WHAT SCRIPTURE ACTUALLY SAYS.
If that's even partially true, then it follows
Post by Chuck Stamfordthat David may well have been thinking of the grave when he said he would go
to his dead son, but his dead son would never return to him.
Well, I can certainly see a real NEGATIVITY to your thinking.
I'll be happy to pray with you over that.
Post by Chuck StamfordIn any case, John, I think you can see why I can't agree with you that your
argument above is as sound as "2 + 2 = 4".
Actually, I can't. I understand where you're coming from, but I
can't / won't "go there."
And-- beyond that, AGAIN, "my view works for me." And you've
actually given me no reason to adopt your view on things.
You may be right for all I know,
Post by Chuck Stamfordbut I also know that your justification isn't necessarily true, as are
self-evident propositions like "2 + 2 = 4" or "all bachelors are
unmarried", etc.
I guess I should have prefaced all this with, "this works for ME."
Which is the criteria Paul gave us. "Let each of you be[come]
convinced in his own mind, and live in peace, if that's at all
possible."
^ ^ ^^ That's actually a "combined teaching" taken from SEVERAL
verses.
You're convinced. God bless you. You're convinced that "you just
don't know."
I can live with your uncertainty.
I am likewise convinced of my POV. (I believe it's self-evident that
I wouldn't have presented it, if I hadn't been confident.)
And it follows, since your premise above is not
Post by Chuck Stamfordnecessarily true, that your argument below that uses it is leads to a
conclusion that is likewise not necessarily true.
"Fair enough." not true for you/ true as gold for me.
Post by Chuck StamfordPost by john w <***@yahoo.com>Now if David's 7 day old child went to heaven (he was innocent/ he
wasn't old enough to have committed even his first sin),
Why would God condemn other infants if He didn't condemn David's
infant child?
Answer: God doesn't condemn infants. That notion (you may well have
gotten from Calvin) is not true.
I believe / you say you believe / in a merciful God. A merciful God
doesn't cast infants into hell merely because they didn't live long
enough to hear the gospel and respond.
Even if David's baby HAD lived long enough, he was a few CENTURIES
before Jesus!
Post by Chuck StamfordPost by john w <***@yahoo.com>Post by Chuck StamfordSome of them seem to me more reasonable than others, as I'm sure they would
for you too, but that's hardly where our hope lies. Our hope and trust
reside, when all is said and done, in the love of God, a absolute love
guided in everything it does by an absolute power controlled perfectly
by
an
absolutely perfect Mind!
Ok. However, I see no problem with using the text that is there,
when we find it, and when it "speaks to us very clearly."
Neither do I. I've just never found such a text. I'm anxious for you to
show me what you've found.
I am glad that you are anxious, and I hope my explanation satisfies.
It did. I just don't see it as the strong argument you do, and for the
reasons I went into at length above. It's AN argument, and it's not
incoherent, which means it's a valid argument; it's just not a "sound"
argument in the technical meaning of that term.
"Oh, boy! You're one of THEM!" ;-)
If it were a sound
Post by Chuck Stamfordargument, then we would be rational and wise to rely upon it's conclusion,
but since it's only a valid argument, doing that is risky.
On a totally different subject, if you will allow me to correct your
grammar?
You've done something wrong above. Let me show you.
The word "it's" is ALWAYS, ONLY a contraction of the two words, "it"
and "is". So, every time you say "it's", you are actually saying "it
is".
In the above,
If it were a sound argument, then we would be rational and wise to
rely upon it's conclusion, but since it's only a valid argument, doing
that is risky.
You used "it's" wrong the first time ( rely upon it is conclusion),
and right the 2nd time ( but since it is only a valid argument..)
I hope that doesn't upset you, and I hope you have learned something.
English is a language I LOVE. Knowing it and being able to apply it
correctly in MOST cases has been my livelihood, and I've made a LOT of
$$$.
If you don't appreciate that, I'm sorry in advance.
Post by Chuck StamfordPost by john w <***@yahoo.com>Post by Chuck StamfordPost by john w <***@yahoo.com>Next to that the best of the theories pales into
I don't consider my "position" on this issue "theoretical."
Ah...that's a dangerous attitude.
It can be. On the other hand, I have been told that my absolutely
certain conviction that I am born again and Heaven bound is dangerous.
That such a delusion will keep me from bringing others the truth.
It hasn't yet!
Could not be happier to hear it.
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>In my thirty years as a Christian I've
Post by Chuck Stamfordwatched literally scores of people take that attitude and walk right over
the crazy cliff with it.
Well, granted, I probably don't see MANY things exactly the same way
you see them. That's fine. I'm in a different place, and I minister
to a different crowd than you.
I am not in the same place today that *I* was in 30 years ago!
I was raised to be a tee- totaler. Imagine my surprise a few years
back, when the Lord showed me that the 1st century Christians were
DRINKING alcohol in CHURCH and getting drunk!
Imagine my total exasperation to find POLYGAMY in the first century
church!
^ ^ ^^ That was a wake-up call!
Hey, as long as you see the danger, you probably won't be hurt by it, which
is my only concern here. What you're discribing above I'd call maturing in
the Lord. My point was there's a difference between growing in the Lord and
going out of one's way to dance on the edge of a cliff just because you can.
^ ^ ^ ^ ^Been there, done that, I'm writing a book about it. (Isn't
everybody? )
One thing God showed me about 5 years ago, is, "John, all this
freedom you're enjoying could get you turned into "road kill."
Yes, you're "FREE", but let's be INTELLIGENT about it, shall we?"
If you haven't been there, "Trust me on that."
[ I will have to hope you'll forgive me. I wrote this MUCH longer,
then realized it was good enough for my auto/bio. Since I can't put it
here and there, I chopped this.
I hope you'll understand. Certainly, if you'd like to go to e-mail
(that would suit me), we can continue ]
Post by Chuck StamfordPost by john w <***@yahoo.com>At best it tends to stunt any periodic and
Post by Chuck Stamfordobjective re-examination of our beliefs (not to mention the belief our
belief is not subject to error is false on it's face, since we are not
omniscient),
I disagree.
Try to not measure everyone by the cloth used to measure you.
I wasn't aware I was measuring anyone.
Ok. Put it this way. I believe you were giving me a "universal rule"
you've learned.
I believe (a Dr pastor taught me this ) that God gives a rich,
powerful, influential man one set of rules; he gives others other
rules.
He'll tell the rich man, "I want you to give $10 million to that
charity tomorrow! And if you don't, you WILL regret it."
God would never give me that rule, because I don't have $10 million.
A man who is VERY happily married won't have the "temptations" a
single, or unhappily married man has.
I'm an artist. I probably have the most "rule-free" existence there
is. I simply MUST "explore" to CREATE.
Post by Chuck StamfordPost by john w <***@yahoo.com>Not only are we different people, we've been to different places, we
are headed in different directions (in this world), and we likely have
different ministries.
I was apologizing to a Muslim friend a year ago for "being crude" in
my use of language.
He laughed. He said, "that's what makes you BELIEVABLE, John. You're
HUMAN."
Believe me, I understand about being human.
LOL. "No further comment THERE."
Post by Chuck StamfordPost by john w <***@yahoo.com>and at worst it leads us into areas of judgment God has
Post by Chuck Stamfordspecifically warned us to stay out of.
Well, concerning that, you perhaps believe in the "holiness"
program; I do not.
I don't even know what that is!
Otherwise known as "The 5,000 Thou Shalt Not"s.
The "Holiness" folks tell you that there are 5 things you "may do."
They don't include
TV
movies
music
etc.
There are an infinite number of "You May NOT"s.
Think of ANYTHING fun. It's FORBIDDEN.
^ ^ ^ ^ The "Holiness Crowd." I know you've seen them. They wear
black sack dresses. Black suits. Black, VERY pegged-leg pants, white
socks.
(black or brown socks are a sin of "being modern" < evil
They don't smile. Smiling is a sin. They don't "do their hair."
They simply CUT it and tie it down.
NO facial hair (unless you're female) < eeeeeww!
( After all, Jesus had short hair, and he was clean-shaven)
The only -- THE ONLY -- book you're allowed to read is the KJV.
(frankly, if I could only read the KJV, I wouldn't have a Bible I
could read. I'm one of that vast number for whom the KJV is gibberish/
literally)
^ ^ ^ ^ The holiness crowd.
Post by Chuck StamfordPost by john w <***@yahoo.com>I believe we are (as Jesus put it) FREE.
As long as I don't hurt myself or my fellow man, I am free to ENJOY
life.
That idea may need some narrowing down. Clearly we are not under the Law of
Moses, but God is the transcendent source of all morality, and that didn't
change with Jesus.
I think you may need to acquaint yourself with some "Christian
artists." Jonnie Earickson (I've met her) the mouth painter
quadriplegic. Introduce yourself to some Christian musicians. (they
generally have long hair)
I'm betting if you talked with a Christian musician for a few hours
(with a totally open mind), and then you relayed that information
(anonymously) to a KJV-Only Holiness person, you'd hear 100 "tsk
tsk"s.
I can find (won't show it to you, but you'll probably look) a place
where some disciples came to the Master and whined, "Lord! We were
[out and about] and we came across these... people! Lord.. they were
preaching, pretty much same as you.. but we didn't know them, Lord!
And they were saying some things we'd never heard before!"
Jesus smiled with amusement. "Well, what did you do?"
We told them to shut the H* up, Lord!" What should we do next time?"
Jesus answered, "Next time you see them, or someone else "" preaching
the Kingdom of God in THEIR words, you are to LEAVE THEM BE!"
He didn't believe He was the only One with The Message. He was the
Only One Who Was God In Flesh. And He knew that eventually, those who
"weren't of His little band" WOULD come to Him.
Post by Chuck StamfordPost by john w <***@yahoo.com>I don't see how I can be "an example" if I'm the guy who never
smiles, the guy who never goes to movies, the guy who doesn't own a
TV, the guy who never tells jokes, and he never laughs when YOU tell a
joke.
I want people to come to me and say, "John, every time I see you,
you make me laugh. What's all that joy about?"
Sounds to me as if being glum and being holy are very nearly the same thing
in your mind today. It's not the smile, it's what makes you smile.
I'm not saying that. I am saying that there are people who believe
that.
Because I have had a BOUNCING, BUMPING "good time" with the wife
the night before doesn't make me "impure" the next morning when it's
time to minister to my boss, or my employee.
We can have a ROCKING good time with this or that and still be God's
Holy children.
I read
where Jesus sat down with pimps and whores and tax collectors and bank
robbers and ate a meal and drank a beer or two and shared the Kingdom
of God.
He probably laughed at a dirty joke or two (didn't tell any, but if
it was "FUNNY", it was funny)
The Holiness crowd stood at the door of that tavern with their 50
pound KJV Bibles tucked under their armpits (excuse the mixed
metaphor/ I believe your IQ is high enough to follow)
and they watched The Master relate to PEOPLE and they snickered and
tsk tskd. "Look at that Jesus fellow! I wouldn't shake HIS hand after
he touched that SLUT!
Jesus came here because God loves HUMAN BEINGS. He didn't say, "when
you grow to the place where you can meet this MARK here, I will wash
you in my blood."
He came here, found us in the s* stew we'd made ourselves, and He
climbed up on a cross and died for us, JUST THE WAY WE ARE.
As hard as we try, some of us will NEVER overcome. We don't have to.
We have to change INSIDE. He's "done all the work."
It's
Post by Chuck Stamfordnot going to the movies, it's the movies you go to. It's not the TV you
own, it's what you watch on it. It's not telling the joke, it's what's
supposed to be funny about it.
I don't tell many "filthy jokes", but if someone comes on to me and
tells me a RAUNCHY joke that I find HILARIOUS, I'm gonna laugh.
As for movies, I don't look at the rating; I look at the content.
For example. One of the most interesting murder mysteries I ever
watched (had no idea what was going to happen in the film) was a Meg
Ryan movie, "In The Cut."
Thirty minutes into the movie, there's EXPLICIT SEX.
The movie wasn't popular. You've likely never heard of it.
But that SEX scene was POWERFUL, and the entire movie turned on that
30 seconds.
I wondered "what's the point?" But I finished watching, and I was
shaken.
There actually had been a reason for that "BJ" scene.
To say, I watch "Director's Cuts" and I watch "UnRated" movies,
simply because
I want to see the movie as the director and the writer intended
it.
BEFORE the censors hack it to pieces for the "mass market."
I believe we Christian ADULTS can handle things (it's not going to
KILL me, and I don't have to imitate ugly behavior/ fornication and
MURDER)
The STORY was moving. For me. And that's all I need. "I enjoyed it."
I consider it some of Meg Ryan's best work, and I'm a HUGE Meg Ryan
fan. Jane Campion. the director ALSO did "The Piano." Nicole Kidman
produced it. It was a film involving some "MAJOR PLAYERS."
Post by Chuck StamfordJohn, there are very few things in life that are pure evil. In fact, if
your theory of "evil" is that it is the absence of good, then nothing that
actually exists could ever be pure evil.
I personally believe "evil" is anything that's hurtful. I could
probably go past that, but I think that's a good "starting place."
Paul said that he was convinced by
Post by Chuck Stamfordthe Spirit of God that there is nothing unclean of itself, and so long as
we're not talking about abstract concepts that can probably be generalized
to almost everything, even though he was talking about food at the time.
^ ^ ^^ Yep. I'm a HUGE fan of Paul. He hated the Pharisees (I call
them "bean counters") as much as Jesus did.
(By "bean counter" I mean the guy who stands besides you
(metaphorically) and counts the "sins" you commit each day " just
living your life.")
Post by Chuck StamfordHowever, if you're saying Jesus died simply so we could enjoy life, I'll
have to disagree with you.
No. Not at all.
That's one "side benefit." I said, "Jesus died so we could be
"Free." Free from sin. Free from the "spectra" of death. Free from
illness (in some cases), free from the burden of sorrow (we give that
to HIM).
He didn't simply say, " I came to set men FREE." He actually gave us
a small list. "sin" "worry" ("Let not your heart be troubled") etc.
The liberty He gave us by His shed blood was the
Post by Chuck Stamfordliberty from our selfish concerns, and the liberty from the just
consequences of our failures in love, past, present, and future.
~~~~~~~ eeeeeee.
I still prefer MY version to yours.
You keep yours; I'll keep mine!
He opened
Post by Chuck Stamfordthe door of our prison of self-concern, and us able to give our lives away
to the needs of others, secure in the knowledge we cannot out give God, who
promises to give them back abundantly to us as we do.
So there's no reason we cannot be selflessly loving as we laugh and smile,
as we attend a movie or watch something on TV, or tell a joke, but we need
to be aware of our motivations,
And, see? I just will "let my hair down, put my baggies on (;-)/ I
don't WEAR "" baggies""), and "kick my feet up" and just go out and
have me one HELL of a good time!"
My measure of "a good time" and "is everything ok? ("is everything
"" good"" ")
am I alive? Am I in one piece? Is everybody else ok and in one
piece?"
Yep? Then it was a good time! Am I about to get arrested? No? Is
someone's husband/ boyfriend lookin' fer me with a shotgun? No? Then
we had a good time!
for that is the demarcation line between sin
Post by Chuck Stamfordand holiness. Most of our actions in life are either sinful or righteous by
what our reason is for doing them, rather than in and of themselves.
Beyond that thought....
Are you aware? (I've seen this in the Bible/ I promise you. But I
have seen it like TWICE, and I can't find it lately; I'm pretty sure
it's in Proverbs)
" It's wiser to seek FORGIVENESS than it is to seek PERMISSION."
Or, "the wise man seeks forgiveness; the fool seeks PERMISSION."
The lesson I got from that is, "go have a good time. You can always
repent later."
Post by Chuck StamfordPost by john w <***@yahoo.com>Post by Chuck StamfordPost by john w <***@yahoo.com>Post by Chuck StamfordWe can discuss and debate these various theories all day long, and even come
to some conclusion about which one is most likely the truth (or as close to
the truth as we're ever likely to get this side of Heaven), and this can be
profitable for us to some extent.
My point is that, when a person you know loses a very young child
(let's say the child is 6 months old, and dies)
I believe it's proper to comfort that family as best we can.
So do I, but I temper "best we can" with keeping to the truth. For me,
"best we can" doesn't include telling them something is for sure true that I
don't know, and can't know is for sure true.
Let's stop here. I suggest you read my comment on how I know that
David's child went to heaven.
(You just suggested that I would LIE)
Nothing could be further from the truth! I'm sorry that you took it that
way.
Then I'm sorry. That's how I took it.
Post by Chuck StamfordAll I'm suggesting is that you would go beyond what you actually "know" to
be true, and people do that everyday (including myself!) without giving it
the requisite thought to be considering "lying".
Actually, I wouldn't. If I am not quite sure, I keep my mouth
shut.
HOWEVER, I can be 10,000 % positive, and still be wrong.
^ ^ Where we must be OPEN to be corrected. Always.
Post by Chuck StamfordI hope you understand I never meant to suggest you lie, even for a good
cause.
ok.
Post by Chuck StamfordChuck Stamford
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>I understand where you're coming from; try to understand where I'm
coming from.
Try to open that bright mind a bit and at least be RECEPTIVE.
"Til then!"
john w
I know God is loving and
Post by Chuck Stamfordmerciful toward us for sure. I know God is trustworthy, and that all
judgment belongs to Him, for sure. I don't know, for sure, the spiritual
state of ANYONE, and I"m warned by God not to pretend I do. So I can't, in
good conscious, comfort anyone with anything but the truth, for a lie is
poor comfort.
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>If I believe I have a SOLID answer on "Can we be CERTAIN that our 6
month old daughter REALLY IS in heaven now, and not burning in the
pit?"
I believe we CAN say, "Absolutely!"
I understand, John. I'm just waiting to hear from you what your
justification is for that belief.
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>The God I believe in doesn't punish 6 month old babies who die
without ever having had the chance to "believe" and be baptized.
I believe such belief (and supporting text) is VITAL to our
credibility to the world.
"Well, the way I hear it, you stupid &)(&)*& &&()&)*(& Christians
believe that if a 3-month old baby dies, it goes to the PIT! Because
it "didn't have time to accept Jesus as its savior." < That's why
I'm not a Christian, you (*&)*&)*(& SLOB!"
^ ^ ^ ^ typical rhetoric.
But you and I know that no one ever goes to hell because they "didn't have
time to repent", don't we? The idea presupposes that if God had just let
them have more time, they would have repented, and that God, by taking them
before the time He knew they'd repent and be saved, is the CAUSE of their
eternal punishment!
What's typical about this thinking is the desire to make it God's fault that
people end up in hell. Skeptics have a hundred different rhetorical
arguments, but they all boil down to "God is responsible, not me". I didn't
ask to be born. If God knew me from all eternity, and knew I'd reject Jesus
and end up in hell, then God is morally responsible for my sins because He
went ahead and created me anyway. And on and on and on. The human desire
not to be responsible for the evil we all do is incredibly strong. It
subverts otherwise strong intellects; warps every perception of reality; and
even causes Christians to waver in their faith in God. We have to KNOW
certain people are in heaven, and that we'll be with them again, or we begin
to doubt God. We sometimes find we can't just trust God to do what is
perfectly right concerning someone we love with all of our hearts...as if
we've forgotten God loves them infinitely more and long before we were ever
born! What we need to understand is that brutal honesty is what we need
here, and we need to realize this is SIN in US when we begin to think like
this, not "insight" into the love of God! It's nothing more or less than a
failure of faith in us, and it's CERTAINLY not us being more loving than
God!
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>No, we DON'T believe that! And any time I see a Christian spouting
such NONSENSE, I LEAP to correct him / her!
That's pure, unadulterated Calvinism, mixed with mis-interpreted
Roman Catholicism.
It's right out of the pit of hell.
Well, I'll wait to see the Scripture you've found, and, hopefully, for you
to find some way to engage here on a less emotional basis than you seem to
be using at the moment. I'm not a Calvinist nor a Roman Catholic (nor do I
view those terms as repositories for the dispicable perspective on biblical
soteriology you've described above!), but I also can't say with certainty
that any given infant who dies is in heaven anymore than I can say any given
adult who dies is in heaven. We're all sinners from the womb, John, and God
is not willing that any perish, but many do according to the Son of God,
Jesus Christ. This is what I know "for sure". What it all means as far as
your infant son (when he was still an infant) or mine, or anyone else's is
something I can kick around with my fellow Christian brothers and sisters in
the hope of finding some insight and enlightenment from God, but I can't
"know". Thus my use of the term "theory" here.
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>But you should never let not knowing
Post by Chuck Stamfordwhich is the truth get under your skin, or allow anyone else to do it using
one or another of these theories...because we really already know all the
truth we need to know when we have Jesus Christ as our Lord, don't we?
Well, sorry. On that, I have to say "Yes, and no."
I likewise don't believe that some Australian bushman who dies when
he's 15 and he's never heard the name "Jesus", and he's never heard of
/ or seen a Bible... he doesn't go to hell, simply for being born at
the wrong place and time.
I believe there's a better answer.
I do too, John, but I don't believe it includes us saying "Yes and no" when
it comes to knowing we have all we need when we have Jesus Christ as our
Lord. How can a good answer here, or any where, include NOT having Jesus
Christ as our Lord???
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>Post by Chuck StamfordNo matter how much you love your son, God loves him infinitely more, and has
loved him infinitely more from all eternity. There was never an instant
throughout all eternity when God didn't love your son (and every son!) as
much as He loved His own. No matter what happens to your son now or in the
future, there is nothing that can separate him from God's love; "...neither
death nor life, nor angels nor principalities nor powers, nor things present
nor things to come, nor height nor depth, nor any other created thing"
^ ^ ^ ^ On this, we agree.
Post by Chuck StamfordRegardless of which theory about the disposition of young children we think
is pretty,
we have plenty of reason to trust God with our children.
^ ^ ^ ^ There, you go!
I know we're in basic agreement on the love of God, John. I'd still like to
see the Scripture you've found that makes it so clear for you that all
infants who die go to heaven, and why you see that biblical passage as so
clearly saying this. I'd also be willing to discuss further some of these
various "theories" (for lack of a more precise term), their merits and
weaknesses, if you think that would be something we could both profit from.
Chuck Stamford