Yes.
Actually, no. I already am aware that those who reject God, when they can see His reality in creation, they are indeed without excuse, and so that was never an issue with me.
No. They are not. However, the caveat is:
This is a critical juncture, and that's why I put forth the idea that they will indeed reach that point of "understanding," as have most of humanity throughout the ages. Rather than to bypass the absolute mandate for being born again, they will have that opportunity in the Millennium so that they do not bypass the mandate for the requirement to be born again to gain entrance into Heaven.
As you already stated, no verse anywhere makes allowances for any inability to make that decision as getting around having to be born again by choice in calling upon the name of the Lord. In that we are in full agreement. We're not told either way.
This is precisely why I have used this topic as a means for solidifying in the belief systems of others that the word of God is absolute...in that when He said that ALL must be born again to enter into Heaven, that they take that seriously, and independent of any emotional arguments, such as babies getting around that on the basis of their inability. No! That doesn't work either, because it casts an iron rod of human reasoning into the spoked wheel (so to speak) of the absolute for the requirement to be born again as Christ Himself stated without any caveat of situational allowance. It's absolute, period.
As I have said before, Major, you REALLY made me think when you brought into this mix the mentally handicapped. That's another good thought for consideration, and I thank you for that.
But it is not consistent with the requirement to be born again, and the Millennium is an excellent time for that point in their lives on this earth, in this life, to take place.
You see, when we start making exceptions to the absolute commands of Christ, where do we stop? How do we choose the stopping point for the diversions away from the absolute commands of Christ? The sufficiency in the Blood of Christ is not an argument when it has no basis for support from the scriptures as including a subjective excuse manufactured on the basis of our human love for babies, children and the handicapped.
This tends to undermine the voracity and fierce strength in the absoluteness of God's commands and declarations.
Ok, let's look at that:
Well, there is something else Jesus said that flattens the tire in how I think you may be trying to apply that context:
John 9:39 And Jesus said, "For judgment I have come into this world,
that those who do not see may see, and that
those who see may be made blind."
The application of this that you seem to be making is lacking in the comparison. Why?
Here is the crux:
John 9:41 Jesus said to them, "If you were blind, you would have no sin; but now you say, 'We see.' Therefore your sin remains.
Sin, in the meaning of what? Here is what Thayer's Greek Lexicon has to say about the Greek of that passage:
ἔχειν ἁμαρτίαν to have
sin as though it were one's odious private property, or to have done something needing expiation, equivalent to to have committed sin,
John 9:41;
This is not talking about original sin, but rather sins committed...the commission of sins, of which we can't necessarily accuse babies, young children and all the mentally handicapped. No.
However, this does not offer a way out for the sin into which we are all born, inclusive of babies, young children and some of the mentally handicapped. It's reasonable, therefore, to say that they cannot yet be allowed into Heaven, but also not are cast away into Hell until they make that choice in the Millennium.
Again, everyone, please keep in mind that this is only what seems reasonable on the basis of the absolutes we are told about. I am not trying to create some new, absolute doctrine here. These are just some thoughts that have come to me from my belief in the solidity of the absolutes in doctrine that we can all verify from scripture.
MM