Reformed1689
Well-Known Member
Well that depends on who you ask and what you call good.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Are Babies born in a state of innocence?
- Thread starter Yeshua1
- Start date
what about
Psalm 51:5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.
Folks
It isn’t a matter of sin. For the Scriptures teach the blood was shed for all.
Salvation resides in those who believe.
The infant who has no concept of even being born cannot believe, the child whose brain is unable consider matters cannot believe.
Some seem to place burdens on those n whom Christ used as example:
It isn’t a matter of sin. For the Scriptures teach the blood was shed for all.
Salvation resides in those who believe.
The infant who has no concept of even being born cannot believe, the child whose brain is unable consider matters cannot believe.
Some seem to place burdens on those n whom Christ used as example:
2And calling to him a child, he put him in the midst of them3and said, “Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. 4Whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.
5“Whoever receives one such child in my name receives me, 6but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin,a it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened around his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.
5“Whoever receives one such child in my name receives me, 6but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin,a it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened around his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.
The atonement paid in full the sin debt and grace is offered to all who will receive it. However, babies and everyone else still die so the Adamic nature is unchanged.
I would agree that the Blood paid in full for the sin of all. Both John and Paul teach that truth.
I also consider that sustainable grace is given to all, but salvation grace is limited to those the Father chooses. This is consistent with the teaching of John and Paul.
All are born to die, just as fruit.
Some are selected to die to be raised again.
Some fruit caries the seed of procreation, some are seedless.
I suppose there are some who would think the fruit is the determiner, but it is actually the farmer and that farmers work of grafting and pruning that determines the outcome.
Similar it is to the work of God.
Your first sentence is only correct if you mean Jesus blood was shed for all the elect. If you are claiming universal atonement for all humanity, that claim is entirely false.
Only the elect can have faith to believe. God either chooses to extend grace and give faith or God doesn't.
Your proposition places the ability to believe upon the human will and intellect. If the human is smart enough to recognize their need, then they will be saved. If they aren't smart enough then they are condemned because of their poor choice.
My position places the ability to believe upon God. If God chooses to graciously make a person alive with Christ, give faith and cause belief, the person will not be condemned. If God does not choose to extend grace, then God is just and in being just God is also loving.
Point taken.
You bunch the elements of the atonement as the whole. The atonement is complete in the whole, but the elements of the atonement are also separate. The Blood was not the same as the hysop.
Because of this you are forced into missing the most important aspect of the statements by both Paul and John.
That is that the Blood was shed for all. All humankind, all creation. That had ramifications that extended far beyond mere humankind.
This is correcct. God specifically chooses those in whom He grants the "power to become " His adopted children (John 1)
In this you err not understanding the above two responses enough to grasp that belief and the ability to belief (true repentance and faith) are the gift of God.
No, your position places a limit upon the blood that was never found in Scriptures, but devised by humans struggling with the need to justify such a limit.
Belief, the acquisition and the working, are totally of God. "We are His workmanship..." The belief expressed as that Scriptural resides in the power of Christ as the creator and sustainer of the new Creation created in Him.
Those condemned are not special, but rather left to their own condemnation as John states they are already condemned.
Paul indicates the work of Christ benefits the believers by the death and resurrection.
Do not doubt the principle I have given in this very short post.
It is found in such places as Colossians 1:
15He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. 16For by him (Christ) all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. 17And he (Christ) is before all things, and in him (Christ) all things hold together. 18And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent. 19For in him (Christ) all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, 20and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross.
21And you, who once were alienated and hostile in mind, doing evil deeds, 22he (Christ) has now reconciled in his body of flesh by his death, in order to present (think - resurrect) you holy and blameless and above reproach before him, 23if indeed you continue in the faith, stable and steadfast, not shifting from the hope of the gospel that you heard, which has been proclaimed in all creation under heaven, and of which I, Paul, became a minister.
21And you, who once were alienated and hostile in mind, doing evil deeds, 22he (Christ) has now reconciled in his body of flesh by his death, in order to present (think - resurrect) you holy and blameless and above reproach before him, 23if indeed you continue in the faith, stable and steadfast, not shifting from the hope of the gospel that you heard, which has been proclaimed in all creation under heaven, and of which I, Paul, became a minister.
You are aware that Paul wrote to the elect at Colossai, aren't you?
[false assertion removed] and still provide no scripture that supports universal atonement.
Last edited by a moderator:
So Paul was writing the Colossians? That did not conform his statement that "all" be a select few any more than it does when John very specifically indicates that the blood was not just for the elect, but for all creation.
Such conformity must be that endorsed by humans who sought (and still seek) some limit upon the application of the reconciliation that Paul offered irrespective of ones elected or not.
I give NO power to humans. That is a failure to understand what was presented.
As far as "no scripture that supports universal atonement" I agree. There is none.
HOWEVER, there is now been shared Scripture concerning an element of the atonement that was for all creation.
That in no manner makes all creation universally redeemed. Such thinking diminishes that very wonderful choosing by God of both the elect and security in which He gives by appointing them as adopted sons.
God is not the "father of all." He is the creator of all, but not the father. For even the Lord Jesus remarked that the religious rulers were the children of the devil and not of the father.
Too often the word "atonement" is used as a catch all word for all that was accomplished at the crucifixion. Doing so, often folks would lump and separate without much regard for how the Scriptures presented. The Scriptures are extremely precise to place the blood as beneficial to all creation, but the death and resurrection only benefit the redeemed.
Is this Calvinism?
So it is Calvinism.
He wasn't writing to all person's. Pagans were not his audience and God was not, and never has, saying that all people were atoned by Jesus blood.
God has always chosen his people from the very start. He has always chosen to redeem his people, not all humans. The whole of scripture interprets a single verse.
evenifigoalone
Well-Known Member
"are babies born in a state of innocence?"
The unfortunate it is that you do not see this truth in Scriptures.
I suppose you would understand that the Cross was never designed to bleed a person, but to keep them alive that the torture be ongoing.
Abide as you will.
What would convince you of that assumption?
Calvinists should just say that something is their doctrine. Period.
I just don't see this as particularly Calvinistic view which is why I responded as I did.
Too often folks reject or adopt a presentation of Scripture because it is based solely on the view rather than the truth Scripture presents.
As a result, and because I do not hold strictly to Calvinist views, I wanted you to focus more upon the Scriptures rather than labels.
Do you find what I presented in conflict with the Scriptures?
Yes, but I do not care to debate with Calvinists although I don't mind reading what they say. R.C. Sproul once said that Calvinism is all or nothing, that one had to believe all five-points. Well, I just don't believe all five points. I came from the Mid-West mainline denominations before they went bad and was not a Baptist until 35 years ago. I like and admire Baptists but I am more what is called a traditional Southern Baptist nowadays. The reason that I do not debate with Calvinists is that I agree with most of what they say and I see the problem as with people such as Russell Moore, a Democrat operative, and J.D. Greear, a modernist, and others seeking to bring in the social justice and marxist ideas which I do want to fight. I used to say that I am a mild Calvinist but that term does not earn the respect of R.C. Sproul types so I don't use it anymore. If Baptists fall for this marxianity as Brannon Howse calls it, then I will retreat into one of the gibberish denominations that has not fallen for the social justice warriors. I do have problems with the theology that you presented but I am 78 and I would have to dig some to write something and I am just swamped at this time. Since I went to Kentucky to see the Ark and the Museum about 2 1/2 years ago, I have been more interested in YEC. Ken Ham had a little debate with J.D. Greear and I think that Greear once again showed his ignorance. I try to fight on all fronts but I have so many obligations--I am sure that you understand.