Original Sin

[skypair]

Now, in relation to this thread (I hope) and the arguments on babies and infants that the OP spawned lately about no babies going to hell, and in other threads, God not having elected anyone to salvation and vice-versa, I would like to know how this song can be true, when this song is true, and why this song is true.

And for the record, I do not believe infants who die in infancy, or in the womb, ever go to hell. I believe in God's omniscience He knew every person in this planet who will die in infancy and in the womb, and therefore He took care of their destination.

pinoy, russell,

Your theology is good -- now here's why. There is a postrib "resurrection of the just." The "just" are those who have been given the righteousness of God either because of innocence (infants) or because of faith in the God of the OT (remember, they didn't have Christ yet).

In that resurrection, those saints will be resurrected with what mind, emotions and will they left the earth/life with. OT saints will automatically see Messiah/Christ and receive. Infants will grow up (Isa 49:20-23) and either believe or reject Christ. Thus, EVERY soul will come through Christ.

skypair

 

[webdog]

John 1:12 - John 1:12 - For as many as received Him, to them gave He the power to become sons of God, even to them that believe on the Name of the Son of God;
John 1:13 - Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of men, but of God.

Now I throw the challenge back at you. Here is the verse: Prove through this same verse, that their being born by the will of God, did not precede their receiving Christ, even their believing on the Name of the Son of God.
John 1:13 - Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of men, but of God.

ummm...does verse 12 come AFTER verse 13 in your Bible?

 

[webdog]

Yes, but they believe that elect infants are regenerated by the Spirit and as a result have faith, although it will be faith that is a little different than that of a capable adult.

Please prove from Scripture that there are different "brands" of faith...that babies have faith, or the ability to have faith...

Remember, that Calvinists believe that faith is a supernatural work of God, and God can work it where he pleases.

I know this is what calvinism teaches, but this is man's theology, as it is not found in Scripture.

Granted, they will not be able to understand the content of the gospel, but in some way we might not be able to comprehend, their attitude toward God will be changed from the estrangement that they are born into.

This is as about false as you can get. Sin is the conscious decision in breaking God's Law. Infants cannot talk, change their own diapers, communicate with their parents...but they can understand breaking God's statutes and the need for a Savior? Proof please, scientific, biblical...anything that can support such a notion.

Elect infants dying in infancy are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit; who worketh when, and where, and how he pleases; so also are all elect persons, who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.

Garbage. More man's theology.

 

[webdog]

You do not agree that it is Christ's faith only that pleased God, and that only Christ's faith is without flaw ?
Surely you jest, my dear friend.

I have no idea what you are saying...

 

[russell55]

Infant baptism, I suppose??

I have no idea what you are referring to.

Innocents HAVE the righteousness of God -- "...for of such is the kingdom of heaven." They don't have the sanctification of one who believes and receives Christ but they are just.

If infants are just, what does it mean when it says we are all "by nature objects of God's wrath"? How can someone just be an object of God's wrath?

So guess what --- after their souls spend a period of time in heaven, their bodies will be resurrected postrib and they will get to choose Christ in another life (which is another thread, I'm sure).

Oh boy.

But your view is probably skewed by some lingering misunderstanding of infant baptism, right?

Once again, you've lost me. I don't believe in infant baptism (never have) and I have no idea what it has to do with this conversation.

 

[russell55]

Webdog,

What does it mean when it says that we are all "by nature objects of God's wrath?"

Does that statement include infants?

 

[skypair]

I have no idea what you are referring to.

I supposed that you were suggesting that infants go to heaven if they were baptized first.

If infants are just, what does it mean when it says we are all "by nature objects of God's wrath"? How can someone just be an object of God's wrath?

It means the same thing as "sin nature." That we are predisposed to sin by our natural "survival instinct." The survival instinct is a good, innocent, necessary mechanism until we comprehend that we can use its devices to get what we want rather than what we need. Then it is only a matter of seeing that the former is sin before we become guilty of our first sin.

Thus, everyone who could hear and comprehend Paul's statement were already "objects of wrath," the cause of which was our "survival instinct" gone bad.

This does 2 things for the Calvinist: 1) It answers the question of how infants avoid going to hell. 2) It confirms that we are NOT burdened from birth with sin guilt nor are some "elect" infants saved by baptism.

skypair

 

[webdog]

Webdog,

What does it mean when it says that we are all "by nature objects of God's wrath?"

Does that statement include infants?

If you are saying what I think you are saying, even after accepting Christ we still would be objects of His wrath as the "sin nature" remains.

 

[russell55]

If you are saying what I think you are saying, even after accepting Christ we still would be objects of His wrath as the "sin nature" remains.

Apparently I am not saying what you think I'm saying, even though I have no idea what you think I'm saying.

And you didn't answer my question. It's pretty straightforward, so I'm not sure why you didn't answer it. Perhaps you missed it.

Are all human beings, including infants, "by nature objects of God's wrath"?

 

[webdog]

Apparently I am not saying what you think I'm saying, even though I have no idea what you think I'm saying.

And you didn't answer my question. It's pretty straightforward, so I'm not sure why you didn't answer it. Perhaps you missed it.

Are all human beings, including infants, "by nature objects of God's wrath"?

What do you base the question on in the first place? There is a difference between nature and guilt. Please clarify...

 

[reformedbeliever]

What do you base the question on in the first place? There is a difference between nature and guilt. Please clarify...

Are you a politician webdog? :laugh:

 

[Pastor Larry]

I was just reading Grudem's systematic Theology on this yesterday. Well worth reading.

 

[Pastor Larry]

You cannot be guilty of something you did not do!

So if you are not charged with Adam's sin, how can you be charged with Christ's righteousness? How can you get righteousness you did not earn if you do not also get guilt you did not earn?

 

[russell55]

What do you base the question on in the first place? There is a difference between nature and guilt. Please clarify...

Yes, there is difference between nature and guilt. I'm not sure what that has to do with my question, and I'm not sure what you mean by "What do you base the question on?", but I'll attempt to answer it anyway.

I base the question on Ephesians 2 where it says "we were by nature objects of wrath, like the rest of mankind." Are infants included in either the we or the rest of mankind who are by nature objects of God's wrath?

 

[skypair]

Are infants included in either the we or the rest of mankind who are by nature objects of God's wrath?

No.

skypair

 

[Pastor Larry]

So if infants aren't "we" or "the rest," then what are they? Where's the middle ground between "we" and "the rest"?

 

[webdog]

Yes, there is difference between nature and guilt. I'm not sure what that has to do with my question, and I'm not sure what you mean by "What do you base the question on?", but I'll attempt to answer it anyway.

I base the question on Ephesians 2 where it says "we were by nature objects of wrath, like the rest of mankind." Are infants included in either the we or the rest of mankind who are by nature objects of God's wrath?

I'll give you the answer I just gave my pastor...

I would like to add in regards to Ephesian 2:3, a common Scripture used to reinforce guilt from birth, that I believe Paul to be speaking of Jews as well as Gentiles in context ("even as the rest"), not the physical sin nature or guilt of a newborn. "Foosis" is used in the NT to show God's creation (nature), the sin nature, and ethnic origin. Galatians 2:15 puts "nature" in context the context it needs to be taken in Ephesians...
Gal 2:15 We are Jews by birth and not "Gentile sinners";
The common misperception that the Gentiles were only the objects of God's wrath, and not the Jews was being touched on. Paul clears this up by stating even the Jews not "in Christ" are the objects of God's wrath, and race plays no part. Ephesians 2:1 and 2:5 are kind of bookends showing that being "dead" comes by our trespassess...what we do, not by the sin nature itself.

 

[webdog]

So if you are not charged with Adam's sin, how can you be charged with Christ's righteousness? How can you get righteousness you did not earn if you do not also get guilt you did not earn?

This is apples and oranges. In order to be charged with Christ's righteousness, His righteousness has to be personally applied to our OWN sin, not the sin of others. Does Christ's blood applied to me cover the sins of my father and mother? Adam?

 

[russell55]

"Foosis" is used in the NT to show God's creation (nature), the sin nature, and ethnic origin. Galatians 2:15 puts "nature" in context the context it needs to be taken in Ephesians...
We are Jews by birth and not "Gentile sinners";

You've given a pretty good definition of the word translated "nature" but you've still not answered the question. I take it you think it means that we (Paul writing) Jews were by birth or by ethnic origin objects of God's wrath even as the gentiles are. I's say it means that we believers were by birth or by our origin objects of God's wrath even as unbelievers still are.

But it really makes no difference. Let's go for a second with your interpretation. Are Jewish babies included in the group that are objects of God's wrath by birth or ethnic origin?

 

[Allan]

You've given a pretty good definition of the word translated "nature" but you've still not answered the question. I take it you think it means that we (Paul writing) Jews were by birth or by ethnic origin objects of God's wrath even as the gentiles are. I's say it means that we believers were by birth or by our origin objects of God's wrath even as unbelievers still are.

But it really makes no difference. Let's go for a second with your interpretation. Are Jewish babies included in the group that are objects of God's wrath by birth or ethnic origin?

Before you answer that Webdog:

How many here believe:
1. Some babies whether born, miscarried, or aborted die and go to hell.
or
2. Babies do not go to Hell.

If you chose #1 they you have great issues to deal with arising from scriptures like in John 9:

39 And Jesus said, For judgment I am come into this world, that they which see not might see; and that they which see might be made blind.
40 And some of the Pharisees which were with him heard these words, and said unto him, Are we blind also?
41 Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth.

This is refering to being spiritually blind. Jesus states that untill you KNOW of SIN you are not held Guilty OF THAT sin. PERIOD!

Babies don't go to Heaven because they are sinless but because they have yet to reach an age where they could acknowledge the sin that arose from their sin nature. Scripture states they are blind and since that sin was not imputed to their charge (having no sin) they are not judged. But those who say they have understanding it is to THESE says the scriptures in whom their REMAINS.

Note it doesn't say comes upon them but REMAINS. The sin nature that seperates us from God due to being born in sin.