God and babies/children

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

> Matthew Bell (previous)

> The only part of my above statement which begs the question is that

> which follows the words, 'As a further point.....' Why don't you deal

> with that which proceeds such, or is it to be understood that in

> stating that I am ALSO begging the question that you are concurring

> that D.Flandry was indeed begging the question?

> 

> G.R.Gaud

> No, I should have simply stated that you were begging the question,

> and the question you were begging was: "how do you know that 'babie

> [sic] /children' are hell-deserving?"

> 

> Matthew Bell

> So what you are now saying is that when D.Flandry stated:

> 

> G.R.Gaud

> No, what I am stating is what I wrote above: YOU were begging the

> question "how do you know that babies/children are hell-deserving?"

> and you still haven't answered that question. How do you know this?

> Show us chapter and verse instead of trying to turn the tables on me,

> as is your wont when you're cornered. The rest of what you wrote is

> superfluous and so won't get a reply.


Matthew Bell
If I recall correctly I admitted that I did beg the question and corrected
my post accordingly. Some of us aren't afraid to admit to moments of
carelessness. 

> 

> G.R.Gaud

> 1) I knew about the Xian doctrine of original sin probably before you

> were born. 2) I knew that it didn't involve "specific committed sin"

> on the part of 'babies/children'. The Bible says that God cannot abide

> with sin and children have a sinful nature. Further, without

> purification of this sinful nature, one cannot enter the kingdom of

> heaven. If one cannot enter the KoH, then there's only one other place

> to go, hell, unless there's a teaching in the Bible, of which I'm not

> aware, which states that children dying before they can personally

> sin, are purified of their sinful nature. Now unless you can show me

> this doctrine, logically I have to assume they end up in hell.

> 

> Matthew Bell

> How do you know that the purification of their sinful nature is not

> covered

> by the atonement of Christ?

> 

> G.R.gaud

> Up to your old tricks again, I see. Trying to turn the tables one by

> redirecting the question at me. Sorry, won't work. You haven't replied

> to what I wrote above. Are you going to do that, or will you just keep

> trying to evade the problem?


Matthew Bell
Well, if you can assume then why can't I? I assume it is the most
reasonable and logical position that the blood of Christ atones and
purifies those sinful infants/babies/children who die in their sin. Oh and
there isn't a problem except in your mind. 

Thanks
M.Bell

• Previous message: God and babies/children
• Next message: God and babies/children
• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]