How does a baby sin?

Matthew 9
5 Which is easier: to say, 'Your sins are forgiven,' or to say, 'Get up and walk'?

My apologies. I had placed you on the wrong side of the debate. As Helen said in her first post on page 4:

This concept is unscriptural and I am showing verses supporting the concept that, yes, we are justified through faith, but we are SAVED through Grace. The source of Grace is Christ. There were several healings that occured without the confession of the person being healed, but the healing at the pool was significant because of the lame(?) man's ignorance of Christ and lack of profession of faith. I remember no other instances of this except the cheif priest's servant's ear when the mob came to get Christ before the trial.

Christ's miracles were not done for their sensational impacts but rather as signs throughout His ministry. Healing a man who had not confessed any faith in Christ was an event of significance.

 

CLICK HERE to go to the topic I have started in the Theology forum called "Psalm 58:3 (and babies)".

 

Having said what I did about sin and salvation, I want to repeat what I said on another thread about infant children and redemption.

Early in my ministry, I had a loving couple, both dedicated believers, lose an infant son. They asked me directly, "Would they see their son in heaven?"

It would have been easy for a young upstart, fresh out of seminary, to have said, I don't really know. That might have been the correct theological answer.

My answer to them was Yes! I believe that. Can I quote chapter and verse? No! I based my belief at that time on the nature of God as revealed in the scriptures, and the fact they were believing parents. I am not sure my answer would have been the same had they been unsaved. That was more than fifty years ago and I believe my answer would be the same to-day.

Some things fit nicely into a file folder. Then, the mission field, the pastorate, throw curves along the way. I have always tried to have the heart of a pastor and never let my theology interfere with what is best for the people under my care. Where my theology is clear by scripture, I will not swerve, but where there is a shadow, I will bend, so long as it does not dishonour the Lord.

Even Calvin changed his views as he grew in age and knowledge. Some of his commentaries differ to his Institutes, and we ought to be large enough to allow for change as well.

I trust this explanation is sufficient.

Cheers in the Lord,

Jim

[ October 20, 2002, 11:00 PM: Message edited by: Jim1999 ]

 

Wow! As Chet pointed out on page four (when a number of posts appeared in just minutes) - this has been and is a hot topic. In just two days we have already grown nine pages! Thanks for bringing up the subject, Helen.

 

Out of curiousity, I looked around a bit, assuming that the traffic on this topic is extra high. Here's what I found by scrolling down to the first nine pagers I found in these forums (I didn't check every forum):

Forum - Time it took to go to nine pages - Subject

Calvinism/Arminianism - took 4 months - Limited Atonement
Other Religions - 18 days - Catholicism
Fundamental Baptist - 9 days - Alcohol
Music Ministry - 9 months - CCM
Bible Versions - 14 days - Providential preservation (only 8 pages)
Baptist Denominations - 10 months - Which Baptist R U
Baptist Theology - 15 days - Extraterrestrial Life

And the winner is...
General Baptist Discussions - 2 days - Do babies sin?

 

goodness, yall are making my blood pressure rise!! If yall are so certain that babies lie and sin, then start baptizing them and forget about the age of accountability. If babies are lost and condemned to hell, the age of accountability is irrelevant. And, yall, older babies MAY be able to manipulate by their cries. But the original question was about ARM babies - meaning newborns. Whew! I need another sup of my iced sweet tea!!

 

This post has been quite argumentative.
From my own heart, I would like to say I believe that babies go to heaven if they die before the age of accountability, because they have not denied Christ. Once a person is old enough to learn about salvation and willfully chooses to deny Christ, if death should fall upon them they would not be with the lord.
I also want to mention I have faith with what the lord has said and therefore if I cannot completely understand everything, it is ok.....I will ask him the specifics when I see him. So to everyone that is puzzled with weather or not a baby actually sins......have faith in God.

 

Based upon that which we have seen here on this thread, I have two questions to pose.

1) Do men and woman who never hear the gospel message or ever hear the Law, are they excluded from the responsibility based upon ignorance, and go to Heaven based upon this idea?

2) Since Jesus was sinless, are babies on "the same plane" as Christ until they sin?

[ October 21, 2002, 07:49 AM: Message edited by: Scott Bushey ]

 

I will say this, all the debaters have been quite civil and decent about this tough question, and this speaks volumes in itself. Thank you.

Scott: 1) Do men and woman who never hear the gospel message or ever hear the Law, are they excluded from the responsibility based upon ignorance, and go to Heaven based upon this idea?

2) Since Jesus was sinless, are babies on "the same plane" as Christ until they sin?

I believe the answer to both questions is no. Those questions are clearly covered by scripture and fit nicely in to Calvinistic theology (my concern).

The problem is when we make a non-biblical decision to allow for the non-rational regeneration of an infant or other person deemed incapable of making a decision for themself.

With the infant, we say "such innocence"....with the mentally challenged, we say "unfair". In effect, we allow our human emotions to enter into the equation. I don't think this is totally out of the picture when we are dealing with the vast mind of God yet unfolded to us, and the nature of God which is revealed in scripture.

Who draws the "magic" line of "age of consent"?
I don't know what that is, yet we all speak of it.

I left seminary with all the answers. My first week in a pastoral ministry, I found more questions. Since 1946, the questions continue to mount up, and I fear, many of those questions will remain with God until we meet with Him in that great place beyond the tips of our fingers, beyond this flesh, His holy presence.

Cheers in the Lord, and God bless the children,

Jim

[ October 21, 2002, 09:29 AM: Message edited by: Jim1999 ]

 

Jim writes in regards to my query:
I believe the answer to both questions is no. Those questions are clearly covered by scripture and fit nicely in to Calvinistic theology (my concern).

Scott states:
Jim, it is not so easily *sifted* as the previous 9 pages of posts reveal.......

Many here have implied that the infant is unable to sin, does not have imputed sin from Adam, hence is free from the "original stain" and heaven bound if they die.

The above premise is based upon the idea that Romans 5:13 states. No knowledge of law equates "above the law".

Having said this, the man or woman who has not heard the gospel or those who are not aware of Gods Holy Law, are also *immune* to it....and if they die, go directly to Heaven.

 

Hello everyone!!!!!Just a quick comment to this subject, which by the way, could go on another nine pages without any problem whatsoever!.......my comment then is, isn't it fantastic that we have a loving,caring and gracious Heavenly Father who is much more capable than we can even begin to understand.......and we just have to leave it there......I think this is one of those subjects that there isn't any "pat" answer.......but I think on the one thing we can all agree on is this "He loves each of us,doubting,imperfect rascals that we are and just like a earthly family.....He is watching over us and guiding us along life's paths.....Praise God!!!!!!!!!. now, let's see what further comments come our way,shall we?????? smileyfish says hello

 

Helen,

Then to use your interpretation, why can't I use Romans 5 to say, the consequence of Adam's sin was spiritual death, for all who are his progeny. That works, doesn't it?

Chris

 

I was thinking of John 9, where the blind man is healed by Jesus, grilled about who healed him, but was not justified until later. His body was healed, but he had not yet been given spiritual life.

No problem.

Chris

 

Their bellies. Themselves. You name it. Any kind of inordinate affection (love for a toy) is idolatry, Col. 3:5.

You readily agree that babies have a sin nature. The carnal nature is at enmity with God. It does not own God, but fights God. It cannot be subject to the law of God.

If the sin nature was not enough to condemn a man, then there would have been no need for a sin offering. (It is the tresspass offering that is offered for specific acts of sin.)

 

Romans 2

12 For all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law.
13 For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified.
14 For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law.
15 They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them
16 on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.

Though I have not asserted that babies are sinless (as I have no way to be certain one way or the other, only God can judge the heart), no human being is worthy of salvation. It is through the Grace of Christ that we attain any parity that allows us into Heaven.

I do believe that there is signifigance to 2Samuel 12:23 and Matthew 18:3; 19:14; 21:16; Luke 10:21; and other verses I could cite regarding children. At several points through Christ's ministry He spoke of children and it was always favorably and likening their reasoning to necessary for attaining Salvation.

 

Clint,
Thanks for your reply. You write:
Romans 2

12 For all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law.
13 For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified.
14 For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law.
15 They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them
16 on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.

Scott asks:
How then is a infant above these specifications?

 

Doesn't the bible say somewhere that every person will have the opportunity of hearing the 'law' before their death?
May it be once, twice, or three times.........and if they dismiss the chance they got...well.......
And because babies cannot make the conscious decision to accept Christ, don't they fall into a category of their own?
Based on the doctrine that they are not at the age of accountability??????????????

 

A lot has been said about anger. A while ago I wrote a response to one's assertion that emotions are morally neutral. It's in the context of a discussion of musical styles, but the points I made in it about emotion are relevant to this discussion.

My point is "the morality of an emotion has less to do with its context as it does with its nature and origin."

Any emotion springing from our natural selves is sinful.

http://members.aol.com/ats0922/moral1.html

[ October 21, 2002, 12:25 PM: Message edited by: Aaron ]