Babies are righteous?

[Jkdbuck76]

This is the same God that only let those that were 20 and under
at the time enter into the Promised Land. All the older generations
on the Exodus march had to die in the desert--including Moses*.

God would not let the younger generation pay for the sins of
the older generation. The only two "old" people to enter
Canaan were Joshua and Caleb. So, does the fact that God
let the young ones enter the Promised Land change anyone's
views on this infants/S&G issue?

I'm also brainstorming!


*(btw, Moses made it to the Promised Land)

 

[reformedbeliever]

...as are infants and the MRDD.

Yes, I want to believe that too.

 

[webdog]

This is the same God that only let those that were 20 and under
at the time enter into the Promised Land. All the older generations
on the Exodus march had to die in the desert--including Moses*.

God would not let the younger generation pay for the sins of
the older generation. The only two "old" people to enter
Canaan were Joshua and Caleb. So, does the fact that God
let the young ones enter the Promised Land change anyone's
views on this infants/S&G issue?

I'm also brainstorming!


*(btw, Moses made it to the Promised Land)

If anything, this does show a concrete age of accountability, whether it's physical or spiritual.

 

[reformedbeliever]

This is the same God that only let those that were 20 and under
at the time enter into the Promised Land. All the older generations
on the Exodus march had to die in the desert--including Moses*.

God would not let the younger generation pay for the sins of
the older generation. The only two "old" people to enter
Canaan were Joshua and Caleb. So, does the fact that God
let the young ones enter the Promised Land change anyone's
views on this infants/S&G issue?

I'm also brainstorming!


*(btw, Moses made it to the Promised Land)

The only reason He allowed any to enter was according to His perfect plan and not becasue of any foreseen merit in any of them.

 

[russell55]

This is the same God that only let those that were 20 and under
at the time enter into the Promised Land. All the older generations
on the Exodus march had to die in the desert--including Moses*.

God would not let the younger generation pay for the sins of
the older generation. The only two "old" people to enter
Canaan were Joshua and Caleb. So, does the fact that God
let the young ones enter the Promised Land change anyone's
views on this infants/S&G issue?

I'm also brainstorming!


*(btw, Moses made it to the Promised Land)

I think that not going into the Promised Land was judgment for one particular sin--group rebellion against God over the issue of taking the Promised land--not sinfulness in general. The younger generation had no say in whether the Israelites went up or not, and so they were innocent of this particular sin, and not judged along with the rest. Joshua and Caleb were innocent, too, since they had been willing to go, and they did not recieve this judgment either.

With Sodom and Gomorrah, the judgment is for unrighteousness in general, not one particular sin, and in this judgment of God, infants and children are included, because infants and children are unrighteous, too.

 

[russell55]

Agreed 100%. Infants and the Mr/DD are people too, and the Bible tells me that Christ tasted death for ALL, them included.

I agree that infants and children go to heaven by Christ's righteousness. But if they need the righteousness of Christ to go to heaven, that means they are unrighteous in their natural state, and therefore in need of Christ's righteousness. Something has to be counted against them in their natural state in order for them to need Christ's merit instead of their own.

 

[Hope of Glory]

*(btw, Moses made it to the Promised Land)

Just to make you think a little bit, they were already in the Promised Land while they were still in Egypt, and they fell while they were already in the Promised Land.

Genesis 15:18: In the same day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates:

The children of Israel were a type of saved people, they set out on their journey, then they were baptized (Red Sea crossing), and they wandered in the wilderness with many of them dying.

They fell before they reached the better part of their inheritance, which was the Land Flowing with Milk and Honey.

Both were promised. One was unconditional, just like our salvation. "It's yours." The other promise was conditional, just like entering into the Kingdom. "It's yours if you're faithful."

 

[webdog]

I agree that infants and children go to heaven by Christ's righteousness. But if they need the righteousness of Christ to go to heaven, that means they are unrighteous in their natural state, and therefore in need of Christ's righteousness. Something has to be counted against them in their natural state in order for them to need Christ's merit instead of their own.

I agree with this, too, to an extent. I would only say that an infant, by natural progression of growing will grow to be unrighteous. They are not born guilty, however, but born with a sin nature. Christ's righteousness needs to cover this sin nature. This is total depravity.

 

[webdog]

<double post>

 

[reformedbeliever]

I agree with this, too, to an extent. I would only say that an infant, by natural progression of growing will grow to be unrighteous. They are not born guilty, however, but born with a sin nature. Christ's righteousness needs to cover this sin nature. This is total depravity.

I'd go a little farther with this web. Christ does more than just cover our sins. Look at the little babies who are born with birth defects. Sin is the reason for those birth defects many times. Maybe not their own sin, but their father's or mother's... or maybe even their society in which they live. We are made new creations... and will eventually be given new bodies without that corruption. Can what Christ does (making us perfect) go this far? Just wondering out loud.

 

[npetreley]

I'm kind of surprised that anyone would argue that a baby is innocent until he/she actually commits a sin. Not only does the Bible say we're conceived in sin, Jesus said in no uncertain terms that the sinful nature itself makes you guilty, even if you don't act upon it:

27 "You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery.' 28 But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

Oh, and here's a good one for little kids...

22 But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment.

Check Leviticus and Numbers, I think. There's even a requirement to sacrifice a bull if someone commits a sin unintentionally!

The whole idea of age of accountability really doesn't seem to be reflected in the Bible anywhere.

 

[webdog]

I'm kind of surprised that anyone would argue that a baby is innocent until he/she actually commits a sin.

I have not seen anyone argue that yet. You see no difference between not guilty and innocent? Even our legal system does...

Not only does the Bible say we're conceived in sin,

conceived in sin does not make one a sinner.

Jesus said in no uncertain terms that the sinful nature itself makes you guilty, even if you don't act upon it:

The Scripture you supplied does not even come close in supporting what you have said.

Check Leviticus and Numbers, I think. There's even a requirement to sacrifice a bull if someone commits a sin unintentionally!

Can you supply Scripture showing an infant bringing forth his own sacrifice...or a parent bringing a sacrifice for their child?

The whole idea of age of accountability really doesn't seem to be reflected in the Bible anywhere.

...then you must have missed the Scripture provided on the last page.

 

[His Blood Spoke My Name]

Can you supply Scripture showing an infant bringing forth his own sacrifice...or a parent bringing a sacrifice for their child?

In the first chapter of Job, Job offered up sacrifices for his children daily while they were feasting in their houses just in case they did commit a sin... not because they did, but just in case they did.

 

[johnp.]

You see no difference between not guilty and innocent? Even our legal system does...

Why should he when God doesn't webdog, JOB 9:15 Though I were innocent, I could not answer him; I could only plead with my Judge for mercy.
JOB 9:20 Even if I were innocent, my mouth would condemn me; if I were blameless, it would pronounce me guilty.

john.

 

[webdog]

In the first chapter of Job, Job offered up sacrifices for his children daily while they were feasting in their houses just in case they did commit a sin... not because they did, but just in case they did.

His children were infants?!?
We're talking infants and very young children...

 

[webdog]

Why should he when God doesn't webdog, JOB 9:15 Though I were innocent, I could not answer him; I could only plead with my Judge for mercy.
JOB 9:20 Even if I were innocent, my mouth would condemn me; if I were blameless, it would pronounce me guilty.

john.

If God doesn't consider innocent different from not guilty, all mankind will be in hell, as there is NONE innocent. We are found not guilty in Christ, be we never become innocent.

 

[npetreley]

Can you supply Scripture showing an infant bringing forth his own sacrifice...or a parent bringing a sacrifice for their child?

I suppose I should have looked it up in the first place, but it doesn't require that the person who unintentionally sinned offer the sacrifice. It just requires the sacrifice:

22 ‘If you sin unintentionally, and do not observe all these commandments which the LORD has spoken to Moses— 23 all that the LORD has commanded you by the hand of Moses, from the day the LORD gave commandment and onward throughout your generations— 24 then it will be, if it is unintentionally committed, without the knowledge of the congregation, that the whole congregation shall offer one young bull as a burnt offering

And it wasn't my intention to say that the law required a sacrifice for infants who sin unintentionally. The point of my whole post was that God's righteous requirements go way beyond anything we can imagine. That, IMO, was the point Jesus was making - that the law says X, but in reality, if you want to talk righteous requirments of God's, they are FAR more severe. Given how far removed we are from fully grasping God's righteousness, it's hard to imagine a cute little baby deserving hell, but guess what? The baby does deserve hell, as do we all, since we inherited that destiny from Adam. It is only by His mercy that anyone is saved, baby or adult.

 

[Andy T.]

If God doesn't consider innocent different from not guilty, all mankind will be in hell, as there is NONE innocent. We are found not guilty in Christ, be we never become innocent.

Christ was innocent, wasn't he? And if we are in Christ, then we too are [positionally] innocent.

 

[webdog]

Yes, but we don't become Christ...we are IN Christ. We are still sinners, and most definately NOT innocent at any point. We are now found not guilty because we are IN Christ.

 

[Andy T.]

Yes, but we don't become Christ...we are IN Christ. We are still sinners, and most definately NOT innocent at any point. We are now found not guilty because we are IN Christ.

What does II Cor. 5:21 mean, then? It says that we become the righteousness of God in Christ. Righteousness implies innocence, as Christ was certainly innocent in all respects. That's what I mean when I say "positionally". Practically speaking, we remain sinners until we die.