Are Babies born in a state of innocence?

[agedman]

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.

would it supprise you to know that I agree?

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.

Good to be thinking and not just accepting as so many do!

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 also am currently in a personal struggle in these matters, because I sense the SBC moving more in that direction.

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.

No problem. As an aged person, we understand having to prioritize more and more.

I think the difficulty that we more often get into is the "pigeon hole" effect. It is as I expressed when using terms such as the atonement. It is a broad term covering many facets, and each facet was significant to specific areas of need.

But, ultimately, you have done well discerning more important matters, and at least you remain one who is thinking and not just a hearer and do nothing.

 

[AustinC]

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.

would it supprise you to know that I agree?



Good to be thinking and not just accepting as so many do!




I also am currently in a personal struggle in these matters, because I sense the SBC moving more in that direction.





No problem. As an aged person, we understand having to prioritize more and more.

I think the difficulty that we more often get into is the "pigeon hole" effect. It is as I expressed when using terms such as the atonement. It is a broad term covering many facets, and each facet was significant to specific areas of need.

But, ultimately, you have done well discerning more important matters, and at least you remain one who is thinking and not just a hearer and do nothing.

Sproul is not wrong about all or nothing. The reason is that holding to only some points and not all results in significant irreconcilable inconsistencies.

I know many who are not bothered to have an inconsistent theology and they go happily on their way. I was one of them for years, but ultimately I had to reconcile the issues and the only way to do so is to hold all five points.

 

[church mouse guy]

Sproul is not wrong about all or nothing. The reason is that holding to only some points and not all results in significant irreconcilable inconsistencies.

I know many who are not bothered to have an inconsistent theology and they go happily on their way. I was one of them for years, but ultimately I had to reconcile the issues and the only way to do so is to hold all five points.

Sproul was an old earther but that is a non-essential issue. I don't esteem his baptism of infants. Presbyterians have rigid logic in their systematic theologies and Sproul was well educated. Baptists don't seem to follow Presbyterian style building plans for churches. I liked some of D. James Kennedy but Presbyterianism is not my cup of tea for a denomination. No one will read Greear for theology or even remember him much so the SBC is floundering over social justice issues such as race, homosexuality, Islam, Libertarianism, and abortion. The neo-Calvinists seem to lean towards Greear.

 

[percho]

This is the true biblical answer, thanks!

Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me. Ps 51:5

'Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: Matt 1:18
Lo, the virgin shall conceive, and she shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel,' which is, being interpreted 'With us he is God.' Matt 1:23
Then Joseph, being aroused from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord commanded him and took to him his wife, and did not know her till she had brought forth her firstborn Son.[fn] And he called His name JESUS. 24,25

Was Jesus not brought forth in iniquity and conceived in sin because of God the Father or because a virgin was conceived out of Spirit and a virgin brought forth, that conceived?

 

[church mouse guy]

What?

 

[AustinC]

Sproul was an old earther but that is a non-essential issue. I don't esteem his baptism of infants. Presbyterians have rigid logic in their systematic theologies and Sproul was well educated. Baptists don't seem to follow Presbyterian style building plans for churches. I liked some of D. James Kennedy but Presbyterianism is not my cup of tea for a denomination. No one will read Greear for theology or even remember him much so the SBC is floundering over social justice issues such as race, homosexuality, Islam, Libertarianism, and abortion. The neo-Calvinists seem to lean towards Greear.

You ignored everything I wrote. It's okay, but you simply went on to other points of interest and ignored the 5 points of Calvinism that you were previously discussing.

 

[AustinC]

Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me. Ps 51:5

'Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: Matt 1:18
Lo, the virgin shall conceive, and she shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel,' which is, being interpreted 'With us he is God.' Matt 1:23
Then Joseph, being aroused from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord commanded him and took to him his wife, and did not know her till she had brought forth her firstborn Son.[fn] And he called His name JESUS. 24,25

Was Jesus not brought forth in iniquity and conceived in sin because of God the Father or because a virgin was conceived out of Spirit and a virgin brought forth, that conceived?

Was Adam conceived in sin?

Jesus is the new Adam. His existence in Mary's womb was as miraculous as Adam being formed by dust and then God-breathed.
Jesus is human, but he is not conceived in iniquity for his conception is not natural, but supernatural in origin.

 

[church mouse guy]

You ignored everything I wrote. It's okay, but you simply went on to other points of interest and ignored the 5 points of Calvinism that you were previously discussing.

Sorry, I didn't mean to shortchange you. I think the sticking point is that "whosoever" can be saved. I agree with Calvin on most things. I assume that Calvinists like art and decoration in their churches since Sproul seemed to like these things. I recognize that Baptist Calvinists do not recognize infant baptism, which I guess that Calvin himself did. Baptist churches are somewhat stark sometimes but I think the age of expensive buildings is over for many reasons such as the cost of construction, the cost of maintenance and the need to use resources to address severe social issues and to address evangelization of the lost. I am not sure how evangelistic Calvin was. The real critics of Calvin are those who espouse a liberal theology. I'll tell you the truth. I tried to read Calvin 40 years ago and found it difficult and gave up. I believe every word of the Baptist Faith & Message of the SBC but I realize that their doctrinal statement or creed does not cover all issues so I just keep silent in public on the points that are very controversial that the BF&M does not discuss. So what else did I leave out?

 

[Yeshua1]

They die because of Adam's imputed sin.

And they all can be redeemed by the Grace of the Cross, as that is so much more then sin!

 

[Yeshua1]

Maybe the reason for some, but what if THE SCOPE OF THE ATONEMENT included removal of the guilt of Adam's sin and all are now born innocent and become guilty of their own accord?

I would see it more that God has chosen to apply the effectual grace of the Cross towards such as infants and babies, as they still deserve hell, but God does for them what they cannot do for themselves!

 

[Yeshua1]

Was Adam conceived in sin?

Jesus is the new Adam. His existence in Mary's womb was as miraculous as Adam being formed by dust and then God-breathed.
Jesus is human, but he is not conceived in iniquity for his conception is not natural, but supernatural in origin.

hence the requirement of His Virgin Birth!

 

[Yeshua1]

Yes, some posters have expressed Pelagian theology and declared that new borns are born holy and innocent with no sin, but society develops them into sinners.

That would tie into where some might hold to Jesus being born with same human nature as us, for if babies are innocent and not guilty until choosing to sin, Jesus never chose to sin would be their belief!

 

[Yeshua1]

Sorry, I didn't mean to shortchange you. I think the sticking point is that "whosoever" can be saved. I agree with Calvin on most things. I assume that Calvinists like art and decoration in their churches since Sproul seemed to like these things. I recognize that Baptist Calvinists do not recognize infant baptism, which I guess that Calvin himself did. Baptist churches are somewhat stark sometimes but I think the age of expensive buildings is over for many reasons such as the cost of construction, the cost of maintenance and the need to use resources to address severe social issues and to address evangelization of the lost. I am not sure how evangelistic Calvin was. The real critics of Calvin are those who espouse a liberal theology. I'll tell you the truth. I tried to read Calvin 40 years ago and found it difficult and gave up. I believe every word of the Baptist Faith & Message of the SBC but I realize that their doctrinal statement or creed does not cover all issues so I just keep silent in public on the points that are very controversial that the BF&M does not discuss. So what else did I leave out?

John Calvin main shortcoming theology wise was in area of water baptism, its mode and what it means!

 

[Calminian]

How old? When do we start sinning? I don't see any Scriptural support for your position.

I think there is a point when they are old enough to choose good and reject evil. Is. 7:16 alludes to an age where one can, on his own, choose the good and refuse the evil.

 

[Aaron]

No. Infants are not in a state of innocence. Worldly speaking, they are, but in the sight of Heaven, no. They are corrupt at conception.

But in the resurrection of the just AND the unjust, the bodies of infants that died will not be raised as infant bodies, needing to be nursed and raised into adulthood in Heaven (or Hell for that matter), and the spirits in those bodies will not be infant-like, at the Judgement, bewildered at the pronouncement of judgement or exoneration.

They will know. And their knees will bow.

So you look at the outward appearance, and you make your judgments accordingly. But God does not look on the outward appearance. He looks on the heart. And He is no respecter of persons.