PDA

View Full Version : If there is total depravity, how can there be an "age of accountability"?



the rookie
Nov 14th 2007, 06:24 PM
I'm trying to reconcile these two ideas - if we are born in sin and are totally depraved, what do we say then about babies, toddlers, and adolescents and their sin nature and need for atonement / justification?

I realize that Augustine wrestled with this same issue, and I'm not sure I like his conclusions. But if total depravity is a true doctrine, than wouldn't one have to wrestle with the fate of a child if they die without being justified by faith?

Perhaps there is a simple solution to my question that I'm missing. But the dillemma does help me understand how the idea of an infant baptism would be necessary; of course, as an arminan charismatic protestant, I don't buy into the concept; but how does a traditional evangelical calvinist solve the dilemma?

I suppose that, in one sense, a child's death before the opportunity to be justified by a faith would be the same as a grown man's death? Is this how it would be viewed by a Calvinist?

I don't want to necessarily debate the concept of our sin nature from birth, particularly in light of the following passages:

Psalm 58:3
The wicked are estranged from the womb;They go astray as soon as they are born, speaking lies.

Psalm 51:5
Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity,And in sin my mother conceived me.

So I understand that everyone from birth needs to be delivered from iniquity; but it's the concept of total depravity and the child that has my curiosity piqued; but I suppose of atonement is limited my question is a non-issue for some. Would this be the case?

Steve M
Nov 14th 2007, 06:28 PM
The true hard-line Calvinist sits on Predestination here. If they were of the Elect, what age they died at doesn't matter. If they weren't... the age they die at doesn't matter.

There are varying degrees from there.

Pleroo
Nov 14th 2007, 07:07 PM
I'm not a calvinist, but I do believe that the Bible teaches all are born dead in sin and are in need of regeneration and faith in Christ as their savior. I do not believe the Bible teaches an "age of accountability" either.

Just as I believe that an adult cannot come to faith of their own will, I do not believe a child can. It is a work of God to regenerate and renew.

Titus 3:4 But when the kindness and the love of God our Savior toward man appeared, 5 not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit, 6 whom He poured out on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7 that having been justified by His grace we should become heirs according to the hope of eternal life.

Some say an infant cannot have faith. But I believe it is God's work to regenerate the dead spirit of a person, to plant the seed of faith in their hearts. A seed is all it takes. If He can do that for an adult, I have no reason to believe it is too hard for Him to do it for an infant. I believe that the Spirit can and does work through the Word in baptism to regenerate and renew and to plant that seed, so infant baptism makes complete sense to me.

I realize you, nor most here would agree with me, but I hope I've at least explained it so that you can understand why I believe as I do.

Pleroo
Nov 14th 2007, 07:32 PM
Oh, I realized that I never answered your question about limited atonement. I have never believed that the Bible taught this -- I have always known that Christ's sacrifice is for the whole world and not a select few.

In the past, I would have simply said that I could not logically reconcile the fact that it is God's work alone to save and that He also desires all to be saved, but since God's word clearly proclaimed both, I believe both.
And though it's no longer the case that I can't reconcile those two, that's where I'll have to leave it due to board rules.

watchinginawe
Nov 14th 2007, 08:18 PM
But if total depravity is a true doctrine, than wouldn't one have to wrestle with the fate of a child if they die without being justified by faith? :hmm: I'm not sure that total depravity declares the need of faith, but rather God's grace. Grace is the universal term here. So the age of accountability might be that threshold where one can begin to accept by faith or to deny the need or desire for God's saving grace. So, it isn't that grace isn't needed in the circumstance of innocents, but rather how God bestows it.

God Bless!

Mograce2U
Nov 14th 2007, 08:43 PM
The idea that because we are born in iniquity is equal to being totally depraved from the moment of birth is a huge leap if you ask me.

(Psa 51:5-7 KJV) Behold, I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me. {6} Behold, thou desirest truth in the inward parts: and in the hidden part thou shalt make me to know wisdom. {7} Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean: wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow.

God did not create man and then leave him to himself after Adam sinned. He brought a covering for Adam & Eve so they could stand in His presence and gave them a promise of life to give them hope.

The fact that man can do no ultimate good because of sin, doesn't mean he is without effort to try or the ability to recognize what is good. What he lacks is the power to overcome his sin nature and actually do that good he knows. The tree Adam ate from contained the knowledge of good and evil. That is what makes him accountable even though he is without power to perform. Therefore his dependence must be upon God - who is the only one who can keep alive his soul.

Calvin for some reason fails to consider that God desired mankind to be saved from the beginnning and neglects to see the provision made right there in the garden to restore Adam's relationship with God. A relationship he could not initiate, but was expected to maintain thru faith in the promise and obedience to the word of God.

Even Cain had a relationship with God who warned him about sin and that by doing right, he could overcome it. Cain however like many since, despised the word of God, preferring his sin rather than follow after the remedy given for it. Cain wasn't born a murderer, but his sin led him to it. Yet God gave him warning beforehand, instruction about what he needed to do, and protection from retaliation after. Why? so that Cain could have hope in this life and continue to live in the earth by the grace and mercy of God given to him.

Which shows us that forgiveness has always been the will of God and faith the vehicle by which it is obtained. Those who persist to despise the word of God therefore have no excuse, and they will die in their sins - not because of depravity, but because they choose to do so. It is not because the grace of God was not extended to them - which Cain is the example.

Illumined
Nov 15th 2007, 12:42 AM
As to the age of accountability, Isaiah spoke of a little child before “he knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right” (Isa. 7:15-16).

This seems to imply that there is an age of moral accountability. Jesus said even of adults, “If you were blind, you would not be guilty of sin; but now that you claim you can see, your guilt remains” (John 9:41). How much more would this apply to infants who do not yet know moral right from wrong?

Original sin, brought about by Adam is canceled by Christ. If so, then no human being is hell-bound because of Adam’s sin. They must commit sins of their own to go there. In this case, since infants have not committed personal sins, they could all be saved even though they are not yet old enough to believe. The judicial condemnation brought by Adam (Rom. 5:12) was reversed, and God is free to save any and all. This being the case, there is no reason that God must condemn infants. Christ died for them. God can save them if he wishes to do so. But since God is long-suffering, not willing that any should perish (2 Peter 3:9), and since the infants cannot believe, God saves them through the finished work of Christ.

The precise age of accountability may differi ndividually, depending on their moral development. Perhaps it is earlier for those who are exposed to concepts of moral right and wrong earlier. At any rate, it probably occurs sometime between ages four and twelve.

The point at which it occurs is when the individual is old enough to understand the difference between moral right and wrong and the consequences of making moral choices. In biblical terms, when they are aware of the “law writtenin their hearts” (Rom. 2:15).

They are morally accountable when they are old enough to know that what they do is against the moral law of God. Or, as Isaiah said, they are morally responsible when they are old enough to “to reject the wrong and choose the right” (Isa. 7:15). <><

Soj
Nov 15th 2007, 01:25 AM
When we were born we were born with a sinful nature, but we were born in innocency. If we die in that state then we go to heaven. Because we were innocent, God did not impute sin to us, it lay dormant within us waiting for the God's Law to awake it, and that is what Paul meant when he said the following:

Romans 7:9 For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.

Once sin was awoken by the commandment, God imputed that sin to him because he knew what he was doing and freely chose to do it. With sin came the condemnation of the Law - death.

Once you realise that an action is a violation of what God said, and you do it anyway, like Adam and Eve, you die! Your death though, is merely God reckoning the actual deadness of your spirit to your account.

alethos
Nov 15th 2007, 06:25 PM
I'm trying to reconcile these two ideas - if we are born in sin and are totally depraved, what do we say then about babies, toddlers, and adolescents and their sin nature and need for atonement / justification?

I realize that Augustine wrestled with this same issue, and I'm not sure I like his conclusions. But if total depravity is a true doctrine, than wouldn't one have to wrestle with the fate of a child if they die without being justified by faith?

Perhaps there is a simple solution to my question that I'm missing. But the dillemma does help me understand how the idea of an infant baptism would be necessary; of course, as an arminan charismatic protestant, I don't buy into the concept; but how does a traditional evangelical calvinist solve the dilemma?

I suppose that, in one sense, a child's death before the opportunity to be justified by a faith would be the same as a grown man's death? Is this how it would be viewed by a Calvinist?

I don't want to necessarily debate the concept of our sin nature from birth, particularly in light of the following passages:

Psalm 58:3
The wicked are estranged from the womb;They go astray as soon as they are born, speaking lies.

Psalm 51:5
Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity,And in sin my mother conceived me.

So I understand that everyone from birth needs to be delivered from iniquity; but it's the concept of total depravity and the child that has my curiosity piqued; but I suppose of atonement is limited my question is a non-issue for some. Would this be the case?

Your question brings to mind the fact that God's word says we are saved by grace through faith Eph 2:8. And if an infant cannot have faith, then I need to trust that God in His love will make sure that whatever happens to those infants who die before they can have faith will be taken care of in a manner that God determines, and I believe that He knows what is best, and will always do the right thing in exercising His love in each individual case.

baycee
Nov 16th 2007, 05:29 AM
I was wrestling through this very issue on my OT Survey paper about the killing of all the firstborn in Exodus. I hope I didn't fail the paper rookie... Certainly that was God's judgment right? :D

baycee
Nov 16th 2007, 05:49 AM
BTW, if indeed the doctrine of total depravity is flawed, the implications are ginormous

the rookie
Nov 16th 2007, 11:39 PM
:D I hope not, Baycee.

I'm going to avoid that sticky little theological point for now and come back to it later (meaning Egypt and the death of the firstborn and then Joshua and the command of the Lord to cleanse the land later on)

As I'm following the answers, there seems to be a lack of consensus; so maybe we can focus on one point first and then work forward logically and theologically from there:

Are babies born into depravity / iniquity totally depraved? If they die before consciously engaging with truth and faith by grace then is it simply an issue of predestination?

Part of why I asked the questions initially is because I don't want to assume or presume I know how a Calvinist would answer, but I wanted to hear the actual thought process on total depravity and the condition of a child before God, particularly in the case of the death of an infant or toddler.

third hero
Nov 18th 2007, 10:25 AM
I hope that I can help a little.

I am not a calvanist, which I believe you already knew that. However, I do believe in the concept of the "age of accountability". I do not have much information, except this.

Adam and Eve were not considered to be in sin until they had gained the knowledge of good and evil. In their case, it was by sinning. However, it was the point where they could acknowledge what they had done that made them accountable for their actions.

A baby, although being born into sin, IMHO, is not held accountable for sins committed, when they did not commit any sins other than being born. But this is my opinion.

Here is some scripture evidence.

For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings. Isaiah 7:16

Now we know that this is a prophecy either concerning Jesus, or a baby during Isaiah's time period that was named Immanuel. the point is that the child was hinted to have a period of time where they are to learn right from wrong, which is where I scripturally derive the concept of Age of accountability. This verse tells me that even in the OT, a child had a period of time where he or she is to learn right from wrong. And from there, once they have reached a certain point, then they are held accountible for their actions.

I know that this may not be enough for some out here, or maybe not enough scripture for you, Rookie, but this is enough for me.

tgallison
Nov 18th 2007, 01:06 PM
I hope that I can help a little.

I am not a calvanist, which I believe you already knew that. However, I do believe in the concept of the "age of accountability". I do not have much information, except this.

Adam and Eve were not considered to be in sin until they had gained the knowledge of good and evil. In their case, it was by sinning. However, it was the point where they could acknowledge what they had done that made them accountable for their actions.

A baby, although being born into sin, IMHO, is not held accountable for sins committed, when they did not commit any sins other than being born. But this is my opinion.

Here is some scripture evidence.

For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings. Isaiah 7:16

Now we know that this is a prophecy either concerning Jesus, or a baby during Isaiah's time period that was named Immanuel. the point is that the child was hinted to have a period of time where they are to learn right from wrong, which is where I scripturally derive the concept of Age of accountability. This verse tells me that even in the OT, a child had a period of time where he or she is to learn right from wrong. And from there, once they have reached a certain point, then they are held accountible for their actions.

I know that this may not be enough for some out here, or maybe not enough scripture for you, Rookie, but this is enough for me.

third hero greetings

In my opinion there is no answer in scripture to this question. Quite often we make judgments based on our feelings.

That is what faith is about. Trusting God that He is good.

Isaiah 55:8 "For my thought are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord."

In Jesus Christ, terrell

Mograce2U
Nov 18th 2007, 04:17 PM
To reconcile this one must understand that, as you cited from scripture, all are concieved in sin. As such we are all under the threat of Hell from conception. Since you say you didn't want to argue our sin condiition from birth I won't get into that. You quoted all scripture needed to prove that point with your citations. One only needs to accept the truth of the bible to understand.

The problem arises when we think we can contribute any to salvation. We can not. Since the bible in many, many verses teaches that it's the faith of Christ that saves and not our faith. Does anyone need to believe or have faith to be saved? No. Same for babies. God saves whom He will. The verse in Isa 7 is clearly talking about the baby Jesus. Not about all babies in the womb.

Hi Mikey0,
I think you made a good point about faith. It is in this life that we must walk by faith. In the next life we will see Him face to face. When we see in the OT that whole cities were to be destroyed, it was because mortal life continued. Failure to rid the land of its wicked inhabitants only brought them back at a later date.

But since the cross, this immediate judgment has been stayed and mercy is available to all who look to Christ. Therefore God is just when He extends that mercy to any whom He wills. It is God who judges the heart, and a child or infant who has yet to commit any willful sin will not be judged for what they have not done.

Certainly no earthly judge sentences any man for what he has not done. Do we not expect that the Judge of the whole earth is even more righteous than we are? While sin is in our nature, it is not our nature that brings judgment upon us, but our actions that we do as a result. Those who have done no good nor evil yet, would certainly seem to be candidates for mercy.

hand2plow
Nov 18th 2007, 09:17 PM
the westminster cofession states: 10:3 Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated, and saved by Christ through the Spirit (Luk_18:15, Luk_18:16, and Act_2:38, Act_2:39, and Joh_3:3, Joh_3:5, and 1Jo_5:12, and Rom_8:9 compared), who worketh when, and where, and how He pleaseth (Joh_3:8): so also, are all other elect persons who are uncapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word (Act_4:12; 1Jo_5:12).

hand2plow
Nov 18th 2007, 09:21 PM
westminster confession states: 10:3 Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated, and saved by Christ through the Spirit (Luk_18:15, Luk_18:16, and Act_2:38, Act_2:39, and Joh_3:3, Joh_3:5, and 1Jo_5:12, and Rom_8:9 compared), who worketh when, and where, and how He pleaseth (Joh_3:8): so also, are all other elect persons who are uncapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word (Act_4:12; 1Jo_5:12).

RoadWarrior
Nov 18th 2007, 09:29 PM
I'm trying to reconcile these two ideas - if we are born in sin and are totally depraved, what do we say then about babies, toddlers, and adolescents and their sin nature and need for atonement / justification?

I realize that Augustine wrestled with this same issue, and I'm not sure I like his conclusions. But if total depravity is a true doctrine, than wouldn't one have to wrestle with the fate of a child if they die without being justified by faith?

Perhaps there is a simple solution to my question that I'm missing. But the dillemma does help me understand how the idea of an infant baptism would be necessary; of course, as an arminan charismatic protestant, I don't buy into the concept; but how does a traditional evangelical calvinist solve the dilemma?

I suppose that, in one sense, a child's death before the opportunity to be justified by a faith would be the same as a grown man's death? Is this how it would be viewed by a Calvinist?

I don't want to necessarily debate the concept of our sin nature from birth, particularly in light of the following passages:

Psalm 58:3
The wicked are estranged from the womb;They go astray as soon as they are born, speaking lies.

Psalm 51:5
Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity,And in sin my mother conceived me.

So I understand that everyone from birth needs to be delivered from iniquity; but it's the concept of total depravity and the child that has my curiosity piqued; but I suppose of atonement is limited my question is a non-issue for some. Would this be the case?

Hi Rookie:

Try this scripture ...
Mt 18:10 "See that you do not look down on one of these little ones. For I tell you that their angels in heaven always see the face of my Father in heaven. NIV

Soj
Nov 18th 2007, 09:39 PM
westminster confession states: 10:3 Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated, and saved by Christ through the Spirit...So is that only the elect infants or all infants?

pinky
Nov 18th 2007, 09:49 PM
This discussion brings to mind these verses, so I just thought to add them for consideration and further discussion....


Rom 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.



Jhn 15:22 If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin: but now they have no cloke for their sin.

hand2plow
Nov 18th 2007, 10:19 PM
So is that only the elect infants or all infants?
by grace I would say that it is all infants

the rookie
Nov 19th 2007, 12:48 AM
Bear in mind that, as one who has a slight Arminian slant on my viewpoint (though not fully - I just know that I am not a five-point Calvinist), I fully believe in an "age of accountability" and the age in which young men and women are held accountable for their decisions before the Lord. There is a great discussion of this topic going on now over in the End Times area with verses that I would also use here to support that view, beyond what has been presented.

Thus I'm not really looking for proof that God is merciful to children - I am sure that is true; I'm just wondering how He can be in the five-point Calvinist model that leaves children fully depraved (thus my point about Augustine - I could cite many other reformed theologians who agree with his views on children and their depravity). How then can "all" infants and children who die be considered elect. From the Calvinist perspective, an "age of accountability" seems impossible and, subsequently, leaves open the great possibility of many sinful children being consigned to the lake of fire.

I would think that the "I" in "tulip" would be somewhat observable related to "sheep that recognize the voice of the shepherd" and are "drawn to Him" by the Holy Spirit; so it would therefore seem as if many children do not exhibit the fruit of irresitable grace moving on the heart.

Granted, the whole process according to a five-point Calvinist is probably seen as beyond us to judge or perceive, but to say in a blanket manner that "all" children are elect if they die young strikes me as inconsistent with the theological framework established in Calvinism.

Toolman
Nov 19th 2007, 06:32 PM
Those who have done no good nor evil yet, would certainly seem to be candidates for mercy.

Someone who has done neither good or evil would have no need of mercy.

Mercy is needed only by the guilty.

The "big elephant in the room" problem with declaring all infants innocent is that then we must conclude that it is better for an infant to die prematurely than to live, because salvation is then guaranteed.

Yet the scripture declares that the WHOLE WORLD is guilty before God... not innocent.

Toolman
Nov 19th 2007, 06:41 PM
Thus I'm not really looking for proof that God is merciful to children - I am sure that is true; I'm just wondering how He can be in the five-point Calvinist model that leaves children fully depraved (thus my point about Augustine - I could cite many other reformed theologians who agree with his views on children and their depravity).

A reformed believer could hold to the position that ALL children who die in infancy were/are part of the elect.

Some reformed agree with this and some do not but that is one way a calvinist could view all infants as being justified before God.

Craig Brown was recently on R.C. Sproul's program discussing his new book, "The Five Dilemmas of Calvinism" and his book definitely addresses this issue (he believes all who die in infancy are elect) and might be worth picking up to get a full blown, theological description of how a calvinist could conclude this.
https://store.ligonier.org/product.asp?idDept=B&idCategory=TH&idProduct=FIV04BP

threebigrocks
Nov 19th 2007, 06:54 PM
Thus I'm not really looking for proof that God is merciful to children - I am sure that is true; I'm just wondering how He can be in the five-point Calvinist model that leaves children fully depraved (thus my point about Augustine - I could cite many other reformed theologians who agree with his views on children and their depravity). How then can "all" infants and children who die be considered elect. From the Calvinist perspective, an "age of accountability" seems impossible and, subsequently, leaves open the great possibility of many sinful children being consigned to the lake of fire.

Logically, in the five-point Calvinist model, He can't. All infants and children who die cannot be considered elect. Indeed, the age of accountability is nonexistent, leaving the logical conclusion that you already stated.

There is no other conclusion to come to with the stance of Calvinism.

Toolman
Nov 19th 2007, 06:57 PM
Logically, in the five-point Calvinist model, He can't. All infants and children who die cannot be considered elect. Indeed, the age of accountability is nonexistent, leaving the logical conclusion that you already stated.

There is no other conclusion to come to with the stance of Calvinism.

TBR,

That is actually incorrect.

Since, in reformed soteriology, faith is a gift of God, then God can bestow the gift on whomever He elects to.

So, a calvinist can certainly believe that God elects to give faith to every single infant who perishes.

That position can definitely be held within a reformed soteriology.

SemperReformanda
Nov 19th 2007, 07:26 PM
Logically, in the five-point Calvinist model, He can't. All infants and children who die cannot be considered elect. Indeed, the age of accountability is nonexistent, leaving the logical conclusion that you already stated.

There is no other conclusion to come to with the stance of Calvinism.
As Toolman said, that is incorrect. God can and will save whoever he desires to save. Logically, the five-point model is designed to show that God can do whatever He wants to do. Could you please clarify what you mean?

The Bible is clear that nobody is righteous. No, not one (Rom 3:10-18). Does Paul in this passage make the rejoinder "...Except for babies!"? No!

threebigrocks
Nov 19th 2007, 07:31 PM
TBR,

That is actually incorrect.

Since, in reformed soteriology, faith is a gift of God, then God can bestow the gift on whomever He elects to.

So, a calvinist can certainly believe that God elects to give faith to every single infant who perishes.

That position can definitely be held within a reformed soteriology.

So then why the big deal about depravity and there even being an elect if one can interpret it that way? What keeps a person who is a calivinist from believing so about anyone? Aunt Jane, Uncle Bob, Grandma Elouise, Grandpa Joe, Bobby Sue down the lane...

If all are totally depraived, all are damned, and some even though they desire to be saved and believe won't be unless they are elect. Child in utero to the oldest person on earth. If that isn't true, then the whole total depraived thing falls apart mighty fast.

SemperReformanda
Nov 19th 2007, 07:35 PM
So then why the big deal about depravity and there even being an elect if one can interpret it that way? What keeps a person who is a calivinist from believing so about anyone? Aunt Jane, Uncle Bob, Grandma Elouise, Grandpa Joe, Bobby Sue down the lane...
Because the Bible says that some people are going to Hell.


If all are totally depraived, all are damned, and some even though they desire to be saved and believe won't be unless they are elect. Child in utero to the oldest person on earth. If that isn't true, then the whole total depraived thing falls apart mighty fast.
Total depravity says that, since Adam sinned, no man can desire to be saved unless God first works in him. Total depravity says that all men love their sin, and when given the choice between belief or unbelief they will always choose unbelief, and hatred of God, unless God first works in them.

People tend to misunderstand that.

Toolman
Nov 19th 2007, 07:38 PM
So then why the big deal about depravity and there even being an elect if one can interpret it that way? What keeps a person who is a calivinist from believing so about anyone? Aunt Jane, Uncle Bob, Grandma Elouise, Grandpa Joe, Bobby Sue down the lane...

Well, for those who hold to a limited atonement they believe there is a biblical truth that not all will be saved.

So, while one can observe those who die in vehement unbelief and opposition to God and conclude that they are not saved (Aunt Jane or whoever), one cannot make this conclusion about the unborn or infants.


If all are totally depraived, all are damned, and some even though they desire to be saved and believe won't be unless they are elect. Child in utero to the oldest person on earth. If that isn't true, then the whole total depraived thing falls apart mighty fast.

The reformed position is that there are NONE who will desire to be saved and believe on Christ except those whom God changes their heart and God changes the heart of the elect.

Man's heart is naturally opposed to God (hates the light) and until God does a work of changing man's heart and desire none will want to be saved.

BTW - As most of you know I don't hold to a limited atonement but I am just stating how a reformed believer could hold this position within a calvinist framework of soteriology. For the record :)

threebigrocks
Nov 19th 2007, 07:40 PM
As Toolman said, that is incorrect. God can and will save whoever he desires to save. Logically, the five-point model is designed to show that God can do whatever He wants to do. Could you please clarify what you mean?

The Bible is clear that nobody is righteous. No, not one (Rom 3:10-18). Does Paul in this passage make the rejoinder "...Except for babies!"? No!

None of us are righteous, that is correct. I agree. But all who seek will find, knock and it will be answered, whoever calls on the name of the Lord will be saved, come to me all you who are weary and heavy laiden. It's a matter of the heart, and we have hearts that can change. We are not born into a state that makes us hopeless.

karenoka27
Nov 19th 2007, 07:41 PM
I have struggled with this in the past. I have a question. I know some have talked about predestination and others say that God has mercy on all unborn children, but I have often wondered about those that the Lord commanded to be killed in the Old Testament..the enemies of the Jews. You can find in more than one place, but I will just use the example of the Amalakites:

1 Samuel 15:1-" Samuel said to Saul, "I am the one the LORD sent to anoint you king over His people Israel; so listen now to the message from the LORD. 2 This is what the LORD Almighty says: 'I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. 3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.' "

It would seem the Lord was stopping a people who would have grown to hate God and His people. What happened to those babies? One has to consider predestination...?

Toolman
Nov 19th 2007, 07:45 PM
None of us are righteous, that is correct. I agree. But all who seek will find, knock and it will be answered, whoever calls on the name of the Lord will be saved, come to me all you who are weary and heavy laiden. It's a matter of the heart, and we have hearts that can change. We are not born into a state that makes us hopeless.

Honestly, this is a whole thread in and of itself and really doesn't address the OP. We could go down a major rabbit trail here :lol:

Not that I don't think it worth discussing but perhaps a new thread to do so?

But, to the OP, it is definitely possible for a calvinist to believe that God gives faith to each and every infant who dies and maintain the tenets of calvinism.
Some do hold to that.. others do not. There is disagreement in the camp but it can be held.

SemperReformanda
Nov 19th 2007, 07:47 PM
None of us are righteous, that is correct. I agree. But all who seek will find, knock and it will be answered, whoever calls on the name of the Lord will be saved, come to me all you who are weary and heavy laiden. It's a matter of the heart, and we have hearts that can change.
And again I say that nobody will seek, knock, call upon the name of the Lord, or come to Jesus unless that person's heart has been renewed.

No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day.
(Joh 6:44)


We are not born into a state that makes us hopeless.
What a loaded statement! Of course, you would agree with me that there is nothing in our flesh that we should hope in, but we should hope in God!

That is the essence of Total Depravity. That God has to do the work to save sinners, because sinners are sinners to the core.

threebigrocks
Nov 19th 2007, 08:21 PM
Well, for those who hold to a limited atonement they believe there is a biblical truth that not all will be saved.

So, while one can observe those who die in vehement unbelief and opposition to God and conclude that they are not saved (Aunt Jane or whoever), one cannot make this conclusion about the unborn or infants.



The reformed position is that there are NONE who will desire to be saved and believe on Christ except those whom God changes their heart and God changes the heart of the elect.

Man's heart is naturally opposed to God (hates the light) and until God does a work of changing man's heart and desire none will want to be saved.

BTW - As most of you know I don't hold to a limited atonement but I am just stating how a reformed believer could hold this position within a calvinist framework of soteriology. For the record :)

Oh, I understand TM, I do. :) I'm just going on what the rookie is trying to make sense of. To me it seems he was looking for how to reconcile the doctrine, and if all are depraived except the elect, then no, not all babies are automatically saved, only the elect.

threebigrocks
Nov 19th 2007, 08:27 PM
Thus I'm not really looking for proof that God is merciful to children - I am sure that is true; I'm just wondering how He can be in the five-point Calvinist model that leaves children fully depraved (thus my point about Augustine - I could cite many other reformed theologians who agree with his views on children and their depravity). How then can "all" infants and children who die be considered elect. From the Calvinist perspective, an "age of accountability" seems impossible and, subsequently, leaves open the great possibility of many sinful children being consigned to the lake of fire.


Granted, the whole process according to a five-point Calvinist is probably seen as beyond us to judge or perceive, but to say in a blanket manner that "all" children are elect if they die young strikes me as inconsistent with the theological framework established in Calvinism.




But, to the OP, it is definitely possible for a calvinist to believe that God gives faith to each and every infant who dies and maintain the tenets of calvinism.
Some do hold to that.. others do not. There is disagreement in the camp but it can be held.

Hum. Then, I am officially cornfused. Guess it depends on who you speak to.

Toolman
Nov 19th 2007, 08:36 PM
Oh, I understand TM, I do. :) I'm just going on what the rookie is trying to make sense of. To me it seems he was looking for how to reconcile the doctrine, and if all are depraived except the elect, then no, not all babies are automatically saved, only the elect.

Unless all infants who die in infancy are of the elect.

God, who chose the elect before time began, could have easily decided that each person who died in infancy would be part of his elect, as easily as He could choose that part of those who died in infancy would be or that none of those who died in infancy would be.

Its up to God to choose and He could choose all, some or none. It would still be his election, regardless of the number.

I just don't see the real issue that causes with calvinist theology.

SemperReformanda
Nov 19th 2007, 08:41 PM
I just don't see the real issue that causes with calvinist theology.
There is none.

The problem lies in the caricature of Reformed theology that exists in much of Evangelical Christianity today. Most non-Reformed Christians fail miserably even trying to see things from a Calvinist perspective, and you end up with strawman bashers like Dave Hunt and George Bryson :B

Toolman
Nov 19th 2007, 08:46 PM
There is none.

The problem lies in the caricature of Reformed theology that exists in much of Evangelical Christianity today. Most non-Reformed Christians fail miserably even trying to see things from a Calvinist perspective, and you end up with strawman bashers like Dave Hunt and George Bryson :B

Yeah, I don't believe you should debate against a position until you can, at least marginally, defend that position. If you don't truly understand your opponents position then strawmen are the natural result.

That said I have some issues with some areas of traditional reformed theology but that is another thread :D

alethos
Nov 19th 2007, 09:41 PM
TBR,

That is actually incorrect.

Since, in reformed soteriology, faith is a gift of God, then God can bestow the gift on whomever He elects to.

So, a calvinist can certainly believe that God elects to give faith to every single infant who perishes.

That position can definitely be held within a reformed soteriology.

But aren't the words faith and belief (pistis) often interchangable in our Bible? And if so how can an infant believe (have faith)?

Toolman
Nov 19th 2007, 09:50 PM
But aren't the words faith and belief (pistis) often interchangable in our Bible? And if so how can an infant believe (have faith)?

If faith is a gift from God (which it is) then an infant and an adult have faith in the same manner.... by grace.

As a gift from God.

Its not our intellect and ability to reason that saves us, but God's grace. And He can extend that grace to any He may choose to do so.

SemperReformanda
Nov 19th 2007, 09:52 PM
But aren't the words faith and belief (pistis) often interchangable in our Bible? And if so how can an infant believe (have faith)?
Believing and faith are not just intellectual assent to a few propositions. Faith is resting and trusting that God's promises are going to be, and are, fulfilled in Christ.

Now, if God can grant faith and repentance to whomever he wishes, then why would a child not be able to be saved? We aren't saved by faith itself, we are saved by Christ on the cross, the benefits of which we receive through God's giving.

alethos
Nov 19th 2007, 09:59 PM
If faith is a gift from God (which it is) then an infant and an adult have faith in the same manner.... by grace.

As a gift from God.

Its not our intellect and ability to reason that saves us, but God's grace. And He can extend that grace to any He may choose to do so.

But look at the definition of faith below
pis'-tis
From G3982; persuasion, that is, credence; moral conviction (of religious truth, or the truthfulness of God or a religious teacher), especially reliance upon Christ for salvation; abstractly constancy in such profession; by extension the system of religious (Gospel) truth itself: - assurance, belief, believe, faith, fidelity.

How can that definition be applicable to any infant? Does an infant possess persuasion, moral conviction, reliance upon Christ for salvation, assurance. profession, etc?

alethos
Nov 19th 2007, 10:01 PM
Faith is resting and trusting that God's promises are going to be, and are, fulfilled in Christ.


How is an infant able to accomplish that?

Toolman
Nov 19th 2007, 10:04 PM
But look at the definition of faith below
pis'-tis
From G3982; persuasion, that is, credence; moral conviction (of religious truth, or the truthfulness of God or a religious teacher), especially reliance upon Christ for salvation; abstractly constancy in such profession; by extension the system of religious (Gospel) truth itself: - assurance, belief, believe, faith, fidelity.

How can that definition be applicable to any infant? Does an infant possess persuasion, moral conviction, reliance upon Christ for salvation, assurance. profession, etc?

Whose to say that they don't? I assume with God all things are possible and if He desired for an infant to have faith, they would have faith.

Doesn't seem like much more of a stretch than a person who is dead in sin having faith.

I guess if one holds that faith is simply a person being convinced in their own intellect of some facts then I suppose that would cause some issues with infants having faith.

But reformed believers definitely don't believe that faith is simply an ability of some men to intellectually affirm a few facts but that it is an actual gift given by God to the sinner to love, desire and trust Christ alone.

Toolman
Nov 19th 2007, 10:05 PM
How is an infant able to accomplish that?

God....................

SemperReformanda
Nov 19th 2007, 10:12 PM
How is an infant able to accomplish that?
As Toolman said, God accomplishes this in its entirety.

I would add, in the same way that a baby rests and knows that his mother gives him all he needs to live. Jesus says that our faith must be like that of a child, and I believe that this is what He means.

alethos
Nov 19th 2007, 10:12 PM
Doesn't seem like much more of a stretch than a person who is dead in sin having faith.

Where do you get that from?


But reformed believers definitely don't believe that faith is simply an ability of some men to intellectually affirm a few facts but that it is an actual gift given by God to the sinner to love, desire and trust Christ alone.

Then I would be inclined to say that reformed believers have strayed from the basic defintion of faith (pistis) to create an entirely different definition of their own.

SemperReformanda
Nov 19th 2007, 10:14 PM
Then I would be inclined to say that reformed believers have strayed from the basic defintion of faith (pistis) to create an entirely different definition of their own.
You mustn't have read Hebrews 11 recently then. Faith is believing, trusting, and resting in the fact that all of God's promises are "yes" in Christ.

EDIT: Just as a side note, I will post the Heidelberg Catechism on "Faith" for the basis for further discussion.


Q: What is Faith?
A: It is firmly to assent to everything taught us in God's Word, and a firm assurance by which each one is personally convinced that forgiveness of sins, righteousness, and eternal life have been freely given him by God because of Christ's merit, and through him, and which, having been created in the hearts of the elect by the Holy Spirit, makes us living members of Christ and produces in us true love and prayer to God.

Toolman
Nov 19th 2007, 10:17 PM
Where do you get that from?

Bible.


Then I would be inclined to say that reformed believers have strayed from the basic defintion of faith (pistis) to create an entirely different definition of their own.

I would say that you have that option. I'm sure they would state that the definition that saving faith is simply a mental assent of man's intellect is an unbiblical definition of faith.

But those are really side issues to the OP question. It is simple for a reformed believer to believe that all infants who die are saved if all infants who die are part of the elect. That was the OP and the issue at hand.

karenoka27
Nov 19th 2007, 10:18 PM
Is that I just ask dumb questions? Very rarely do I attempt to get into a discussion in Bible chat...and now I know why...Did I not make sense? Did I go off topic? Would someone please tell me so I can learn how to be a Bible chatter like you all?:rolleyes:

Toolman
Nov 19th 2007, 10:22 PM
Is that I just ask dumb questions? Very rarely do I attempt to get into a discussion in Bible chat...and now I know why...Did I not make sense? Did I go off topic? Would someone please tell me so I can learn how to be a Bible chatter like you all?:rolleyes:

Sorry Karen, didn't mean to ignore :blush: :)

Was your point that perhaps it was God's predestination of those infants who were killed, so they would die before becoming God-haters?

Is that what you were saying? That God saved them by not letting them grow to maturity and thereby becoming haters of Him?

That's what I gathered from your post but wasn't 100% sure that's what you meant.

karenoka27
Nov 19th 2007, 10:26 PM
I'm sorry that I wasn't clear..I was thinking that they didn't go to heaven because of the people they came from. They may have been killed before the age of accountability but the chances of them growing up to serve the God of the Jews was probably slim...

SemperReformanda
Nov 19th 2007, 10:26 PM
As Toolman is pushing to get back to the OP, I will oblige, and open up with a statement for further discussion.

The idea of an "age of accountability", I believe, is not only not found in Scripture, but blaringly contradictory to the Biblical account of the fallen state of mankind. I believe that when Paul says "No, not even one" in Romans 3, he means not even one.

alethos
Nov 19th 2007, 10:26 PM
Bible.


OK, but where in the Bible?

alethos
Nov 19th 2007, 10:29 PM
You mustn't have read Hebrews 11 recently then. Faith is believing, trusting, and resting in the fact that all of God's promises are "yes" in Christ.

EDIT: Just as a side note, I will post the Heidelberg Catechism on "Faith" for the basis for further discussion.

But that doesn't address the question, how can an infant accomplish any of the particulars of what we define as faith?

Toolman
Nov 19th 2007, 10:34 PM
OK, but where in the Bible?

Gensis to Revelation :lol:

But for an exact statement I suppose Eph. 2 would be a good direct statement.

Toolman
Nov 19th 2007, 10:35 PM
But that doesn't address the question, how can an infant accomplish any of the particulars of what we define as faith?

How would you address the question of how can an infant have any of the particulars that scripture defines as sin?

alethos
Nov 19th 2007, 10:39 PM
Gensis to Revelation :lol:

But for an exact statement I suppose Eph. 2 would be a good direct statement.

Since you didn't specify what Scriptures you were referring to, I looked at Eph 2, and it appears from the text that no one dead in sin has faith, it appears to me that those alone who have been made alive possess faith. I cannot find it stated anywhere in Scripture where those dead in sin possess faith.

SemperReformanda
Nov 19th 2007, 10:40 PM
But that doesn't address the question, how can an infant accomplish any of the particulars of what we define as faith?
By the sovereign grace of God.

As I said earlier:


I would add, in the same way that a baby rests and knows that his mother gives him all he needs to live. Jesus says that our faith must be like that of a child, and I believe that this is what He means.

SemperReformanda
Nov 19th 2007, 10:41 PM
Since you didn't specify what Scriptures you were referring to, I looked at Eph 2, and it appears from the text that no one dead in sin has faith, it appears to me that those alone who have been made alive possess faith. I cannot find it stated anywhere in Scripture where those dead in sin possess faith.
What Toolman is saying is not that those who are dead in sin have some kind of faith, but the gift of faith to those who are dead in sin is done in exactly the same way as the way the gift of faith is given to infants (because infants are also dead in sin).

alethos
Nov 19th 2007, 10:43 PM
How would you address the question of how can an infant have any of the particulars that scripture defines as sin?

Since you didn't give me your definition of sin. I can only post what Scripture says: Ps. 51:5 in sin did my mother conceive me.

alethos
Nov 19th 2007, 10:44 PM
What Toolman is saying is not that those who are dead in sin have some kind of faith, but the gift of faith to those who are dead in sin is done in exactly the same way as the way the gift of faith is given to infants (because infants are also dead in sin).

Does faith make a person alive or does God?

Toolman
Nov 19th 2007, 10:46 PM
Since you didn't specify what Scriptures you were referring to, I looked at Eph 2, and it appears from the text that no one dead in sin has faith, it appears to me that those alone who have been made alive possess faith. I cannot find it stated anywhere in Scripture where those dead in sin possess faith.

Yeah, maybe my point wasn't clear enough.

I see no more of a stretch in believing that God can give faith to something that was once dead in sin than I have in believing that God can give faith to an infant.

But then again I have a very high view of God's grace and His ability to save whomever He desires to save. So I definitely don't see any impossibility of God giving faith to an infant anymore than He can give faith to someone dead in sin.

SemperReformanda
Nov 19th 2007, 10:46 PM
Does faith make a person alive or does God?
God does (Col 2:13).

alethos
Nov 19th 2007, 10:48 PM
By the sovereign grace of God.

As I said earlier:
Jesus says that our faith must be like that of a child,


Yes, Jesus said; like the faith of a child. He didn't say like the faith of an infant. There is a big difference between a child which is able to believe, and an infant which as far as anyone knows cannot understand.

SemperReformanda
Nov 19th 2007, 10:49 PM
Yes, Jesus said; like the faith of a child. He didn't say like the faith of an infant. There is a big difference between a child which is able to believe, and an infant which as far as anyone knows cannot understand.
Forgive my crudeness, but an infant knows where the milk comes from. A Christian should be the same.

alethos
Nov 19th 2007, 10:54 PM
Yeah, maybe my point wasn't clear enough.

I see no more of a stretch in believing that God can give faith to something that was once dead in sin than I have in believing that God can give faith to an infant.

When you say; "was once (past tense) dead" then I can agree with you


But then again I have a very high view of God's grace and His ability to save whomever He desires to save. So I definitely don't see any impossibility of God giving faith to an infant anymore than He can give faith to someone dead in sin.

Now in this second senario, you switch to what appears a present tense form, or to someone who is presently dead. And here I would have to disagree with the switcheroo in verb tenses which your using.

Basically what I am saying is gifts (faith in this case) are not given to the dead. Gifts are given to the living. You seem to be saying gifts are given to the dead.

alethos
Nov 19th 2007, 10:58 PM
Forgive my crudeness, but an infant knows where the milk comes from. A Christian should be the same.

I understand that, but we were taliking about faith. That which is spiritual in nature. Now we seem to have crossed over and are talking about milk. That which is physical in nature. Big difference between that which is spiritual and that which is physical in many respects.

SemperReformanda
Nov 19th 2007, 11:03 PM
I understand that, but we were taliking about faith. That which is spiritual in nature. Now we seem to have crossed over and are talking about milk. That which is physical in nature. Big difference between that which is spiritual and that which is physical in many respects.
I was speaking in a metaphor, just as Jesus did when he talked about having the faith of a child.

I think we have gone beyond the point of conversation here. If you refuse to even try to understand what I am saying, then I reserve the right to no longer talk to you.

Toolman
Nov 19th 2007, 11:05 PM
When you say; "was once (past tense) dead" then I can agree with you

Now in this second senario, you switch to what appears a present tense form, or to someone who is presently dead. And here I would have to disagree with the switcheroo in verb tenses which your using.

Basically what I am saying is gifts (faith in this case) are not given to the dead. Gifts are given to the living. You seem to be saying gifts are given to the dead.

Yeah, gifts are given to the dead. Without the gift of salvation dead men could never be made alive, so yeah I believe God gives gifts to the dead so that they become alive.

But the order really makes no difference. Let's say God only gives gifts to the living. I have no more problem with him giving a gift to an infant anymore than I have an issue with Him giving a gift to an adult. Doesn't seem much of a stretch for a God for whom all things are possible but then again, as I said, have a very high view of God's grace and His ability to save whomever He desires to save and His supernatural abilities to make dead things alive.

alethos
Nov 19th 2007, 11:14 PM
I was speaking in a metaphor, just as Jesus did when he talked about having the faith of a child.

I think we have gone beyond the point of conversation here. If you refuse to even try to understand what I am saying, then I reserve the right to no longer talk to you.

It's not that I'm not trying to understand. The fact that I disagree doesn't mean I am not trying to understand. It seems that your saying I am only trying to understand when I am found to agree?

alethos
Nov 19th 2007, 11:16 PM
Yeah, gifts are given to the dead.

Could you give me any examples of gifts given to the dead? Examples from the Bible would especially be appreciated

Pleroo
Nov 19th 2007, 11:24 PM
Could you give me any examples of gifts given to the dead? Examples from the Bible would especially be appreciated


Life.


__________________

Toolman
Nov 19th 2007, 11:29 PM
Could you give me any examples of gifts given to the dead? Examples from the Bible would especially be appreciated

As Pleroo said, life is a great example.

Salvation and Christ might also be said, though the lines between all 3 get blurry.

If not for the gift of salvation/life/Christ the dead would remain dead without hope. As Lazarus received the gift of life from the grave, so are we who were dead in our sins made alive by God because of the gift of His Son to dead men who had no hope outside of Him and His resurrecting gift.

alethos
Nov 19th 2007, 11:35 PM
As Pleroo said, life is a great example.

Salvation and Christ might also be said, though the lines between all 3 get blurry.

If not for the gift of salvation/life/Christ the dead would remain dead without hope. As Lazarus received the gift of life from the grave, so are we who were dead in our sins made alive by God because of the gift of His Son to dead men who had no hope outside of Him and His resurrecting gift.

Pleroo and Toolman Thanks for the examples Your points have been noted

quiet dove
Nov 20th 2007, 08:16 AM
Hi Rookie,
I just saw this. I sortof, kinda read through it then sortof, kinda got lost so went back to the beginning.

Since I am not an expert on Augustine, Calvanism and don’t really know what an arminan charismatic protestant is I'm just going to say this, why try to reconcile this from the direction you are taking, take another route.

Scripture is clear that God is just, righteous, and merciful.
Scripture is clear that God is love and loves us
And it is clear that Christ died to reconcile all things to God

Psalms 58:3 and 51:5 are what we are not what God is. You can’t reconcile the dilema by going by what we are because we are nothing. Our value is in God’s love and reconciliation through Christ. Would not the value of the infant be in Christ and that Christ died for that infant just as he died for the adult who is able to choose between right and wrong?

Short of a long story.
A young woman gets messed up in bad Biblical teaching, sincere, but going down a very wrong path. Her brother and sister in law finally, after many years of trying to conceive and with much joy finally have a baby being delievered, beautiful baby boy. This beauful little fellow was fine until they cut the cord and his little heart was defective. He went through several surgerys but could not pull through and died at 18 days old. Tragic story isn’t it.

Little guy never spoke one word or made one decision, was he of any value to God? I say yes. Through this tradgety God was glorified. Just one of the people blessed through pain, the young woman was delievered from her deception by the mighty Spirit of God. And I can tell you, she certainly expects to see that little fellow, though probably not still a baby, but someday when she gets home herself she will wrap her arms around him with a life time of love, for God used him to open her eyes.

Scripture is clear there is time in our lives we are to young to determine right from wrong.
And it is clear that David understood and believed he would go to where is child went, to be with the Lord.
It is clear that God knows us from the womb
It is clear that Christ died to reconcile all of God’s creation to Himself.

So yes, we are born without hope, and as the verses in Psalms say, but what/who Jesus is, is what changes what we are. We love Him because He first loved us. He knew us in the womb, before He even came to die for us He knew us. that’s more than we can comprehend.

Rom 8:19 For the earnest expectation of the creation waits for the manifestation of the sons of God. 20 For the creation was not willingly subjected to vanity, but because of Him who subjected it on hope 21 that the creation itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. 22 And we know that the whole creation groans and travails in pain together until now.
Col 1:20 And through Him having made peace through the blood of His cross, it pleased the Father to reconcile all things to Himself through Him, whether the things on earth or the things in Heaven.

Surely the babies are included. Even the ones killed in Egypt, killed by Herod, and killed when Sodom was
destroyed.

So with all due respect to Calvanism and reformed theologans and an arinan charismatic protestant:), there is no way I could ever believe that in God’s righteous love, and all that is His creation that is redeemed by His Son’s blood, that the souls of the one unable to choose is not also covered by His atoning blood. From Gods righteousness perspective we are in“total depravity” but it isn’t what we are, it’s what God is, and He first loved us.

And I have no clue how a Calvanist would view or reconcile it, that’s just how I view it and reconcile it.:P

Jesusinmyheart
Nov 20th 2007, 01:46 PM
Psalm 58:3
The wicked are estranged from the womb;They go astray as soon as they are born, speaking lies.
Something tells me that the above verse is not related to the one by King David.
I believe the above verse speaks of the foreknowledge of God stating a fact that those who are wicked are estranged from the womb.
I believe that in below passage King David might have revealed a fact of his mother's sin, rather than the way it's normally understood that therefore the child was sinful.
I am researching this right now, as only the talmud even mentions who King David's mother actually was. And she was an aboriginal slave woman as far as i could find for now.

Psalm 51:5
Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity,And in sin my mother conceived me.

So therefore i believe that those who are not wicked from birth are righteous as they can be without knowledge in Yeshua, i base this on:
Rom 2:14 For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law.
A baby would have an amount of moral conscience, and if it follows that i cannot see it being condemned by a just God.

Just my 2 cents.

Shalom,
Tanja

Toolman
Nov 20th 2007, 01:58 PM
A child is not innocent of sin anymore than is anyone in this world. Christ died for the sins of the world and that sin includes the sin of children/infants.

Romans 3:19 - Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.

The whole world is guilty before God and deserving of condemnation and death.

The only way that anyone is saved is because of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. There are not 2 or more ways to be saved, the only salvation, our only hope is His atoning work of His death and His victorious work of His resurrection. Everything else is shifting sand and folly of man.

alethos
Nov 20th 2007, 04:39 PM
The only way that anyone is saved is because of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. There are not 2 or more ways to be saved, the only salvation, our only hope is His atoning work of His death and His victorious work of His resurrection. Everything else is shifting sand and folly of man.

When it comes to salvation, in your opinion where does faith fit in?

Toolman
Nov 20th 2007, 04:45 PM
When it comes to salvation, in your opinion where does faith fit in?

From what I understand of scripture it is impossible to please God apart from faith in Jesus Christ alone.

alethos
Nov 20th 2007, 04:52 PM
From what I understand of scripture it is impossible to please God apart from faith in Jesus Christ alone.

What is your opinion of sola fide?

Toolman
Nov 20th 2007, 05:25 PM
What is your opinion of sola fide?

Sola fide was a reformation cry against the unscriptural belief of the Roman church that man is justified before God by a combination of faith in Christ and good works.

I think a more appropriate statement would be that man is justified before God by faith in Christ alone, apart from any works of merit. More lengthy but a bit more descriptive :)

alethos
Nov 20th 2007, 05:46 PM
Sola fide was a reformation cry against the unscriptural belief of the Roman church that man is justified before God by a combination of faith in Christ and good works.

I think a more appropriate statement would be that man is justified before God by faith in Christ alone, apart from any works of merit. More lengthy but a bit more descriptive :)

Ok ... Thanks ......

Toolman
Nov 20th 2007, 05:51 PM
Ok ... Thanks ......

You're welcome :)

Mograce2U
Nov 20th 2007, 06:06 PM
We also have this verse regarding the children of the believer:

(1 Cor 7:14 KJV) For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.

David who received the promise of God for himself and his sons, certainly expected that his child who died would be with him.

What hope the unbeliever and his children have would seem to be nil.

baycee
Nov 24th 2007, 07:31 AM
...all people are conceived in sin and born children of wrath, unfit for any saving good, inclined to evil, dead in their sins, and slaves to sin; [and] without the grace of the regenerating Holy Spirit they are neither willing nor able to return to God, to reform their distorted nature, or even to dispose themselves to such reform.

-The Cannons of Dort Third and Fourth Heads of Doctrine

tgallison
Nov 24th 2007, 06:04 PM
We also have this verse regarding the children of the believer:

(1 Cor 7:14 KJV) For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.

David who received the promise of God for himself and his sons, certainly expected that his child who died would be with him.

What hope the unbeliever and his children have would seem to be nil.

Mograce2U Hi

We have to keep 1 Cor. 7:14 In context. Though it says she was sanctified, it also says she was not saved. (1 Cor. 7:16 "For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? or how knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife?")

terrell