Babies are righteous?

I got it. It seemed pretty easy to understand, to me.

 

Strange that you would suggest that God's word is not written to little children??
I'm sure that's not what you meant.
Also you appear to make reference to Rom. 5:13, yet you have not demonstrated how this verse is applicable to children.

My understanding of that passage is that it is referring to the time period between Adam and Moses, when God had not given His Law to the nation of Israel. And verse 14 indicates that nonetheless, death reigned during this period.

I would not use that verse to postulate that babies are not sinners.
I just don't think it's clear enough.

 

Sure its what I meant, when was the last time you saw a baby reading the Bible?

If you don't want to use that scripture then by all means don't.

Maybe you could give me a scripture to little infants, and help me out?

Also, while you are at it, please enlighten me when Paul was alive without the Law?

 

So, nep; has the fate of all men in his hands too, that great, that makes three counting Jesus!

 

Well, we've read Bible stories to our son since he was an infant, so tell me again how God's word is not intended for little children?
Don't you believe Psalm 8:2?

That verse was discussed at length here:
http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?p=983560&highlight=Paul+alive#post983560
I saw your interaction with johnp over Psalm 58:3 and I found your interpretation to be strange and unnatural considering it's written in poetic phrasing.
I don't know of any verses that exonerate children from God's requirements.

 

It's like I said Bob, "If you don't get it someone else will." Maybe you might find someone to explain it to you as you obviously haven't understood. I didn't say I or npetreley has the fate of all men in our [edit out 'his'] hands I said you have and your failure to apply your truth shows how wrong you are.

john.

 

Honesty is the best policy. LOL

views on baptism/covenantal status might be what causes the differing opinions.
paedo versus credo

 

I agree with that, even though like you, I can't prove it Scripturally.
That's why I said you were being honest.
You weren't trying to say that the Bible teaches your view, you said it's what you wanted to believe.
You were honest about why you believe what you believe.
That's good.
I hope you didn't think I was mocking you. I was applauding your frankness.

 

I want to believe that, too. God will have mercy on whom He has mercy, and I hope He wants to have mercy on infants or the unborn who die. On the other hand, if God doesn't work that way, I'm in no position to correct Him.

I simply find the idea of "age of accounability" to be totally unbiblical, and downright silly. It's a made-up doctrine to make people feel good.

 

You can read a strory to a tree...does that then make the tree accontable? Reading the Word of God to an infant, while noble, is kind of pointless as they have no understanding of what you are reading. They might try to pick out words that they hear and are familiar with, but the concept of salvation and sin they do not understand.

 

It does if you're a druid. I heard they can talk to trees.

 

The age that it's ok to send them to Hell is when they reject the Truth.

You don't think He already knows? Oh...must have been another snide comment, that's a shock...

Deu 24:16 "Fathers are not to be put to death for their children or children for their fathers; each person will be put to death for his own sin.




Eze 18:18 "As for his father, he will die for his own iniquity because he practiced fraud, robbed his brother, and did what was wrong among his people.
Eze 18:19 But you may ask: Why doesn't the son suffer punishment for the father's iniquity? Since the son has done what is just and right, carefully observing all My statutes, he will certainly live.
Eze 18:20 The person who sins is the one who will die. A son won't suffer punishment for the father's iniquity, and a father won't suffer punishment for the son's iniquity. The righteousness of the righteous person will be on him, and the wickedness of the wicked person will be on him.

Rom 3:20 For no flesh will be justified in His sight by the works of the law, for through the law comes the knowledge of sin.

Rom 5:13 In fact, sin was in the world before the law, but sin is not charged to one's account when there is no law.

Rom 7:7 What should we say then? Is the law sin? Absolutely not! On the contrary, I would not have known sin if it were not for the law. For example, I would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, You shall not covet.
Rom 7:8 And sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, produced in me coveting of every kind. For apart from the law sin is dead.
Rom 7:9 Once I was alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life

Jam 1:14 But each person is tempted when he is drawn away and enticed by his own evil desires.
Jam 1:15 Then after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin, and when sin is fully grown, it gives birth to death.

 

So Paul was there when Moses brought down the 10 commandments?

 

You really make no sense. Try again...

Are you trying to say that God's Law didn't exist during Paul's day?

 

It says "when the commandment came", not "when I learned about the commandment".

 

That's exactly what it's saying. It's one in the same based on the prior verses.

 

I hope infants and stillborn babies go to heaven.
I think they do based upon three things:
1) David mentioned going to him...his dead infant sone.
2) Jesus mentioning that the spirits of little ones behold
the face of God.
3) stillborn and infant babies, while having that old Adamic nature
do not sin.

That's just me. Our first child, Mary, was stillborn. We had a funeral
for her. I miss her everyday and I will do so until the day I die.

I do not think God would punish her in eternal hell.