Babies are righteous?

[skypair]

On another note, I am much farther apart from you than I am from Webdog on this issue. Webdog at least affirms that everyone has a sin nature. He also affirms that no one is "innocent" - he uses the term "not guilty" and distinguishes the two. He also affirms that babies are saved by grace and need to be covered by the blood of Christ. From your participation in this thread, all I see from you is Pelagian type thinking. That quote from Mr. Showers is Pelagian. Your immediate post above exudes Pelagian thought, too - implying that we are all in the same state that Adam was. No, we are not in the same state that Adam was. If you cannot see that, then I am more worried about your theology than ever before.

Don't worry about me, bro. Bein' alone doesn't make me wrong. I, like webdog, believe all men are born with "sin nature" and I've described it --- the "survival instinct" that develops into a sinful nature.

And that fact that babies are saved is not grace -- it is justice. They don't yet need the blood of Christ, but they will.

How do you prove babies are not in the same innocent state as prefall Adam? You don't.

You constantly harp on the transmittability of sin from parent to child that Ezek 18:20 strictly disallows! Let's be quite frank --- you have no knowledge of what God's disposition of deceased infants is and you are trying to explain something that even your theology knows nothing about.

In that theology, I note several gratuitous choices: 1) they baptize them into salvation, 2) the church somehow gives them faith though they cannot understand word one, 3) the blood of Jesus is applied without belief to the children of "elect" parents, or 4) all babies go to hell. Have I missed any?

This is baloney, my friend! There is no other way but Christ and you must believe on Christ to go that way! It's your own theology you should be worried about.

I was reading R.C. Sproul last night and have come to an interesting insight -- Calvinism has the spectre of what they did to Catholicism haunting them. That is, they are so deathly afraid of heretics breaking up their theology like they did the RCC that they defend it tooth and nail. Whether its tenets are worth defending (or even defensible) is no longer the issue! They are afraid to move forward like they made Catholicism move forward! I've never read such fear in R.C. in any other book than I have in "The Holy Spirit."

On the other hand, I read the testimony of his salvation there and ---- I believe him. Of course, the "way" he prescribes through his current theology is suspect and doesn't at all resemble his own conversion. It appears he came out of Catholicism and perhaps, like Calvin, he still liked certain features like doctrinal rigidity, apostolic succession, elemental communion, etc. which "beld through" to the Reform Church, too.

skypair

 

[Brother Bob]

What kind of death? It was an awakening to him to how serious his sin was. Verse 8 says apart from the law sin was dead - i.e., he was unaware of its effect and insidiousness. Verse 9 - he was "alive" not spiritually but in his own mind, which is supported by verse 10 when he says, "I found to bring death." In other words, his conscience was awakened through knowing the Law. This is further reinforced in verse 13 - "but sin, that it might appear sin" - so that his sin would become apparent to him. And he ends the verse with "so that sin through the commandment might become exceedingly sinful." His awareness of the Law did not make a non-sin into sin, it made it exceedingly sinful to his conscience.

So, now we have the soul dead, the mind dead, and the body will be dead. I never heard that spin put on Paul saying "I died", when the Commandments came.

I wonder what he meant when he said the Commandments came. The Law was around for many years when Paul was born naturally so.

I think I will stick with the he died spiritually when the Commandments came for it aligns itself just right with "the soul that sinneth shall die", don't you think? Instead of running off with some spin that is not even scripture.

 

[Andy T.]

So, now we have the soul dead, the mind dead, and the body will be dead. I never heard that spin put on Paul saying "I died", when the Commandments came.

I wonder what he meant when he said the Commandments came. The Law was around for many years when Paul was born naturally so.

I think I will stick with the he died spiritually when the Commandments came for it aligns itself just right with "the soul that sinneth shall die", don't you think? Instead of running off with some spin that is not even scripture.

O.k. Bob, then you must think that anyone who ever lived, including all men pre-Moses, were spiritually alive.

The whole context of Romans 7 is Paul's battle with himself when it comes to sin, and he shows how the knowledge of the Law brings greater conviction and greater condemnation. He is not dealing with the judicial aspect of sin against a holy God and how sin brings spiritual death - he dealt with that aspect in chapters 1-6.

My interpretation is simply an attempt to use other passages of Scripture to help shed light on these difficult verses. Romans 7 is one of the most complex chapters in all of Scripture - Christians have debated for years on its meaning. I think to intepret Paul's dying in 7:9 as spiritual death raises too many other questions with other passages.

It's sort of akin to the use of Acts 2:38 by the Campbellites to come up with Baptismal Regeneration. They say, "It is so clear that baptism is required for salvation - look Peter says so plainly!" Well, you and I would argue that you have to interpret that verse in light of other clear verses that says we are saved by grace through faith alone. The Campbellite would say we are "spinning" it to suit our theology. We would say, no we are interpreting it properly in the context of Scripture.

 

[Andy T.]

Skypair, sorry, I am not joining you on your journey into un-orthodoxy.

 

[Brother Bob]

Yes, I don't believe in babies going to hell at all, whether pre-Moses or not. Anyway, Moses never gave the Commandments, God did and the scripture says He changes not. Even Adam and Eve knew they were naked and hid themselves.

Rom 2:14For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:

I suspect the same was true before God gave Moses the Tablets. Cain knew he had sinned when he slew Abel.

 

[skypair]

O.k. Bob, then you must think that anyone who ever lived, including all men pre-Moses, were spiritually alive.

Actually, you missed one law -- "and for this cause a man shall ... and cleave unto his wife." That was the "law" and everyone broke it pre-Moses till the flood. After that, they broke the command to "be fruitful, multiply, and replenish the earth." But we know that "law" was not obeyed either, don't we?

So yeah, it wasn't "the" law but the "commandment," the commandment of God, that Paul spoke of disobeying unto spiritual death of his soul and it happened even before there was "the law."

Skypair, sorry, I am not joining you on your journey into un-orthodoxy.

Better "check your brain at the door" then. Cause your brain is your spirit and you're just gonna have to keep taking it to places that don't make sense scripturally or intellectually. :laugh:

skypair

 

[Andy T.]

Actually, you missed one law -- "and for this cause a man shall ... and cleave unto his wife." That was the "law" and everyone broke it pre-Moses till the flood. After that, they broke the command to "be fruitful, multiply, and replenish the earth." But we know that "law" was not obeyed either, don't we?

So yeah, it wasn't "the" law but the "commandment," the commandment of God, that Paul spoke of disobeying unto spiritual death of his soul and it happened even before there was "the law."

But that wasn't the Mosaic Law as Paul is discussing in Romans 7. And even though those were pre-Mosaic commandments of God, they were not written down, so not everyone who had access to them. So it goes back to the assumption that if you equate Romans 7:9 with spiritual death, then you must believe that anyone who does not gain knowledge of a written code of God's commands (which is the Mosaic Law in this context) is always spiritually alive. This would include the native who eats other humans - he is spiritually alive because he is unaware of the Mosaic Law. That intepretation just doesn't work.

Better "check your brain at the door" then. Cause your brain is your spirit and you're just gonna have to keep taking it to places that don't make sense scripturally or intellectually. :laugh:

Thanks for the complement and your good Christian spirit.

 

[Brother Bob]

Job 32:8But [there is] a spirit in man: and the inspiration of the Almighty giveth them understanding.

God didn't create man and not give him directions. If he was made subject to vanity, then he must be taught what vanity is. God never fails, it is man that fails.

 

[skypair]

But that wasn't the Mosaic Law as Paul is discussing in Romans 7. And even though those were pre-Mosaic commandments of God, they were not written down, so not everyone who had access to them.

It was a "small, small world" back then, johnp. I'm betting they all knew.

And as you see the postflood people move out and occupy the earth, you also see "towers" to heaven appear in all cultures testifying to some knowledge of God-man distinction.

I think we could "beat this into the ground" when the Bible tells us all we need to know in Rom 1:18-21. The revelation by God of Himself is the "prevenient grace" that was needed --- how man responded no doubt determined whether he was justified without "specific grace" that we have today.

skypair

 

[johnp.]

Hello skypair.

It was a "small, small world" back then, johnp.

I'm in Nottinghamshire and you are in Tennessee, I would say it's a small world now wouldn't you?

I'm betting they all knew.

No one knew the law before Moses but the requirements of the law are written on our hearts. Our conscience always ready to condemn, or is it warn? There was nothing to know as God had not published them until Moses. People had a clue as to right and wrong, even canibals.

And as you see the postflood people move out and occupy the earth, you also see "towers" to heaven appear in all cultures testifying to some knowledge of God-man distinction.

Gen 11:4 Then they said, "Come, let us build ourselves a city, with a tower that reaches to the heavens, so that we may make a name for ourselves and not be scattered over the face of the whole earth."

We are not so different, God is always doing things to make a Name for Himself.

I think we could "beat this into the ground" when the Bible tells us all we need to know in Rom 1:18-21. The revelation by God of Himself is the "prevenient grace" that was needed --- how man responded no doubt determined whether he was justified without "specific grace" that we have today.

JN 3:3 In reply Jesus declared, "I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again. "
JN 3:5 Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. 6 Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. 7 You should not be surprised at my saying, `You must be born again.' 8 The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit."

john.

 

[johnp.]

Rom 2:19 if you are convinced that you are a guide for the blind, a light for those who are in the dark, 20 an instructor of the foolish, a teacher of infants, because you have in the law the embodiment of knowledge and truth--


john.

 

[Lou Martuneac]

Babies Regenerated?

To All:

The error of the regeneration before faith position is taken by some men to such an extreme that they insist God regenerates, saves, justifies, and makes righteous infants in the womb. They believe years later the infant, once mature, will express faith in Christ.

They look to these passages for support of their position.

“Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations,” (Jeremiah 1:5).

“For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb,” (Luke 1:15).

Here is an example from Dr. Wayne Grudem.

"Yet it certainly is possible for God to bring regeneration (that is, new spiritual life) to an infant even before he or she is born. This was true of John the Baptist, for the angel Gabriel, before John was born said, 'He will be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother's womb' (Luke 1:15). We might say that John the Baptist was 'born again' before he was born!"

This is present, but not common in the Reformed camp. I have contacted two men in my circles who are Reformed in their theology. One with an earned Doctorate, the other less than one year away from his Doctorate, and each of them have various other advanced degrees. Both said they know of no one in Fundamental Baptist circles that hold to an infant regeneration.

The infant regeneration position is just about as far to the left as one can go in the Reformed camp. That position makes many Reformed men squirm. I find it an utterly unbiblical position that has no basis in Scripture.

These are ambiguous passages (Jer. 1:5 & Luke 1:15) that we should not be building doctrinal buildings with. Whatever happened to John and Jeremiah was totally unique, one of a kind.

I believe God regenerates children who die very young when they get to heaven. I don’t believe God sends very young children or severely retarded people to Hell. In their special cases I believe God is capable based on the atonement to give life to these who are mentally incapable at the point of death. I would use David’s Son as an example.

LM

In Defense of the Gospel

 

[johnp.]

If he was made subject to vanity, then he must be taught what vanity is. God never fails, it is man that fails.

Is this men you talk about Bob? Who subjected him to vanity? Why was it done against his will? How is it the fault of man if he was made subject to vanity unwillingly Did you like the quote above where Paul takes it for granted that infants were taught?

john.

 

[johnp.]

Hello Lou Martuneac, nice to meet you.

The infant regeneration position is just about as far to the left as one can go in the Reformed camp. That position makes many Reformed men squirm.

John Calvin believed it.

I find it an utterly unbiblical position that has no basis in Scripture.

"Yet it certainly is possible for God to bring regeneration (that is, new spiritual life) to an infant even before he or she is born. This was true of John the Baptist, for the angel Gabriel, before John was born said, 'He will be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother's womb' (Luke 1:15). We might say that John the Baptist was 'born again' before he was born!"

I believe God regenerates children who die very young when they get to heaven.

I find it an utterly unbiblical position that has no basis in Scripture.

john.

 

[Lou Martuneac]

Calvin was Wrong.

Hello Lou Martuneac, nice to meet you.
John Calvin believed it.

Thanks, I wanted to offer some, what I hope is helpful insight.

John Calvin was wrong on this one.

LM

In Defense of the Gospel

 

[npetreley]

FWIW, I can't believe this thread is still going on.

 

[charles_creech78]

Mt 18:1 At the same time came the disciples unto Jesus, saying, who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven? Mt 18:2 And Jesus called a little child unto him, and set him in the midst of them, Mt 18:3 And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. Mt 18:4 Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven. Mt 18:5 And whoso shall RECEIVETH ONE SUCH LITTLE CHILD in my NAME RECEIVETH ME. Mt 18:6 But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which BELIEVE in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea. Mt 19;13 Then were there brought unto him little children, that he should put his hands on them, and pray: and the disciples rebuked them. Mt 19:14 But Jesus said, suffer little children, and forbid them not to come unto me: for of such is the KINGDOM OF HEAVEN.

 

[charles_creech78]

I do not believe a babie or a child will go to hell and if you believe this then there is something wrong with you. You have to know the law to be jugde by the law. A child or a babie is as perfect as God wants them to be. When thou know to do good and do it not then it becomes sin. They don't know to do good before God right know. God will inlighten them that they are sinners just like he inlighten Adam and Eve and just like he did with us. We new that we was naked before him and we have all eaten that fruit that has that knowlegde. We that have eaten that fruit has that knowlegde of GOOD AND EVIL. We was not born into sin. We was not sinners before we at that fruit. I did not know what good and evil was when I was born into this world. I did not know what good and evil was till I read the law. I became evil because I sin against God. I became dead because I sin against God. God has let me know that I have done these things. I was 17 years old when I new that I had sin in the sight of God and that I needed to repent. But I did not listen to him I keep sinning walking around as a dead man. I was a danger to myself because if I die there will be one place for me. What kind of God do you have that believe a child will go to hell. The God that I know is a loving God and slow to anger and full of mercie and hates evil. A babie is not evil. This is a corrupt thing that is going around. Go read where it said what shall be cast into the lake of fire. I never seen will it said babies or a child. I believe a lier will and this is a lie that babies go to hell.

 

[DHK]

As this has reached 30 pages it will be closed.