Infants in Heaven

[Marcia]

Christ did eradicate the sin nature with His death and resurrection, else we will carry that into eternity. Christ's death eternally does away with the sin nature which is at enmity with God. This is what an infant has...an infant is not a sinner (one who sins).

If Christ eradicated the sin nature, then I guess Christians don't sin, is that what you believe?

 

[webdog]

But if they are innocent how did they have sin or a sin nature?

Depends on your definition of innocent. If you mean not breaking God's Law with knowledge (which is what sin is), they are innocent. If you mean being part of the human race that has been appointed once to die, they are not.

 

[webdog]

If Christ eradicated the sin nature, then I guess Christians don't sin, is that what you believe?

Upon glorification...yes. Prior to...no. Same holds true with infants.

 

[Marcia]

Upon glorification...yes. Prior to...no. Same holds true with infants.

We are declared righteous with the imputed righteousness of Christ when we are saved, but we still have a sin nature.

So you are saying that infants are automatically declared righteous upon birth? Does that last until they sin, and then they need to believe? Or are they declared righteous right before they die if they are too young to know what sin is?

 

[Me4Him]

But if they are innocent how did they have sin or a sin nature?

Adam's sin condemned all flesh from birth, dust to dust, without exception,

but Adam's sin didn't condemn any other soul than his own,

Born in sin is a soul born in a body of sin, a soul that will obey the flesh even when it knows it's act is a "transgression of the law".

An evil thought is sin, (look/lust) but how many infants can have even so much as an evil thought, much less commit an act it's knows transgresses the law???

Infants die "physically" because of the condemnation of flesh, but not "Spiritually" because the soul has never met the criteria specified by scripture that constitutes sin,

That is knowing the law, knowing sin, and transgressing the law.

Joh 9:41 Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth.

Infants are "blind" to sin.

King David knew that when he spoke of his dead son.

 

[webdog]

We are declared righteous with the imputed righteousness of Christ when we are saved, but we still have a sin nature.

So you are saying that infants are automatically declared righteous upon birth? Does that last until they sin, and then they need to believe? Or are they declared righteous right before they die if they are too young to know what sin is?

Sinners need saving, by definition of what it means to be saved. Infants are not held accountable in the same way sinners are...they have not violated God's Law. Adam and Eve didn't need saving until after they sinned, although infants are affected by the curse with death being spread to all. Christ's blood covers them, and He is their advocate before the Father. Justice demands that those who are not guilty do not get punished. Did Adam and Eve need faith in Christ prior to the fall to remain spiritually alive?

 

[Marcia]

Sinners need saving, by definition of what it means to be saved. Infants are not held accountable in the same way sinners are...they have not violated God's Law. Adam and Eve didn't need saving until after they sinned, although infants are affected by the curse with death being spread to all. Christ's blood covers them, and He is their advocate before the Father. Justice demands that those who are not guilty do not get punished. Did Adam and Eve need faith in Christ prior to the fall to remain spiritually alive?

Adam and Eve didn't need saving before they sinned because they did not have a sin nature. If you are comparing infants to Adam and Eve before they sinned, you are denying that infants are born with a sin nature and saying they are born morally innocent or neutral. This is not a biblical view.

Adam's sin makes all those born since guilty. You don't have to commit a sin to be sinful; we are born with a sin nature and a heart in rebellion to God.

 

[webdog]

Adam and Eve didn't need saving before they sinned because they did not have a sin nature. If you are comparing infants to Adam and Eve before they sinned, you are denying that infants are born with a sin nature and saying they are born morally innocent or neutral. This is not a biblical view.

Adam's sin makes all those born since guilty. You don't have to commit a sin to be sinful; we are born with a sin nature and a heart in rebellion to God.

Infants are not spiritually separated from God in the same way Adam and Eve were not. I understand an infant has a sin nature, I have never argued contrary to that, but a nature in itself does not make one guilty of transgressing God's Law, which is how sin is defined. They are not spiritually dead until they transgress God's Law...just like Adam. They are morally innocent, but they are not morally neutral due to the sin nature. Death is the ceasing of life. Everyone dies spiritually. An infant has not reached that point yet.

 

[Marcia]

Infants are not spiritually separated from God in the same way Adam and Eve were not. I understand an infant has a sin nature, I have never argued contrary to that, but a nature in itself does not make one guilty of transgressing God's Law, which is how sin is defined. They are not spiritually dead until they transgress God's Law...just like Adam. They are morally innocent, but they are not morally neutral due to the sin nature. Death is the ceasing of life. Everyone dies spiritually. An infant has not reached that point yet.

I disagree. The sin nature does separate us from God; we are born spiritually dead. Otherwise, you are saying that infants are born regenerated! One is either spiritually dead or spiritually regenerated by the Holy Spirit.

Sin is not just transgressing the law; sin is not being as righteous as God. No one is born righteous.

 

[webdog]

I disagree. The sin nature does separate us from God; we are born spiritually dead. Otherwise, you are saying that infants are born regenerated! One is either spiritually dead or spiritually regenerated by the Holy Spirit.

Sin is not just transgressing the law; sin is not being as righteous as God. No one is born righteous.

The sin nature is not the same thing as our Spirit / Soul which IS separated from God upon sinning. The sin nature is simply our human nature tainted by sin...THAT is at enmity with God, hence death and being appointed unto man once to die...and then...the judgment. Regeneration is being born...again. An infant is not born regenerated...there is no sin to be re-generated from...they are not born dead, which means the ceasing of life, not the non existence of life. Being born righteous and being born not separated from God are apples to oranges.

 

[RAdam]

We've discussed this over and over and over again and again and again I have pointed to that little section of scripture in Romans 5 where Paul plainly states that the means by which we were made sinners, put under condemnation, and put under death was the transgression/offence/disobedience of Adam. You refuse to acknowledge this even though Paul plainly teaches it. That section of scripture isn't one which can be viewed in multiple ways. It isn't unclear and thus open to various interpretations. It is clear and plainly states that we were all made sinners in Adam, we died in Adam, were brought under condemnation in Adam. Every single person in existence needs saving by Jesus Christ because every one are sinners. That sin, the sin of Adam imputed to us, brings forth natural death, which is proof that the infant is a sinner. That sin would, without the grace of God, bring forth eternal death as well.

 

[webdog]

We've discussed this over and over and over again and again and again I have pointed to that little section of scripture in Romans 5 where Paul plainly states that the means by which we were made sinners, put under condemnation, and put under death was the transgression/offence/disobedience of Adam. You refuse to acknowledge this even though Paul plainly teaches it. That section of scripture isn't one which can be viewed in multiple ways. It isn't unclear and thus open to various interpretations. It is clear and plainly states that we were all made sinners in Adam, we died in Adam, were brought under condemnation in Adam. Every single person in existence needs saving by Jesus Christ because every one are sinners. That sin, the sin of Adam imputed to us, brings forth natural death, which is proof that the infant is a sinner. That sin would, without the grace of God, bring forth eternal death as well.

I'm not debating what Paul said in Romans 5...I disagree with YOUR interpretation of what Paul says in Romans 5...HUGE difference. Whether you like it or not, there is another interpretation besides what you supplied. If we don't have to do anything to be placed in Adam...we also need not do anything (including faith) to be placed in Christ. Faith is a requirement for salvation, so there is a condition to be placed in Christ...and the "so as" is also applied backwards to Adam. Remember, dying is the ending of life. There needs to be life in order for it to end, hence the very definition of death.

I don't recall your view of how an infant is saved. Do they need faith in Christ...or do you hold to a different dispensation of salvation for them?

 

[Marcia]

The sin nature is not the same thing as our Spirit / Soul which IS separated from God upon sinning. The sin nature is simply our human nature tainted by sin...THAT is at enmity with God, hence death and being appointed unto man once to die...and then...the judgment. Regeneration is being born...again. An infant is not born regenerated...there is no sin to be re-generated from...they are not born dead, which means the ceasing of life, not the non existence of life. Being born righteous and being born not separated from God are apples to oranges.

Our sin nature is part of our total nature - mind/body/soul or spirit. We are at enmity with God when we are born; our whole nature is infected with the taint of sin and is naturally in rebellion against God.

There is no soul/human nature dichotomy; we are one person, a soul/body/mind unity. Our total self needs salvation.

 

[webdog]

We'll have to agree to disagree at this point. True, the mind, body, soul, etc make up the whole, but like the Trinity, there are distinct components to what makes us "us". I still have a sin nature, and I can tell you that since Christ is my Lord, I no longer need salvation spiritually, but I indeed need saving from this flesh and sin nature, and praise God it will happen.

 

[Marcia]

We'll have to agree to disagree at this point. True, the mind, body, soul, etc make up the whole, but like the Trinity, there are distinct components to what makes us "us". I still have a sin nature, and I can tell you that since Christ is my Lord, I no longer need salvation spiritually, but I indeed need saving from this flesh and sin nature, and praise God it will happen.

Yes, we'll have to disagree. Your view is one that I've never heard taught anywhere since I became a believer, and I feel it is contrary to scripture.

 

[LeBuick]

Yes, we'll have to disagree. Your view is one that I've never heard taught anywhere since I became a believer, and I feel it is contrary to scripture.

I've actually heard his view often when people feel there is no way God will condemn the unborn or infants to an eternity in hades.

I have also heard you point of view since the Bible is clear that all have sinned and are in need of salvation. All is to mean ALL...

I guess it's one of those things we won't know for sure until we get to the kingdom...

 

[RAdam]

I'm not debating what Paul said in Romans 5...I disagree with YOUR interpretation of what Paul says in Romans 5...HUGE difference. Whether you like it or not, there is another interpretation besides what you supplied. If we don't have to do anything to be placed in Adam...we also need not do anything (including faith) to be placed in Christ. Faith is a requirement for salvation, so there is a condition to be placed in Christ...and the "so as" is also applied backwards to Adam. Remember, dying is the ending of life. There needs to be life in order for it to end, hence the very definition of death.

I don't recall your view of how an infant is saved. Do they need faith in Christ...or do you hold to a different dispensation of salvation for them?

The comparison isn't applied backwards to Adam. It begins at Adam and it applied forwards to Christ. Paul begins this comparison/contrast with the news that, "as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that (or in whom) all have sinned." Then Paul goes on to say that Adam was "the figure of him that was to come." Adam was the figure or type of Christ, not the other way around. We look at the type to see the antitype. We look at something about Adam here to understand something about Christ. In this case, Paul looks at the representation of Adam, the effects of that representation, in order to understand the representation of Christ and the effects thereof. He begins each verse with this type of language: not as, so is; if through, much more; as by, even so; as by, so by, etc. First Paul looks at Adam, then at Christ.

How is the infant saved everlastingly to heaven? The same way the adult is. The same way the Jew is. The same way the Gentile is. The same way the mentally handicapped is. The same way the African is. The same way the Asian is. The same way the American is. That is, he/she is saved and called with an holy calling, not according to his/her works, but according to God's own purpose and grace, which was given him/her in Christ Jesus before the world began. God doesn't need different methods of salvation for different peoples, He saves all the same way. "So is everyone that is born of the Spirit."

 

[Allan]

That is, he/she is saved and called with an holy calling,

Regardless of the rest of the discussion here in, this portioin is about as unbiblical as there is. We are not eternally saved first then believe but we are to believe and be eternally saved. It is stated by Jesus and even Paul. Another way of putting it is repent for the remission of sins and repent and be converted that you sins may be blotted out (as stated by Peter).

Now it could be that you mispoke and reversed this and if so - no biggy :thumbs:
However any view that assumes we are eternally saved prior to faith needs to be thrown out.

 

[Aaron]

We believe that this passage bears directly on the issue of infant salvation, and that the accomplished work of Christ has removed the stain of original sin from those who die in infancy. Knowing neither good nor evil, these young children are incapable of committing sins in the body – are not yet moral agents – and die secure in the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ.

In other words, infants are saved because of an intrinsic value, because they deserve to be, and not because of grace through faith.

Hogwash.

 

[webdog]

In other words, infants are saved because of an intrinsic value, because they deserve to be, and not because of grace through faith.

Hogwash.

No, because "not guilty" people are not punished. You and OR are both wrong.