Good morning, folks!
A few responses, one at a time, as best as I can do.
1. To Ken: one sin (Adam's) was indeed enough to set us on the course we are on, but that was not the point of what I was bringing up. If we are to have the sin of one ancestor imputed to us, why not the sins of them all? What would have made that 'passing down' of sin stop with Adam? If sins can indeed be passed down in the way Calvinists claim where Adam is concerned, then the weight of sin imputed to a person grows with each passing generation. That is not biblical in the slightest!
Now, you mentioned that you believed the very young and pre-born are regenerated by God immediately before death, should they die young. I have heard plenty of Calvinists argue against that. Your position is not logical where Calvinism is concerned, but is rather in response to your innate understanding of both justice and mercy. The point I am intent on making is that the Bible never indicates anyone is born dead in sin, only that death is the inevitable result of sin, as God told Adam, and that we are all subject to it, at least physically. But spiritually, the little ones are His. He said so. That means they are NOT spiritually dead and therefore do not have to be regenerated, only covered by His blood, which they are.
2. To rlvaugn: please tell me what lie a baby can speak. What is there to lie about? "I'm not really hungry but I will pretend I am" ? Or, if you like, just let me know when a newborn speaks. That will definitely make medical history! It seems to me you are making the same mistake in looking at this verse as our geocentrist friends make when they say the sun goes around the earth because the Bible talks about the sun rising. You are taking the meaning out of the passage by not recognizing the idiom when you see it.
As far as the angels of the little ones always seeing the face of the Father, that is not the spirits of the little ones, for those inhabit their bodies. It is their angels! Angels are evidently assigned to people and even places or groups of people, from what we read in the Bible. Now, if Jesus made a point of saying that the angels assigned to a certain group (in this case, children) ALWAYS see the face of the Father, then there are those angels (ours, probably) who don't. Jesus said in John 17:4 that eternal life is knowing the Father and the Son. So to me the fact that the angels of the little ones always see the face of the Father indicates that their sins, such as they are, are not held against them at all, but are automatically covered by Jesus' blood as a sacrifice for unknown, or unintentional sins until such time as the individual learns the law and then chooses to rebel against it. Those angels Jesus spoke of indicate clearly that the little ones are not 'dead' in their sins at all, but very much alive spiritually and very much belonging to God Himself until such time as they, like all of us, reach the point of conscious rebellion.
3. To Tater Tot -- love that name! Thank you for your input. Yes, children sure are individuals right from birth, aren't they? I have often though of sin nature as about the same as having the chicken pox. Everyone who is sick with it is sick with the same disease, but the spots show up more on some than others!
At any rate, no, we won't change anyone's mind who is in this discussion, I don't think. But I have already gotten two emails from new Christians thanking me for these threads because they felt so confused by the hopelessness they saw in Calvinism, and the cruelty. So it is worth presenting all of this for them.
4. To our Australian mate -- G'day back at you, mate! I married a crazy Aussie and have my mother's cousin in Melbourne. Lovely city, that! OK, yes, Adam's sin was sort of like a blood disease spiritually, that got passed on to all of us. But Jesus' answer is deeper than just 'spreading' His blood. We have to be killed in our personalities -- or hearts -- to rid us of the Adamic 'disease' and then reborn by the power of the Holy Spirit, so we have new hearts in us. Hearts that don't want to sin, even though we do. Hearts that are fully repentant when we do sin, instead of making up excuses for it. Hearts that want to obey instead of disobey our Lord. In Genesis 8:21, God mentions to Noah that the hearts of all men incline, or tend, toward evil from childhood. It is that heart which is killed and a new one given. This was made possible because Christ shed His blood for us, and so we speak of being covered by His blood. But what happens inside each of us is that we are re-created to be the person God would have originally created us to be had not sin nature been our original inheritance. Does that make sense?
5. Baptist Vine, thank you for your post. I do think that children sin, although I have serious doubts about little babies! But their sins are expressions of their inherited sin nature and not a matter of conscious rebellion for which they can be held accountable personally. However Jesus was the one sacrifice for all, which means He was also the sacrifice for the unintentional and unconscious sins (which was also one of the Old Testament sacrifices), and thus the children are covered.
6. Scott B., men are not condemned because of anyone's sin. Jesus died for that purpose. Men are condemned for refusing Jesus. And no one is arguing that death has not 'reigned' for all. We all are not only subject to spiritual death when sin nature 'flowers' in to conscious, deliberate rebellion, but physical death as well. Christ dealt with both.
As far as not hearing the gospel of grace, please read Romans 2. God knows how to judge. Will not the judge of the whole earth do right? If you have followed in any of the other related threads, you will also know that I have stated that the truth of the fall and the rescue of Noah through the flood as well as the gospel itself written clearly in the stars, as God reminded Abraham, has been known from the earliest of times and has survived in one way or another in every culture. And, like the Old Testament folk, those who believed on the Promise of God were believing on Jesus Christ, who is that Promise fulfilled and God Himself.
You then mentioned that if God's cause were not the cause of the baby crying, the baby was sinning! I can only assume you are not a father! Or that you have not paid much attention to your children. Personality traits, number one, are not sins. Anger, number two, in a tiny baby, is not even present. They experience discomfort and cry about that. Some cry more easily than others, and so we say they are 'tempermental', but that is our problem, not theirs! I thought my oldest daughter had a nasty temper problem as she did not sleep through the night for three years and screamed often. When she was sixteen she was diagnosed with a rare malfunctioning of the autonomic nervous system. I can look back and cringe when I realize that she was dealing with physical pain associated with this from BIRTH! What else was she to do but sob her little heart out, especially when mommy got angry with the crying?
7. And, finally, grasshopper, the concept of guilt for something is because of something the person him or herself has done. Not for something someone else has done, Adam or otherwise! A baby born blind to a syphalitic mother is NOT guilty of his mother's disease but is paying for it nevertheless. There is a VAST difference.
A few responses, one at a time, as best as I can do.
1. To Ken: one sin (Adam's) was indeed enough to set us on the course we are on, but that was not the point of what I was bringing up. If we are to have the sin of one ancestor imputed to us, why not the sins of them all? What would have made that 'passing down' of sin stop with Adam? If sins can indeed be passed down in the way Calvinists claim where Adam is concerned, then the weight of sin imputed to a person grows with each passing generation. That is not biblical in the slightest!
Now, you mentioned that you believed the very young and pre-born are regenerated by God immediately before death, should they die young. I have heard plenty of Calvinists argue against that. Your position is not logical where Calvinism is concerned, but is rather in response to your innate understanding of both justice and mercy. The point I am intent on making is that the Bible never indicates anyone is born dead in sin, only that death is the inevitable result of sin, as God told Adam, and that we are all subject to it, at least physically. But spiritually, the little ones are His. He said so. That means they are NOT spiritually dead and therefore do not have to be regenerated, only covered by His blood, which they are.
2. To rlvaugn: please tell me what lie a baby can speak. What is there to lie about? "I'm not really hungry but I will pretend I am" ? Or, if you like, just let me know when a newborn speaks. That will definitely make medical history! It seems to me you are making the same mistake in looking at this verse as our geocentrist friends make when they say the sun goes around the earth because the Bible talks about the sun rising. You are taking the meaning out of the passage by not recognizing the idiom when you see it.
As far as the angels of the little ones always seeing the face of the Father, that is not the spirits of the little ones, for those inhabit their bodies. It is their angels! Angels are evidently assigned to people and even places or groups of people, from what we read in the Bible. Now, if Jesus made a point of saying that the angels assigned to a certain group (in this case, children) ALWAYS see the face of the Father, then there are those angels (ours, probably) who don't. Jesus said in John 17:4 that eternal life is knowing the Father and the Son. So to me the fact that the angels of the little ones always see the face of the Father indicates that their sins, such as they are, are not held against them at all, but are automatically covered by Jesus' blood as a sacrifice for unknown, or unintentional sins until such time as the individual learns the law and then chooses to rebel against it. Those angels Jesus spoke of indicate clearly that the little ones are not 'dead' in their sins at all, but very much alive spiritually and very much belonging to God Himself until such time as they, like all of us, reach the point of conscious rebellion.
3. To Tater Tot -- love that name! Thank you for your input. Yes, children sure are individuals right from birth, aren't they? I have often though of sin nature as about the same as having the chicken pox. Everyone who is sick with it is sick with the same disease, but the spots show up more on some than others!
At any rate, no, we won't change anyone's mind who is in this discussion, I don't think. But I have already gotten two emails from new Christians thanking me for these threads because they felt so confused by the hopelessness they saw in Calvinism, and the cruelty. So it is worth presenting all of this for them.
4. To our Australian mate -- G'day back at you, mate! I married a crazy Aussie and have my mother's cousin in Melbourne. Lovely city, that! OK, yes, Adam's sin was sort of like a blood disease spiritually, that got passed on to all of us. But Jesus' answer is deeper than just 'spreading' His blood. We have to be killed in our personalities -- or hearts -- to rid us of the Adamic 'disease' and then reborn by the power of the Holy Spirit, so we have new hearts in us. Hearts that don't want to sin, even though we do. Hearts that are fully repentant when we do sin, instead of making up excuses for it. Hearts that want to obey instead of disobey our Lord. In Genesis 8:21, God mentions to Noah that the hearts of all men incline, or tend, toward evil from childhood. It is that heart which is killed and a new one given. This was made possible because Christ shed His blood for us, and so we speak of being covered by His blood. But what happens inside each of us is that we are re-created to be the person God would have originally created us to be had not sin nature been our original inheritance. Does that make sense?
5. Baptist Vine, thank you for your post. I do think that children sin, although I have serious doubts about little babies! But their sins are expressions of their inherited sin nature and not a matter of conscious rebellion for which they can be held accountable personally. However Jesus was the one sacrifice for all, which means He was also the sacrifice for the unintentional and unconscious sins (which was also one of the Old Testament sacrifices), and thus the children are covered.
6. Scott B., men are not condemned because of anyone's sin. Jesus died for that purpose. Men are condemned for refusing Jesus. And no one is arguing that death has not 'reigned' for all. We all are not only subject to spiritual death when sin nature 'flowers' in to conscious, deliberate rebellion, but physical death as well. Christ dealt with both.
As far as not hearing the gospel of grace, please read Romans 2. God knows how to judge. Will not the judge of the whole earth do right? If you have followed in any of the other related threads, you will also know that I have stated that the truth of the fall and the rescue of Noah through the flood as well as the gospel itself written clearly in the stars, as God reminded Abraham, has been known from the earliest of times and has survived in one way or another in every culture. And, like the Old Testament folk, those who believed on the Promise of God were believing on Jesus Christ, who is that Promise fulfilled and God Himself.
You then mentioned that if God's cause were not the cause of the baby crying, the baby was sinning! I can only assume you are not a father! Or that you have not paid much attention to your children. Personality traits, number one, are not sins. Anger, number two, in a tiny baby, is not even present. They experience discomfort and cry about that. Some cry more easily than others, and so we say they are 'tempermental', but that is our problem, not theirs! I thought my oldest daughter had a nasty temper problem as she did not sleep through the night for three years and screamed often. When she was sixteen she was diagnosed with a rare malfunctioning of the autonomic nervous system. I can look back and cringe when I realize that she was dealing with physical pain associated with this from BIRTH! What else was she to do but sob her little heart out, especially when mommy got angry with the crying?
7. And, finally, grasshopper, the concept of guilt for something is because of something the person him or herself has done. Not for something someone else has done, Adam or otherwise! A baby born blind to a syphalitic mother is NOT guilty of his mother's disease but is paying for it nevertheless. There is a VAST difference.
