Infants in Heaven

[Allan]

They are not using God's standard, they are using their own. Thus they call evil good, and good evil. If they were using God's standard they would call good good, and evil evil.

Yes. And they are trying to place it up to what? A previously held standard. And who established that standard? God.

Thus they are trying to turn evil into good so they, in fact are using God's standard in which to elevate something evil to become good. They are trying to be like the redeemed and God - accaptable.

 

[RAdam]

Isaiah 26:10 - Let favor be shewed to the wicked, yet will he not learn righteousness: in the land of uprightness will he deal unjustly, and will not behold the majesty of the Lord.

The wicked are not going to use God's standard, ever. They hate God's standard, they hate God's law, they hate righteousness. They will not learn it. Rather, they will deal unjustly. Paul said, "I delight in the law of God after the inward man." His inward man delighted in the law of God, not his flesh. You aren't going to find someone who wants to please God, fullfill His commandments, delights in His law, until that person has been born of God.

 

[RAdam]

How then do you explain James 2 where he says that Abraham wasn't only justified by faith but also by works?

 

[Allan]

Isaiah 26:10 - Let favor be shewed to the wicked, yet will he not learn righteousness: in the land of uprightness will he deal unjustly, and will not behold the majesty of the Lord.

The wicked are not going to use God's standard, ever. They hate God's standard, they hate God's law, they hate righteousness. They will not learn it. Rather, they will deal unjustly. Paul said, "I delight in the law of God after the inward man." His inward man delighted in the law of God, not his flesh. You aren't going to find someone who wants to please God, fullfill His commandments, delights in His law, until that person has been born of God.

Again you miss the point. I am not saying they are seeking to live up to God's standard. But that standard has a position and from that position one if one is judged against it, then they are either guilty or accepted. Thus their desire to do such (exhalt wickedness to make it good) shows that justification is equated with God, His character, and salvation. Thus they are wanting to change what is considered justified but still maintaining it's position from which judgment must be made against it.

 

[Amy.G]

How then do you explain James 2 where he says that Abraham wasn't only justified by faith but also by works?

One thing that may help to understand this is that James is not talking about works of the Law, but works of love. We are not justified (saved) by works of the Law as is clearly taught by Paul. James is not contradicting Paul's teachings but rather saying that our works (out of love for God) are the result of our salvation (justification). Taken in context of the whole subject James is speaking of, this is clear.

 

[Allan]

One thing that may help to understand this is that James is not talking about works of the Law, but works of love. We are not justified (saved) by works of the Law as is clearly taught by Paul. James is not contradicting Paul's teachings but rather saying that our works (out of love for God) are the result of our salvation (justification). Taken in context of the whole subject James is speaking of, this is clear.

To add to this he needs to understand that works do not justifiy us but works 'done in faith' are justified. Nothing is accepted by God from us except that it be through faith.

The works that James is speaking of is the fruit of faith - thus we are justifed (established in righteousness) because of what we do with respect to our faith. To say you have faith but do nothing with it shows you have no faith, only an opinion.

 

[RAdam]

So are you justified by faith (placing faith in Christ) or by works wrought in faith? And if justification is synonomous with the new birth, is one born again when he is justified by faith or by works?

 

[RAdam]

One thing that may help to understand this is that James is not talking about works of the Law, but works of love. We are not justified (saved) by works of the Law as is clearly taught by Paul. James is not contradicting Paul's teachings but rather saying that our works (out of love for God) are the result of our salvation (justification). Taken in context of the whole subject James is speaking of, this is clear.

The problem is James says Abraham wasn't justified by faith only, but also by works. If justification by faith is eternal salvation, then justification by works must be as well, according to James.

Look, I'm not advocating that James is teaching that we are saved eternally by works, but according to your view of justification by faith, the logical conclusion is that James is. This is the problem that many are having with reconciling the teachings of James and Paul and it is born out of a misunderstanding and misapplication of justification by faith.

 

[Allan]

The problem is James says Abraham wasn't justified by faith only, but also by works. If justification by faith is eternal salvation, then justification by works must be as well, according to James.

Look, I'm not advocating that James is teaching that we are saved eternally by works, but according to your view of justification by faith, the logical conclusion is that James is. This is the problem that many are having with reconciling the teachings of James and Paul and it is born out of a misunderstanding and misapplication of justification by faith.

James didn't advocate anything less than those same truths espoused Paul, Peter, and no less than Jesus Himself. I would encourage you to do some studying on James and look into some of those Reformers who hold to the doctrines of Grace that you claim to also hold. You clearly are missing James whole piont

 

[RAdam]

I'm not missing James' point, nor am I advocating that he is not in harmony with the other apostles and Jesus. I'm saying that the logical conclusion of your position on justification leads one to ask these questions.

Paul says Abraham was justified by faith in Genesis 15:6. You say that was when he was born again, or justified eternally. Ok, James points to that same text, and then says that Abraham wasn't only justified by faith during his life, pointing to Genesis 22. James says Abraham was justified by works also, not only by faith. Now, if justification by faith is eternal, I must conclude that by works is as well, and we have a problem here.

However, if justification by faith is a timely blessing (called by Paul a "blessedness"), something Abraham was blessed to enjoy during his active walk by faith after God (discipleship), then there's no problem. James is discussing discipleship too. We, as faithful followers of God, ought to perform good works wrought in faith. If we say we are faith and do not good works, we are like the person who tells someone who is cold and hungry to be warm and filled though he gives that person nothing that would actually help him. How do we see Abraham's faith? By his works. We see this great example of faith at work when Abraham took his son up that mountain to sacrifice him in obedience to God. Thus Abraham is said to be justified by works.

 

[Allan]

Paul says Abraham was justified by faith in Genesis 15:6. You say that was when he was born again, or justified eternally. Ok, James points to that same text, and then says that Abraham wasn't only justified by faith during his life, pointing to Genesis 22. James says Abraham was justified by works also, not only by faith. Now, if justification by faith is eternal, I must conclude that by works is as well, and we have a problem here.

Then yes, you have completely missed his point. We are justified by faith and the works which that faith produces establishes that eternal justification. Again please read most any of the reformed faith to get a better understanding of this which you see to be confused over.

Secondly, I never stated that justification means being born again at all times.

Tell me, are you or do you hold to the primitive bsptist positions?
I have asked this of you on 2 maybe three other occassions but you never answer it. I only wish to know so I can know better 'how' you understand certain things and whether even discussing this will mean anything.

 

[RAdam]

You have asked and I have answered in the affirmative at least one already.

There's no confusion on my part, there's inconsistency on yours. James said a man is justified by works as well as faith. Ok, you said that justification by faith is eternal. How then can one not come to the logical conclusion that justification by works as expressed by James, by your understanding of it, is also eternal?

Obviously, James isn't teaching that works wrought in faith are what justify us absolutely, eternally before God. My point is that your position can only bring forth the wrong conclusion that it does. There's inconsistency between the idea that my faith in Christ is what has justified me eternally, and the idea that works wrought in faith don't. James isn't telling us that Abraham was in a perishing condition until Genesis 22. Paul, also, isn't telling us that Abraham was in a perishing condition until Genesis 15:6. Abraham was already born again by the start of the 12th chapter of Genesis. How do I know that? He followed after God by faith, leaving his homeland and now knowing where he was going. Find me one person in a perishing condition with such strong faith. I'll tell you what, find me modern day Christians with such strong faith in God. Do I have such faith? I would like to believe so, but if I was command to go without knowing where I was going I can't definitively say I would answer like Abraham.

What then is justification by faith? It is a blessedness that comes upon believers, the promised seed of Abraham among the Jews and Gentiles, when they come to trust not in their own righteousness but rather believe in Him that justifieth the ungodly.

 

[Marcia]

Do some people here actually believe that one must commit a sin and/or know the law in order to be guilty and deserve eternal death? This is not the historic view of Christianity, as far as I know, nor is it biblical.

All are born with a sinful nature; a natural rebellion in the heart. Everyone is born deserving death and everyone needs the righteousness of Christ in order to have eternal life.

 

[Jim1999]

If there are infants in heaven, then there are also old men! Not sure I like that at all. I was hoping to get rid of this old body.

Yes, I believe in original Adamic sin from which we need redemption. If any infants enter glory it is at the absolute mercy of God and nothing to do with scriptural redemption.

Cheers,

Jim

 

[Amy.G]

Do some people here actually believe that one must commit a sin and/or know the law in order to be guilty and deserve eternal death? This is not the historic view of Christianity, as far as I know, nor is it biblical.

All are born with a sinful nature; a natural rebellion in the heart. Everyone is born deserving death and everyone needs the righteousness of Christ in order to have eternal life.

What I have been taught in the Baptist Church and also what I see in scripture is that we all inherit the sin nature which is passed from one generation to the other. But having a nature to sin is not the same as willingly and knowingly transgressing the Law of God. It is a matter of accountability. Children sin, that is indisputable. They do so "naturally" as it is in their nature to do so, but they do not understand that their behavior is transgression against God. They do not understand that they will be held accountable for it and that it's consequence is death. But there is a point in their lives at which they will understand it and it's at that point that God will hold them accountable and the only remedy is to exercise faith in Christ.

Just as there was a sacrifice made in the OT for unintentional sin, there is also a sacrifice for the unintentional sin of children, that being the sacrifice of Christ, which covers the sins of children, even the sin nature and the corruptible body.

 

[Marcia]

What I have been taught in the Baptist Church and also what I see in scripture is that we all inherit the sin nature which is passed from one generation to the other. But having a nature to sin is not the same as willingly and knowingly transgressing the Law of God. It is a matter of accountability. Children sin, that is indisputable. They do so "naturally" as it is in their nature to do so, but they do not understand that their behavior is transgression against God..

I agree; however, just being born with a sin nature is enough to condemn us to hell. This is always been the view in Christianity other than Plegianism, which stated that people are born morally neutral. This was declared a heresy.


Posted by Jim1999

Yes, I believe in original Adamic sin from which we need redemption. If any infants enter glory it is at the absolute mercy of God and nothing to do with scriptural redemption.

I agree. I think infants are saved by grace. We are all saved by grace but those who can have faith are saved by grace through faith.

It's not a matter of whether one knowingly commits a sin or not as to whether one needs salvation.

 

[Amy.G]

I agree; however, just being born with a sin nature is enough to condemn us to hell. .

I agree and that is why I said that the sacrifice of Christ (His blood) covers the sin nature of children.

 

[Marcia]

I agree and that is why I said that the sacrifice of Christ (His blood) covers the sin nature of children.

Yes, through God's grace. I still believe one must be regenerated and I think God does this by grace with infants and young children (and those born mentally impaired).

 

[Jim1999]

IF the sin of infants are covered automatically BECAUSE they are innocent infants, then why did so many churches down through history sprinkle (baptize) infants to rid them of original sin?

Cheers,

Jim

 

[Amy.G]

IF the sin of infants are covered automatically BECAUSE they are innocent infants, then why did so many churches down through history sprinkle (baptize) infants to rid them of original sin?

Cheers,

Jim

Because they were wrong? Water does not rid one of sin, only the blood of Christ.