No person can come to Christ by their own freewill !

[cadwell]

Sanctity of Life ~ by Reverend RV​

Jeremiah 1:5 NASB; "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, And before you were born I consecrated you; I have appointed you a prophet to the nations."

In 1973 the Supreme Court effectively legalized Abortion through their ruling in the Roe versus Wade case. In 1984 President Reagan declared the Sunday closest to the anniversary of Roe v Wade to be an observance of the Sanctity of Life. Abortion is an American Holocaust in many ways; Politically we’ve lost fifty+ million tax payers, Socially we’ve lost mostly Minorities, and spiritually every one that was lost is a Christian. ~ “How can you know that?!” The Church teaches that all who die in Infancy go to Heaven. “So shouldn’t we abort more babies to ensure they will go to Heaven?” No, they would have gone to Heaven if they’d lived because Christ will lose no one; this means they would have of their own free Will chosen to become a Christian. ~ Imagine America consisting of 50 million more tax paying, Christian minorities…

When you’ve lived long enough, you will have to give an account for your life on the day you meet God. ~ Have you ever told a Lie? A baby hasn’t had enough time to tell a Lie; but you have. What do you call people that Lie to you? Have you ever stolen something? You’ve lived long enough to have stolen a lot; what would you call someone that stole from you? Have you ever had a god other than the God of the Bible? Jesus said babies love him, no wonder they go to Heaven when they die in their Infancy. ~ These were just three of the Ten Commandments, if God judged you by his standard would you be innocent or guilty? You object, “I’d be innocent as a baby!” Because of the Original Sin of Adam, a baby needs to be Saved too; how good is God that he Saves them? ~ God sends unsaved Sinners to Hell for all eternity…

For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believes on him shall not perish but have everlasting life. He lived a Sinless life and was good enough to go to Heaven, and good enough to be the sacrifice for Sin. Jesus shed his blood on the Cross to pay for Sin, died and was buried; but rose from the dead as the Author of Life! We’re Saved by the Grace of God through Faith in the risen Savior Jesus Christ, without Working to earn our Consecration. Repent of your Sin, Confess Jesus Christ as your Lord God, and join a Church that loves to reach the Lost. ~ The devil may not be able to decrease Heaven’s numbers through Abortion, but he can weaken the Church. Where is our generation’s ‘Great Awakening’; could it be in a Medical Waste can at the Abortion Clinic? Was our generation’s Billy Sunday aborted back in 1973? Perhaps our William Carrey has had his Mind relieved of him through Partial Birth Abortion. Maybe the next Generations John MacArthur will be someone’s “Plan B” next week. ~ Adolph Hitler got away with mass Murder by declaring that Jews are subhuman; killing millions of God’s people. Aborted babies are God’s people too, our brothers and sisters; let’s Unite and lovingly work for change…

1st John 4:21 NASB; And this commandment we have from Him, that the one who loves God should love his brother also.

Thanks for sharing.

 

[ReverendRV]

Where is that taught in the Bible?
It sounds like you reject original sin, and hold to an "age of accountability".
I don't find either of those positions to be Biblical.



Where did Jesus ever say that?
I don't find that to be Biblical, either.

Oh no, I don't reject Original Sin and I don't hold to an Age of Accountability. I've come to the conclusion that Infants don't Lie while in the womb. As far as Jesus saying these little ones love him, I'm looking for it. It was probably in a certain Translation, and I can't find it right now...

 

[Theo1689]

Oh no, I don't reject Original Sin and I don't hold to an Age of Accountability.

Yeah, your tract was confusing, as it led me to that conclusion, even though further down you asserted original sin. Maybe you could clarify that in your tract. Do you believe that infants have the "stain" of original sin but without actual tangible sins?

I've come to the conclusion that Infants don't Lie while in the womb.

Um, okay?
Is that like Mormons coming to the conclusion that many gods exist?
I still don't find it Biblical, but to each his own...

As far as Jesus saying these little ones love him, I'm looking for it. It was probably in a certain Translation, and I can't find it right now...

I'm guessing you might be thinking of this one:

Matt. 19:14 but Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven.”

... but I don't think it's talking about "babies/infants", as they don't have the motor skills to "come to [Him]". And I think people read more into the verse than is actually there.

 

[newheart78]

In order for man to come to Christ he must be given motion, life, this comes by quickening. All who come to Christ have been quickened out of a dead spiritual state. Eph 2:1

And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins;

In the original the word quickened isnt there, its derived from verse 5 and its the word suzóopoieó and means:

to make alive together with
Usage: I make alive together with.

I make that which was dead to live, cause to live, quicken.39

This causing to live is giving motion to, which is the impelling aspect of drawing Jn 6:44 and 12:32

So quickening and drawing can be used interchangeably.

Amen indeed Brother !

 

[Slyzr]

Jn 6:44

44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

No man can come here means no man has the ability to come to Christ. That cancels out the myth that man has a freewill,

It also means that no man has the ability to believe on Christ for Salvation. Because Christ equates believing on Him with coming to Him. Jn 6:64-65

64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.

65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.


What about those Jesus says to them Jn 5:40

40 And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life.

Thats answered in Jn 6:44 they simply will not come because they cannot come unless the Power of God draws them and makes them willing

Ps 110:3

3 Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power, in the beauties of holiness from the womb of the morning: thou hast the dew of thy youth.

If and when one comes to believe on Christ willingly, the credit goes to Gods Power !

dead .....

We are all dead .....

No one will ever matter again ...... but by being dead.

Makes perfect sense right?

 

[cadwell]

Yeah, your tract was confusing, as it led me to that conclusion, even though further down you asserted original sin. Maybe you could clarify that in your tract. Do you believe that infants have the "stain" of original sin but without actual tangible sins?

I dont think his tracts are intended for people like you, who think like him. That read like someone who wants to "sound like" he agrees with the other side to gain their ear and trust, but ultimately he wants to guide them away from their own beliefs and towards his. There is nothing to change in the tract, because as intended, its pretty well written.

I'm guessing you might be thinking of this one:

Matt. 19:14 but Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven.”

... but I don't think it's talking about "babies/infants", as they don't have the motor skills to "come to [Him]". And I think people read more into the verse than is actually there.

If you notice, Matt 19:13 says the children were brought to Him initially, so motor skills has little to nothing to do with it. There is more to it than you seem to realize.

 

[ReverendRV]

Yeah, your tract was confusing, as it led me to that conclusion, even though further down you asserted original sin. Maybe you could clarify that in your tract. Do you believe that infants have the "stain" of original sin but without actual tangible sins?



Um, okay?
Is that like Mormons coming to the conclusion that many gods exist?
I still don't find it Biblical, but to each his own...



I'm guessing you might be thinking of this one:

Matt. 19:14 but Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven.”

... but I don't think it's talking about "babies/infants", as they don't have the motor skills to "come to [Him]". And I think people read more into the verse than is actually there.

I need to adjust the Gospel Tract, because I was thinking of "Matthew 18-6 KJV; But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.". Jesus said babies believe in him, so I will change it from Love to Believe. Yes, Jesus is talking about anyone who causes adult believers like you and I to stumble, but he uses the example of a baby to get his message across; so I think his statement has a double meaning there...

You may remember me talking about this years ago; it was a "Back to the Bible" lesson from Woodrow Kroll who got through to me. He started out by saying 'I am going to show you the verse in the Bible that says babies who die go to Heaven'. So I knew he was wrong and was ready to fight. He sat there and acted like he was looking for the verse, but he couldn't find it. Then said there is no such verse in the Bible, but he thought he could make a good case that Infants who die in their Infancy go to Heaven. Well, his tactic worked; he admitted there is no verse, and I opened up. I always said that if there were half a verse which supported a good Doctrine, we should accept the Good Doctrine...

So I'll change my Gospel Tract. I do not want to be wrong about what I say in them. Of course, some of the things I say are a little different than the standard quo, but they are still correct; thanks for catching that. If a Pharisee caught Jesus saying that one of the Little Ones/Mikros/babies believed in him, they could have called Jesus a Liar right then and there...

 

[Theo1689]

I need to adjust the Gospel Tract, because I was thinking of "Matthew 18-6 KJV; But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.". Jesus said babies believe in him,

Again, where does the Bible teach that "babies" believe in him?
And the same "logic" that argues that babies are incapable of sinning, has to argue that babies are incapable of believing.

Matt. 18:6 refers to "these little ones" ("micrOn", where we get "micro-", and "O-micron"), which simply means "small [ones]". It refers back to 18:4, "child" ("paidion").

If it were referring to "babies", why would it use the word for "child" ("paidion"), rather than the word for "baby" ("brephos", cf. Luke 1:44, 2:12,14, Acts 7:19, 1 Pet. 2:2, etc.)?

You may remember me talking about this years ago; it was a "Back to the Bible" lesson from Woodrow Kroll who got through to me. He started out by saying 'I am going to show you the verse in the Bible that says babies who die go to Heaven'.

Yes, I've heard a number of these, and they've never been convincing.

 

[preacher4truth]

I don't believe Jesus is literally referring to little toddlers but is using figurative language referring to those who come to faith in Christ in Matthew 18:6. The context seems to support this.

 

[Theo1689]

I don't believe Jesus is literally referring to little toddlers but is using figurative language referring to those who come to faith in Christ in Matthew 18:6. The context seems to support this.

For anyone interested in such things, Greek scholar A.T. Robertson writes of this verse that the little children are TYPE, of believers.

 

[cadwell]

I don't believe Jesus is literally referring to little toddlers but is using figurative language referring to those who come to faith in Christ in Matthew 18:6. The context seems to support this.

So you think that Jesus, while He is holding an actual living breathing child (Matt 18:2), is being figurative when He said these little ones which believe in me? The comparison to adult believers is made in verses 3 and 4, but verse 6 He is holding an actual child and said they believe in Him. He calls children believers. You dont believe Him?

 

[preacher4truth]

For anyone interested in such things, Greek scholar A.T. Robertson writes of this verse that the little children are TYPE, of believers.

I get that from the context.

I see @cadwell accuses me of not believing Jesus because he was holding a child as an attack on my position which the context literally supports. I suppose this must mean the fig tree he cursed was literally Israel. Thus we see the fallacious hermeneutic he employs.

 

[ReverendRV]

Again, where does the Bible teach that "babies" believe in him?
And the same "logic" that argues that babies are incapable of sinning, has to argue that babies are incapable of believing.

Matt. 18:6 refers to "these little ones" ("micrOn", where we get "micro-", and "O-micron"), which simply means "small [ones]". It refers back to 18:4, "child" ("paidion").

If it were referring to "babies", why would it use the word for "child" ("paidion"), rather than the word for "baby" ("brephos", cf. Luke 1:44, 2:12,14, Acts 7:19, 1 Pet. 2:2, etc.)?



Yes, I've heard a number of these, and they've never been convincing.

It convinced me enough to change my Mind. I'll do the study again...

 

[Theo1689]

It convinced me enough to change my Mind. I'll do the study again...

Fair enough...

 

[ReverendRV]

So you think that Jesus, while He is holding an actual living breathing child (Matt 18:2), is being figurative when He said these little ones which believe in me? The comparison to adult believers is made in verses 3 and 4, but verse 6 He is holding an actual child and said they believe in Him. He calls children believers. You dont believe Him?

So how is it that these little ones can Believe in Jesus, but not believe what Jesus believed about their Sinfulness?

 

[cadwell]

So how is it that these little ones can Believe in Jesus, but not believe what Jesus believed about their Sinfulness?

What exactly does Jesus believe about the sinfulness of a child?

 

[preacher4truth]

So how is it that these little ones can Believe in Jesus, but not believe what Jesus believed about their Sinfulness?

There would be no need for them to believe in him as their Savior since they're sinless and need no salvation.

Note how John uses "little children" when referring to toddlers...oops...I mean believers in 1 John. Wonder where he came up with that theopneustos term?

 

[cadwell]

I get that from the context.

I see @cadwell accuses me of not believing Jesus because he was holding a child as an attack on my position which the context literally supports.

The context has Jesus literally holding a child (matt 18:2) while saying these (referring to said child) believe in me (verse 6). When He wanted the adults to behave figuratively as children, He said "AS this little child" (verse 3) and "AS little children" (verse 2). Your interpretation has Jesus telling His disciples to behave..........like unbelievers???

I have heard in the past an argument that verse 6 can mean both adults and children, and I have no problem with that.

I suppose this must mean the fig tree he cursed was literally Israel. Thus we see the fallacious hermeneutic he employs.

Great example. You see how a fig tree the doesnt BEAR FRUIT can be compared to a nation that doesnt? Well it works the same way in Matt 18.

 

[cadwell]

There would be no need for them to believe in him as their Savior since they're sinless and need no salvation.

According to you maybe. According to Jesus, children believe in Him (matt 18:6) and the kingdom of Heaven is for them (matt 19:14). I'll give you one guess who I believe.

Note how John uses "little children" when referring to toddlers...oops...I mean believers in 1 John. Wonder where he came up with that theopneustos term?

Johns used "little children" as a way to describe adults, agreed 100%. As little children is what Jesus told His disciples to be in Matt 18:2-3, after all. But here is this:

1 John2
12 I write unto you, little children, because your sins are forgiven you for his name's sake.
13 I write unto you, fathers, because ye have known him that is from the beginning. I write unto you, young men, because ye have overcome the wicked one. I write unto you, little children, because ye have known the Father.
14 I have written unto you, fathers, because ye have known him that is from the beginning. I have written unto you, young men, because ye are strong, and the word of God abideth in you, and ye have overcome the wicked one.

Verse 12, the little children (adults) have their sins forgiven.
Verse 13, the fathers (adults still, but older men) have know Him that is from the beginning.
Verse 13, young men (adults still, but younger age group than the fathers) have overcome the wicked one
Verse 13, little children (NOW he is talking about actual children) they have known the Father.
Verse 14, back to fathers (but this time speaking more to elders depending on who you ask) have also know Him that is from the beginning
Verse 14, back to the young men (young adults), strong, Word of God in them, overcame the wicked one.

Do you notice how "little children" in verse 13 (which is different from "little children" in verse 12) know the Father? Why do you think that is, that there is no mention of forgiving sins or overcoming the wicked one when John directly addressed children/infants? But only when he addressed adults?

 

[SovereignGrace]

Oh no, I don't reject Original Sin and I don't hold to an Age of Accountability. I've come to the conclusion that Infants don't Lie while in the womb. As far as Jesus saying these little ones love him, I'm looking for it. It was probably in a certain Translation, and I can't find it right now...

Tell me what you believe Original Sin teaches. I don't think your view of it is the Reformed view, if I am understanding you correctly. TIA.