Infant Salvation

[ReformedBaptist]

There was a time when I believed that also. Along with the S&G, and flood issues, I asked myself some pointed questions.

1) If all infants go to heaven and life begins at conception, does that mean that the Lord is building His church through the abortion holocaust? If that truly was the case, there would be no sense letting them grow up to reject Christ, why not just preach the killing of infants to send them all into heaven?

That sounded too much like Islam for me.

2) If we are not even able to make a 100% certain judgment regarding the salvation of a professing christian standing right next to us, why do we seek it for infants?

Those questions both threw a wrench into that doctrine for me, so ever since then the Lord has settled me with the understanding that "the Lord knoweth them that are His", and where He has obscured things, I try not to intrude on His judgment.

Just some 'denominationless' thoughts....


BGTF

I agree the Scripture is scant on the subject. I said in another place that I know of no Scripture that speaks directly upon this subject. So, to the brother who asked for a few verses for my belief, I expect you wanted somethign that directly said "All babies go to heaven who die" Something without any ambiguity.

I don't think the Scrpture teaches us that, but there are Scriptures that give us comfort and hope in believing that infants who perish are safe in the arms of God. Also, as I mentioned before, our system of theology, commonly called Calvinsim, gives us great hope and belief that God has elected infants. That is to the how, and as to the why, I ground my belief in the goodness of God.

Your servant in Christ,
RB

 

[ByGracethroughFaith]

A sprout of a tree or bush, has no fruit, neither good or evil. To say a infant is already fallen in sin, you have to use scripture to men, not infants.

The children that Jesus said do not forbid them to come unto me,for such IS the Kingdom. If some of you picked up a child you would say the opposite. When and what sin did it commit. What Law did it transgress. When did it walk in the flesh? Sure it takes the blood and Jesus resurrection, for that is how "death" is conquered. Adam brought that death by his sin and passed the death on to us all. None of us have to sin, to die the natural death, Adam took care of that for us. None of us would ever get out of the grave either, including infants, if not for the blood and resurrection of Christ. Everyone will be resurrected, but to have to suffer the second death, you have to have sinned against God. Infants never reached the knowledge to sin against God and neither did the mental impaired. You don't have no scripture to say so, you just have scripture to men that you apply to infants and you "suppose".

I said there were many who believed infants went to hell and I am glad now some of you have come forward and being honest about your belief. I admire someone who will stand for what they believe and not try and hide it because it does not go with the flow.

Bob

I am not sure how a clean thing comes out of an unclean one. IE How does an innocent baby come out from a guilty sinner? I am not alone in this, it puzzled Job and Bildad as well....

Job 14:4 Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean ? not one.

Job 25:4 How then can man be justified with God? or how can he be clean that is born of a woman?

And then the age old verse of disputation.
Ps 51:5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.

It is hard to be dogmatic in favour of infant innocense in light of such verses.


BGTF

 

[Brother Bob]

ByGracethroughFaith;

Bob

I am not sure how a clean thing comes out of an unclean one. IE How does an innocent baby come out from a guilty sinner? I am not alone in this, it puzzled Job and Bildad as well....

Job 14:4 Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean ? not one. (Job 14: )


1: Man that is born of a woman is of few days, and full of trouble.
2: He cometh forth like a flower, and is cut down: he fleeth also as a shadow, and continueth not. (if we could all be flowers, in the Master's bouquet, wouldn't it be nice? She is the Lilly of the valley! She is but one, the choice one of her mother, who bore her.)


Job 25:4 How then can man be justified with God? or how can he be clean that is born of a woman?

And then the age old verse of disputation.
Ps 51:5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me. (I do wish brethren would quit using this scripture to condemn infants. David was not even there when he was conceived, only the mother and father. There was no David, until after the conception.) So we should not lay this charge to the infant, who was not at conception. Surely you do not believe David was standing around while the conception was taking place?

It is hard to be dogmatic in favour of infant innocense in light of such verses.

I do believe we have scripture. I find not scripture written to infants.

Mat 19:14But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven. (not going to be, but already is)

I appreciate your honesty though, many will not speak up.

 

[Jim1999]

If one truly studies John Calvin, he will realize that even he did not claim infant innocence. Hence, he taught covenant theology, and the promise made by the parents in their form of infant baptism. Even in the Church of England, we were taught that original sin was covered in our baptism,but it was still important to realize salvation in our confirmation.

At what point we lose that "protection" and fall back into a sinful state, I have no clue..then, I did become a Baptist, didn't I?

The only scripture we have to lean on is when David said he would see his newborn, who died, in heaven. On this scripture we based the whole humanitarian concept of innocence up to the age of understanding,,whatever that is.

One of my early functions in ministry was the funeral of an infant. I had to wrestle with this issue for many hours. I too came to rest in that one scripture that all children are covered by the blood.

I will never reconcile all my beliefs by a scripture, try as I may. Essential doctrines, yes, but when it comes to the peripheral doctrines, I don't have any problem using reason and reasonability. Infant conversion is one of those.

Incidentally, when Jesus was talking about children..."such is the kingdom..." He was not talking about a child, per se, but the child-like trust. So, we are to be of that innocent, trusting mentality in the kingdom....and the same shall apply in heaven.

Cheers,

Jim

 

[ReformedBaptist]

I will never reconcile all my beliefs by a scripture, try as I may. Essential doctrines, yes, but when it comes to the peripheral doctrines, I don't have any problem using reason and reasonability. Infant conversion is one of those.

:thumbs: Amen brother.

 

[Helen]

GracethroughFaith, you need to check the context of at least one of your support verses. Job 25 is Bildad speaking, one of Job's detractors. It is a short chapter, so here it is:

Then Bildad the Shuhite replite:
"Dominion and awe belong to God;
he established order in the heights of heaven.
Can his forces be numbered?
Upon whom does his light not rise?
How then can a man be righteous before God?
How can one born of woman be pure?
If even the moon is not bright
and the stars are not pure in his eyes,
how much less a man, who is but a maggot --
a son of man, who is only a worm!"

That's the entire chapter. Let me answer some of his questions.

How can a man be righteous before God? Through Christ.
How can one born of woman be pure? Christ.

Is a man a maggot? No, man is a special creation in the image of God.

Bildad was having some major theological problems, in other words, and it is probably better not to take his words as some kind of support for any biblical theology.

Infant innocence is simply a fact. Sin nature is not the same as having commited a sin. A child, for a picture example, can be born blind, but he cannot stumble into something until he can at least crawl, if not walk. A child can be born with a sin nature, and all are -- but until that child is old enough to actually discern right from wrong, knowing the law (see Romans 7), then he cannot volitionally sin. And until that happens, he is covered by Christ's sacrifice, which was also for unknown and unintentional sins.

It should also be noted that even if someone is convinced that an infant, before he or she can do anything, is somehow a sinner, that is already covered by Christ who tasted death for everyone. That's in Hebrews 2. In 2 Corinthians 5 we find the same: "For Christ's love compels us, because we are convinced that one died for all, and therefore all died. And he died for all, that those who live should no longer live for themselves but for him who died for them and was raised again." (v.14-15)

Or again, in Romans 3: "This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, for all have sinned and fall whort of the glory of God AND ARE JUSTIFIED FREELY BY HIS GRACE THROUGH THE REDEMPTION THAT CAME BY CHRIST JESUS."

The subject of that sentence is all, and there is a double verb: "have sinned" and "are justified". Justification is for all. What a man chooses to do in response to that is up to him, contrary to reformed theology. That is why the Bible begs men, time and again, to seek God, to respond to Him, turn to Him and be saved. Justification and salvation are entirely different things. Justification paves the way for salvation but it is not salvation. All infants are justified, for they are part of the 'all'.

So there is a further argument concerning children and salvation, even added to the arguments already posted regarding children's angels always seeing the face of the Father and the kingdom of Heaven belonging to such as them. First, they have not commited any sin and you cannot be guilty of sin if you did not commit one. That is simple logic. Second, even if, by some perverse twist, an infant could actually sin, that sin is already covered by Christ and the infant is justified. Thus, until he or she can consciously rebel against God (again, see Romans 7), any sin they commit has not power to separate them from God, for death is separation and Paul tells us clearly in Romans 7 that until the law came to life for him, sin itself was dead. Not absent, but dead, powerless to separate him from God. So no matter at what age a child is actually capable of sinning, that sin cannot separate him from God until he is old enough to understand/comprehend the law of God and rebel against it.

So NO infants or children are lost to God. This is the key as to why He commanded them to be killed by the Israelites when the Promised Land was invaded. This is the key to why even the children before the Flood or in Sodom and the cities of the plain were killed in those catastrophes as children are today: if there is no chance for a child to grow up knowing there is a choice, God claims the child back. That is the key to understanding the discussion between Abraham and God before Sodom was destroyed. Fifty righteous men? 45? 30? The number keeps decreasing. Finally it is evident there are no righteous men in Sodom except Lot (which does not mean he was terrific, only that he was a believer in the Promise of a Redeemer, as all righteousness is in Christ), and therefore no one to teach the children something different than the evil filth they were being raised with.

And the children are God's. He took them back. It seems awful on our side of things, and totally merciful on His.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

GracethroughFaith, you need to check the context of at least one of your support verses. Job 25 is Bildad speaking, one of Job's detractors. It is a short chapter, so here it is:

Then Bildad the Shuhite replite:
"Dominion and awe belong to God;
he established order in the heights of heaven.
Can his forces be numbered?
Upon whom does his light not rise?
How then can a man be righteous before God?
How can one born of woman be pure?
If even the moon is not bright
and the stars are not pure in his eyes,
how much less a man, who is but a maggot --
a son of man, who is only a worm!"

That's the entire chapter. Let me answer some of his questions.

How can a man be righteous before God? Through Christ.
How can one born of woman be pure? Christ.

Is a man a maggot? No, man is a special creation in the image of God.

Bildad was having some major theological problems, in other words, and it is probably better not to take his words as some kind of support for any biblical theology.

Infant innocence is simply a fact. Sin nature is not the same as having commited a sin. A child, for a picture example, can be born blind, but he cannot stumble into something until he can at least crawl, if not walk. A child can be born with a sin nature, and all are -- but until that child is old enough to actually discern right from wrong, knowing the law (see Romans 7), then he cannot volitionally sin. And until that happens, he is covered by Christ's sacrifice, which was also for unknown and unintentional sins.

It should also be noted that even if someone is convinced that an infant, before he or she can do anything, is somehow a sinner, that is already covered by Christ who tasted death for everyone. That's in Hebrews 2. In 2 Corinthians 5 we find the same: "For Christ's love compels us, because we are convinced that one died for all, and therefore all died. And he died for all, that those who live should no longer live for themselves but for him who died for them and was raised again." (v.14-15)

Or again, in Romans 3: "This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, for all have sinned and fall whort of the glory of God AND ARE JUSTIFIED FREELY BY HIS GRACE THROUGH THE REDEMPTION THAT CAME BY CHRIST JESUS."

The subject of that sentence is all, and there is a double verb: "have sinned" and "are justified". Justification is for all. What a man chooses to do in response to that is up to him, contrary to reformed theology. That is why the Bible begs men, time and again, to seek God, to respond to Him, turn to Him and be saved. Justification and salvation are entirely different things. Justification paves the way for salvation but it is not salvation. All infants are justified, for they are part of the 'all'.

So there is a further argument concerning children and salvation, even added to the arguments already posted regarding children's angels always seeing the face of the Father and the kingdom of Heaven belonging to such as them. First, they have not commited any sin and you cannot be guilty of sin if you did not commit one. That is simple logic. Second, even if, by some perverse twist, an infant could actually sin, that sin is already covered by Christ and the infant is justified. Thus, until he or she can consciously rebel against God (again, see Romans 7), any sin they commit has not power to separate them from God, for death is separation and Paul tells us clearly in Romans 7 that until the law came to life for him, sin itself was dead. Not absent, but dead, powerless to separate him from God. So no matter at what age a child is actually capable of sinning, that sin cannot separate him from God until he is old enough to understand/comprehend the law of God and rebel against it.

So NO infants or children are lost to God. This is the key as to why He commanded them to be killed by the Israelites when the Promised Land was invaded. This is the key to why even the children before the Flood or in Sodom and the cities of the plain were killed in those catastrophes as children are today: if there is no chance for a child to grow up knowing there is a choice, God claims the child back. That is the key to understanding the discussion between Abraham and God before Sodom was destroyed. Fifty righteous men? 45? 30? The number keeps decreasing. Finally it is evident there are no righteous men in Sodom except Lot (which does not mean he was terrific, only that he was a believer in the Promise of a Redeemer, as all righteousness is in Christ), and therefore no one to teach the children something different than the evil filth they were being raised with.

And the children are God's. He took them back. It seems awful on our side of things, and totally merciful on His.

I should start a thread on the atonement.

 

[ByGracethroughFaith]

GracethroughFaith, you need to check the context of at least one of your support verses. Job 25 is Bildad speaking, one of Job's detractors. It is a short chapter, so here it is:

Then Bildad the Shuhite replite:
"Dominion and awe belong to God;
he established order in the heights of heaven.
Can his forces be numbered?
Upon whom does his light not rise?
How then can a man be righteous before God?
How can one born of woman be pure?
If even the moon is not bright
and the stars are not pure in his eyes,
how much less a man, who is but a maggot --
a son of man, who is only a worm!"

That's the entire chapter. Let me answer some of his questions.

How can a man be righteous before God? Through Christ.
How can one born of woman be pure? Christ.

Is a man a maggot? No, man is a special creation in the image of God.

Bildad was having some major theological problems, in other words, and it is probably better not to take his words as some kind of support for any biblical theology.

Infant innocence is simply a fact. Sin nature is not the same as having commited a sin. A child, for a picture example, can be born blind, but he cannot stumble into something until he can at least crawl, if not walk. A child can be born with a sin nature, and all are -- but until that child is old enough to actually discern right from wrong, knowing the law (see Romans 7), then he cannot volitionally sin. And until that happens, he is covered by Christ's sacrifice, which was also for unknown and unintentional sins.

It should also be noted that even if someone is convinced that an infant, before he or she can do anything, is somehow a sinner, that is already covered by Christ who tasted death for everyone. That's in Hebrews 2. In 2 Corinthians 5 we find the same: "For Christ's love compels us, because we are convinced that one died for all, and therefore all died. And he died for all, that those who live should no longer live for themselves but for him who died for them and was raised again." (v.14-15)

Or again, in Romans 3: "This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, for all have sinned and fall whort of the glory of God AND ARE JUSTIFIED FREELY BY HIS GRACE THROUGH THE REDEMPTION THAT CAME BY CHRIST JESUS."

The subject of that sentence is all, and there is a double verb: "have sinned" and "are justified". Justification is for all. What a man chooses to do in response to that is up to him, contrary to reformed theology. That is why the Bible begs men, time and again, to seek God, to respond to Him, turn to Him and be saved. Justification and salvation are entirely different things. Justification paves the way for salvation but it is not salvation. All infants are justified, for they are part of the 'all'.

So there is a further argument concerning children and salvation, even added to the arguments already posted regarding children's angels always seeing the face of the Father and the kingdom of Heaven belonging to such as them. First, they have not commited any sin and you cannot be guilty of sin if you did not commit one. That is simple logic. Second, even if, by some perverse twist, an infant could actually sin, that sin is already covered by Christ and the infant is justified. Thus, until he or she can consciously rebel against God (again, see Romans 7), any sin they commit has not power to separate them from God, for death is separation and Paul tells us clearly in Romans 7 that until the law came to life for him, sin itself was dead. Not absent, but dead, powerless to separate him from God. So no matter at what age a child is actually capable of sinning, that sin cannot separate him from God until he is old enough to understand/comprehend the law of God and rebel against it.

So NO infants or children are lost to God. This is the key as to why He commanded them to be killed by the Israelites when the Promised Land was invaded. This is the key to why even the children before the Flood or in Sodom and the cities of the plain were killed in those catastrophes as children are today: if there is no chance for a child to grow up knowing there is a choice, God claims the child back. That is the key to understanding the discussion between Abraham and God before Sodom was destroyed. Fifty righteous men? 45? 30? The number keeps decreasing. Finally it is evident there are no righteous men in Sodom except Lot (which does not mean he was terrific, only that he was a believer in the Promise of a Redeemer, as all righteousness is in Christ), and therefore no one to teach the children something different than the evil filth they were being raised with.

And the children are God's. He took them back. It seems awful on our side of things, and totally merciful on His.

Infant innocence is simply a fact. -I respectfully disagree


Sin nature is not the same as having commited a sin. -I agree with you on that one.

Yes, we were created in the image of God, but have since fallen. Since the fall, the mere proneness to sin (SIN, aka original sin) of an individual is considered an abomination in God's sight, without adding to it by our actions (SINS).


BGTF

 

[Helen]

Infant innocence is simply a fact. -I respectfully disagree

of what is an infant guilty of, please? Remember, without the law, sin is dead. In fact, Paul tells us that the law informs us what sin is. What comprehension does an infant have, that he or she can sin? What sin can he or she commit? Crying? That's a sin? Hunger? That's a sin? Wanting to be held or comforted? That's a sin? When our oldest daughter was an infant, she did not sleep through the night for three years. In fact, I don't think she slept more than two hours at a time for three years! I was going nuts! She seemed to be angry all the time, or at least a good part of it. We learned that if we took pictures of her when she was screaming, it looked like she was laughing -- hey...you take what you can get!

When she was seventeen she was diagnosed with reflex sympathetic dystrophy -- main symptom is pain. Was she sinning all those years she could not sleep and was crying? No, she was in pain probably. That's a sin?

Sin nature is not the same as having commited a sin.

-I agree with you on that one.

You may agree in theory, but you don't seem to agree in practice. You are stating that even an infant can sin. No, they cannot. They have sin natures, but cannot yet sin. They also have muscles for walking, but cannot yet walk. Same basic thing on a different level.

Yes, we were created in the image of God, but have since fallen. Since the fall, the mere proneness to sin (SIN, aka original sin) of an individual is considered an abomination in God's sight, without adding to it by our actions (SINS).


BGTF

Sorry, but we are still in the image of God, being spiritual beings, albeit in physical bodies. Please note what God said to Noah, which was definitely AFTER the Fall!

Whoever sheds the blood of man,
by man shall his blood be shed;
for in the image of God
has God made man.

Genesis 9:6

I doubt seriously you would want to tell God He didn't know what He was talking about!

In the meantime, can you please reference to me where the prone-ness to sin is an abomination to God? Thank you.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

of what is an infant guilty of, please? Remember, without the law, sin is dead. In fact, Paul tells us that the law informs us what sin is. What comprehension does an infant have, that he or she can sin? What sin can he or she commit? Crying? That's a sin? Hunger? That's a sin? Wanting to be held or comforted? That's a sin? When our oldest daughter was an infant, she did not sleep through the night for three years. In fact, I don't think she slept more than two hours at a time for three years! I was going nuts! She seemed to be angry all the time, or at least a good part of it. We learned that if we took pictures of her when she was screaming, it looked like she was laughing -- hey...you take what you can get!

When she was seventeen she was diagnosed with reflex sympathetic dystrophy -- main symptom is pain. Was she sinning all those years she could not sleep and was crying? No, she was in pain probably. That's a sin?




You may agree in theory, but you don't seem to agree in practice. You are stating that even an infant can sin. No, they cannot. They have sin natures, but cannot yet sin. They also have muscles for walking, but cannot yet walk. Same basic thing on a different level.



Sorry, but we are still in the image of God, being spiritual beings, albeit in physical bodies. Please note what God said to Noah, which was definitely AFTER the Fall!

Whoever sheds the blood of man,
by man shall his blood be shed;
for in the image of God
has God made man.

Genesis 9:6

I doubt seriously you would want to tell God He didn't know what He was talking about!

In the meantime, can you please reference to me where the prone-ness to sin is an abomination to God? Thank you.

Ok, the atonement and original sin needs to be covered. :laugh:

 

[moondg]

Can someone start a poll were we can vote. Not that it matters I just want to see the numbers.

When infants die they go to Heaven. yes_____ or no___

Nothing else no comments just Yes or No.

 

[webdog]

of what is an infant guilty of, please? Remember, without the law, sin is dead. In fact, Paul tells us that the law informs us what sin is. What comprehension does an infant have, that he or she can sin? What sin can he or she commit? Crying? That's a sin? Hunger? That's a sin? Wanting to be held or comforted? That's a sin? When our oldest daughter was an infant, she did not sleep through the night for three years. In fact, I don't think she slept more than two hours at a time for three years! I was going nuts! She seemed to be angry all the time, or at least a good part of it. We learned that if we took pictures of her when she was screaming, it looked like she was laughing -- hey...you take what you can get!

When she was seventeen she was diagnosed with reflex sympathetic dystrophy -- main symptom is pain. Was she sinning all those years she could not sleep and was crying? No, she was in pain probably. That's a sin?




You may agree in theory, but you don't seem to agree in practice. You are stating that even an infant can sin. No, they cannot. They have sin natures, but cannot yet sin. They also have muscles for walking, but cannot yet walk. Same basic thing on a different level.



Sorry, but we are still in the image of God, being spiritual beings, albeit in physical bodies. Please note what God said to Noah, which was definitely AFTER the Fall!

Whoever sheds the blood of man,
by man shall his blood be shed;
for in the image of God
has God made man.

Genesis 9:6

I doubt seriously you would want to tell God He didn't know what He was talking about!

In the meantime, can you please reference to me where the prone-ness to sin is an abomination to God? Thank you.

Good post Helen. This was the point I have been trying to make the last few days. We are sinners because we sin. We don't sin because we are sinners.

 

[Brother Bob]

Good post Helen;

BBob

I think Christ was saying of such IS the Kingdom. He didn't say nothing about anything except they are the Kingdom.

I don't need any more scripture but God gave me some. Such as, He cometh forth as a "flower". Consider the lillies. they don't toil, but yet look at the beauty. Don't be blinded to what God is telling you when he says they cometh forth as a flower.

BBob,

 

[ByGracethroughFaith]

of what is an infant guilty of, please? Remember, without the law, sin is dead. In fact, Paul tells us that the law informs us what sin is. What comprehension does an infant have, that he or she can sin? What sin can he or she commit? Crying? That's a sin? Hunger? That's a sin? Wanting to be held or comforted? That's a sin? When our oldest daughter was an infant, she did not sleep through the night for three years. In fact, I don't think she slept more than two hours at a time for three years! I was going nuts! She seemed to be angry all the time, or at least a good part of it. We learned that if we took pictures of her when she was screaming, it looked like she was laughing -- hey...you take what you can get!

When she was seventeen she was diagnosed with reflex sympathetic dystrophy -- main symptom is pain. Was she sinning all those years she could not sleep and was crying? No, she was in pain probably. That's a sin?




You may agree in theory, but you don't seem to agree in practice. You are stating that even an infant can sin. No, they cannot. They have sin natures, but cannot yet sin. They also have muscles for walking, but cannot yet walk. Same basic thing on a different level.



Sorry, but we are still in the image of God, being spiritual beings, albeit in physical bodies. Please note what God said to Noah, which was definitely AFTER the Fall!

Whoever sheds the blood of man,
by man shall his blood be shed;
for in the image of God
has God made man.

Genesis 9:6

I doubt seriously you would want to tell God He didn't know what He was talking about!

In the meantime, can you please reference to me where the prone-ness to sin is an abomination to God? Thank you.

What I am saying is that just like it dwells in Paul and myself, sin dwells in an infant. They are guilty of being born to depraved parents in a fallen world.

Rom 7:15-20
15 For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I. 16 If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good. 17 Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. 18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not. 19 For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do. 20 Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.

We sin because we are sinners by nature. If that is not the case, I challenge whoever doubts that to exercise their power over it, and never sin again.

Here is a great book on the topic.

http://www.gospeltruth.net/sos/sos_titlepage.htm


BGTF

 

[Amy.G]

Maybe someone has answered this, I haven't read the whole thread, but how is the atonement applied to an infant? It's not through faith as they can't have any.
I believe there is an age of accoutability, but that doesn't mean that sin hasn't been committed up until that point, just that a child is not held accountable to God until a certain age (of which only God can know, IMHO). Very young children disobey, even lie. My own son at the age of 2 shook his finger in my face one day and said "you don't tell ME what to do!". I am still flabbergasted when I think of it! :laugh: I am positive that God did not hold him accountable for that, but it certainly shows that there was a sinful nature popping out of him. At that age children are also very selfish....mine, mine, mine. Even hitting each other to get what they want. No doubt that sin is at work in them.
So, even if they aren't held accountable, they still need a Savior.
I'm not saying that infants aren't saved, but how is an infant saved?

 

[TCGreek]

Maybe someone has answered this, I haven't read the whole thread, but how is the atonement applied to an infant? It's not through faith as they can't have any.
I believe there is an age of accoutability, but that doesn't mean that sin hasn't been committed up until that point, just that a child is not held accountable to God until a certain age (of which only God can know, IMHO). Very young children disobey, even lie. My own son at the age of 2 shook his finger in my face one day and said "you don't tell ME what to do!". I am still flabbergasted when I think of it! :laugh: I am positive that God did not hold him accountable for that, but it certainly shows that there was a sinful nature popping out of him. At that age children are also very selfish....mine, mine, mine. Even hitting each other to get what they want. No doubt that sin is at work in them.
So, even if they aren't held accountable, they still need a Savior.
I'm not saying that infants aren't saved, but how is an infant saved?

Hi Amy,

I made this post earlier:

1. Commenting on Romans 5:12-19, Dr. Millard Erickson, professor of Theology at Baylor university, makes this observation:


Quote:
"We all were involved in Adam's sin, and thus receive both the corrupted nature that as his after the fall, and the guilt and condemnation that attach to his sin. With this matter of guilt, however, just as with the imputation of Christ's righteousness, there must be some conscious and voluntary decision on our part. Until this is the case, there is only a conditional imputation of guilt. Thus, there is no condemnation until one reaches the age of responsibility. If a child dies before becoming capable of making genuine moral decisions, the contingent imputation of Adamic sin does not become actual, and the child will experience the same type of future existence with the Lord as will those who have reached the age of moral responsibility and had their sins forgiven as a result of accepting the offer of salvation based upon Christ's atoning death." (Christian Theology, p.656).

2. I think you will find this quote helpful.

 

[Amy.G]

Thank you TC, yes that is helpful.

 

[Brother Bob]

This shows that we received the natural death from Adam. Maybe someone could point out where we receive the Spiritual death also from Adam?

Also notice, there was a group that had not sinned.

Rom 5:14Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

BBob,

 

[Amy.G]

This shows that we received the natural death from Adam. Maybe someone could point out where we receive the Spiritual death also from Adam?

Also notice, there was a group that had not sinned.

Rom 5:14Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

BBob,

I had missed that verse. Who were these people that had not sinned? Is he talking about babies?

 

[Brother Bob]

I had missed that verse. Who were these people that had not sinned? Is he talking about babies?

Who else could it be. The following scripture takes care of those who are grown up.

Rom 1:21Because that, when they knew God, they glorified [him] not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.