Bible: To what extent does ignorance equate to innocence?

[Dave...]

To what extent does ignorance equate to innocence?

With children, they are called innocent by God until they reaches a condition (often called age) of accountability. Jewish tradition calls this "Bar mitzvah", or "son of the Law". They believe that at age thirteen a person becomes accountable to God and must have the correct/saving faith. Before this, if a child dies, they are considered innocent, like Adam and Eve were in innocent in their ignorance before the fall.

Also, Jesus made this statement, which potentially opens up yet a different, or bigger and more complex context.

John 9: "For judgment I have come into this world, that those who do not see may see, and that those who see may be made blind." Then some of the Pharisees who were with Him heard these words, and said to Him, "Are we blind also?" Jesus said to them, "If you were blind, you would have no sin; but now you say, 'We see.' Therefore your sin remains.

And then we have this. Not forgiven, but overlooked? Passed over?

Acts 3:17-19 Yet now, brethren, I know that you did it in ignorance, as did also your rulers. But those things which God foretold by the mouth of all His prophets, that the Christ would suffer, He has thus fulfilled. Repent therefore and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, so that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord,

Acts 17:30 Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent,

On a more personal level, I think that the same applies here. Paul said this....

1 Timothy 1:13 although I was formerly a blasphemer, a persecutor, and an insolent man; but I obtained mercy because I did it ignorantly in unbelief.

There's probably more verses that can apply, but I cannot think of any at the moment. There's a lot of mercy going around, and some of it is given because of ignorance on at least a few different levels. Some of it has historical context, me thinks. But Adam and Eve, and the children and anyone who cannot do anything about their ignorance, there is a ignorance that makes them not guilty.

Where is the line draw between the two?

Is this potentially a wrench in the machinery of predestination as the reformed view understands it? I know people will quote Jacob and Esau in Romans 9:11, but does that contradict any of the ideas from Scripture posted about innocence in ignorance?

What's the Biblical understanding of ignorance as it relates to innocence?

 

[KenH]

"It may not be improper to observe here, that It is asserted, that “elect infants dying in infancy, are justifed by faith in the habit, though not by faith in the act.” If this is true, it follows, that God doth not justify all his elect in one and the same way, but some by the habit, and others by the act of faith: For the proof of which, I am of opinion that no solid argument can be offered. Again, a principle or habit cannot see, or receive an object: Now if Christ’s righteousness is to or upon us, in a way of believing, and it cannot be ours till actually received by faith...how come elect infants, who die in infancy, to be actually interested in that righteousness, seeing they cannot act faith, and consequently are uncapable of receiving Christ’s righteousness? Therefore it must necessarily be concluded, that the gift of Christ’s righteousness becomes actually theirs, without any receiving act in them: And unless it can be proved that God justifes his elect in a different manner, that is to say, some by the habit, and others by the act of faith; the same must be granted concerning those of the elect, who live to riper years. Farther, from hence I cannot but conclude, that no act of faith is necessary to the being of Justification; for, if so, those of the elect who die in infancy, cannot be justified. But why an act of faith should be required to the actual Justification of some of the elect, and not to the Justification of others, I am not able to conceive."

- excerpt from John Brine's A Defense of the Doctrine of Eternal Justification, From Some Exceptions To It by Mr. Bragge, and Others

 

[KenH]

Acts 17:30 Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent,

"And the times of this ignorance God winked at,.... Not that he approved of, or encouraged such blindness and folly, as appeared among the Gentiles, when they worshipped idols of gold, silver, and stone, taking them for deities; but rather the sense is, he despised this, and them for it, and was displeased and angry with them; and as an evidence of such contempt and indignation, he overlooked them, and took no notice of them, and gave them no revelation to direct them, nor prophets to instruct them, and left them to their stupidity and ignorance:

but now commandeth all men everywhere to repent; that is, he hath given orders, that the doctrine of repentance, as well as remission of sins, should be preached to all nations, to Gentiles as well as Jews; and that it becomes them to repent of their idolatries, and turn from their idols, and worship the one, only, living and true God: and though for many hundreds of years God had neglected them, and sent no messengers, nor messages to them, to acquaint them with his will, and to show them their follies and mistakes; yet now he had sent his apostles unto them, to lay before them their sins, and call them to repentance; and to stir them up to this, the apostle informs them of the future judgment in the following verse. Repentance being represented as a command, does not suppose it to be in the power of men, or contradict evangelical repentance, being the free grace gift of God, but only shows the need men stand in of it, and how necessary and requisite it is; and when it is said to be a command to all, this does not destroy its being a special blessing of the covenant of grace to some; but points out the sad condition that all men are in as sinners, and that without repentance they must perish: and indeed, all men are obliged to natural repentance for sin, though to all men the grace of evangelical repentance is not given."

- excerpt from John Gill's Bible commentary on Acts 17:30

 

[Dave...]

"It may not be improper to observe here, that It is asserted, that “elect infants dying in infancy, are justifed by faith in the habit, though not by faith in the act.” If this is true, it follows, that God doth not justify all his elect in one and the same way, but some by the habit, and others by the act of faith: For the proof of which, I am of opinion that no solid argument can be offered. Again, a principle or habit cannot see, or receive an object: Now if Christ’s righteousness is to or upon us, in a way of believing, and it cannot be ours till actually received by faith...how come elect infants, who die in infancy, to be actually interested in that righteousness, seeing they cannot act faith, and consequently are uncapable of receiving Christ’s righteousness? Therefore it must necessarily be concluded, that the gift of Christ’s righteousness becomes actually theirs, without any receiving act in them: And unless it can be proved that God justifes his elect in a different manner, that is to say, some by the habit, and others by the act of faith; the same must be granted concerning those of the elect, who live to riper years. Farther, from hence I cannot but conclude, that no act of faith is necessary to the being of Justification; for, if so, those of the elect who die in infancy, cannot be justified. But why an act of faith should be required to the actual Justification of some of the elect, and not to the Justification of others, I am not able to conceive."

- excerpt from John Brine's A Defense of the Doctrine of Eternal Justification, From Some Exceptions To It by Mr. Bragge, and Others

Hey Ken

I remember MacArthur's observation in this matter in his two part series, "The Salvation of Infants Who Die". He mentioned how people condemned babies to hell because babies couldn't come to faith, and acted as if they were doing God a service by defending these 'tough doctrines'. Unfortunately, in my opinion, that's a common problem today. Somehow, hard things become true just because they are hard, even if they are not Biblical. There's a puffed up sense that comes with doing that, pride I suppose. If we're honest, I think we all have caught ourselves doing this at one time or another.

As MacArthur noted in that series, that only a proper understanding of grace will allow a person to see how these babies are saved. The Scribes and the Pharisees think in a legalistic kind of way and usually miss the spiritual truth. I appreciate that John Brine is honesty about not seeing how it all works out. In a legalistic mind set, like the Scribes and the Pharisees two thousand years ago, one can easily miss the trees for the forest, as they say. If anyone is interested...

The Salvation of Babies Who Die, Part 1

Some of you who tuned in to The Larry King Show a week ago Saturday will remember that Larry fired a question to me on the air that came out of...

www.gty.org

The Salvation of Babies Who Die, Part 2

This is Part Two of a subject that I began last Sunday night, "The Salvation of Babies Who Die." I'm very thankful and gratified for the response...

www.gty.org

Well, I do believe that the elect are elected out of the world, and from a position of guilt. Does that means that they need to actually reach that point of a first sin, before they are guilty?

The interesting thing about the innocence of children is that it actually proves predestination, or election, but not to the extent that would get the Calvinists excited. You see, if there is a state of innocence that a child must grow out of, and God does appoint the day that we're born, and the day that we die, it would stand to reason that if that child we're appointed to die before they grew out of that state of innocence, that they were in fact predestined to eternal life. Those who are left can still come to faith from a position of guilt, or not, so the traditional discussions remain unaffected.

I think that the Calvinist/Arminian boxes that we put ourselves into do our understanding in this matter a disservice. It's almost like they themselves, when they begin to interpret Scripture, instead of the other way around, become an idol.

Dave

 

[Dave...]

"And the times of this ignorance God winked at,.... Not that he approved of, or encouraged such blindness and folly, as appeared among the Gentiles, when they worshipped idols of gold, silver, and stone, taking them for deities; but rather the sense is, he despised this, and them for it, and was displeased and angry with them; and as an evidence of such contempt and indignation, he overlooked them, and took no notice of them, and gave them no revelation to direct them, nor prophets to instruct them, and left them to their stupidity and ignorance:

but now commandeth all men everywhere to repent; that is, he hath given orders, that the doctrine of repentance, as well as remission of sins, should be preached to all nations, to Gentiles as well as Jews; and that it becomes them to repent of their idolatries, and turn from their idols, and worship the one, only, living and true God: and though for many hundreds of years God had neglected them, and sent no messengers, nor messages to them, to acquaint them with his will, and to show them their follies and mistakes; yet now he had sent his apostles unto them, to lay before them their sins, and call them to repentance; and to stir them up to this, the apostle informs them of the future judgment in the following verse. Repentance being represented as a command, does not suppose it to be in the power of men, or contradict evangelical repentance, being the free grace gift of God, but only shows the need men stand in of it, and how necessary and requisite it is; and when it is said to be a command to all, this does not destroy its being a special blessing of the covenant of grace to some; but points out the sad condition that all men are in as sinners, and that without repentance they must perish: and indeed, all men are obliged to natural repentance for sin, though to all men the grace of evangelical repentance is not given."

- excerpt from John Gill's Bible commentary on Acts 17:30

I was thinking of this passage when I read those.

Romans 3:25-26 whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed, to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

The time of ignorance ...God's plan was revealed in Jesus Christ and they are no longer ignorant to this, which God's patience, or forbearance allowed them to see and come to this point of revelation and understanding. Now, with them having understanding, the reins have been pulled back on that patience and forbearance, as they are called to repent and believe.

What do you think about this passage? Should we take it at face value?

John 9: "For judgment I have come into this world, that those who do not see may see, and that those who see may be made blind." Then some of the Pharisees who were with Him heard these words, and said to Him, "Are we blind also?" Jesus said to them, "If you were blind, you would have no sin; but now you say, 'We see.' Therefore your sin remains.

 

[Dave...]

I just wanted to note, that when I say ignorance, I'm not speaking of willful ignorance, or suppressing the truth.

 

[Dave G]

To what extent does ignorance equate to innocence?

None.
There is none who are innocent of wrongdoing;
That ended with Adam and Eve.

With children, they are called innocent by God until they reaches a condition (often called age) of accountability.

I've not found anything so far in God's word that declares this anywhere.
Rather, I've found quite the opposite.

 

[Dave G]

Jewish tradition calls this "Bar mitzvah", or "son of the Law". They believe that at age thirteen a person becomes accountable to God and must have the correct/saving faith. Before this, if a child dies, they are considered innocent, like Adam and Eve were in innocent in their ignorance before the fall.

Again, I know of no place in God's word where anything like this is described.
Should tradition take the place of God's word on a matter?

I hope not, my friend.
I know it would not, in my case.

What's the Biblical understanding of ignorance as it relates to innocence?

Mankind has fallen from its state of innocence...
And has now, with full knowledge and understanding of its state, stubbornly and willfully pursued a course of disobeying God and taking pleasure in it ( Romans 1:18-32 ).

As for ignorance of God which could possibly establish innocence:
Again, I know of nothing in the Bible that tells us that anyone is innocent of sin, ignorant of it or otherwise.

 

[Dave G]

I just wanted to note, that when I say ignorance, I'm not speaking of willful ignorance, or suppressing the truth.

Which, according to His word, all men are guilty of doing:

" For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
19 because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed [it] unto them.
20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:" ( Romans 1:18-20 ).

" for all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; " ( Romans 3:23 ). <------That includes infants.

" For [there is] not a just man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not." ( Ecclesiastes 7:20 ).

" Do ye indeed speak righteousness, O congregation? do ye judge uprightly, O ye sons of men?
2 Yea, in heart ye work wickedness; ye weigh the violence of your hands in the earth.
3 The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies." ( Psalms 58:1-3 ). <--- Here the Lord gives us a glimpse of what mankind is really like, in our hearts and immediately following our birth.

Seem harsh?
Remember Dave, this is God speaking, not men.

We see based on the outward appearance, while God looks upon the heart ( 1 Samuel 16:7 ) and can tell exactly what desires or thoughts we as men are trying to hide from each other, and from Him.

All things are open and naked before Him ( Hebrews 4:12-13 ).

 

[Dave G]

What do you think about this passage? Should we take it at face value?

John 9: "For judgment I have come into this world, that those who do not see may see, and that those who see may be made blind." Then some of the Pharisees who were with Him heard these words, and said to Him, "Are we blind also?" Jesus said to them, "If you were blind, you would have no sin; but now you say, 'We see.' Therefore your sin remains.

No, my friend, we should not take just the last half of the passage at what appears to be face value, because the Lord has much more to tell us about our supposed innocence than just what appears to be in the above.

Also, are you aware of why I bolded in red what I did?
Because I see the Lord telling us why He came, and He does so in a not-so-straightforward manner...
To me, He means that His reason for coming to Israel was for judgement;
So that those who do not "see" Him may indeed "see" Him ( His elect, both Jew and Gentile ), and that those who claim to see Him ( those of national Israel, not elect but still responsible ), may be made blind.

It's a pronouncement of judgement upon disobedient Israel, and how their religious leaders all claimed to see and know God...
But in reality were blinded to their own ignorance of Him.
They thought they were God's people by reason of their physical lineage from Abraham and their supposed obedience to the Law of Moses...
Instead of being God's spiritual children by His own choice and His granting them repentance and the new birth ( Psalm 65:4 ).

In the end, Israel as a nation is responsible for all of their disobedient history towards God,
Even though few of them, a remnant, would be saved by God.
Why?
Because they still promised God that they would follow the precepts of the Law at Mount Sinai, and they then proceeded to willfully disobey all of it in the centuries to come.


Thus, even though He makes both vessels of wrath and vessels of mercy, loves Jacob and hates Esau, God holds the nation responsible...
and He does so knowing their hearts and minds.

 

[Dave G]

John 9: "For judgment I have come into this world, that those who do not see may see, and that those who see may be made blind." Then some of the Pharisees who were with Him heard these words, and said to Him, "Are we blind also?" Jesus said to them, "If you were blind, you would have no sin; but now you say, 'We see.' Therefore your sin remains.

To answer the last half of the quote above, here's what I see:

In response to their question, "Are we blind also?", the Lord does not give them what would, to you and me, be a straight answer here, either.
It's a round-about answer.
He's telling them that if they were blind to their sins ( seeking God through faith in Him as Saviour, who forgives sin ) they would not have them.

He then declares that what they are really saying in their hearts, is "we see"... meaning that they are denying that they need help "seeing" their sins and need of a Saviour, so their sin remains unforgiven.

It's a parable of sorts.

 

[th1bill]

To what extent does ignorance equate to innocence?

With children, they are called innocent by God until they reaches a condition (often called age) of accountability. Jewish tradition calls this "Bar mitzvah", or "son of the Law". They believe that at age thirteen a person becomes accountable to God and must have the correct/saving faith. Before this, if a child dies, they are considered innocent, like Adam and Eve were in innocent in their ignorance before the fall.

Also, Jesus made this statement, which potentially opens up yet a different, or bigger and more complex context.

John 9: "For judgment I have come into this world, that those who do not see may see, and that those who see may be made blind." Then some of the Pharisees who were with Him heard these words, and said to Him, "Are we blind also?" Jesus said to them, "If you were blind, you would have no sin; but now you say, 'We see.' Therefore your sin remains.

And then we have this. Not forgiven, but overlooked? Passed over?

Acts 3:17-19 Yet now, brethren, I know that you did it in ignorance, as did also your rulers. But those things which God foretold by the mouth of all His prophets, that the Christ would suffer, He has thus fulfilled. Repent therefore and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, so that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord,

Acts 17:30 Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent,

On a more personal level, I think that the same applies here. Paul said this....

1 Timothy 1:13 although I was formerly a blasphemer, a persecutor, and an insolent man; but I obtained mercy because I did it ignorantly in unbelief.

There's probably more verses that can apply, but I cannot think of any at the moment. There's a lot of mercy going around, and some of it is given because of ignorance on at least a few different levels. Some of it has historical context, me thinks. But Adam and Eve, and the children and anyone who cannot do anything about their ignorance, there is a ignorance that makes them not guilty.

Where is the line draw between the two?

Is this potentially a wrench in the machinery of predestination as the reformed view understands it? I know people will quote Jacob and Esau in Romans 9:11, but does that contradict any of the ideas from Scripture posted about innocence in ignorance?

What's the Biblical understanding of ignorance as it relates to innocence?

Rom. 9:11 is one very misunderstood Bible statement. People forget the Omni- statements about Yehovah's nature. Yehovah is not contained in our Time/Space Continuum and knows the beginning. Before they were born Yehovah knew the totals of both their lives.

 

[JonC]

I'm not sure ignorance correlates to innocence. Here is one interesting verse

If anyone sins, doing any of the things that by the Lord's commandments ought not to be done, though he did not know it, then realizes his guilt, he shall bear his iniquity (Lev 5)

And in Numbers 15 God tells the people sins committed in ignorance can be forgiven but not sins intentionally committed.

And in Acts Peter tells the Jews they can be forgiven because they acted in ignorance.

 

[KenH]

Does that means that they need to actually reach that point of a first sin, before they are guilty?

Because of Adam's sin, every human being is guilty of sin. Adam was the federal head of all of the human race. Christ Jesus is the federal head of all of those God chose before the world began, God's elect.

Romans 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned.

Romans 5:17 For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.

 

[KenH]

Romans 3:25-26 whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed, to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

The time of ignorance ...God's plan was revealed in Jesus Christ and they are no longer ignorant to this, which God's patience, or forbearance allowed them to see and come to this point of revelation and understanding. Now, with them having understanding, the reins have been pulled back on that patience and forbearance, as they are called to repent and believe.

What do you think about this passage? Should we take it at face value?

"for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God: by "sins that are past", are meant, not sins before baptism, nor the sins of a man's life only, but the sins of Old Testament saints, who lived before the incarnation of Christ, and the oblation of his sacrifice; and though this is not to be restrained to them only, for Christ's blood was shed for the remission of all his people's sins, past, present, and to come; yet the sins of the saints before the coming of Christ, seem to be particularly designed; which shows the insufficiency of legal sacrifices, sets forth the efficacy of Christ's blood and sacrifice, demonstrates him to be a perfect Saviour, and gives us reason under the present dispensation to hope for pardon, since reconciliation is completely made: "remission" of sin does not design that weakness which sin has brought upon, and left in human nature, whereby it is so enfeebled, that it cannot help itself, and therefore Christ was set forth, and sent forth, to be a propitiation; but rather God's passing by, or overlooking sin, and not punishing for it, under the former dispensation; or else the forgiveness of it now, and redemption from it by the blood of Christ, "through the forbearance of God"; in deferring the execution of justice, till he sent his Son, and in expecting satisfaction of his Son; which shows the grace and goodness of God to his people, and the trust and confidence he put in his Son."

- excerpt from John Gill's Bible commentary on Romans 3:25

 

[kyredneck]

There is none who are innocent of wrongdoing;

There are those that have done wrong in ignorance. Consider Paul through this lens:

John Chapter 16

2​	They shall put you out of the synagogues: yea, the hour cometh, that whosoever killeth you shall think that he offereth service unto God.

 

[Charlie24]

I was thinking of this passage when I read those.

Romans 3:25-26 whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed, to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

The time of ignorance ...God's plan was revealed in Jesus Christ and they are no longer ignorant to this, which God's patience, or forbearance allowed them to see and come to this point of revelation and understanding. Now, with them having understanding, the reins have been pulled back on that patience and forbearance, as they are called to repent and believe.

What do you think about this passage? Should we take it at face value?

John 9: "For judgment I have come into this world, that those who do not see may see, and that those who see may be made blind." Then some of the Pharisees who were with Him heard these words, and said to Him, "Are we blind also?" Jesus said to them, "If you were blind, you would have no sin; but now you say, 'We see.' Therefore your sin remains.

The way I see it, Dave, is that both the Pharisees and Paul acted in unbelief, but Paul's unbelief was proven to be an innocent unbelief, and the Pharisees a willful unbelief.

The Pharisees stood before Christ and rejected Him refusing to see the light, but when Paul stood before Christ on the road to Damascus He swallowed his pride and believed the light.

If the Pharisees has done as Paul admitting he was wrong, that blindness would not have remained in them.

 

[Alan Dale Gross]

innocence?

When David said, "in sin did my mother conceive me", I believe we need to allow that he was revealing that his existence from the time of conception was in the Nature of all of our's Greatest, Great, Granddad's Nature, after Adam had committed his Fall into sin and that, like all of us who have had Adam's Nature passed onto us, genetically, David was in that same Naturally born State of sin, of course, since the instance of his conception.

That is, "when I was conceived, I was born as a child of Adam, and, therefore, Naturally as a sinner into the Natural State which is Biblically called, "in sin".

And? Not "innocence".

That is all about being only one more sin-cursed idea of sinful man.

"And the times of this ignorance God winked at,...

Meaning, as much as anything:

God overlooked them (the Gentiles), and took no notice of them, and gave them no revelation to direct them, nor prophets to instruct them, and left them to their stupidity and ignorance:

but now commandeth all men everywhere to repent; that is, He hath given orders, that the doctrine of repentance, as well as remission of sins, should be preached to all nations, to Gentiles as well as Jews; and that it becomes them to repent of their idolatries, and turn from their idols, and worship the one, only, living and true God:

Jacob and Esau in Romans 9:11, but does that contradict any of the ideas from Scripture posted about innocence in ignorance?

I don't think that we see "innocence in ignorance" in Scripture, but rather that God was saying that during that time when He left them without giving them special attention and sending them His Messengers by the Prophets, as He did the Jews, He ignored them, as if they didn't exist, and just "Winked" at them, as if to say, "It not like I don't See you, but I'm Acting the Same as if I didn't, Wink, Wink".

That was God's Intent, or Lack of Attention, He had given the Gentiles compared to the Jews, whereas, it is similar to what God says He does, when "He gives them up", to sinful Jews or Gentiles, during our Present Era.

It should be easy enough to see God didn't exactly say, "they were innocent because they were ignorant", anymore than He ever said "babies are innocent until a certain age".

That would be a glaring contradiction to there being One Way of Salvation through Jesus Christ by being Born Again.

There can be no, "if you're Naturally born a sinner, if you die young enough, you automatically go to Heaven". And, I'm aware many good men and woman assume that as some sort of 'given' and even that something like that was Contained in Jesus' Atonement, as if Jesus "died in a special way for the natural Planet Earth and/or babies and the mentally handicapped, or even some of the heathens who've never heard the Gospel."

Ah, however, as thoroughly as that will "tickle" the Natural ears of us all, as carnal beings who would never want to imagine having a 'god' who would send any of these to Hell, He is the One Who said, "you must be Born Again" and the One Who did not say any of the rest of that in so many words.

It's purely presumption and wild guessing we've done on our part.

Heck, in our day for example a falsely accused person may have said about them, "they must be guilty, because they were accused"(??)

What? Why? It's like this, isn't it?

Daddy doesn't want to believe his little girl would lie and Mamma don't want to see her little girl cry.

See how our emotions can get thrown into the arena and entirely start to cloud our judgment?

I just think there is a more sober and God-Honoring solution that resolves any apparent, or ignored, contradictions or discrepancies on our part (as, again, sinners after all).

Is this potentially a wrench in the machinery of predestination as the reformed view understands it? I know people will quote Jacob and Esau in Romans 9:11, but does that contradict any of the ideas from Scripture posted about innocence in ignorance?

I'm Old Fashion Baptist, so to speak, and not 'Reformed', but we both have our instances where some ideas we teach can sound more like "my wife doesn't want our child to go to Hell, so my 'doctrine' has been adjusted to suit her", more so than "thus saith The Lord", every once in a while.

I can easily go ahead and suggest that there is no "innocence in ignorance" and still account for all the unborn children and babies and mentally afflicted folks, God ever wanted to Spend Eternity with Him in Heaven, Biblically.

Preach them the Gospel and in so doing, God is Able to Give them Repentance of their sins and belief in The Lord's Accomplishment of Eternal Salvation, through His death, burial, and resurrection.

He's done it before.

To what extent does ignorance equate to innocence?

None.

"Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God." Romans 3:19.

Do you see any 'small print' that excludes some "innocent" populations of the world who aren't guilty before God, in His Judgment?

With children, they are called innocent by God until they reaches a condition (often called age) of accountability.

Dunno, 'bout all that...brotheren, in all due respect.

I don't see it in the Book.

Heathen are ignorant of the Gospel and just Judged by what knowledge they have, but what does that do? It still leaves them guilty as Law Breakers of God's Universal Moral Law in their consciences, right? They are Accountable for all that.

So, now what?

You see, if there is a state of innocence that a child must grow out of, and God does appoint the day that we're born, and the day that we die, it would stand to reason that if that child we're appointed to die before they grew out of that state of innocence, that they were in fact predestined to eternal life.

I follow the equation-ing, except for the initial premise that adds in the axiom, "if there is a state of innocence that a child must grown out of", etc.

That's too big an "if".

"If" there is something to grow out of, it may be our willingness to accept that, to start with, for no more reason than "I would like to believe that is the way it is", etc., etc.

I think that the Calvinist/Arminian boxes that we put ourselves into do our understanding in this matter a disservice. It's almost like they themselves, when they begin to interpret Scripture, instead of the other way around, become an idol.

So, "if" the idol of positing "innocence in ignorance" that we are allegedly enamoured with can be set aside a moment, then maybe we can make room to see where God says an unborn baby can:
1.) have the physical ability to hear the Gospel preached and:
2.) to also be Spiritually Enabled to HEAR THE GOSPEL AND:
3.) BE BORN AGAIN.

When, John the Baptist was in Elizabeth's womb, he leaped when he heard Mary say she was expecting Jesus and lost souls don't leap for joy over The Lord Jesus. So, we know John the Baptist could hear from inside her womb and that he was saved while in there before he was born.

The Bible even says he was saved from his mother's womb and if we know anything about being saved, it is by hearing the Word of God by the Gospel which is the Power of God the Holy Spirit Empowers unto the Experience of Salvation in the soul, when it is Born Again.

Looks to me like unborn babies are saved the same way every other soul has ever been saved and that is by God Granting it Repentance and Faith in the Gospel by the Power of the Blood of the Resurrected Jesus

There is no other Name under Heaven by which we might be Saved. Climbing up into the sheepfold any other way hasn't, doesn't, and will never be able to work, no matter how false our false religion we think we're Eternally Fatal in our false belief about, sincere or not, or involving a baby or not, so we had BETTER INFINITELY GIVE ANY AND ALL OTHER FALSE RELIGIOUS ERROR RIGHT UP, FOR THE SAKE OF GOD!!!

Well, I do believe that the elect are elected out of the world, and from a position of guilt. Does that means that they need to actually reach that point of a first sin, before they are guilty?

NOT ON YOUR LIFE.

WE ALL INHERITED THE SIN NATURE AT CONCEPTION.

An unborn baby couldn't die in the first place if it weren't for death which came upon all men, for all have sinned. We did they sin? Before they died? How? By not being conceived by a Virgin. Otherwise, that unborn baby Is Not Holy and Perfect as the Divine Nature of God, Himself.

We know that a baby kicks to get out, when it may not be at viable to live if it got out right that moment. Is that a sinless decision on their part?

But, but, but, but, but, but, how can a baby or mentally damaged person understand, even if they can hear the Gospel preached?

I ask you. How did my rock hard, dead as dead can be, soul "hear" the Gospel, when I was lost, blind and Dead in Trespasses and in Sins, as any physically dead person at their funeral?

Answer: what is impossible with me was possible with God. I was Regenerated from Eternal Death to Eternal Life, from Absolute Darkness to Eternal Light.

Jesus is the Savior.

 

[Dave...]

None.
There is none who are innocent of wrongdoing;
That ended with Adam and Eve.

I've not found anything so far in God's word that declares this anywhere.
Rather, I've found quite the opposite.

Hey Dave

What made Adam and Eve guilty was the sin. What made it sin and made them accountable for it was eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. It was the act in combination with the knowledge that made it sin. The knowledge allowed the sin, which begat the sinful nature. It was their ignorance that God was using to protect them and keep the relationship in tact.

The Deut. passage below is interesting when you consider a picture is being painted. And the Isaiah passage could be how we are to understand the James passage. In other words, the action is dependent on the knowledge of good and evil before it can be considered sin. The act alone, or lack of, without the knowledge, is not sin.

Deut. 1:39 Moreover your little ones and your children, who you say will be victims, who today have no knowledge of good and evil, they shall go in there; to them I will give it, and they shall possess it.

Isaiah 7:15-16 Curds and honey He shall eat, that He may know to refuse the evil and choose the good. For before the Child shall know to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land that you dread will be forsaken by both her kings.

James 4:17 Therefore, to him who knows to do good and does not do it, to him it is sin.

 

[Dave...]

Again, I know of no place in God's word where anything like this is described.
Should tradition take the place of God's word on a matter?

I hope not, my friend.
I know it would not, in my case.

No, tradition should not not take the place of Scripture, but it is cultural context that goes back into the times of Scripture. The principle of young people taking on 'religious' responsibility is deeply rooted in Scripture. Many claim that Bar mitzvah came from this passage in Genesis, when they claim that Isaac was weaned at age thirteen.

Genesis 21:8 So the child grew and was weaned. And Abraham made a great feast on the same day that Isaac was weaned.

Mankind has fallen from its state of innocence...
And has now, with full knowledge and understanding of its state, stubbornly and willfully pursued a course of disobeying God and taking pleasure in it ( Romans 1:18-32 ).

Adam and Eve lived with God. I'm sure that their understanding of God was at least equal to Romans 1:18, but they were considered innocent due to ignorance of good and evil. It wasn't until they willfully sinned that they were held accountable and separated from God. Perhaps there is more to that context of Romans than we realize. Do you think that passage includes infants who cannot even comprehend any of that truth to be able to then suppress it? Do all non believers become lesbians and worship idols that they made of creatures? Look at how much emphasis is put on understanding, and then suppressing the truth. Romans 1:18-32 sounds like a general statement as to the condition of mankind. I don't think it would be hostile to that text to consider other Biblical truths into it. I would allow a person time to grow into that knowledge and understanding of those things manifested in them by God, giving them the capacity to understand what they are seeing.