Will the unborn children of non-believing mothers be included in the Rapture?I'm not being facetious. It's just that I've never heard this addressed before, and, as excruciatingly detailed as they are, no dispensational End Times chart mentions it.
Monday, November 30, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
8 comments:
During the rapture, all will have spiritual bodies, including the unborn. Of course the unborn being without sin will be given graces extraordinary, and left behind, while their taken away moms go to the judgment and the lake of fire. Being left behind is a good thing as God shows us by the Exodus: the Hebrews went through the waters and were left behind while the Egyptians were taken away by the waters.
Of course you could experience a rapture today, when, in persona Christi, a man says "This is My Body" and "This is My blood's cup" and the Body and Blood of Christ enter the world. Only a blasphemer would try to offer any other sacrifice to God.
Well, according to the Left Behind series, the definitive authority on all things 'Dispensational', all unborn children were raptured (actually, I think all kids under 12 were raptured....sucks to have just turned 12 the day before eh?).
In all seriousness, this isn't really a dispensational question at all, but rather an age of accountability question.
I love Anonymous posters! They are so brave! And what a load of claptrap I have ever read! Unborn being innocent, innocent of what committing sins? What about Adam's sin? Must not matter, sounds like we have some Pelagianism being espoused.
My answer.
The one true gospel is Mashiach, Yeshua of Nazareth, died for our sins according to the scriptures, He was buried and He rose again the third day according to the scriptures. All understanding comes from the scriptures in light of the one true gospel.
In Adam all died, in Mashiach all are made alive, each person in God's own order. Every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Yeshua is Lord to the glory of the Father. The end of the Lord is the Lord is very pitiful and of tender mercies. His mercy endureth forever.
There is no rapture. The day of Christ is at hand! The falling away has already occurred and the son of perdition has been revealed.
Daniel
habasar.wordpress.com
P.D.,
I pose this question in sincerity, not in a tone of argument.
I agree of course that the sin of Adam was passed down to all people. We are all born with a sinful nature, but is it not the case that it is not just a sinful nature that sends people to Hell but sin itself?
It would seem to me that while an infant is sinful by nature they are not yet a sinner until they actually transgress God's law. So then it seems reasonable to me that God would usher such a one that dies into his presence.
What is your thought on that line of reasoning? That just makes sense to me and I think it is a biblically based view. God bless.
PD Nelson:
In opposition to Pelagianism, it was maintained at the General Council of Carthage in 418 as a principle of faith that Christian grace is absolutely necessary for the correct knowledge and performance of good, and that perfect sinlessness is impossible on earth even for the justified. [Pohle, Joseph. "Semipelagianism." The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 13. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1912. 2 Dec. 2009 here.]
Thus according to this even the sinless require grace, so as to have faith that generates hope and love. And unless, of course, you believe God isn't perfectly just, He should provide those innocent of actual sin with grace since original sin is really lacking the grace (a (de-)privation) required to go to heaven. You'll notice the first post mentions the need for extraordinary grace (the ordinary grace would have come through Baptism)
I answer that, According to the Catholic Faith we are bound to hold that the first sin of the first man is transmitted to his descendants, by way of origin. For this reason children are taken to be baptized soon after their birth, to show that they have to be washed from some uncleanness. The contrary is part of the Pelagian heresy, as is clear from Augustine in many of his books [For instance, Retract. i, 9; De Pecc. Merit. et Remiss. ix; Contra Julian. iii, 1; De Dono Persev. xi, xii.] ... But if anyone were to be formed by God out of human flesh, it is evident that the active power would not be derived from Adam. Consequently he would not contract original sin: even as a hand would have no part in a human sin, if it were moved, not by the man's will, but by some external power. ... Anselm states (De Concep. Virg. ii, iii, xxvi), so that original sin is a privation. ... Now the cause of this corrupt disposition that is called original sin, is one only, viz. the privation of original justice, removing the subjection of man's mind to God. ... I answer that, There are two things in original sin: one is the privation of original justice; the other is the relation of this privation to the sin of our first parent, from whom it is transmitted to man through his corrupt origin. As to the first, original sin has no degrees, since the gift of original justice is taken away entirely; and privations that remove something entirely, such as death and darkness, cannot be more or less, as stated above (Question 73, Article 2). In like manner, neither is this possible, as to the second: since all are related equally to the first principle of our corrupt origin, from which principle original sin takes the nature of guilt; for relations cannot be more or less. Consequently it is evident that original sin cannot be more in one than in another. [The Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas, Qusetions 81-83, Second and Revised Edition, 1920, Literally translated by Fathers of the English Dominican Province, Online Edition Copyright © 2008 by Kevin Knight]
I suggest next time you consult the definitions before your post.
Apparently not only children, but the pets who are owned by Christians also :)
See http://covenant-theology.blogspot.com/2009/11/optional-pet-election.html
Post a Comment