PDA

View Full Version : Discussion Do Babies/Children go to Hell?? &More info.



PW1
Jul 31st 2008, 03:44 AM
Do Babies/Children go to Hell??

I have strongly believed since I was very young... that: babies and children under that age of accountability (12) go to Heaven when they die.

Visit: http://www.inplainsite.org/html/do_children_go_to_hell_.html (http://www.inplainsite.org/html/do_children_go_to_hell_.html)

Prayer is also effective.
If one recently received Christ as their LORD and SAVIOUR and has a teenager that was not taught about Jesus ,Salvation,Heaven or Hell. (and so on) and they -at this time- reject the Most Precious Gift Ever Given (Salvation) - don't worry... Just pray day and night for your teenager.

Do bible study in the same room as they are in, now... sometimes a talk between you and your teenager may get heated concerning the God and the Bible, please don't look at it as a bad start, because thats a good begining, you see when they notice you reading the bible, they will feel some bitterness... because they don't -at that time- have what you have - Salvation- and they do not understand it, they may ask you some questions for instance: Why do you believe in God?? Or Whats so Important about the Bible?? Or Why do you praise and pray to a God that you can not see??



Personally,I love the last question, because a christian can roll with this one in different directions: It may to some sound stupid, but if one would just think about this:
I'd say to the teen>> - For the same reason that you eat a Tomatoe Sandwitch and drink a can of cranberry juice, because its good to the taste and helps you keep going and cleans you out, its good for you,Physically Speaking. Gods Word has a little of sweet and sour in it, kind of like that cranberry juice that you just drank, its sweet and sour at the same time but it cleans you out and its good for you Spiritually Speaking, . If the bible was labled fruity...which lot of people in this world would more likely call it that now adays. I'd clean that statement up by saying this: The Bible is just like cranberries, it cleans a persons insides. but I'm talking spiritually.. It helps a person receive Salvation,and walk the path of Christ daily. - Gods Word has a little of both in it sweet and sour, so does cranberries. Gods Word Spiritually cleans out the wickedness inside of a person and leaves a clean clear path for that person (Christian - Jews and Gentiles) to walk with no worries.


As strange as my personal opinion sounds,its best to set a 'cool' boundry/relationship with you and your teenager so that he/she/they are more willing to read Gods Word with you and one day Receive Christ as Their SAVIOUR.

And continue in Prayer.


And Always Remember....


"And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose." Romans 8:28.

God Bless,
PW1

uric3
Jul 31st 2008, 03:42 PM
I think the Bible is quite clear that Babies don't go to Hell, they are innocent and don't know any better. Here are some verses to backup my point.

Ezekiel 18:20 " 20The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him."

I think this passage shows we don't inherit sin... just because our parents are righteous don't mean we are righteous. Just because our parents are unbelievers and sinners don't mean we have to be or are unbelievers and sinners. So in a nut shell we don't bear that iniquity or righteousness of another only our own iniquity or righteousness.

Also before we can sin we have to understand what sin is... look at what Paul said in Rom 7:8-10

"But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead. 9For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died. 10And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death."

We see here that at one time Paul didn't know that law or was unaware and without the law there was no sin. However once he learned the law he knew he had sinned and then he died spiritually.

Also babies don't have the ability to obey the plan of salvation. Listed below

Hear - Rom 10:14. 17
Believe - John 3:16, Mark 16:16, etc...
Repent - Acts 17:30
Confession - Rom 10:10, Acts 8:26-ff
Baptism - 1st Peter 3:20-21, Acts 8:16-ff, Mark 16:16 etc...

A baby can hear the word granted but they wouldn't understand it... wouldn't understand the purpose of Christ sacrifice...

A baby can't believe... they don't have that concept or understanding...

A baby can't repent... they don't even know what sin is to repent of it... and without knowledge of it being wrong they aren't sinning...

A baby can't confess... they can't talk or do sign language they don't know how to communicate yet.

A baby can be baptized however theirs no point in it... because A.) they didn't make the choice and didn't meet the other requirements such as believe... also baptism washes away our sins Acts 22:16 not to mention babies don't have sin.

So no babies are not lost until they reach an age to where they have an understanding of what sin is... that it separates them from God.

Lastly just because I am sure someone will bring it up about the sin of Adam and we inherit it... the answer is no we do not inherit sin only the consequences of it. The consequence of Adam and Eves sin means that man dies physically so we still have that consequence.

Just as if a excepting mother does drugs then the baby doesn't inherit that sin.. however they will have to pay the consequences such as a defect or something of that sort.

Another example would be a drunk driver... obviously the drunk driver sinned by drinking and getting behind a wheel yet the innocent family that he hit didn't sin they where just part of the consequence of his sin.

Oh and one question for the TC I noticed you put the age of 12 as the age someone is accountable... may I ask where that number came from? Just wondering.

Steve M
Jul 31st 2008, 03:44 PM
Oh and one question for the TC I noticed you put the age of 12 as the age someone is accountable... may I ask where that number came from? Just wondering.

Yeah, why 12 and not 20? At least the age 20 is in the Bible...

moonglow
Jul 31st 2008, 03:53 PM
Yeah, why 12 and not 20? At least the age 20 is in the Bible...

Jesus was 12 when He was found preaching in the temple remember?

God bless

Friend of I AM
Jul 31st 2008, 03:58 PM
Do Babies/Children go to Hell??

I have strongly believed since I was very young... that: babies and children under that age of accountability (12) go to Heaven when they die.

Visit: http://www.inplainsite.org/html/do_children_go_to_hell_.html (http://www.inplainsite.org/html/do_children_go_to_hell_.html)

Prayer is also effective.
If one recently received Christ as their LORD and SAVIOUR and has a teenager that was not taught about Jesus ,Salvation,Heaven or Hell. (and so on) and they -at this time- reject the Most Precious Gift Ever Given (Salvation) - don't worry... Just pray day and night for your teenager.

Do bible study in the same room as they are in, now... sometimes a talk between you and your teenager may get heated concerning the God and the Bible, please don't look at it as a bad start, because thats a good begining, you see when they notice you reading the bible, they will feel some bitterness... because they don't -at that time- have what you have - Salvation- and they do not understand it, they may ask you some questions for instance: Why do you believe in God?? Or Whats so Important about the Bible?? Or Why do you praise and pray to a God that you can not see??



Personally,I love the last question, because a christian can roll with this one in different directions: It may to some sound stupid, but if one would just think about this:
I'd say to the teen>> - For the same reason that you eat a Tomatoe Sandwitch and drink a can of cranberry juice, because its good to the taste and helps you keep going and cleans you out, its good for you,Physically Speaking. Gods Word has a little of sweet and sour in it, kind of like that cranberry juice that you just drank, its sweet and sour at the same time but it cleans you out and its good for you Spiritually Speaking, . If the bible was labled fruity...which lot of people in this world would more likely call it that now adays. I'd clean that statement up by saying this: The Bible is just like cranberries, it cleans a persons insides. but I'm talking spiritually.. It helps a person receive Salvation,and walk the path of Christ daily. - Gods Word has a little of both in it sweet and sour, so does cranberries. Gods Word Spiritually cleans out the wickedness inside of a person and leaves a clean clear path for that person (Christian - Jews and Gentiles) to walk with no worries.


As strange as my personal opinion sounds,its best to set a 'cool' boundry/relationship with you and your teenager so that he/she/they are more willing to read Gods Word with you and one day Receive Christ as Their SAVIOUR.

And continue in Prayer.


And Always Remember....


"And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose." Romans 8:28.

God Bless,
PW1

If it weren't for Christ's sacrafice all mankind would have gone to hell, even young children. But due to the grace offered through Christ, I am of a strong belief that children who die before coming to knowledge/maturity, as well as all who believe in the name of Christ and call on his name will be saved. Here are the verses that essentially supports this.

Romans 5:18
Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.

Romans 10:13
For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

Steve M
Jul 31st 2008, 05:39 PM
Jesus was 12 when He was found preaching in the temple remember?

God bless
Yeah, but there's noplace in the Bible we're shown God holding a twelve-year-old morally accountable and letting the 11-year-old go. We have a glaring example in the Bible of God holding a 20-year-old accountable for their sins and letting the 19-year-old go.

Edit: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=4&chapter=14&version=31 --Numbers 14. The people grumble, and God says everybody who saw what He did in Egypt would die, except for Caleb and Joshua. That is, ALL THOSE 20 and UPWARD. 19 year olds who murmured against the Lord? They got to go in.


31 As for your children that you said would be taken as plunder, I will bring them in to enjoy the land you have rejected.

19 and down the Lord considered to be children. 20 and up, adults. This was the delineating line in the censuses' that were taken, as well.

That's a pretty strong argument to have the age of maturity at 20, as far as I can read the scripture. 12? Not so much.

mcgyver
Jul 31st 2008, 05:49 PM
According to what everyone has already agreed upon: Seems to me that the age of accountability would be different for each child, depending on when they had the capacity to understand what sin is, and the ability to accept Christ's forgiveness.

That being said...

Jesus being in the Temple when He was 12....Remember that in the 1st century a young man became a "son of the commandments" (Bar Mitzvah) and could participate in worship at the Temple/synagogue when he was 12 (today I Think it's 13, but I'm not sure).

Just an aside :)

Friend of I AM
Jul 31st 2008, 06:14 PM
Jesus was 12 when He was found preaching in the temple remember?

God bless

Forgot to adress the 12 thing...I agree with the others..it really depends on the child and their level of understanding. I've known some 12 year olds who were 12 going on 20..and likewise I've known some 12 year olds who are still pretty juvenile and immature. Whatever the case, praying for the person is always the best bet.

In Christ,

Stephen

Buck shot
Jul 31st 2008, 06:22 PM
2 Sam 12:18 And it came to pass on the seventh day, that the child died. And the servants of David feared to tell him that the child was dead: for they said, Behold, while the child was yet alive, we spake unto him, and he would not hearken unto our voice: how will he then vex himself, if we tell him that the child is dead?
19 But when David saw that his servants whispered, David perceived that the child was dead: therefore David said unto his servants, Is the child dead? And they said, He is dead.
20 Then David arose from the earth, and washed, and anointed himself, and changed his apparel, and came into the house of the LORD, and worshipped: then he came to his own house; and when he required, they set bread before him, and he did eat.
21 Then said his servants unto him, What thing is this that thou hast done? thou didst fast and weep for the child, while it was alive; but when the child was dead, thou didst rise and eat bread.
22 And he said, While the child was yet alive, I fasted and wept: for I said, Who can tell whether GOD will be gracious to me, that the child may live? 23 But now he is dead, wherefore should I fast? can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me

David knew that his son was where he would one day be going. ;)

PW1
Jul 31st 2008, 07:00 PM
I think the Bible is quite clear that Babies don't go to Hell, they are innocent and don't know any better. Here are some verses to backup my point.

Ezekiel 18:20 " 20The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him."

I think this passage shows we don't inherit sin... just because our parents are righteous don't mean we are righteous. Just because our parents are unbelievers and sinners don't mean we have to be or are unbelievers and sinners. So in a nut shell we don't bear that iniquity or righteousness of another only our own iniquity or righteousness.

Also before we can sin we have to understand what sin is... look at what Paul said in Rom 7:8-10

"But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead. 9For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died. 10And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death."

We see here that at one time Paul didn't know that law or was unaware and without the law there was no sin. However once he learned the law he knew he had sinned and then he died spiritually.

Also babies don't have the ability to obey the plan of salvation. Listed below

Hear - Rom 10:14. 17
Believe - John 3:16, Mark 16:16, etc...
Repent - Acts 17:30
Confession - Rom 10:10, Acts 8:26-ff
Baptism - 1st Peter 3:20-21, Acts 8:16-ff, Mark 16:16 etc...

A baby can hear the word granted but they wouldn't understand it... wouldn't understand the purpose of Christ sacrifice...

A baby can't believe... they don't have that concept or understanding...

A baby can't repent... they don't even know what sin is to repent of it... and without knowledge of it being wrong they aren't sinning...

A baby can't confess... they can't talk or do sign language they don't know how to communicate yet.

A baby can be baptized however theirs no point in it... because A.) they didn't make the choice and didn't meet the other requirements such as believe... also baptism washes away our sins Acts 22:16 not to mention babies don't have sin.

So no babies are not lost until they reach an age to where they have an understanding of what sin is... that it separates them from God.

Lastly just because I am sure someone will bring it up about the sin of Adam and we inherit it... the answer is no we do not inherit sin only the consequences of it. The consequence of Adam and Eves sin means that man dies physically so we still have that consequence.

Just as if a excepting mother does drugs then the baby doesn't inherit that sin.. however they will have to pay the consequences such as a defect or something of that sort.

Another example would be a drunk driver... obviously the drunk driver sinned by drinking and getting behind a wheel yet the innocent family that he hit didn't sin they where just part of the consequence of his sin.

Oh and one question for the TC I noticed you put the age of 12 as the age someone is accountable... may I ask where that number came from? Just wondering.
-------------------------------------------------------------

12 years is mentioned by the link that I provided in my original topic here... Jewish law says 13 years. But, I ran accross this website that says:

Preceeding paragraphs have shown that God's Bible says children are not fully capable of distinguishing between good and evil (Deu 1.39, Isa 7.16).

Numbers 14.29 and Deuteronomy 1.39 establish the precedent that God will NOT hold children responsible when He brings judgment for sin.

What is a "child?" By inference from Numbers 14.29, a "child" is a person who is aged 19 or younger.

CONCLUSION: Only those persons age 20 and older are held accountable for sin.

http://www.biblebell.org/accountability.html


--------------------------------------------------------------------
I Strongly believe that if a parent teaches the child what is right and what is wrong in life...that child will know before or at age 12.
God Bless you all.
PW1

Steve M
Jul 31st 2008, 07:04 PM
-------------------------------------------------------------

12 years is mentioned by the link that I provided in my original topic here... Jewish law says 13 years. But, I ran accross this website that says:

Preceeding paragraphs have shown that God's Bible says children are not fully capable of distinguishing between good and evil (Deu 1.39, Isa 7.16).

Numbers 14.29 and Deuteronomy 1.39 establish the precedent that God will NOT hold children responsible when He brings judgment for sin.

What is a "child?" By inference from Numbers 14.29, a "child" is a person who is aged 19 or younger.

CONCLUSION: Only those persons age 20 and older are held accountable for sin.

http://www.biblebell.org/accountability.html

--------------------------------------------------------------------
God Bless you all.
PW1
I've spoken to quite a few people about 13 vs. 20. I can't find a lot of good biblical evidence (read: any) to default to 13, and it appears the Jews cut that out of whole cloth, not the Bible, when they came up with it.

Friend of I AM
Jul 31st 2008, 07:14 PM
Just remembered the whole Elisha story where the kids were making fun of him and a rebuked them and a lion came out and devoured them. Bible didn't say the age of the kids, but I guess this story does again demonstrate that kids can be held accountable.

CoffeeCat
Jul 31st 2008, 07:39 PM
I don't believe there's a set age that applies universally to all people when it comes to whether or not we're accountable to God. There are so many factors to consider that it makes the most sense to believe that because God knows us personally, He knows when each of us have the judgment skills to be accountable to Him.

Two of those factors, just off the top of my head: culture (in some places, children reach different maturity levels and milestones faster or slower, which would impact their ability to reason) and mental ability (if someone's 45 years of age but is functioning mentally at the level of a 6 or 7 year old, then there's every reason to believe God would meet them at THAT level rather than at their age).

Whenever we are able to reason, and understand who God is and what sin is..... whenever that is.... that's when I believe God begins to hold us accountable. I'd argue that in all things, God will be Just; if circumstances prevent any of us from reaching that mental awareness at which point we can reason and understand, there's no reason I've got to say that God would fail to take that into consideration. That includes, in my mind, children too young to reason, and adults who lack (and have always lacked) the ability to reason.

PW1
Jul 31st 2008, 08:12 PM
I've spoken to quite a few people about 13 vs. 20. I can't find a lot of good biblical evidence (read: any) to default to 13, and it appears the Jews cut that out of whole cloth, not the Bible, when they came up with it.

Steve M, when you qouts something that I wrote, don't cut nothing out...

I also said: I Strongly believe that if a parent teaches the child what is right and what is wrong in life...that child will know before or at age 12.

Thank you and God Bless.
PW1

Steve M
Jul 31st 2008, 08:15 PM
Steve M, when you qouts something that I wrote, don't cut nothing out...

I also said: I Strongly believe that if a parent teaches the child what is right and what is wrong in life...that child will know before or at age 12.

Thank you and God Bless.
PW1
My intention wasn't to misrepresent you; I happen to think that under New Covenant rules only our hearts, which only God can see, measures the true age of accountability.

I just continue to think that's it a mite strange that folks turn to the modern Jewish practices rather than turning to what God said to the Jews in scripture...

PW1
Jul 31st 2008, 08:20 PM
My intention wasn't to misrepresent you; I happen to think that under New Covenant rules only our hearts, which only God can see, measures the true age of accountability.

I just continue to think that's it a mite strange that folks turn to the modern Jewish practices rather than turning to what God said to the Jews in scripture...

Hi Steve M,
I understand where you are coming from.
God Bless,
PW1

tt1106
Jul 31st 2008, 08:26 PM
I don't believe babies or children go to hell.

KingFisher
Jul 31st 2008, 09:00 PM
2 Sam 12:18 And it came to pass on the seventh day, that the child died. And the servants of David feared to tell him that the child was dead: for they said, Behold, while the child was yet alive, we spake unto him, and he would not hearken unto our voice: how will he then vex himself, if we tell him that the child is dead?
19 But when David saw that his servants whispered, David perceived that the child was dead: therefore David said unto his servants, Is the child dead? And they said, He is dead.
20 Then David arose from the earth, and washed, and anointed himself, and changed his apparel, and came into the house of the LORD, and worshipped: then he came to his own house; and when he required, they set bread before him, and he did eat.
21 Then said his servants unto him, What thing is this that thou hast done? thou didst fast and weep for the child, while it was alive; but when the child was dead, thou didst rise and eat bread.
22 And he said, While the child was yet alive, I fasted and wept: for I said, Who can tell whether GOD will be gracious to me, that the child may live? 23 But now he is dead, wherefore should I fast? can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me

David knew that his son was where he would one day be going. ;)

I agree...

I like what Matthew Henry had to say in commentary to these passages:

"Secondly, To him to heaven, to a state of blessedness, which even the
Old Testament saints had some expectation of. Godly parents have great
reason to hope concerning their children that die in infancy that it is well
with their souls in the other world; for the promise is to us and to our
seed, which shall be performed to those that do not put a bar in their own
door, as infants do not. Favores sunt ampliandi—Favours received should
produce the hope of more. God calls those his children that are born unto
him; and, if they be his, he will save them. This may comfort us when our
children are removed from us by death, they are better provided for, both
in work and wealth, than they could have been in this world. We shall be
with them shortly, to part no more."

I'd also like to add that this is a very personal subject for some people.

With love,
KingFisher

theothersock
Jul 31st 2008, 11:10 PM
Wellsir...

It depends.

There is no specific mention of an "age of accountability" as it pertains to salvation anywhere in scripture. The instance in Exodus was a specific instance referring to earthly destruction in the Old Covenant, not spiritual damnation in the New. Therefore it is not a strong argument to base a belief on in regard to this issue.

In (I think it's Isaiah) we have reference to the prophesied Messiah eating honey and butter so that when he was old enought to understand he would reject the bad and choose the good. Again, this old covenant text can be twisted into support of an "age of accountability", but again it is an old covenant prophetic text specifically linked to the Messiah, and one must use it liberally and out of context to support an "age of accountability".

In contrast, we have a lot of evidence that we are "born in iniquity" according to scripture.

I will say this: I know for a FACT that people under 20 (I've been one before) know the difference between right and wrong and are fully capable of choosing. I also know for a FACT that people under 13 (I've also been one of these) know the difference between right and wrong and are fully capable of choosing.

If any "age of accountability" construct (yes, it is a modern construct created by believers, rather than found explicitly in scripture), I would lean toward a more flexible system wherein each individual person is held accountable once their understanding is in place.

Personally, I feel, based on my recollections (remember I was one once) and observations that this is probablly around 5 or 6 years old. (preparing for angry parents). I knew I was being bad at this age, it wasn't that I had no concept or understanding as at 2 or 3. But I speak this from myself, not from God, so it's an open issue.

Now, if you believe in predestination, which does have some strong Biblical support, then the age of accountability is a non-issue. If someone will grow to be saved or evil, they have the spirit of righteousness or iniquity form birth, and if they die young it doesn't really matter.

Not trying to discourage anyone, but I also don't want anyone to let their teenager or preteen run around rampant thinking, "It's okay, they're not 13/20 yet".

mikebr
Jul 31st 2008, 11:18 PM
I don't believe babies or children go to hell.

This seems to be the consensus here but can I throw a monkey :monkeyd:wrench in.
Does innocence get us to heaven?
Does ignorance?

..............................and (this always makes folks mad) if the age of accountability is true then abortion is responsible for more folks going to heaven than modern day evangelicalism.:hmm:

BTW I believe that all babies go to heaven!

PW1
Aug 1st 2008, 03:33 AM
This seems to be the consensus here but can I throw a monkey :monkeyd:wrench in.
Does innocence get us to heaven?
Does ignorance?


..............................and (this always makes folks mad) if the age of accountability is true then abortion is responsible for more folks going to heaven than modern day evangelicalism.:hmm:

BTW I believe that all babies go to heaven!

Amen to That Brother!
PW1

seamus414
Aug 1st 2008, 04:08 AM
PLaying devil's advocate here, please let me know your thoughts on the following:

CHristians believe in original sin which teaches that ALL humans are tainted by sin at birth and derving of hell. The only way out from that is to accept the grace of Christ's blood. Babies never do that (i.e.: accept Christ's grace), so why doesn't their original sin condemn them?

uric3
Aug 1st 2008, 11:59 AM
PLaying devil's advocate here, please let me know your thoughts on the following:

CHristians believe in original sin which teaches that ALL humans are tainted by sin at birth and derving of hell. The only way out from that is to accept the grace of Christ's blood. Babies never do that (i.e.: accept Christ's grace), so why doesn't their original sin condemn them?

Please see post #2 it should answer your question... if not please expound and I will try to do so.

mikebr
Aug 1st 2008, 12:12 PM
Please see post #2 it should answer your question... if not please expound and I will try to do so.


From Post 2


So no babies are not lost until they reach an age to where they have an understanding of what sin is... that it separates them from God.


To what degree would they need to understand. Would you say that God gives them this window of grace because He loves them or are we talking fairness?

Love or Fairness?:hmm:

mikebr
Aug 1st 2008, 12:19 PM
PLaying devil's advocate here, please let me know your thoughts on the following:

CHristians believe in original sin which teaches that ALL humans are tainted by sin at birth and derving of hell. The only way out from that is to accept the grace of Christ's blood. Babies never do that (i.e.: accept Christ's grace), so why doesn't their original sin condemn them?


Yeah these are some of the things I'm hearing.

Babies are innocent.
Babies are ignorant.
Babies don't have the proper understanding.
Babies arent' old enough to make a decision.

My question:
Are babies loved by God-All babies?

Vhayes
Aug 1st 2008, 12:32 PM
Yeah these are some of the things I'm hearing.

Babies are innocent.
Babies are ignorant.
Babies don't have the proper understanding.
Babies arent' old enough to make a decision.

My question:
Are babies loved by God-All babies?
Yes. All babies. God loves all men (for God so loved the WORLD) and would that none should perish, so why not babies? Especially babies?

FYI - my husband and I had a baby who died. After much anguish, many tears, lots of anger and finally prayer, I came to the realization that God knows ALL things. That means, at least to me, He would know WHAT decision regarding Christ our daughter WOULD have made had she lived.

God is love - God is just - I'll trust her to His mercy and will.

Hope that helps a bit, Mike.
V

mikebr
Aug 1st 2008, 12:36 PM
Yes. All babies. God loves all men (for God so loved the WORLD) and would that none should perish, so why not babies? Especially babies?

FYI - my husband and I had a baby who died. After much anguish, many tears, lots of anger and finally prayer, I came to the realization that God knows ALL things. That means, at least to me, He would know WHAT decision regarding Christ our daughter WOULD have made had she lived.

God is love - God is just - I'll trust her to His mercy and will.

Hope that helps a bit, Mike.
V


That is exactly my point. I believe that God loves all men, especially babies. I believe that your baby is with Jesus because she was created in His image and because He loved her.

uric3
Aug 1st 2008, 12:38 PM
This seems to be the consensus here but can I throw a monkey :monkeyd:wrench in.
Does innocence get us to heaven?
Does ignorance?

..............................and (this always makes folks mad) if the age of accountability is true then abortion is responsible for more folks going to heaven than modern day evangelicalism.:hmm:

BTW I believe that all babies go to heaven!

I don't have all the answers but I do have a few thoughts to throw in there about this...

I think we can all agree that our God is a just God knowing the hearts of man kind. I think for those who never knew the Gospel or had a opportunity to obey that God will deal with them differently. Look at 2nd Peter 2:20-22

"20For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning. 21For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them. 22But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog is turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire.

Notice verse 21 its stated that it would have been better had they never known the truth... rather than your in the same boat as those that don't know the truth.

Obviously you have a lot of people in OT times that where good morale people but didn't know or have a chance to know the God of Israel... should we say they are not going to receive a fair judgment... because at that time only the Jews was given the word of God. However I think its obvious that their was people who lived back then that didn't even know that the Jewish nation existed was let alone the God of Israel.

If we read Acts 14:15-17

"And saying, Sirs, why do ye these things? We also are men of like passions with you, and preach unto you that ye should turn from these vanities unto the living God, which made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are therein: 16Who in times past suffered all nations to walk in their own ways. 17Nevertheless he left not himself without witness, in that he did good, and gave us rain from heaven, and fruitful seasons, filling our hearts with food and gladness. "

Then Acts 17:30

"And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:"

We see from these two passages that God allowed nations to go their own way... however he was still good to them. Also we see that God overlooked(winked) at the ignorance of times past because as stated before a lot of people didn't know or was unaware. Of course now everyone with sound mind, etc knows about Christ so there is no excuse.

Opinion: "I think God will judge these people according to their works... and was was in their heart because of our God is just and wouldn't hold them accountable for something they couldn't change.

Anyway thats my 2 cents... hope that helps some...

seamus414
Aug 1st 2008, 12:53 PM
Yeah these are some of the things I'm hearing.

Babies are innocent.
Babies are ignorant.
Babies don't have the proper understanding.
Babies arent' old enough to make a decision.

My question:
Are babies loved by God-All babies?

So are all adults loved by God, that does not mean all adults are saved. So, you are saying these babies can be saved WITHOUT actually receiving CHrist as savior?

seamus414
Aug 1st 2008, 12:56 PM
Please see post #2 it should answer your question... if not please expound and I will try to do so.

Post #2 appears to reject original sin - either humans are tainted at birth or they are not. Christian teaching is that humans are born hell-bound unless they receive Christ's grace.

Many, if not most, of the reasons given for why a baby would go to heaven could be used to argue that the so-called "noble savage" goes to heaven also. WOuld you agree that the "noble savage" goes to heaven?

mikebr
Aug 1st 2008, 12:57 PM
So are all adults, that does not mean all adults are saved. So, you are saying these babies can be saved WITHOUT actually receiving CHrist as savior?


No, I'm asking how babies get to heaven without being "saved?"

seamus414
Aug 1st 2008, 01:13 PM
No, I'm asking how babies get to heaven without being "saved?"


I would argue that they ARE saved, but just not saved in a way that is typical. Of course, if you think that babies get to heaven, you will, by definition, have to revise what you think the process one must go through to get to heaven is.

The Bible is clear: you get to heaven through commitment to Chirst and acceptance of the grace of his atoning sacrifice. Babies cannot do that. Therefore, either they go to hell or there is another method to get to heaven.

You have to choose one.

uric3
Aug 1st 2008, 01:21 PM
Post #2 appears to reject original sin - either humans are tainted at birth or they are not. Christian teaching is that humans are born hell-bound unless they receive Christ's grace.

Many, if not most, of the reasons given for why a baby would go to heaven could be used to argue that the so-called "noble savage" goes to heaven also. WOuld you agree that the "noble savage" goes to heaven?

You are correct Post #2 does reject original sin... I don't think we are tainted at birth just the consequences of sin affect us at birth. Such as stated before since Adam and Eve sinned man dies... thus we pay the consequences of sin just like the innocent family that gets hit by a drunk driver.

Look at Christ he was born of a woman and came to earth as a man yet he never sinned or had sin... thus showing that he wasn't born with it.

The idea that man inherits sin didn't enter the church until much later and in my opinion is false doctrine due to Ezek 18:20; the fact that Christ came as a man and wasn't born with it as well as other passages I sited such as Rom 7:8-10 we see that Paul didn't die spiritually until he understood the law thus sin revived and he died.

So in a nutshell we are safe until we reach a point that we understand the difference between right and wrong. God loves us and he knows the heart... thus if a baby or someone dies without the understanding (mentally ill, baby, etc..) that God out of love and being just will make the correct decision.

Lastly on your noble savage comment I think I answered it in post #28 if I understand what your stating... if not please let me know in more detail about "noble savage"... thanks.

mikebr
Aug 1st 2008, 01:28 PM
I would argue that they ARE saved, but just not saved in a way that is typical. Of course, if you think that babies get to heaven, you will, by definition, have to revise what you think the process one must go through to get to heaven is.

The Bible is clear: you get to heaven through commitment to Chirst and acceptance of the grace of his atoning sacrifice. Babies cannot do that. Therefore, either they go to hell or there is another method to get to heaven.

You have to choose one.

Why would a noble savage go to hell? Never heard, thus never able to make a decision as we see a decision has to be made.

I agree with your last statement. Jesus is the only way to heaven not some correctly made Baptist, Pentecostal, Methodist, _______________ decision.

seamus414
Aug 1st 2008, 01:29 PM
You are correct Post #2 does reject original sin... I don't think we are tainted at birth just the consequences of sin affect us at birth. Such as stated before since Adam and Eve sinned man dies... thus we pay the consequences of sin just like the innocent family that gets hit by a drunk driver.

Look at Christ he was born of a woman and came to earth as a man yet he never sinned or had sin... thus showing that he wasn't born with it.

The idea that man inherits sin didn't enter the church until much later and in my opinion is false doctrine due to Ezek 18:20; the fact that Christ came as a man and wasn't born with it as well as other passages I sited such as Rom 7:8-10 we see that Paul didn't die spiritually until he understood the law thus sin revived and he died.

So in a nutshell we are safe until we reach a point that we understand the difference between right and wrong. God loves us and he knows the heart... thus if a baby or someone dies without the understanding (mentally ill, baby, etc..) that God out of love and being just will make the correct decision.

Lastly on your noble savage comment I think I answered it in post #28 if I understand what your stating... if not please let me know in more detail about "noble savage"... thanks.

Jesus did not have original sin because he is Christ! This is consistent with the Bible as Paul says that he is completely human save for sin.

I am not sure if my continued debate is productive with you on this issue. I do not mean to offend, I am just being honest when I say this: original sin is a core biblical Christian teaching that has always been taught everywhere in the Church. Rejection of it is, in my view, a dangerous heresey. Therefore, as we approach this topic from two diametrically opposed places, we cannot really reach a conclusion.

seamus414
Aug 1st 2008, 01:35 PM
Why would a noble savage go to hell? Never heard, thus never able to make a decision as we see a decision has to be made.

I agree with your last statement. Jesus is the only way to heaven not some correctly made Baptist, Pentecostal, Methodist, _______________ decision.


Ok, how far can you stretch this?

Can you say: the mental slow person goes to heaven without making a choice? What about the schizophrenic? What about that person who only had corrupt "Christians" share the gospel with him and now he rejects Christ due to them - is that a choice?

uric3
Aug 1st 2008, 01:45 PM
I see what your saying however... please explain Ezek 18:20; and Rom 7:8-10 granted yes we inherit the consequances of Adams sin but not the sin itself...\

Grant yes Jesus was God and the Christ however he came to earth as a man, lived as a man, and died as a man tempted to sin just as man is. Yet without sin, I believe with all my heart that Christ came to earth in the flesh to server and die for us as a man. Thus making him the perfect intercession for us... because hes been there and done that tempted just as we are.

So how can we say that he was born of flesh a man without really being a man... thus born of Mary who "inherited sin" yet he didn't... (Edit):in a sense a heresy is being stated there in that it would almost be denying the humanity of Christ... because we he came as a man he suffered all things as a man... yet if man inherits sin... then Christ would have inherited it since he suffered all things that man does... yes? If not please explain...

We sin when we fall short... and guess what once we do have an understanding you bettcha that everyone has sinned... everyone has told their parents no or hasn't minded them as a child with understanding... everyone has said something mean to another child knowing it will hurt their feelings etc... the only person who was perfect and didn't do that was Christ.

However as stated in Rom3:23 "All have sinned, and come short of the Glory of the Lord"

Or 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"

Note there that all have sinned not that they inherited sin but they commited it. Also notice verse 12 yeah but Adam sin entered the world and sin = death. However it didn't say that we inherited his sin... no we die because we have sinned... not that was are lost because of another persons faults... its our own fault because we all sin...

seamus414
Aug 1st 2008, 01:55 PM
I see what your saying however... please explain Ezek 18:20; and Rom 7:8-10 granted yes we inherit the consequances of Adams sin but not the sin itself...\

Grant yes Jesus was God and the Christ however he came to earth as a man, lived as a man, and died as a man tempted to sin just as man is. Yet without sin, I believe with all my heart that Christ came to earth in the flesh to server and die for us as a man. Thus making him the perfect intercession for us... because hes been there and done that tempted just as we are.

So how can we say that he was born of flesh a man without really being a man... thus born of Mary who "inherited sin" yet he didn't...

We sin when we fall short... and guess what once we do have an understanding you bettcha that everyone has sinned... everyone has told their parents no or hasn't minded them as a child with understanding... everyone has said something mean to another child knowing it will hurt their feelings etc... the only person who was perfect and didn't do that was Christ.

However as stated in Rom3:23 "All have sinned, and come short of the Glory of the Lord"

Or 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"

Note there that all have sinned not that they inherited sin but they commited it. Also notice verse 12 yeah but Adam sin entered the world and sin = death. However it didn't say that we inherited his sin... no we die because we have sinned... not that was are lost because of another persons faults... its our own fault because we all sin...

A couple of thoughts - I will post later on the passages you cite.

If someone is born without sin - which is what you are saying - then CHrist's sacrifice was in vain. In other words, a new born baby is as spotless and sinless as Christ himself and needs NO atoning sacrifice! In theory someone could guide that baby to never sin and then what? The Bible makes it clear, we NEED the atoning sacrifice because we are born sinful. If the sacrifice was not needed, then God could merely stunt the growth of sinless humans at birth and replant them into a new Garden of Eden and reboot. No, this is not what can happen as the sin has entered our very nature and Christ must sacrifice himself to undo that sin in our very nature. The suggestion that a new born baby is as sinless as Jesus is borderline blasphemy.

uric3
Aug 1st 2008, 02:21 PM
Here is an article I found to go along with this that I think is suitable... please read.


It is a fundamental part of Calvinism, and therefore found in the official doctrines and histories of most Protestant churches. But not only that, it is also an integral part of Catholicism. One Catholic theologian put it this way; he said, "...all men except Jesus and His blessed mother are born subject to death and deprived of grace..."

The Protestant reformers, including Luther and Calvin, included the idea in their creeds as well. For this reason, Catholic and many Protestant denominations practice infant baptism. At least originally, the practice began as a way to save the infant from spiritual and everlasting condemnation due to the sins he or she inherited from their parents at birth.

Essentially, this doctrine holds that sin is inherited; that a child is lost in sin at birth and a child is totally depraved at birth. When it is pointed out that Jesus was born of Mary, it is explained that Jesus did not inherit sin because Mary was sinless (this in spite of the fact that the Bible plainly tells of Mary offering her sin offerings according to the Law; see Luke 2:22-24 and Leviticus 5:7-13). When asked how it was that Mary was born without inheriting sin, the answer is that Mary, herself, was "immaculately conceived." The Scriptures nowhere teach anything like this at all.

The doctrine that we are born in sin is a false doctrine, pure and simple. It contradicts plain Bible passages concerning the nature of sin and the definition of sin. We see this in the teaching of God's prophet Ezekiel, for example. The Spirit inspired Ezekiel to teach;. "The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father's iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son's iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself." (Ezekiel 18:20). The creeds of men say the son does bear the punishment for the father's iniquity, but the word of God says he does not. The choice is ours as to which to believe.

Passages Used By Those Who Believe We Are Born In Sin
There must be some defense that is offered from the Bible to advance such teaching. Of course, even Satan will misuse Scripture to his own ends. The question is, "Does the Bible teach that we are born in sin" not "Can I force the doctrine into a passage?" Let's take a brief look at the best defenses of the doctrine that are offered. If there is any merit to it at all, this is where we will find it.

(Psalm 51:5) "Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, And in sin my mother conceived me." This is from a Psalm of David after his sin with Bathsheba. It deals with the sin of an adult, and shows the repentance of an adult (vs. 10-13). David does not say he was a "sinner baby" but rather that his mother conceived him in sin. Read it again and see! David was born into a sinful world. Sin was all around him from birth, so he was 'brought forth in iniquity." The Jewish writers who wrote of this Psalm say the same thing.; David is saying that he was born into a sinful environment.

(Psalm 58:3) "The wicked are estranged from the womb; These who speak lies go astray from birth." First, note that if these people were born astray then they could not "go astray from birth." Infants are born into a sinful world with their eyes and ears wide open. They are so inquisitive, beginning to learn immediately through taste, touch, sound, sight and smell. They are watching, and they see evil all around them constantly from birth. They may not know it is evil yet, but it is there and it does influence them. The clincher is this: the ones going astray speak lies, so the going astray has to be accomplished, at the very least, only after the person has learned to speak!

(Ephesians 2:3) "Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest." What made these people "children of wrath"? Was it something they inherited or something they had done? Verses 1 and 2 help us to answer that question. "And you were dead in your trespasses and sins, in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world..." They were "by nature" what they were. "Nature" here does not refer to constitutional character but rather to habit... sin became natural, or we sometimes say, "second nature" to them by their long and diligent practice of it.




Passages Which Contradict The Concept of Being Born in Sin
(Matthew 18:3) "Truly I say to you, unless you are converted and become like children, you shall not enter the kingdom of heaven." Jesus said we must become converted and like little children. He would not tell us to do this if children were truly born totally depraved. If they were born as totally depraved that would mean that there is nothing in them that is not depraved and therefore we should not become like children in any sense. But Jesus said there was something in children that we need to take as our example (their humility). This passage shows that children are not born totally depraved (see also Psalm 106:36-39).

(Hebrews 12:9) "Furthermore, we had earthly fathers to discipline us, and we respected them; shall we not much rather be subject to the Father of spirits, and live?" Here, God is referred to as the "Father of spirits." While we inherit our physical attributes from our physical parents, our inner person, our spirit, we get from God. Our spirit is created 'in His image." If we are born totally depraved, then we are depraved in body and spirit. If that is the case, then we inherit our sinful, depraved spirits from God! But in God there is no evil, and therefore none to pass on to us.

(2 Timothy 3:13) "But evil men and impostors will proceed from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived." If we were born totally depraved, then we could not get worse.

(Luke 8:15) "...these are the ones who have heard the word in an honest and good heart, and hold it fast, and bear fruit with perseverance." If total depravity is true, then there is no such thing as "good and honest" hearts.




One final point. God defines sin for us. It is not something inherited, nor does He define it as something we are born with. Lord, what is sin? God answers: "Everyone who practices sin also practices lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness." (1 John 3:4). Sin is not something we are born with; it is something we do. When we break God's law, we sin. The good news is that the gospel of Christ is the power of God to take away our sins.


By Jon W. Quinn

Also note the edit I placed in the previous post about the humanity of Chirst.

seamus414
Aug 1st 2008, 02:37 PM
Here is an article I found to go along with this that I think is suitable... please read.


It is a fundamental part of Calvinism, and therefore found in the official doctrines and histories of most Protestant churches. But not only that, it is also an integral part of Catholicism. One Catholic theologian put it this way; he said, "...all men except Jesus and His blessed mother are born subject to death and deprived of grace..."

The Protestant reformers, including Luther and Calvin, included the idea in their creeds as well. For this reason, Catholic and many Protestant denominations practice infant baptism. At least originally, the practice began as a way to save the infant from spiritual and everlasting condemnation due to the sins he or she inherited from their parents at birth.

Essentially, this doctrine holds that sin is inherited; that a child is lost in sin at birth and a child is totally depraved at birth. When it is pointed out that Jesus was born of Mary, it is explained that Jesus did not inherit sin because Mary was sinless (this in spite of the fact that the Bible plainly tells of Mary offering her sin offerings according to the Law; see Luke 2:22-24 and Leviticus 5:7-13). When asked how it was that Mary was born without inheriting sin, the answer is that Mary, herself, was "immaculately conceived." The Scriptures nowhere teach anything like this at all.

The doctrine that we are born in sin is a false doctrine, pure and simple. It contradicts plain Bible passages concerning the nature of sin and the definition of sin. We see this in the teaching of God's prophet Ezekiel, for example. The Spirit inspired Ezekiel to teach;. "The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father's iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son's iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself." (Ezekiel 18:20). The creeds of men say the son does bear the punishment for the father's iniquity, but the word of God says he does not. The choice is ours as to which to believe.

Passages Used By Those Who Believe We Are Born In Sin
There must be some defense that is offered from the Bible to advance such teaching. Of course, even Satan will misuse Scripture to his own ends. The question is, "Does the Bible teach that we are born in sin" not "Can I force the doctrine into a passage?" Let's take a brief look at the best defenses of the doctrine that are offered. If there is any merit to it at all, this is where we will find it.

(Psalm 51:5) "Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, And in sin my mother conceived me." This is from a Psalm of David after his sin with Bathsheba. It deals with the sin of an adult, and shows the repentance of an adult (vs. 10-13). David does not say he was a "sinner baby" but rather that his mother conceived him in sin. Read it again and see! David was born into a sinful world. Sin was all around him from birth, so he was 'brought forth in iniquity." The Jewish writers who wrote of this Psalm say the same thing.; David is saying that he was born into a sinful environment.

(Psalm 58:3) "The wicked are estranged from the womb; These who speak lies go astray from birth." First, note that if these people were born astray then they could not "go astray from birth." Infants are born into a sinful world with their eyes and ears wide open. They are so inquisitive, beginning to learn immediately through taste, touch, sound, sight and smell. They are watching, and they see evil all around them constantly from birth. They may not know it is evil yet, but it is there and it does influence them. The clincher is this: the ones going astray speak lies, so the going astray has to be accomplished, at the very least, only after the person has learned to speak!

(Ephesians 2:3) "Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest." What made these people "children of wrath"? Was it something they inherited or something they had done? Verses 1 and 2 help us to answer that question. "And you were dead in your trespasses and sins, in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world..." They were "by nature" what they were. "Nature" here does not refer to constitutional character but rather to habit... sin became natural, or we sometimes say, "second nature" to them by their long and diligent practice of it.




Passages Which Contradict The Concept of Being Born in Sin
(Matthew 18:3) "Truly I say to you, unless you are converted and become like children, you shall not enter the kingdom of heaven." Jesus said we must become converted and like little children. He would not tell us to do this if children were truly born totally depraved. If they were born as totally depraved that would mean that there is nothing in them that is not depraved and therefore we should not become like children in any sense. But Jesus said there was something in children that we need to take as our example (their humility). This passage shows that children are not born totally depraved (see also Psalm 106:36-39).

(Hebrews 12:9) "Furthermore, we had earthly fathers to discipline us, and we respected them; shall we not much rather be subject to the Father of spirits, and live?" Here, God is referred to as the "Father of spirits." While we inherit our physical attributes from our physical parents, our inner person, our spirit, we get from God. Our spirit is created 'in His image." If we are born totally depraved, then we are depraved in body and spirit. If that is the case, then we inherit our sinful, depraved spirits from God! But in God there is no evil, and therefore none to pass on to us.

(2 Timothy 3:13) "But evil men and impostors will proceed from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived." If we were born totally depraved, then we could not get worse.

(Luke 8:15) "...these are the ones who have heard the word in an honest and good heart, and hold it fast, and bear fruit with perseverance." If total depravity is true, then there is no such thing as "good and honest" hearts.




One final point. God defines sin for us. It is not something inherited, nor does He define it as something we are born with. Lord, what is sin? God answers: "Everyone who practices sin also practices lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness." (1 John 3:4). Sin is not something we are born with; it is something we do. When we break God's law, we sin. The good news is that the gospel of Christ is the power of God to take away our sins.


By Jon W. Quinn

Also note the edit I placed in the previous post about the humanity of Chirst.


Evidently (although I disagree) reading the Scriptures presents conflicting teaching on original sin. So which is it? The witness of the Church everywhere and always testifys to original sin. Therefore, far be it from me to say that virtually all Christians for all time are wrong in their view of Scripture.

mikebr
Aug 1st 2008, 02:46 PM
Evidently (although I disagree) reading the Scriptures presents conflicting teaching on original sin. So which is it? The witness of the Church everywhere and always testifys to original sin. Therefore, far be it from me to say that virtually all Christians for all time are wrong in their view of Scripture.

Well said but can't you just imagine some a 1st century Jewish person saying,

"Therefore, far be it from me to say that virtually all Pharisees for all time are wrong in their view of Scripture."

seamus414
Aug 1st 2008, 02:58 PM
Well said but can't you just imagine some a 1st century Jewish person saying,

"Therefore, far be it from me to say that virtually all Pharisees for all time are wrong in their view of Scripture."

Jesus never promised the pharisees that the Gates of Hell would never prevail against them. The Pharisees are also not God's own body.

The point is, you have virtually universal Christian wisdom - are you suggesting that virtually every Christian of all time got the wrong message from the Holy Spirit?

mikebr
Aug 1st 2008, 03:02 PM
Jesus never promised the pharisees that the Gates of Hell would never prevail against them. The Pharisees are also not God's own body.

The point is, you have virtually universal Christian wisdom - are you suggesting that virtually every Christian of all time got the wrong message from the Holy Spirit?


I'm simply saying that historically that the majority is not always correct. I agree with the concept of original sin, but not because the church says it but because I believe its what the Bible teaches. I could however be wrong. Couldn't you?

mikebr
Aug 1st 2008, 03:07 PM
There are many many schisms in the church but just because we all agree on something doesn't make it right.

Calvinism or Arminianism? Could both be wrong?
Dunking or sprinkling? Cold both be right.
Osas vs No-Osas???????
Speaking in tongues vs not?


The church universally agreed on the power of the Pope. ;)

Friend of I AM
Aug 1st 2008, 03:28 PM
Post #2 appears to reject original sin - either humans are tainted at birth or they are not. Christian teaching is that humans are born hell-bound unless they receive Christ's grace.

Many, if not most, of the reasons given for why a baby would go to heaven could be used to argue that the so-called "noble savage" goes to heaven also. WOuld you agree that the "noble savage" goes to heaven?

Adam's sin condemns them, Christ's sacrafice extends grace to them. I don't know how you would define noble or savage, but I can tell you that only Christ is defined as nobel and God's eyes, and savagery is something that is subject to one's interpretation. The disciples were often thought of as savage-demon possessed men, as Christ himself was also called a demon possessed man.

Despite how righteous one believes themselves to be, the only way to get to see God is through Christ and his grace.

Stephen

seamus414
Aug 1st 2008, 03:31 PM
Adam's sin condemns them, Christ's sacrafice extends grace to them. I don't know how you would define noble or savage, but I can tell you that only Christ is defined as nobel and God's eyes, and savagery is something that is subject to one's interpretation. The disciples were often thought of as savage-demon possessed men, as Christ himself was also called a demon possessed man.

Despite how righteous one believes themselves to be, the only way to get to see God is through Christ and his grace.

Stephen

"Noble savage" is a term with a specific definition - it's not something that attempts to undermine Christ's nobility.

jared777
Aug 1st 2008, 11:10 PM
i have thought about this SO MUCH, and the idea of an age of accountability just does not make sense to me. if babies/children are automatically saved, then what is wrong with abortion? after all, isn't it just an opportunity for a soul to avoid the chance of going to hell? wouldn't it be better for the unsaved to have been killed by their parents when they were young? killing a baby would seem like the gift of automatic heaven.

that is just the logical argument, nevermind the fact that it contradicts the fact that the only way to salvation is through christ. i think god knows what each soul would have chosen had they had the opportunity, and that is how they are judged. those who are elected (whatever that means) are saved. and as a side note, i dont think that an infant would appear in an infant body after death.

jared777
Aug 2nd 2008, 03:16 AM
another side note - it would seem logical that infants who die are, in fact, elected. i can't see the point of a soul living for such a short period of time on earth, only to go straight to eternal separation from god. but that's just my own though. the truth is, none of us have any way of knowing the real answer to this question. not yet.

StevenC
Aug 5th 2008, 12:21 AM
Some thoughts.

First, no one gets punishment without first receiving their judgment. God says he will judge all and give to everyone according to their deeds.

Second, those who are cast into the lake of fire are adulterers, liars, murderers, sorcerers, etc.

I don't think a baby meets that criteria. Revelations has the most extensive description of the lake of fire (often called hell) and it tells us who will be tossed into it.

-Steven

Friend of I AM
Aug 5th 2008, 03:33 PM
"Noble savage" is a term with a specific definition - it's not something that attempts to undermine Christ's nobility.

Oh okay, well better to be safe than sorry. Gotta watch out for my God..:D

BadDog
Aug 5th 2008, 06:26 PM
2 Sam 12:18 And it came to pass on the seventh day, that the child died. And the servants of David feared to tell him that the child was dead: ...
22 And he said, While the child was yet alive, I fasted and wept: for I said, Who can tell whether GOD will be gracious to me, that the child may live? 23 But now he is dead, wherefore should I fast? can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me

David knew that his son was where he would one day be going. ;)

Buck shot pointed out the definitive scripture here.

BD

Friend of I AM
Aug 6th 2008, 02:37 PM
Some thoughts.

First, no one gets punishment without first receiving their judgment. God says he will judge all and give to everyone according to their deeds.

Second, those who are cast into the lake of fire are adulterers, liars, murderers, sorcerers, etc.

I don't think a baby meets that criteria. Revelations has the most extensive description of the lake of fire (often called hell) and it tells us who will be tossed into it.

-Steven

We actually had a thread similar to this a bit ago. The answer was "yes" young children would be condemned if not for the grace of God found in Christ Jesus. Romans 5:14 states that all who were born of Adam's line(all of mankind) were condemned due to Adam's transgression, even those who had not actually commited a transgression. The earth itself became under the reign of sin and death, and Christ's sacrafice actually redeemed Adam and the earth itself.

uric3
Aug 6th 2008, 06:42 PM
We actually had a thread similar to this a bit ago. The answer was "yes" young children would be condemned if not for the grace of God found in Christ Jesus. Romans 5:14 states that all who were born of Adam's line(all of mankind) were condemned due to Adam's transgression, even those who had not actually commited a transgression. The earth itself became under the reign of sin and death, and Christ's sacrafice actually redeemed Adam and the earth itself.

Not sure if you read all of my previous post or not but Rom 5:14 says nothing about us being condemned with sin due Adams Transgression.

It states "Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come."

The only thing it states is that we inherited the consequances of that sin which is man Dies physically! Just as the example I gave of the drunk driver that its a innocent family... the drunk was in the wrong and sinned but the family that gets hit by that drunk driver didn't do anything wrong they are just part of the consequence that this mans sin put him in.

Just like a baby might have a birth defect if a mother does drugs or something of that sort while pregnant. The baby didn't do anything wrong just suffering the consequances of the mothers sin.

Same with us we die physically and have knowledge of Good and Evil because of Adams sin... yet we don't inherit his sin... just the consequence of physical death. Read some of my earlier post and you'll have a better understanding... also not in Rom 5:14 it notes "even over them that HAD NOT SINNED"...

Friend of I AM
Aug 6th 2008, 07:30 PM
Not sure if you read all of my previous post or not but Rom 5:14 says nothing about us being condemned with sin due Adams Transgression.

It states "Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come."



Ask yourself this question, if children truly weren't to receive any form of condemnation due to Adam's sin, why then wouldn't God just use a regular child to atone for mankind's disobedience, as oppossed to sending down his son in his own glory?

Death and hades will be thrown into the lake of fire, thus children were condemned to the same form of torment due to Adam's disobedience as well. Though it seems very sad that this was the case we the situation was a very real one..which is why God came down in the form of a man, to offer his grace to us through his son Christ Jesus so that all men could indeed be saved.

Now where I think we can agree is that God's grace was extended to children during the period of Adam(specifically meaning Christ's atonement sacrafice) so I don't think any would have to experience torment due to Christ's sacrafice acting as a recompense for what we know as the past/present/future. Without it though, we would all be condemned.

In Christ,

Stephen

StevenC
Aug 7th 2008, 04:19 AM
We actually had a thread similar to this a bit ago. The answer was "yes" young children would be condemned if not for the grace of God found in Christ Jesus. Romans 5:14 states that all who were born of Adam's line(all of mankind) were condemned due to Adam's transgression, even those who had not actually commited a transgression. The earth itself became under the reign of sin and death, and Christ's sacrafice actually redeemed Adam and the earth itself.

That is really true of all mankind in general not just children.

The closest I think we can get to being certain, is to be certain of God's love, mercy and justice. A baby will face judgment either to life or death but beyond that we cannot say with any certainty. We know that Christ is the gate and any who wish to enter must enter through Him. Seeing then how he is the gate keeper, I recommend we postpone our own judgment and trust fully in him.

-Steven

IMINXTC
Aug 7th 2008, 04:44 AM
Here's one for the initiates (whatever that implies): one that I had heard of more than once: Children who die before the age of accountability, will be given a chance to receive or reject Christ during the millenium age(?)

Saw my Granma on her death bed at 101 yrs. She had four girls and one boy. The boy died at age one. She had been told by catholic priests that 'Jack' was in Limbo, because she had failed to have him baptised. All her long life she grieved. :mad:

seamus414
Aug 7th 2008, 12:09 PM
Here's one for the initiates (whatever that implies): one that I had heard of more than once: Children who die before the age of accountability, will be given a chance to receive or reject Christ during the millenium age(?)

Saw my Granma on her death bed at 101 yrs. She had four girls and one boy. The boy died at age one. She had been told by catholic priests that 'Jack' was in Limbo, because she had failed to have him baptised. All her long life she grieved. :mad:

Limbo is just a theory as we have no biblical answer as to what happens to a child. Actually, to be more accurate, we reject what the Bible's answer seems to be that they are not saved.

uric3
Aug 7th 2008, 01:34 PM
I agree limbo is just a theory and there is nothing in the Bible to support it... yet you say the Bible supports that children are not saved... please provide book chapter and verse... because I have yet to read anything to confirm that...

Let alone that we inherit sin...

Friend of I AM
Aug 7th 2008, 02:43 PM
I agree limbo is just a theory and there is nothing in the Bible to support it... yet you say the Bible supports that children are not saved... please provide book chapter and verse... because I have yet to read anything to confirm that...

Let alone that we inherit sin...

What about the times of Noah. Noah and his family were deemed the only righteous people on earth during this time. People were given in marriage, having children, etc during these times. Is it your belief that the children outside of Noah's line were saved, along with Noah and his family?

uric3
Aug 7th 2008, 03:57 PM
They where not permitted to live but that doesn't mean in judgment they are condemned to Hell...

Just because someone suffers a horrible fate or has a lot of bad things happen in their life doesn't mean they was a bad person. Look at Job, his friends basically tell him in Job 18 that all this is happening to him because he sinned when in fact he didn't.

Eze, 18:20 clearly states that we don't inherit sin... that the son doesn't bear his fathers wrongs nor does the father bear the sons wrongs... its to each his own.

Granted children suffer the consequances of the parents sin... for example if bad parents had a Meth lab in the basement and a three year old lived there and doesn't have the concept that its wrong or doesn't have a clue as to what in the world Mom and Dad is doing and the parents miss up blowing up the house killing them and the child... how is that the childs fault...

Kind of the same thing with Noah... I am sure there was plenty of children that didn't know right from wrong during the flood but died in it because their parents were wicked... that hadn't done anything amiss as of yet... I mean how could they at that age...

As stated earlier in Rom 7:8,9 Paul states he didn't die spiritually until he knew the law and sin spring to life and he died spiritually... its not stated that he was spititually dead before he knew the law... No he died after he knew the law.

Friend of I AM
Aug 7th 2008, 07:42 PM
As stated earlier in Rom 7:8,9 Paul states he didn't die spiritually until he knew the law and sin spring to life and he died spiritually... its not stated that he was spititually dead before he knew the law... No he died after he knew the law.

That's a good point, but the fact still remains why wouldn't God allow for his mercy to be extended to the children who were present within the city? The same rationale could be applied to the People of Saddam and Gammorah. I'll go ahead and say that I'm not entirely sure what happened to their children, but I will say that I don't think anyone from either Saddam or Gamorrah or during Noah's time(other than Lot and Noah's family) were demonstrated mercy upon from an eternal life standpoint.

seamus414
Aug 7th 2008, 09:21 PM
I agree limbo is just a theory and there is nothing in the Bible to support it... yet you say the Bible supports that children are not saved... please provide book chapter and verse... because I have yet to read anything to confirm that...

Let alone that we inherit sin...

With respect, the doctrine of original sin is, in essence, Christianity 101 and if you reject that we are simply practicing a different religion and an extended discussion will not really be productive as a result.

Friend of I AM
Aug 7th 2008, 09:31 PM
Post has been edited.

threebigrocks
Aug 7th 2008, 09:41 PM
With respect, the doctrine of original sin is, in essence, Christianity 101 and if you reject that we are simply practicing a different religion and an extended discussion will not really be productive as a result.

So you are saying that you do know of scripture that says that children who are not saved, no matter the point of their existence (yet in the womb or birthed) that they do not go to heaven because they have not yet accepted the Lord as their Savior. That is what I assume from this post.

And, as has been asked - I agree, I'd like to see scripture to support this.

Or, you would be talking over our heads in your explination, as others here couldn't possibly understand. :rolleyes:

redeemedbyhim
Aug 7th 2008, 11:00 PM
I haven't read all the pages of this discussion, so if these scriptures have all ready been posted I apologize.

Since Jesus Himself used children to describe entering heaven, that's good enough for me to know His heart on the matter.

Matthew 18:3
And said, Verly I say unto you, except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Matthew 19:14
But Jesus said, suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.

seamus414
Aug 8th 2008, 12:04 PM
So you are saying that you do know of scripture that says that children who are not saved, no matter the point of their existence (yet in the womb or birthed) that they do not go to heaven because they have not yet accepted the Lord as their Savior. That is what I assume from this post.

And, as has been asked - I agree, I'd like to see scripture to support this.

Or, you would be talking over our heads in your explination, as others here couldn't possibly understand. :rolleyes:

I hardly think I am saying anything over anyone's head :)

Here is my point:

Original sin is a basic Christian teaching which teaches ALL are condemned at birth due to the sin on their soul and, as a result, ALL need Christ's atonement at the moment of birth. Death before one receives this atonement results in the logical result of having sin on your soul: condemnation.

Of course, many think this can't possibly be the result as it seems "unjust." These same folks, of course, understand that justice dicates punishment for sin and this baby has sin on his/her soul but somehow thinks it is unjust to punish *that* sin.

So, if one rejects the idea that babys are condemned, we are left with one of 2 possibilities:

(1) we over turn biblical and 20 century old universal CHristian teaching of original sin for a new, unbiblical, and innovative teaching;

or

(2) the requirements for one's salvation are not as strict as many here propound. That is, if a baby who does not receive Christ as saviour can get to heaven without intentionally receiving Christ as saviour, then the possibility of someone being saved without intentionally receiving Christ as saviour is possible and we need to discuss the bounds of unintentional reception of Christ (for want of a better phrase) and how it works.


I support #2 of course - but those are your only two logical possibilities and you have to chose one.

(Aside: if someone believes in predestination, then there is no logical reason to reject the idea of the condemnaiton of babys. If someone is not elect, it should not matter when s/he dies, s/he simply is not and never was elect.)

KingFisher
Aug 8th 2008, 02:08 PM
Hi Seamus,

You've made statements that original sin is a universal teaching many
times. I think where your statement is not being accepted is that there is
not a "universal" one fit all definition for universal sin. Augustine "originally"
brought original sin to the forefront of Christian thought. The original sin
taught by Augustine though is not what many Protestant believers see in
scripture.

Most Protestants follow that the original sin of Adam corrupted mankind.
Meaning we all have a fallen nature. Most Protestants coin this as sin
nature or some, total depravity. What you are saying, I and others
disagree with, because it comes across as "Adam sinned and babies pay
for that sin too".

I don't see that in the scriptures what I see is that at birth we have a
fallen nature inclined to the lusts of the world. We are responsible for our
own sins, not the sins of others.

Ezekiel 18:20 The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt
of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son.

Exodus 32:32-33 Yet now, if You will forgive their sin—but if not, I pray,
blot me out of Your book which You have written. And the Lord said to
Moses, "Whoever has sinned against Me, I will blot him out of My book"

So I guess with that said, you can't say that Uric or anyone else is toeing
the line of Heresy in denying original sin. What we are denying is your (and
I can agree many others) interpretation of original sin.

As has already been graciously posted by Buck Shot we do have an
example of an infants death with regards to their destination.

2 Samuel 12:22-23 And he said, "While the child was alive, I fasted and
wept; for I said, ‘Who can tell whether the Lord will be gracious to me,
that the child may live?’ But now he is dead; why should I fast? Can I
bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me."

David said that he will go to him.

Now through inspiration David penned that his eternal destination would be
"In the house of the Lord"

Psalm 23:6 Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my
life; And I will dwell in the house of the Lord forever.

If David's eternal destination was to be "in the house of the Lord" and
David looked forward to the day he would be able to see his son...

Well I see no context to believe that his son was going to any place but
"The house of the Lord".

"Let the little children come to me",
KingFisher

uric3
Aug 8th 2008, 02:38 PM
Well put King Fisher I agree that due to Adams sin we die Physically and as you mentioned we are of a fallen nature in that sin entices us. But as you stated we are not responsible or accountable for someone else's sin.

However as stated earlier if you can provide book chapter and verse that shows we inherit sin I would like to read it and debate it. Thanks

KingFisher
Aug 8th 2008, 02:51 PM
Well put King Fisher I agree that due to Adams sin we die Physically and as you mentioned we are of a fallen nature in that sin entices us. But as you stated we are not responsible or accountable for someone else's sin.

However as stated earlier if you can provide book chapter and verse that shows we inherit sin I would like to read it and debate it. Thanks

Hi Uric,

I couldn't tell if you were asking me with the book, chapter & verses
that shows we inherit sin comment.

To answer I do not believe that we inherit sin...was there something that
I said that seemed to point to that?

If you weren't addressing me then my apologies for misunderstanding.

God bless you,
KingFisher

Friend of I AM
Aug 8th 2008, 03:07 PM
I haven't read all the pages of this discussion, so if these scriptures have all ready been posted I apologize.

Since Jesus Himself used children to describe entering heaven, that's good enough for me to know His heart on the matter.

Matthew 18:3
And said, Verly I say unto you, except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Matthew 19:14
But Jesus said, suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.

Good point. There's a reference that Solomon makes in Ecclessiastes to a "still born child" being better off than a man who receives much wealth/power from God and then does not enjoy these things when given to him. After much thought, I'm now going along the lines that many of the children of Soddam and Gommorah, as well as those who were killed during the time of Noah may indeed be saved and offered eternal life through Christ based on this verse, or at the very least not sufferring any form of torment from God. I'm thinking of a situation similar to that with David's first child with Bathsheba being taken away by God do to his sin of adultery bringing about the child's birth. Thanks for your input.

seamus414
Aug 8th 2008, 03:52 PM
KingFisher
You've made statements that original sin is a universal teaching many
times. I think where your statement is not being accepted is that there is
not a "universal" one fit all definition for universal sin. Augustine "originally"
brought original sin to the forefront of Christian thought. The original sin
taught by Augustine though is not what many Protestant believers see in
scripture.

That many do not see it does not make it any less an innovation.

Most Protestants follow that the original sin of Adam corrupted mankind.
Meaning we all have a fallen nature. Most Protestants coin this as sin
nature or some, total depravity. What you are saying, I and others
disagree with, because it comes across as "Adam sinned and babies pay
for that sin too".

Most Protestants believe in some form of total depravity and original sin and the consequence of this is that babys are sinful at birth.

I don't see that in the scriptures what I see is that at birth we have a
fallen nature inclined to the lusts of the world. We are responsible for our
own sins, not the sins of others.

That yOu are not responsible for others' sins makes you no less sinful at birth.

Ezekiel 18:20 The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt
of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son.

This pasage does not deal with inhereted sin as defined by original sin and is, therefore, not relevant. This deals with temporal effects of a father's sin on the children. This has nothing to do with the state of the soul at birth.
Exodus 32:32-33 Yet now, if You will forgive their sin—but if not, I pray,
blot me out of Your book which You have written. And the Lord said to
Moses, "Whoever has sinned against Me, I will blot him out of My book"

I do not see how this applies.

So I guess with that said, you can't say that Uric or anyone else is toeing
the line of Heresy in denying original sin. What we are denying is your (and
I can agree many others) interpretation of original sin.

I of course disagree and so would the Protestant Reformers.

As has already been graciously posted by Buck Shot we do have an
example of an infants death with regards to their destination.

2 Samuel 12:22-23 And he said, "While the child was alive, I fasted and
wept; for I said, ‘Who can tell whether the Lord will be gracious to me,
that the child may live?’ But now he is dead; why should I fast? Can I
bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me."

This passage says nothing of the child going to heaven, so I do not see its relevance. How does this apply? Also, this occurs before there was grace so additionally irrelevant. David also believed the chld went to sheol - I am sure you do not think children now go to sheol.

David said that he will go to him.

To sheol, not heaven.

Now through inspiration David penned that his eternal destination would be
"In the house of the Lord"

Psalm 23:6 Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my
life; And I will dwell in the house of the Lord forever.

If David's eternal destination was to be "in the house of the Lord" and
David looked forward to the day he would be able to see his son...

Well I see no context to believe that his son was going to any place but
"The house of the Lord".

The concept of heaven, as the Christian knows of it, is not present within the Old Testiment. You ought not to read into David's mind something he never conceived (i.e.: heaven).

"Let the little children come to me",

THis is Jesus' metaphor about how ADULTS are to come to Christ - it says NOTHING about the eternal destination of children.

Original sin can be found here:
ROmans 5 :12-21;
1 Cor. 15:22;
Psalm 51:5;
Psalm 58:3

KingFisher
Aug 8th 2008, 03:58 PM
Hi again Seamus,

Thanks for the reply.

I wont have time until Monday to give you a proper response.
Please forgive me.

I will look into the scriptures you posted until then.

Thanks again for the reply,
KingFisher

BadDog
Aug 8th 2008, 04:52 PM
Friend of I Am,

uric3 made a good point about Paul not knowing what sin was until the law came.

Also, How could David confidently say that he would see his infant son again, if he wasn't saved? Also, does that line up with the character of a God of love?

The Bible does not specifically address the "age of accountability," but it comes from inductive reasoning, with David's son as well as was pointed out that Jesus laid His hands on the children and said that the kingdom of heaven was for such as these.

It is not consistent with a God of love and justice that children and mentally retarded go to the Lake of Fire, IMO.

BD

Friend of I AM
Aug 8th 2008, 05:02 PM
Friend of I Am,
uric3 made a good point about Paul not knowing what sin was until the law came.


Read above. I agreed with him and have changed my opinion on the issue. The Noah/Saddam and Gammorah response does bring about some interesting questions though. Noah's line was chosen because not only Noah being a righteous man, but it was the only line at the time not tainted by the Nephilim. Had Noah's line been infected with it, the entirety of humanity would probably not have received eternal life and condemned to the lake of fire - seeing as how there would be no pure/untainted line to bring forth the messiah from. Based on this alone, I think my initial argument regarding young children of both of these peoples not being saved was a sound/reasonable one.

That being stated, who knows what exactly happened to the children. I'm starting to now lean more towards the belief that God could have indeed saved them due to them not having come of age, or as stated before - demonstrated mercy upon them by just making it as if they never were given a full life in Christ(i.e. still born baby reference I gave from Ecclesiastes) Whatever the case, I'm sure however God acted regarding this situation - he did so righteously as mercifully.

In Christ,

Stephen

KingFisher
Aug 8th 2008, 05:04 PM
I of course disagree and so would the Protestant Reformers.

The original reformers wanted to reform the RCC...therefore they weren't
very far off what the RCC taught.

Nowdays that's not the case. Most Baptist don't agree with your definition.


This passage says nothing of the child going to heaven, so I do not see its relevance. How does this apply? Also, this occurs before there was grace so additionally irrelevant. David also believed the chld went to sheol - I am sure you do not think children now go to sheol.

It applies because sheol will not be the eternal destination of David...


To sheol, not heaven.

David's eternal destination will not be sheol


The concept of heaven, as the Christian knows of it, is not present within the Old Testiment. You ought not to read into David's mind something he never conceived (i.e.: heaven).

Again David knew that he would be in "The house of the Lord" forever.
He wont be in sheol forever...


THis is Jesus' metaphor about how ADULTS are to come to Christ - it says NOTHING about the eternal destination of children.

Yes adults are to come as children...:rolleyes:


Original sin can be found here:
ROmans 5 :12-21;
1 Cor. 15:22;
Psalm 51:5;
Psalm 58:3


Like I said I'm going to study these futher thanks for posting them.

I wont have access to a computer for the rest of the weekend.

KingFisher

seamus414
Aug 8th 2008, 05:50 PM
KingFisher
The original reformers wanted to reform the RCC...therefore they weren't
very far off what the RCC taught. Nowdays that's not the case. Most Baptist don't agree with your definition.

I am sure you realize that the Protestant movement consists of Baptists and the baptist-like correct? Most Protestants adhere to original sin.

It applies because sheol will not be the eternal destination of David...
David's eternal destination will not be sheol...Again David knew that he would be in "The house of the Lord" forever...He wont be in sheol forever...

I am not sure how pre-grace Jews applies Christians in the era of grace in this instant. However, let's assume you are correct that David's son went to heaven. Even if he did, this does not somehow undo the reality of original sin. One can believe in original sin and allow for the salvation of this baby. HOwever, like I said a couple of post ago, you either disbelieve in original sin or you believe in original sin but restate how one can be saved. In this instance, one can believe in original sin and the salvation of David's son.


Yes adults are to come as children...:rolleyes:

Metaphorically of course.

KingFisher
Aug 8th 2008, 06:24 PM
...restate how one can be saved.

Ephesians 2:8 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that
not of yourselves; it is the gift of God,

By God's gracious undeserving favor.

I'm no more deserving than any infant. I'm not deserving, the infant is not
deserving. Yet I was saved by faith...

That same faith allows me to understand that God is completely just in
giving that undeserved grace to David infant son as was shown in 2 Samuel.

Ok now I've really got to go.

Ya'll have a blessed weekend,
KingFisher

uric3
Aug 8th 2008, 06:54 PM
I want to take a moment to review the passages that you have brought forth seamus414

Original sin can be found here:
ROmans 5 :12-21;
1 Cor. 15:22;
Psalm 51:5;
Psalm 58:3

Lets start with Romans 5:12-21

"12Wherefore, 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. 14Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come. 15But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many. 16And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification. 17For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.) 18Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. 19For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous. 20Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound:" 21That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord."

Sorry for the wall of text however you will notice I bolded several parts and have taken it into context. Nothing in this passage states we are born with sin that I see... mostly that as I stated before that we suffer the consequence which is physical death.


Notice in verses 13 and 14 it states "...Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned..." Notice death even over them that had not sinned... if they had sin at birth how could they have not sinned?


Also notice vs 19 "For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous" We see here that many where made sinners... if everyone had original sin then wouldn't it have stated ALL where made sinners? No what Adam did is allow sin to enter the world thus allowing people to become sinners... before that there was no sin...


Lets look at 1 Cor 15:22 " For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive." As stated before this just states that all men Die physically nothing mentioned here about spiritual death... within the context.


The two passages in Psalms was addressed earlier in post 39 but I'll paste it here for convenience



Psalm 51:5 states "Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me." This is from a Psalm of David after his sin with Bathsheba. It deals with the sin of an adult, and shows the repentance of an adult (vs. 10-13). David does not say he was a "sinner baby" but rather that his mother conceived him in sin. Read it again and see! David was born into a sinful world. Sin was all around him from birth, so he was 'brought forth in iniquity." The Jewish writers who wrote of this Psalm say the same thing.; David is saying that he was born into a sinful environment.


Psalm 58:3 "The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies." First, note that if these people were born astray then they could not "go astray from birth." Infants are born into a sinful world with their eyes and ears wide open. They are so inquisitive, beginning to learn immediately through taste, touch, sound, sight and smell. They are watching, and they see evil all around them constantly from birth. They may not know it is evil yet, but it is there and it does influence them. The clincher is this: the ones going astray speak lies, so the going astray has to be accomplished, at the very least, only after the person has learned to speak!

IMINXTC
Aug 8th 2008, 08:10 PM
Keeping in mind that Jeremiah (Jer 1:5) and John the Baptist(LK 1 13-15) were both called and ordained from the womb, and the destinies of both Esau and Jacob were determined before either had done any good or evil, (Rm 9:11-13), perhaps our Lord would not have us presume that there is a blank check issued for children who have not yet reached accountability (or what we determine to be accountability), because he knows intimately what is in the heart, and how that heart would react to life's testings?

As an afterthought, if its ok: At the risk of sounding sentimental, in light of the abundance of scripture cited on this thread, I conclude that, on that day, we will be surprised by a chorus of children.

threebigrocks
Aug 9th 2008, 02:34 AM
However as stated earlier if you can provide book chapter and verse that shows we inherit sin I would like to read it and debate it. Thanks

If I may:

Romans 5

12Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned—

seamus414
Aug 9th 2008, 04:10 AM
I want to take a moment to review the passages that you have brought forth seamus414

Original sin can be found here:
ROmans 5 :12-21;
1 Cor. 15:22;
Psalm 51:5;
Psalm 58:3

Lets start with Romans 5:12-21

"12Wherefore, 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. 14Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come. 15But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many. 16And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification. 17For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.) 18Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. 19For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous. 20Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound:" 21That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord."

Sorry for the wall of text however you will notice I bolded several parts and have taken it into context. Nothing in this passage states we are born with sin that I see... mostly that as I stated before that we suffer the consequence which is physical death.


Notice in verses 13 and 14 it states "...Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned..." Notice death even over them that had not sinned... if they had sin at birth how could they have not sinned?


Also notice vs 19 "For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous" We see here that many where made sinners... if everyone had original sin then wouldn't it have stated ALL where made sinners? No what Adam did is allow sin to enter the world thus allowing people to become sinners... before that there was no sin...


Lets look at 1 Cor 15:22 " For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive." As stated before this just states that all men Die physically nothing mentioned here about spiritual death... within the context.


The two passages in Psalms was addressed earlier in post 39 but I'll paste it here for convenience



Psalm 51:5 states "Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me." This is from a Psalm of David after his sin with Bathsheba. It deals with the sin of an adult, and shows the repentance of an adult (vs. 10-13). David does not say he was a "sinner baby" but rather that his mother conceived him in sin. Read it again and see! David was born into a sinful world. Sin was all around him from birth, so he was 'brought forth in iniquity." The Jewish writers who wrote of this Psalm say the same thing.; David is saying that he was born into a sinful environment.


Psalm 58:3 "The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies." First, note that if these people were born astray then they could not "go astray from birth." Infants are born into a sinful world with their eyes and ears wide open. They are so inquisitive, beginning to learn immediately through taste, touch, sound, sight and smell. They are watching, and they see evil all around them constantly from birth. They may not know it is evil yet, but it is there and it does influence them. The clincher is this: the ones going astray speak lies, so the going astray has to be accomplished, at the very least, only after the person has learned to speak!


Suffice it to say here that your rejection of original sin means that a person - a baby in this instance - can be saved *without* a need for Christ or his atonement. Indeed, this baby does not even need to be saved as this baby has no sin on his/her soul to save him/her from. Christ's offer of salvation is not needed for this baby as the baby has salvation by its own merit of being sinless. Rejection of original sin means that someone can die *without* any sin (despite Paul saying that "all have sinned"); that someone can live and die and never have sin on their soul; that someone can have no need to have his/her sins forgiven; that someone can be born spotless, blameless, righteous and without sin - just like Jesus was. This, respectfully, is why rejection of original sin is abject heresey.