I believe we don't have sufficient elements to affirm it's true, while we have a much more firm basis in relation to the second proposition.

I believe we don't have sufficient elements to affirm it's true, while we have a much more firm basis in relation to the second proposition.

We have a sufficient basis to affirst the first proposition is false, don't we? If the probability that SDA believer's children will be saved is 100%, and that probability diminishes to less than 100% after the child passes the age of accountability, then your original proposition is false, according to how you defined your terms.

I essentially agree with this, but don't think it's a matter of God not allowing something to happen. The true light lightens everyone who comes into the world. Wisdom cries out in the streets.





Surely if every person knows enough about God to be justly condemned, they know enough to be saved. Paul points out that every knows enough about God to not only know He exists, but to know they should be thankful to Him.

Because God reveals Himself to everyone, everyone has an opportunity to be saved. Simply not resisting the wooing of the Holy Spirit will result in a person's being saved. God draws everyone to Himself, so that everyone can be saved by not resisting.

OK, but it's not instantly and easily perceived, due to the blindness caused by sin. Sort of like Plato's allegory of the cave.

What’s the difference? If they’re not lost does that mean they are saved?


Okay.


But you believe they are not lost. Why not? What does God base it on?


Correct.


Okay.


Yes, they are not lost. They are saved.


As to whether or not God will take unborn babies to heaven we have no inspired statement to guide us. But we do have inspired statements that describe holy angels delivering little children to their mothers.

GC 645
The living righteous are changed "in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye." At the voice of God they were glorified; now they are made immortal and with the risen saints are caught up to meet their Lord in the air. Angels "gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other." Little children are borne by holy angels to their mothers' arms. Friends long separated by death are united, nevermore to part, and with songs of gladness ascend together to the City of God. {GC 645.1}

CG 565, 566
You inquire in regard to your little one being saved. Christ's words are your answer: "Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not; for of such is the kingdom of God." Remember the prophecy, "Thus saith the Lord: A voice was heard in Ramah, lamentation, and bitter weeping; Rachel weeping for her children refused to be comforted. . . . Thus saith the Lord: Refrain thy voice from weeping and thine eyes from tears; for thy work shall be rewarded, saith the Lord; and they shall come again from the land of the enemy. And there is hope in thine end, saith the Lord, that thy children shall come again to thine own border." {CG 565.4}

This promise is yours. You may be comforted and trust in the Lord. The Lord has often instructed me that many little ones are to be laid away before the time of trouble. We shall see our children again. We shall meet them and know them in the heavenly courts. Put your trust in the Lord, and be not afraid. {CG 566.1}

John 1:9: The true light lightens everyone who comes into the world.

R:OK, but it's not instantly and easily perceived, due to the blindness caused by sin. Sort of like Plato's allegory of the cave.

From Romans we read:



A key thing to bear in mind is that the reason the truth about God is known is because *God Himself has shown it to them.* So while it is true that sin makes things difficult, God is able to work around this difficulty, and reveal Himself to each one, to the extent that they may be held responsible for not giving thanks to God.

This is really a remarkable statement. Paul says the wicked are guilty not for simply not recognizing God's existence, but for not thanking Him! This means that not only does God reveal His existence to men, but reveals quite a bit of His character as well, at least enough than men can be held responsible for not thanking Him.

MM: Tom, on the "True Conversion" thread you and I agreed that God imputes repentance, or salvation, in cases involving people who die before they are able to repent.

I've not said God imputes repentance or salvation to these people. I said they weren't in a lost condition.

What’s the difference? If they’re not lost does that mean they are saved?

The context of this is people like Moses who sinned at the rock, right? Someone who is saved and commits a sin in a moment of weakness, and has not yet repented. Yes, these saved people are saved.

The difference is that God’s imputing or not imputing repentance is not the issue. The issue is whether or not they love God and the principles of His government.

Quote:
MM: Can we apply this same truth here?

I don't think this works. I'll explain in detail at the end of this post.

Okay.
Quote:
Also, your hypothetical possibilities divorce the fact God knows who will repent if they had lived long enough. Thus, God knows who will choose to be save and who will not. Accordingly, He chooses the best time and place to cause or allow them to die.

I don't think you're looking at this the right way. God looks at the heart, and sees what the person is actually like. He doesn't look in to a hypothetical future to see what the person might have done, and judge the person according to that. He makes judgment based on knowing a person's character, not on the basis of foreknowledge.

But you believe they are not lost. Why not? What does God base it on?

”He makes judgment based on knowing a person's character.”

Quote:
Here's what I hear you saying. In the case of a CBTAOA, God looks to see what that child would have done had he or she lived, and if, at some point in its future, say even as an old man or woman, he or she would have accepted Christ, then God includes that person in the first resurrection. If I have this wrong, please correct me, and you can ignore the rest of this, but this is what I'm hearing you say.

Correct.
Quote:
There are many problems with this theory, including it's not being ethical or fair, but I'll leave those, and just deal with some problems involving logical inconsistencies.

Okay.
Quote:
You could apply the same logic to any people who die, not just children. Say a person dies, for whatever reason, and God sees that the person would have accepted Christ had he lived another ten years. Does God take that person to heaven, even though he never actually repented or accepted Christ. He would have, had he lived, so is that good enough? If not, why is it good enough for children?

Yes, they are not lost. They are saved.
Quote:
One can consider the case of infants and fetuses as well. Is a fetus alive? If so, can God do the same thing as for other CBEAOA, and look to see what the fetus would have done had it lived? If it would have accepted Christ, then it is saved? Where does one draw the line? How about a zygote? Can God see what a zygote would have done, and on the basis of that, take it to heaven? How about a pre-zygote? Can God look at a sperm cell, and an egg, and see the zygote that would have formed, and see that it would have developed into a person who would have accepted Christ, and take the sperm cell/egg to heaven? Where does one draw the line, if one reasons along these lines?

As to whether or not God will take unborn babies to heaven we have no inspired statement to guide us.

You don’t need an inspired statement to apply logic. Everything God says is logical. He doesn’t tell us things so that we will believe on the basis of authority apart from logic. He wants us to be convinced in our own minds that the things He says are true, because we understand the principles involved, not just because He said so.

Anyway, if God can look ahead and see what a baby will do, and see that the baby would have been saved had it lived, then God can do the same thing for a fetus. That’s logical.

But we do have inspired statements that describe holy angels delivering little children to their mothers.

Of course, but these statements do not say that the reason God does so is because He foresees what the baby would have done had it lived. That’s what your contention is.

GC 645
The living righteous are changed "in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye." At the voice of God they were glorified; now they are made immortal and with the risen saints are caught up to meet their Lord in the air. Angels "gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other." Little children are borne by holy angels to their mothers' arms. Friends long separated by death are united, nevermore to part, and with songs of gladness ascend together to the City of God. {GC 645.1}

CG 565, 566
You inquire in regard to your little one being saved. Christ's words are your answer: "Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not; for of such is the kingdom of God." Remember the prophecy, "Thus saith the Lord: A voice was heard in Ramah, lamentation, and bitter weeping; Rachel weeping for her children refused to be comforted. . . . Thus saith the Lord: Refrain thy voice from weeping and thine eyes from tears; for thy work shall be rewarded, saith the Lord; and they shall come again from the land of the enemy. And there is hope in thine end, saith the Lord, that thy children shall come again to thine own border." {CG 565.4}

This promise is yours. You may be comforted and trust in the Lord. The Lord has often instructed me that many little ones are to be laid away before the time of trouble. We shall see our children again. We shall meet them and know them in the heavenly courts. Put your trust in the Lord, and be not afraid. {CG 566.1}

Of course. But how long do you think it takes for the Holy Spirit to reach the person's heart? It happens all of a sudden as the child turns 8 or 9? Does it happen for everyone at the same age, in the same way, for Christians and non-Christians? Are there no individual differences?

A key thing to bear in mind is that the reason the truth about God is known is because *God Himself has shown it to them.* So while it is true that sin makes things difficult, God is able to work around this difficulty, and reveal Himself to each one, to the extent that they may be held responsible for not giving thanks to God.

Of course. But how long do you think it takes for the Holy Spirit to reach the person's heart? It happens all of a sudden as the child turns 8 or 9? Does it happen for everyone at the same age, in the same way, for Christians and non-Christians? Are there no individual differences?

Certainly there are differences. Some people respond to the Holy Spirit before they can either remember. Others never do.

TE: The context of this is people like Moses who sinned at the rock, right? Someone who is saved and commits a sin in a moment of weakness, and has not yet repented. Yes, these saved people are saved.

MM: What is the evidence? How does God know they would have repented?

TE: The difference is that God’s imputing or not imputing repentance is not the issue. The issue is whether or not they love God and the principles of His government.

MM: Again, what is the evidence? How does God know they love God and the principles of His government? Why is repentance sometimes required and sometimes not?

TE: But you believe they are not lost. Why not? What does God base it on?

TE: “He makes judgment based on knowing a person's character, not on the basis of foreknowledge.”

MM: Since you do not believe God knows our future choices with 100% accuracy, how, then, can you believe God can save anyone based on their character? Are you implying God can determine the future choices they would have made had they not died based on the general trend of their life? If God was unable to know ahead of time if Jesus was going to fail or succeed, how can you say God knows it about someone who sinned when they died?

**********************

TE: You don’t need an inspired statement to apply logic. Everything God says is logical. He doesn’t tell us things so that we will believe on the basis of authority apart from logic. He wants us to be convinced in our own minds that the things He says are true, because we understand the principles involved, not just because He said so.

MM: Tom, be careful. That’s the same rationale David Koresh used to deceive his followers.

************************

TE: Of course, but these statements do not say that the reason God does so is because He foresees what the baby would have done had it lived. That’s what your contention is.

MM: Okay. Now that you have made it clear you think my idea is wrong – What do you think? How can God trust CBTAOA not to rebel in heaven? What does He base His decision on?