Are Human Beings Born Sinners?

[SavedByGrace]

Spurgeon's belief is here: Infant Salvation | Spurgeon | Are infants Saved? - Metropolitan Tabernacle You have to read for a little while before you get to the answer to the OP.

thanks for sharing this important study by MLJ. I see that though most of what he says is speculation, he nonetheless does go to the very passage that I have quoted from in the OP, about David and his son. It is very much evident from this passage, that infants that die, will be in heaven. It is interesting to note what MLJ says here:

"Let every mother and father know assuredly that it is well with the child, if God has taken it away from you in its infant days. You never heard its declaration of faith; it was not capable of such a thing. It was not baptised into the Lord Jesus Christ. It was not capable of giving that ‘answer of a good conscience towards God'; nevertheless, you may rest assured that it is well with the child, well in a higher and a better sense than it is well with yourselves. The child is ‘well’ without limitation, without exception, infinitely and eternally."

This must mean that these infants are not "sinners", as they have not committed any sins of their own. This is basically what I have said in the OP with the verses I have used.

 

[Marooncat79]

How about a Bible text to support this

How else could any child get to heaven?

Without faith, it is impossible to please God.

 

[Marooncat79]

you still don't get it? GO TO HIM, can ONLY mean that David will meet with him some day. No one "meets" anyone in the grave, or in "death", unless you follow the teachings of some strange cults! The passage is very simple. David's son died, David celebrates this event with a feast, when questioned about this, David says, that his son cannot return to him after death, but he WILL be going to be with him, after his death! This can ONLY mean heaven. If you still cannot grasp this, I suggest to see the Holy Spirit's help in understanding.

My question is, as there are no sinners in heaven, and David's son was far too young to "repent and believe", the only other option is, as shown in the verses in the OP, that there is a time in infants, of "innocence", where they have not actually committed any sins!

Where in the Bible does it say too young to believe?

God can impart faith into the unborn

He is God

 

[atpollard]

you still don't get it? GO TO HIM, can ONLY mean that David will meet with him some day. No one "meets" anyone in the grave, or in "death", unless you follow the teachings of some strange cults! The passage is very simple. David's son died, David celebrates this event with a feast, when questioned about this, David says, that his son cannot return to him after death, but he WILL be going to be with him, after his death! This can ONLY mean heaven. If you still cannot grasp this, I suggest to see the Holy Spirit's help in understanding.

My question is, as there are no sinners in heaven, and David's son was far too young to "repent and believe", the only other option is, as shown in the verses in the OP, that there is a time in infants, of "innocence", where they have not actually committed any sins!

Eisegesis.

 

[atpollard]

you cannot understand English! "before the boy knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good"

Before I was 'born again' I did not know how to refuse evil.
Before I was 'born again' I did not know how to choose good.
Before I was 'born again' I choose evil and refused good ... it had NOTHING to do with being an innocent "child".

I can understand English.
The scripture says "before the boy knows how to refuse the evil" ... that says that the boy CANNOT REFUSE evil. That does not say that the boy cannot choose evil. Anyone that has had to teach a two year old to share understands the truth of this verse.

 

[SavedByGrace]

Eisegesis.

Biblical! show where I am wrong instead of one word

 

[SavedByGrace]

Before I was 'born again' I did not know how to refuse evil.
Before I was 'born again' I did not know how to choose good.
Before I was 'born again' I choose evil and refused good ... it had NOTHING to do with being an innocent "child".

I can understand English.
The scripture says "before the boy knows how to refuse the evil" ... that says that the boy CANNOT REFUSE evil. That does not say that the boy cannot choose evil. Anyone that has had to teach a two year old to share understands the truth of this verse.

twisting the Word of God as done by most "unreformed"!

 

[SavedByGrace]

Where in the Bible does it say too young to believe?

God can impart faith into the unborn

He is God

your theology is NOT what the Bible teaches. Try to get a 1 day old baby to "believe". You people do talk a load of rubbish!

 

[SavedByGrace]

How else could any child get to heaven?

Without faith, it is impossible to please God.

read the account in Samuel about David's son, and then conclude. The verses I have given in the OP show that there is a time when infants are NOT "sinners". This is the Word of God, either accept it, or reject it, or prove me wrong!

 

[Van]

if young children, say, for the sake of argument, under 2, have not "done nothing wrong", then they are not actual "sinners", and when they die, will go to heaven.

You should know only those given to Christ on the basis of God crediting their faith as righteousness go to heaven. God does not need His word "fixed" to provide a loop hole for little tykes and the feeble minded. He will provide perfect justice for all.

 

[Reformed1689]

GO TO HIM, can ONLY mean that David will meet with him some day.

Based on what? That is nothing but your bias being read into the passage.

No one "meets" anyone in the grave, or in "death", unless you follow the teachings of some strange cults!

Where does it say anything about "meeting" him in the sense that they will be alive together? You read that into the passage, it isn't there.

The passage is very simple. David's son died,

Yes

David celebrates this event with a feast,

That is not what the passage says. Nowhere does it say he celebrated with a feast. It simply says he ate food.

David says, that his son cannot return to him after death, but he WILL be going to be with him, after his death! This can ONLY mean heaven.

Based on what? How can that ONLY mean heaven? You read that into the passage.

My question is, as there are no sinners in heaven, and David's son was far too young to "repent and believe", the only other option is, as shown in the verses in the OP, that there is a time in infants, of "innocence", where they have not actually committed any sins!

This is not found anywhere in the passage. It does not say that David's son was not a sinner. It just doesn't. That is unbiblical.

 

[Reformed1689]

The verses I have given in the OP show that there is a time when infants are NOT "sinners". This is the Word of God, either accept it, or reject it, or prove me wrong!

That is not the Word of God, that is your false bible.

 

[Reformed1689]

Based on what? That is nothing but your bias being read into the passage.

Where does it say anything about "meeting" him in the sense that they will be alive together? You read that into the passage, it isn't there.

Yes

That is not what the passage says. Nowhere does it say he celebrated with a feast. It simply says he ate food.

Based on what? How can that ONLY mean heaven? You read that into the passage.

This is not found anywhere in the passage. It does not say that David's son was not a sinner. It just doesn't. That is unbiblical.

@SavedByGrace you rated the above post as "funny" because you can't interact with it. Are you so prideful that you cannot admit when you are wrong?

 

[SavedByGrace]

Are you so prideful that you cannot admit when you are wrong?

you really don't understand the Scriptures?

 

[Reformed1689]

you really don't understand the Scriptures?

Why can you not interact with the arguments? You are reading things into Scripture that simply are not there. Eisegesis.

 

[37818]

How is it the wicked are born liars, Psalms 58:3, " The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies."
Revelation, 21:8, ". . . and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death."

 

[Martin Marprelate]

thanks for sharing this important study by MLJ. I see that though most of what he says is speculation, he nonetheless does go to the very passage that I have quoted from in the OP, about David and his son. It is very much evident from this passage, that infants that die, will be in heaven. It is interesting to note what MLJ says here:

"Let every mother and father know assuredly that it is well with the child, if God has taken it away from you in its infant days. You never heard its declaration of faith; it was not capable of such a thing. It was not baptised into the Lord Jesus Christ. It was not capable of giving that ‘answer of a good conscience towards God'; nevertheless, you may rest assured that it is well with the child, well in a higher and a better sense than it is well with yourselves. The child is ‘well’ without limitation, without exception, infinitely and eternally."

This must mean that these infants are not "sinners", as they have not committed any sins of their own. This is basically what I have said in the OP with the verses I have used.

I think you must be confusing what I posted with something else.
Firstly you reference Martyn Lloyd-Jones, when the article was by Spurgeon, and secondly you have drawn the exact opposite of what what Spurgeon wrote Here is an extract:

'On what ground, then, do we believe the child to be saved? We believe it to be as lost as the rest of mankind, and as truly condemned by the sentence which said, 'In the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.' It is saved because it is elect. In the compass of election, in the Lamb's book of life, we believe there shall be found written millions of souls who are only shown briefly on earth, and then stretch their wings for Heaven.

They are saved, too, because they were redeemed by the precious blood of Jesus Christ. He who shed his blood for all his people, bought those dying in infancy with the same price with which he redeemed their parents, and therefore are they saved because Christ was Sponsor for them, and suffered in their stead.''

What Spurgeon is saying here is that although infants come into the world as sinners (Psalms 51:5 etc.), he believes that those who die in infancy are, without exception, redeemed by the blood of Christ. No one is obliged to agree with that, but that is what he believed. This is in line with the Reformed confessions, including the 1689 (10:3), of which he was a passionate supporter. He issued a reprint of the Confession in 1855 and had a copy buried in the foundations of the Metropolitan Tabernacle when it was being built.
What he emphatically did not believe is what you are falsely accusing him of believing; that babies are somehow born without sinful nature. If you have children or grandchildren, observation should have taught you something radically different even if the Scriptures do not persuade you.

 

[SavedByGrace]

I think you must be confusing what I posted with something else.
Firstly you reference Martyn Lloyd-Jones, when the article was by Spurgeon, and secondly you have drawn the exact opposite of what what Spurgeon wrote Here is an extract:

'On what ground, then, do we believe the child to be saved? We believe it to be as lost as the rest of mankind, and as truly condemned by the sentence which said, 'In the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.' It is saved because it is elect. In the compass of election, in the Lamb's book of life, we believe there shall be found written millions of souls who are only shown briefly on earth, and then stretch their wings for Heaven.

They are saved, too, because they were redeemed by the precious blood of Jesus Christ. He who shed his blood for all his people, bought those dying in infancy with the same price with which he redeemed their parents, and therefore are they saved because Christ was Sponsor for them, and suffered in their stead.''

What Spurgeon is saying here is that although infants come into the world as sinners (Psalms 51:5 etc.), he believes that those who die in infancy are, without exception, redeemed by the blood of Christ. No one is obliged to agree with that, but that is what he believed. This is in line with the Reformed confessions, including the 1689 (10:3), of which he was a passionate supporter. He issued a reprint of the Confession in 1855 and had a copy buried in the foundations of the Metropolitan Tabernacle when it was being built.
What he emphatically did not believe is what you are falsely accusing him of believing; that babies are somehow born without sinful nature. If you have children or grandchildren, observation should have taught you something radically different even if the Scriptures do not persuade you.

you are quite right! I had MLJ on my mind at the time. Of course it is CHS!

 

[SavedByGrace]

" The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies."

a figure of speech! how many babies do you know, who from day one in this world, "speak lies"? It takes them months to even say their first word, which is usually mum or dad, which are not normally "lies"!

 

[SavedByGrace]

What he emphatically did not believe is what you are falsely accusing him of believing; that babies are somehow born without sinful nature

difference is, that Spurgeon's reasoning is pure conjecture, mine is from the Bible as in the OP. Show from these verses where I am in error