Leaderboard

And what's wrong with quoting her?? It's not any different than quoting others!!

Im sorry but this is just simply not true, at all. This has no basis in fact. Its more than likely the case that some do have an answer, and it is not well-liked. This is NOT an official Adventist teaching by any stretch. Of course, this statement is made without any references or solid proof. The Bible is clear on this subject; and to be frank, its none of our business how God does things and "saves" people. Regardless of the age. He is able to save "to the uttermost," (Heb 7:25), and "His ways are past finding out." (Rom 11:33). It is a matter of trusting God to do what we see no way of doing. There doesnt need to be a list, from a to b for everything when it comes to salvation. It is the cross - the shed blood of Christ that takes care of things we are completely inept at carrying out ourselves, and it is NOT ever up to us how God chooses to do that. No EGW needed. Unless you have specific references to prove what you are saying, sorry, I dont buy any of it. It seems like you are just on this forum to attack SDA beliefs. I dont buy any of it. It gets tiring reading all of the attack-mode dogma. This "fulness" of God is recognized by babies and any others we can't figure out how God does it, byt the actions of those who are capable of knowing doctrine. Being present with them, in the spirit of love and acceptance is all the "light they need; and NO ONE has to have the "amount" of light that we say or think they should in order to be saved. As long as a person, any person, is alive there IS hope for them in Christ: "Ecc 9:4 For to him that is joined to all the living there is hope: for a living dog is better than a dead lion. " A lot of scripture has to be bruited into midnight hour gibberish in order to make it say that God cant save a child of parents who supposedly are "wicked."

SDAs have no explanation of what God our Father will do with His beloved little children, who happen to have wicked parents - except to quote EW. Mrs White seemed to describe it both ways. She was describing the resurrection of a little one, and wrote "we listen in vain for the rapturous cry of the mother". Would that not imply the mother was missing because she was lost, and the "little one" was still made immortal? On the other hand she wrote things that implied the small children (who died as small children) of lost parents could not "go to heaven". And of course, there was the statement about the "ignorant slave" being left "as if he had not been" - "like the beasts". There was a fellow on this forum, who told us that "God can have a relationship with a four celled embryo", and that God saves babies and children on the basis of what they will become in the kingdom. Sorry. I don't buy any of it.

Sorry, I don't agree. Taking your logic, babies who were aborted by their evil mothers would be thrown into the lake of fire; and deceased newborn babies whose evil mothers also died in childbirth would suffer the same fate. I can't accept that. Besides, I don't believe Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because of homosexuality. I believe they were destroyed because they were the hybrid offspring of fallen angels and human women. I believe Lot's wife and children could have been Nephillim. Not trying to start another debate about "sons of God"; just stating my belief; based on Jesus' comparison of the days of Noah and Sodom and Gomorrah. You can believe what you choose.