Are we born justified?

[Robert]

Amen to the statement that Jesus is the Gospel, but why would you think that only Paul was chosen to explain the Gospel?  Where in Scripture do you read this???  

​Romans 1:1

 Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God, 

2which he promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy scriptures, 

3 the gospel concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh 

4 and was declared to be Son of God with power according to the spirit of holiness by resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord, 

[Samie]

This has been addressed many, many times.  I've personally addressed it at least half a dozen times, and others have addressed it too.

​Sorry, but you have not, although you thought you have. You addressed a different issue not this one:

  On 5/28/2015, 5:52:19, Samie said:

Again & again I had posted that Scriptures CLEARLY say that those whose names are NOT found written in the book of life will be cast into the lake of fire (Rev 20:15). The fact that there are babies in the new earth tells us their names are in the book of life, otherwise they would have been cast into the lake of fire.

 ESV Revelation 20:15 And if anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.

KJV Revelation 20:15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

NAS Revelation 20:15 And if (1)anyone's name was not found written in (a)the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.

NIV Revelation 20:15 If anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.

NKJ Revelation 20:15 And anyone not found written in the Book of Life was cast into the lake of fire.

NLT Revelation 20:15 And anyone whose name was not found recorded in the Book of Life was thrown into the lake of fire.

NRS Revelation 20:15 and anyone whose name was not found written in the book of life was thrown into the lake of fire.

Your contention that there is no verse in Scripture which says the name of every person is written in the book of life, is made void by the above verse. Because the verse indirectly tells us those who will not be cast into the lake of fire have their names in the book of life. And since there will be babies in the new earth, as God Himself showed the prophet Isaiah in vision, THEREFORE, the names of those babies are in the book of life.  Since God does not show partiality, why would He write some babies names and exclude others? And all of us were babies before!

Now, can you  substantiate your claim with Bible verses that not all babies names were written in the book of life, as evidenced by this post quoted below?

Even if we accepted your premise regarding babies (I don't know where you get the idea that babies will be cast into the lake of fire; that doesn't speak well of God's character, does it?), the fact that there are some babies who have their names written in the book of life, does not imply that *every* baby has its name written in the book of life.

In what post  did I bring out the idea of babies being cast into the lake of fire? Did you simply misread my post or something else?  Your belief that there are babies whose names were not written in the book of life tells me you are harboring the idea that these babies will be cast into the lake of fire since Rev 20:15 EXPLICITLY tells us, anyone whose name is NOT found written in the book of life will be cast into the lake of fire.  So can I ask you where you got the idea that babies will be cast into the lake of fire?

[Samie]

I've also repeatedly pointed out that there is a practical problem with your idea, and that is that if every person goes to heaven if they die before the age of accountability, then:

1.It makes no difference how any child is raised, regarding their salvation, provided they die soon enough.

2.The best thing we, or God, could do for such would be to kill them, to ensure their going to heaven.

It seems odd to me that you (and Robert) wouldn't immediately recognize the problem being raised here in points 1 and 2.  This seems obviously problematic.  How would points 1 and 2 speak well of God's character? (or even make sense)

​What is even more odd is your stance of being problematic because I don't see any problem where you see one.

For #1, the parent , NOT the child, is the one responsible for the way he raises his child. Can you show Scriptures that  a child of drug addict parents who died before the age of reason will not be saved because the parents injected heroin into the child's veins?

For #2, your suggestion is suited only for those who cannot think better than your suggestion, and worse it is not a Godly suggestion, and does not make any good sense at all. 

Why do you think God did not annihilate Satan the first time he sinned, then he could not have tempted Adam, and man should not have fallen into sin and Jesus would have not died and we would not be discussing this now? If you can answer this with valid Biblical basis, then you would have answered your contention #2. But if not, then that explains why you came up with such an ungodly suggestion.

[pnattmbtc]

Me:Amen to the statement that Jesus is the Gospel, but why would you think that only Paul was chosen to explain the Gospel?  Where in Scripture do you read this???  

Robert:Romans 1:1

 Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God, 2which he promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy scriptures, 3 the gospel concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh 4 and was declared to be Son of God with power according to the spirit of holiness by resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord,  Like this

Halfway there!  Yes, Paul did preach the Gospel.  Now for the hard part; where does the Bible teach that only Paul did this?  In particular, where does the Bible teach that Christ did not preach the Gospel?  

[pnattmbtc]

Me:This has been addressed many, many times.  I've personally addressed it at least half a dozen times, and others have addressed it too.

Samie:​Sorry, but you have not, although you thought you have. You addressed a different issue not this one:

What issues are you talking about here?  That is, what issue are you raising which hasn't been addressed, and what issue do you think I've been addressing instead of the one you are raising? 

[pnattmbtc]

Your contention that there is no verse in Scripture which says the name of every person is written in the book of life, is made void by the above verse. Because the verse indirectly tells us those who will not be cast into the lake of fire have their names in the book of life. And since there will be babies in the new earth, as God Himself showed the prophet Isaiah in vision, THEREFORE, the names of those babies are in the book of life.  Since God does not show partiality, why would He write some babies names and exclude others? And all of us were babies before!

Now, can you  substantiate your claim with Bible verses that not all babies names were written in the book of life, as evidenced by this post quoted below?

You quoted this verse.  "NRS Revelation 20:15 and anyone whose name was not found written in the book of life was thrown into the lake of fire." 

As has been pointed out, this verse does not say everybody's name is written in the book of life.  It speaks of people whose names were NOT written in the book of life.  You can't use a verse which speaks of names NOT written in the book of life to prove that everybody's name IS written in the book of life.  You need to find a verse that says something like this: "Everybody's name is written in the book of life".

Now, can you  substantiate your claim with Bible verses that not all babies names were written in the book of life, as evidenced by this post quoted below?

You cited Isaiah which says he saw babies on the new earth.  This also isn't good logic.  The fact that Isaiah saw some babies in the new earth does not mean that every baby will be in the new earth. 

[pnattmbtc]

Me:I've also repeatedly pointed out that there is a practical problem with your idea, and that is that if every person goes to heaven if they die before the age of accountability, then:

1.It makes no difference how any child is raised, regarding their salvation, provided they die soon enough.

2.The best thing we, or God, could do for such would be to kill them, to ensure their going to heaven.

It seems odd to me that you (and Robert) wouldn't immediately recognize the problem being raised here in points 1 and 2.  This seems obviously problematic.  How would points 1 and 2 speak well of God's character? (or even make sense)

Samie:What is even more odd is your stance of being problematic because I don't see any problem where you see one.

Why do you find that odd?  Why do you not see a problem with the idea that it makes no difference how a child is raised as far as their salvation is concerned?  The blood in the doorposts in the Exodus is an example of the importance of the actions of the parents in regards to the salvation of the children.

Samie:For #1, the parent , NOT the child, is the one responsible for the way he raises his child. 

Whether a child is resurrected to live in heaven is not a question of responsibility, but of fitness.  What responsibility could a child before the age of accountability have for its actions?  That's the whole point of pointing out that has dies before the age of accountability; that it has no responsibility.

Your contention is that the fitness of the child does not matter; a child can be raised in any way, without any negative impact, as long as it dies soon enough.

Samie:Can you show Scriptures that  a child of drug addict parents who died before the age of reason will not be saved because the parents injected heroin into the child's veins?

Can you rephrase this please?  Of course the Bible doesn't speak of heorin at all, so this specific question could not be answered, but rather a question which deals with the principles involved, so please phrase the question in such a way to address the principles you would like to have discussed.

I'll respond in a general way, that your argument is based on an inference, that since Isaiah saw babies in the new earth, that this means that all babies will be resurrected.  As far as I know, this is your only argument.  To rebut this argument, I don't need to produce any verse stating something contrary to what you are asserting, but merely point out that your inference is not valid.  That fact that Isaiah saw some babies in the new earth does not mean that every baby will be in the new earth.

You're saying that there is no partiality with God, which is true; any baby fit to be resurrected will be resurrected.  The fact that God is not partial does not mean that fitness is not an issue; it means that God will be fair in His judgment, and will not favor some over others because of irrelevant factors, such as being rich, or being free instead of slave or male instead of female.

Samie:For #2, your suggestion is suited only for those who cannot think better than your suggestion, and worse it is not a Godly suggestion, and does not make any good sense at all. 

It does make sense.  Suppose you have two alternatives:
1.Kill X, in which case X will be in heaven.
2.Don't kill X, in which case X will be cast in the lake of fire.

Wouldn't 1 be a better alternative than 2?  After all, dying is just called "sleep" in Scripture.  Wouldn't it be better to be put to sleep soon enough to spend eternity in heaven, rather than being case in the lake of fire?

Samie:Why do you think God did not annihilate Satan the first time he sinned, then he could not have tempted Adam, and man should not have fallen into sin and Jesus would have not died and we would not be discussing this now? If you can answer this with valid Biblical basis, then you would have answered your contention #2. But if not, then that explains why you came up with such an ungodly suggestion.

These are different issues.  The reason Satan was not allowed to immediately reap that which he had shown was explained by Jesus in the parable of the wheat and the tares.  The ungodly suggestion, as you refer to it, follows from your idea; it's simple logic.  This is evidence that your idea isn't sound, that there are problems with it.

Edited June 1, 2015 by pnattmbtc

[Samie]

If you were reading my posts, Bro jackson, then you would have known long time ago

that those NOT written in the book of life are the offspring of evil angels who married human women and produced demons. There is no plan of redemption for Satan and his host.

[Samie]

Why do you find that odd?  Why do you not see a problem with the idea that it makes no difference how a child is raised as far as their salvation is concerned?

​It was your idea not mine. I was saying that the way their parents raised them does not work for or against the salvation of children who die before the age of reason.

KJV Deuteronomy 1:39 Moreover your little ones, which ye said should be a prey, and your children, which in that day had no knowledge between good and evil, they shall go in thither, and unto them will I give it, and they shall possess it.

From the above verse, even children of Hebrew parents that time who raised their children in a negative way also positively benefited from God's promise, proving that your contention is wrong. If the little children of the exodus were treated this way, I believe God Who shows no partiality and in Whom is no variableness nor shadow of turning, will show the same treatment to all the little children.

The blood in the doorposts in the Exodus is an example of the importance of the actions of the parents in regards to the salvation of the children.

Hebrew parents along with their children whom they raised negatively, if they placed blood in their doorposts, positively benefited from God's Passover promise. On the other hand, Hebrew parents along with their children whom they raised positively all perished if they did not place blood in their doorposts. Child-raising is not an issue in the Passover, but rather their placing of blood in the doorposts. You seem to have misapplied or stretched Scriptures here.

[Samie]

Why do you find that odd?  Why do you not see a problem with the idea that it makes no difference how a child is raised as far as their salvation is concerned?

​It was your idea not mine. I was saying that the way their parents raised them does not work for or against the salvation of children who die before the age of reason.

KJV Deuteronomy 1:39 Moreover your little ones, which ye said should be a prey, and your children, which in that day had no knowledge between good and evil, they shall go in thither, and unto them will I give it, and they shall possess it.

From the above verse, even children of Hebrew parents that time who raised their children in a negative way also positively benefited from God's promise, proving that your contention is wrong. If the little children of the exodus were treated this way, I believe God Who shows no partiality and in Whom is no variableness nor shadow of turning, will show the same treatment to all the little children.

The blood in the doorposts in the Exodus is an example of the importance of the actions of the parents in regards to the salvation of the children.

Hebrew parents along with their children whom they raised negatively, if they placed blood in their doorposts, positively benefited from God's Passover promise. On the other hand, Hebrew parents along with their children whom they raised positively all perished if they did not place blood in their doorposts. Child-raising is not an issue in the Passover, but rather their placing of blood in the doorposts. You seem to have misapplied or stretched Scriptures here.

[Samie]

Whether a child is resurrected to live in heaven is not a question of responsibility, but of fitness.  What responsibility could a child before the age of accountability have for its actions?  That's the whole point of pointing out that has dies before the age of accountability; that it has no responsibility.

Your contention is that the fitness of the child does not matter; a child can be raised in any way, without any negative impact, as long as it dies soon enough.

​You again did a paradox. While maintaining on one hand that little children dying at infancy have no responsibility, you are saying on the other hand that the way a child is raised impacts upon his salvation even if he dies before the age of accountability for reason of fitness. How can you require fitness from one who has no responsibility?

[Samie]

I'll respond in a general way, that your argument is based on an inference, that since Isaiah saw babies in the new earth, that this means that all babies will be resurrected.  As far as I know, this is your only argument.  To rebut this argument, I don't need to produce any verse stating something contrary to what you are asserting, but merely point out that your inference is not valid.

​Even if you want to show a verse contrary to what I am asserting you can't because there seems to be none, is there? If there is, then where, what verse?

That fact that Isaiah saw some babies in the new earth does not mean that every baby will be in the new earth.

If God showed Isaiah babies in the new earth, then I believe, every baby who died before the age of accountability will be resurrected to live in the new earth because God does not show partiality.  You have yet to produce a verse that says otherwise.

You're saying that there is no partiality with God, which is true; any baby fit to be resurrected will be resurrected.  The fact that God is not partial does not mean that fitness is not an issue; it means that God will be fair in His judgment, and will not favor some over others because of irrelevant factors, such as being rich, or being free instead of slave or male instead of female.

So, based on Scriptures, what makes a baby who died before the age of accountability UNFIT for the new earth?

[Samie]

    It does make sense.  Suppose you have two alternatives:

1.Kill X, in which case X will be in heaven.
2.Don't kill X, in which case X will be cast in the lake of fire.

Wouldn't 1 be a better alternative than 2?  After all, dying is just called "sleep" in Scripture.  Wouldn't it be better to be put to sleep soon enough to spend eternity in heaven, rather than being case in the lake of fire?

​Again, where in Scriptures did you get the idea that God will throw babies into the lake of fire, babies who according to you are unfit? And you say your suggestion makes good sense?

[joeb]

This is a great question.  To my mind, it is because God's character is misunderstood.  Our picture of God determines how we think, which determines the decisions we make, which determines our character.  If we get the character of God wrong, how can we get the rest right?  The Spirit of Prophecy tells us the "whole purpose of Christ's mission" was "the revelation of the Father" in order to set and keep men right. I don't think God's character has been given the importance it deserves.

​My answer to this same question is that the teaching that we cannot overcome, that sin is stronger than God, is commonplace.  This teaching appeals to the unregenerated human heart for it gives an excuse to hang onto sin.  If I can't overcome why try because God will just forgive me and make me perfect when He comes.  

I do agree with you that the correct understanding of God's character is very important, and as I think about this as I type I have come to agree with you that it is at the bottom of it all.  It's a distortion of God's character to think that He will meekly submit to being used by sinners, for that is exactly what the popular teaching that we cannot overcome sin here and now actually teaches.  

If God could not just accept sin in the first place by forgiving unrepentant sinners then He cannot do that now either.  His character hasn't changed and neither has the character of sin.  Both cannot survive forever in our universe for they are completely at odds with each other.   

[8thdaypriest]

​Seems to have still remained unaddressed, unanswered and unresponded to with valid Biblical basis by objectors.

​Samie,  This HAS been answered, again and again and again and again. . . . . .  I do NOT believe as you do.  Seems others here, also do NOT believe as you do. 

 

[Samie]

​Samie,  This HAS been answered, again and again and again and again. . . . . .  I do NOT believe as you do.  Seems others here, also do NOT believe as you do. 

​Yes, you seem to have answered but without Biblical basis. Again,

NRS Revelation 20:15 and anyone whose name was not found written in the book of life was thrown into the lake of fire.

A baby is seen in the new earth instead of in the lake of fire, is that baby's name found written in the book of life?  If Yes, then, case closed.  If no, then, why, what's the Biblical basis?

[8thdaypriest]

 

​Sorry, but you have not, although you thought you have. You addressed a different issue not this one:

 

 ESV Revelation 20:15 And if anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.

KJV Revelation 20:15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

NAS Revelation 20:15 And if (1)anyone's name was not found written in (a)the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.

NIV Revelation 20:15 If anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.

NKJ Revelation 20:15 And anyone not found written in the Book of Life was cast into the lake of fire.

NLT Revelation 20:15 And anyone whose name was not found recorded in the Book of Life was thrown into the lake of fire.

NRS Revelation 20:15 and anyone whose name was not found written in the book of life was thrown into the lake of fire.

Your contention that there is no verse in Scripture which says the name of every person is written in the book of life, is made void by the above verse. Because the verse indirectly tells us those who will not be cast into the lake of fire have their names in the book of life. And since there will be babies in the new earth, as God Himself showed the prophet Isaiah in vision, THEREFORE, the names of those babies are in the book of life.  Since God does not show partiality, why would He write some babies names and exclude others? And all of us were babies before!

Now, can you  substantiate your claim with Bible verses that not all babies names were written in the book of life, as evidenced by this post quoted below?

In what post  did I bring out the idea of babies being cast into the lake of fire? Did you simply misread my post or something else?  Your belief that there are babies whose names were not written in the book of life tells me you are harboring the idea that these babies will be cast into the lake of fire since Rev 20:15 EXPLICITLY tells us, anyone whose name is NOT found written in the book of life will be cast into the lake of fire.  So can I ask you where you got the idea that babies will be cast into the lake of fire?

​The CONTEXT of Revelation 20:15 is the Great White Throne judgment, which TAKES PLACE AFTER the Gog/Magog Battle. 

The Gog/Magog Battle takes place AFTER the 1000 years of the 7th millennium. 

So -

If all children, the mentally handicapped, all those ignorant slaves, and all peoples unreached by the gospel - ARE RAISED as "the rest of the dead" - ARE taught and governed by the "priests of God and of Christ",  and THEN either join the camp of God, or rebel as the army of Gog/Magog -

they are no longer children!!!!!  They are no longer children when the Great White Throne judgment sits. 

By that time all those kids will either have joined the camp of Christ, or have been consumed with the army of Gog/Magog. 

 

 

 

[Samie]

​The CONTEXT of Revelation 20:15 is the Great White Throne judgment, which TAKES PLACE AFTER the Gog/Magog Battle. 

The Gog/Magog Battle takes place AFTER the 1000 years of the 7th millennium. 

So -

If all children, the mentally handicapped, all those ignorant slaves, and all peoples unreached by the gospel - ARE RAISED as "the rest of the dead" - ARE taught and governed by the "priests of God and of Christ",  and THEN either join the camp of God, or rebel as the army of Gog/Magog -

they are no longer children!!!!!  They are no longer children when the Great White Throne judgment sits. 

By that time all those kids will either have joined the camp of Christ, or have been consumed with the army of Gog/Magog. 

​When do you think is the period of the new earth in Isaiah's vision, BEFORE or AFTER Gog and Magog and the Great White Throne judgment?

If BEFORE, then the little children in the new earth are alive during the 7th millennium. They are not among those resurrected in the 8th millennium, because you don't resurrect those alive.

If AFTER, then the little children in the new earth were not thrown into the lake of fire. And again, your contention is wrong, because as you said, "they are no longer children!!!!!  They are no longer children when the Great White Throne judgment sits." but there are children in the new earth AFTER the Great White Throne judgment.

So whichever way, you put it, BEFORE or AFTER, your contention that babies are among those resurrected at the 8th millennium is NOT supported by Scriptures.

[8thdaypriest]

Let me see if I can outline it better:

At the Second Coming the justified, and the wicked are resurrected.

The wicked are "raised to shame and everlasting condemnation".  They stand before Christ who announces the verdict against them. 

Christ tells the "goats" they are condemned to the "everlasting fire".   They are left behind to die as the 7 last plagues destroy the earth.  

The wicked from the 6000 years (Adam to the SC) are NOW DEAD.  They will not be resurrected again - forever. 

NEXT

The redeemed to go "the Father's House" where they prepare to serve as "priests of God and of Christ". 

Their preparation will not be finished for 1000 years.  They cannot serve as priests until "the 8th Day".

NEXT

at the END of the 7th millennium, the redeemed "return to the land"

They will build Ezekiel's Temple.  They rebuild the ruined cities within the territory promised to Abraham.  They plant vineyards. 

A river will flow out from the MHP of that Temple.  Where the river flows, the earth comes back to life.

The "rest of the dead" are resurrected (as mortal human beings).   These are people who died in ignorance of God or His Law.

The "rest of the dead" are taught the "ways of God" and are governed by the priests under Christ.  (Ruling the nations - as promised.)

The people either join the "camp of the saints" OR rebel under Satan as Gog/Magog. 

Those who rebel are consumed by "fire".  Satan and his angels are also thrown into the "lake of fire". 

They are NOW DEAD.  They will never be resurrected again - forever.

NEXT

The Great White Throne judgment

ALL the wicked/rebellious are NOW DEAD.  They will NEVER live again.  They are NOT CONSCIOUS when God deletes His memory of them.

The abode of the dead - also known as Sheol, is cast into the lake of fire.   MEANING: Everyone who is DEAD at this point is consumed in the lake of fire.

God has erased HIS memory of these people.  Whatever HE retained of them, so that HE could resurrected them, has now been consumed in "the lake of fire". 

The text does NOT SAY these people were "cast alive into the lake of fire".  

That's the outline.    Maybe I'll copy this over to the thread on the "rest of the dead". 

 

 

 

 

[Samie]

Let me see if I can outline it better:

At the Second Coming the justified, and the wicked are resurrected.

The wicked are "raised to shame and everlasting condemnation".  They stand before Christ who announces the verdict against them. 

Christ tells the "goats" they are condemned to the "everlasting fire".   They are left behind to die as the 7 last plagues destroy the earth.  

The wicked from the 6000 years (Adam to the SC) are NOW DEAD.  They will not be resurrected again - forever. 

Scriptures say that they will be resurrected again after the expiration of the 7th millennium to meet their SECOND death, the lake of fire.  Their FIRST death is in the 7 last plagues.

[8thdaypriest]

​When do you think is the period of the new earth in Isaiah's vision, BEFORE or AFTER Gog and Magog and the Great White Throne judgment?

If BEFORE, then the little children in the new earth are alive during the 7th millennium. They are not among those resurrected in the 8th millennium, because you don't resurrect those alive.

If AFTER, then the little children in the new earth were not thrown into the lake of fire. And again, your contention is wrong, because as you said, "they are no longer children!!!!!  They are no longer children when the Great White Throne judgment sits." but there are children in the new earth AFTER the Great White Throne judgment.

So whichever way, you put it, BEFORE or AFTER, your contention that babies are among those resurrected at the 8th millennium is NOT supported by Scriptures.

​Isaiah's vision of the "new earth" is a little view of Messiah's 8th Day kingdom.  This is BEFORE Gog/Magog.  And Gog/Magog is BEFORE the Great White Throne judgment.

Isaiah's vision is a view of the earth BEFORE the Great White Throne judgment. 

[8thdaypriest]

Scriptures say that they will be resurrected again after the expiration of the 7th millennium to meet their SECOND death, the lake of fire.  Their FIRST death is in the 7 last plagues.

​I DISAGREE with your hypothesis Samie. 

[Samie]

You can disagree with me, but please, not with Scriptures. The SECOND death of the wicked is the lake of fire. If there's a SECOND , there must necessarily be a FIRST. Their FIRST death is in the 7 last plagues. There's no FIRST nor SECOND death for the righteous.

[pnattmbtc]

Me:Why do you find that odd?  Why do you not see a problem with the idea that it makes no difference how a child is raised as far as their salvation is concerned?

Samie:It was your idea not mine. I was saying that the way their parents raised them does not work for or against the salvation of children who die before the age of reason.

How is that different than what I said you said?  This idea is yours, not mine.  I have been arguing that it *does* make a difference how young children are raised.

Samie:KJV Deuteronomy 1:39 Moreover your little ones, which ye said should be a prey, and your children, which in that day had no knowledge between good and evil, they shall go in thither, and unto them will I give it, and they shall possess it.

From the above verse, even children of Hebrew parents that time who raised their children in a negative way also positively benefited from God's promise, proving that your contention is wrong. If the little children of the exodus were treated this way, I believe God Who shows no partiality and in Whom is no variableness nor shadow of turning, will show the same treatment to all the little children.

This is talking about entering the land of Israel thousands of years ago, not the new earth.  Of course this would include all children, regardless of how they were raised, since they only need to be physically alive to physically travel to a physical place, but this has nothing to do with your assertion that all children will be saved in heaven regardless of how they are raised.  Being saved in heaven has to do with one's fitness to be there.

Me:The blood in the doorposts in the Exodus is an example of the importance of the actions of the parents in regards to the salvation of the children.

Samie:Hebrew parents along with their children whom they raised negatively, if they placed blood in their doorposts, positively benefited from God's Passover promise. 

Raising them negatively here would mean not placing the blood on the doorposts, in which case they would have been lost.

Samie:On the other hand, Hebrew parents along with their children whom they raised positively all perished if they did not place blood in their doorposts. 

Same comment.  The point of my comment is that the principle illustrated is that the actions of the parents effect the salvation of the children.

Samie:Child-raising is not an issue in the Passover, but rather their placing of blood in the doorposts. You seem to have misapplied or stretched Scriptures here.
 
 

Not at all:

The question is asked, "How can little children have this test and trial?" I answer that the faith of the believing parents covers the children, as when God sent His judgments upon the first-born of the Egyptians. {3SM 313.4} The word of God came to the Israelites in bondage to gather their children into their houses and to mark the doorposts of their houses with blood from a lamb, slain. This prefigured the slaying of the Son of God and the efficacy of His blood, which was shed for the salvation of the sinner. It was a sign that the household accepted Christ as the promised Redeemer. It was shielded from the destroyer's power. The parents evidenced their faith in implicitly obeying the directions given them, and the faith of the parents covered themselves and their children. They showed their faith in Jesus, the great Sacrifice, whose blood was prefigured in the slain lamb. The destroying angel passed over every house that had this mark upon it. This is a symbol to show that the faith of the parents extends to their children and covers them from the destroying angel. {3SM 314.1} 

[pnattmbtc]

Me:Whether a child is resurrected to live in heaven is not a question of responsibility, but of fitness.  What responsibility could a child before the age of accountability have for its actions?  That's the whole point of pointing out that has dies before the age of accountability; that it has no responsibility.

Your contention is that the fitness of the child does not matter; a child can be raised in any way, without any negative impact, as long as it dies soon enough.

Samie:You again did a paradox. While maintaining on one hand that little children dying at infancy have no responsibility, you are saying on the other hand that the way a child is raised impacts upon his salvation even if he dies before the age of accountability for reason of fitness. How can you require fitness from one who has no responsibility?

It appears you're thinking of "require" here as if it were an arbitrary requirement.  It's not an arbitrary requirement (i.e. imposed), but a real one.  One has to be raised, or develop character if old enough to govern oneself, in a certain way, or one will not be fit for heaven.  This is not a "requirement", but a description of reality.

Those, whether children or not, who have been trained to be selfish can in no way go to heaven, because they wouldn't be happy there.  Heaven would be torture for them.