Original Sin

[russell55]

But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.

In other words, the kindom of heaven belongs to those who are like these children in some way. That's what the word such means. He's making a point about the faith (or receptiveness) that is necessary to belong to the kingdom. This becomes even clearer in Mark's account, where Mark includes the next words of Jesus

I tell you the truth, anyone who doesn’t receive the Kingdom of God like a child will never enter it.

This is teaching us something about the nature of saving faith, not the natural condition, as it relates to sin, of children.

 

[The Archangel]

Allan:

Allan,

You wrote:

So if you don't have any information to actually add it might behoove you to sit back and either listen to learn or just not participate.

Now listen here: I have shown you nothing but courtesy. We disagree on a myriad of issues, that is true. I have always been cordial and respectful in my replies. However you, for whatever reason seem quite incapable of similar courtesy or your are unwilling to give similar courtesy.

I have asked several questions, which you have given respectable answers to—and I’m saying that even though I thought some of your answers were not correct. Yet you persist, not in discussion, but in attack. This is quite unbecoming of a “so called” Christian Brother. I expect and deserve better treatment from you.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[pinoybaptist]

t 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!! Sure glad Jesus had a better understanding of little children than you do.

Just curious, Bob.
I'm on your side on this issue, that God does not send infants and babies to hell.
But, what do you make of the words "for of such" in the Scripture you quoted.

 

[Brother Bob]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brother Bob
But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.


In other words, the kindom of heaven belongs to those who are like these children in some way. That's what the word such means. He's making a point about the faith (or receptiveness) that is necessary to belong to the kingdom. This becomes even clearer in Mark's account, where Mark includes the next words of Jesus
Quote:
I tell you the truth, anyone who doesn’t receive the Kingdom of God like a child will never enter it.

This is teaching us something about the nature of saving faith, not the natural condition, as it relates to sin, of children.

Yea, like humble yourself as that child which is already part of the Kingdom.

"for of such", I have always taken it to mean the humbleness of little children. What do you think it is Pinoy?

 

[russell55]

Just curious, Bob.
I'm on your side on this issue, that God does not send infants and babies to hell.
But, what do you make of the words "for of such" in the Scripture you quoted.

Just as a matter of note, I'm not sure anyone has said that God sends infants and babies to hell. I certainly haven't. The conversation is about whether we all have original sin--a sin nature and imputed guilt from Adam--or not.

My own point about infants is that even they--who I agree are innocent as to their deeds, just not perfectly righteous--do not go to heaven on their own merit.

 

[Brother Bob]

You know, what is a sin nature if one is not able to understand. I think we are born subject to vanity but we don't get to the vanity until we know what it is. The scriptures speak of the Law being added for the knowledge of sin, although our conscious either accused or excused us before but children had not that kind of understanding of vanity for the conscious to affect them. That is what I think about little children. Sin is doing wrong and without knowledge, then how?

 

[Allan]

Allan,

You wrote:


Now listen here: I have shown you nothing but courtesy. We disagree on a myriad of issues, that is true. I have always been cordial and respectful in my replies. However you, for whatever reason seem quite incapable of similar courtesy or your are unwilling to give similar courtesy.

I have asked several questions, which you have given respectable answers to—and I’m saying that even though I thought some of your answers were not correct. Yet you persist, not in discussion, but in attack. This is quite unbecoming of a “so called” Christian Brother. I expect and deserve better treatment from you.

Blessings,

The Archangel

Yes you do Archangel. And I truly appolgize. My bad day should not reflect in our conversations. Forgive me?

However my persistance of attack equates in totality of one single posting only in which I was very ungracious and agree with all repentence. But I will call you on your statement of "..."so called" christian brother...". An eye for an eye is no better either. That which you expect and deserve maintains on even those who upset you for good reason.

 

[Allan]

In other words, the kindom of heaven belongs to those who are like these children in some way. That's what the word such means. He's making a point about the faith (or receptiveness) that is necessary to belong to the kingdom. This becomes even clearer in Mark's account, where Mark includes the next words of Jesus

This is teaching us something about the nature of saving faith, not the natural condition, as it relates to sin, of children.

I was following you till you stretched that last bit like a leotard. :laugh:
If it teaches us anything it shows that all may come to Christ.
This says nor equates to anything about the nature of saving faith unless it be that all men (like all children) can do it.

Jesus didn't say let only some or even the chosen children but all those who wanted to come to Him may approach without fear.

 

[Allan]

Double posting on my part.

 

[Allan]

Just as a matter of note, I'm not sure anyone has said that God sends infants and babies to hell. I certainly haven't. The conversation is about whether we all have original sin--a sin nature and imputed guilt from Adam--or not.

My own point about infants is that even they--who I agree are innocent as to their deeds, just not perfectly righteous--do not go to heaven on their own merit.

I'm in agreement there.

But if they (babies and such) have sin GUILT. Then they have to be judged for that guilt for it imparts unrighteousness due to unholyness and is HELL.

Innocence is having done niether (good or bad- most specifically ever will be able to) refers to their inability to ever do either - ever. Their sin nature is that which is seperated from God and because of that we by virtue of our nature do those things to which we are predisposed. No God = godlessness. But this still does not place the guilt of sin upon them. For the scriptures (as I showed IMO quite clearly) judgment is upon those who have sinned and those who walk in disobedience.

A sin nature does not imply guilt. But is the causation of sin that brings forth sin from with we are guilty.


Mans nature has already been judged by God and that resulted in seperation. But Christ died to reconcile man back to God. Does this not bring balance to the equation. A small child or baby can not sin for they can not as of yet do as they desire and therefore do not walk in disobedience knowing truth and reject it. So in death all they have to account for is their sin nature which can not come unto God unless there be a reconciling of man to God. Maybe it is just me but I find not fault to it.

 

[The Archangel]

Allan:

Allan,

Yes you do Archangel. And I truly appolgize. My bad day should not reflect in our conversations. Forgive me?

Apology GLADLY accepted.

However my persistance of attack equates in totality of one single posting only in which I was very ungracious and agree with all repentence. But I will call you on your statement of "..."so called" christian brother...". An eye for an eye is no better either. That which you expect and deserve maintains on even those who upset you for good reason.

Let me explain: The use of “So Called” was for one simple reason—you have been showing a similar pattern of behavior in your posts with nearly everyone. Now, I think I read you’d been having a bad day and I understand that. However, a bad day can be a reason for your behavior, not an excuse.

When I used the phrase “So Called” it was based on the behavior you had demonstrated heretofore in this thread of the board. Not knowing you personally and not having any basis to interpret your posts, except by your own words, I drew the conclusion that you thought it OK to treat your brothers and sisters in a derogatory and contemptuous manner. By any Biblical definition (Especially when you read 1st John) you showed yourself to be something less than a brother.

Since you have realized this and have repented, I see no reason to still attach the “So Called” label to you—you have shown the fruit of a true Christian brother, as far as I can tell.

I hope and pray we can build on this growing, cordial relationship and begin to discuss some matters in depth with the grace and courtesy that should exemplify Christian brothers and sister and I hope that grace and courtesy extends to everyone on this board.

Blessings,

The Archangel

Ps. I'll be away from any computer for some time. Have a great weekend!

 

[Pastor Larry]

Can a person be saved if they do not Believe?? Not even in Calvinism!

Please pass this on to your friends. Some of them haven't gotten this yet.

(And God NEVER states their is some other dispensation towards Children nor impared)

Except that pesky passage in 2 Sam indicates otherwise.

The Bible says "All have sinned" right? "There is none that does good." Yet you want to omit infants from that. So all doesn't mean all? Can you please explain?

I think you are missing some things on the respecter of persons idea, but I am not going to get involved in that for the sake of time.

 

[Allan]

Allan,



Apology GLADLY accepted.




Let me explain: The use of “So Called” was for one simple reason—you have been showing a similar pattern of behavior in your posts with nearly everyone. Now, I think I read you’d been having a bad day and I understand that. However, a bad day can be a reason for your behavior, not an excuse.

When I used the phrase “So Called” it was based on the behavior you had demonstrated heretofore in this thread of the board. Not knowing you personally and not having any basis to interpret your posts, except by your own words, I drew the conclusion that you thought it OK to treat your brothers and sisters in a derogatory and contemptuous manner. By any Biblical definition (Especially when you read 1st John) you showed yourself to be something less than a brother.

Since you have realized this and have repented, I see no reason to still attach the “So Called” label to you—you have shown the fruit of a true Christian brother, as far as I can tell.

I hope and pray we can build on this growing, cordial relationship and begin to discuss some matters in depth with the grace and courtesy that should exemplify Christian brothers and sister and I hope that grace and courtesy extends to everyone on this board.

Blessings,

The Archangel

Ps. I'll be away from any computer for some time. Have a great weekend!

I understand you will be away...but when you get back I would me most intriged as to where you find any of this you cited:

Let me explain: The use of “So Called” was for one simple reason—you have been showing a similar pattern of behavior in your posts with nearly everyone. Now, I think I read you’d been having a bad day and I understand that. However, a bad day can be a reason for your behavior, not an excuse.

When I used the phrase “So Called” it was based on the behavior you had demonstrated heretofore in this thread of the board. Not knowing you personally and not having any basis to interpret your posts, except by your own words, I drew the conclusion that you thought it OK to treat your brothers and sisters in a derogatory and contemptuous manner.

Please and do tell where you can find this or anyone who would agree with you.

 

[russell55]

You know, what is a sin nature if one is not able to understand.

It's the imperfection in the makeup we are born with that will surely blossom into disobedient acts when the understanding and the opportunity come. It's already there, in a baby, before the know-how to carry out actual acts of disobedience is present.

I think we are born subject to vanity

I agree.

but we don't get to the vanity until we know what it is.

I agree, if by this you mean that we don't actually act in a vain way until we grow into the ability to act that way.

The scriptures speak of the Law being added for the knowledge of sin,although our conscious either accused or excused us before

The law lays things out pretty clearly for us, so we can't miss the point.

but children had not that kind of understanding of vanity for the conscious to affect them. That is what I think about little children.

I don't disagree.

Sin is doing wrong and without knowledge, then how?

I think knowledge is necessary to actually commit sin. However, I think the imperfection that we are all born with (that I mentioned at the top of this post) is still a problem. It, too, brings God's wrath.

In addition, we know that nothing imperfect can be in God's presence; so infants, too, need a changed nature and glorified bodies--both things that come to us through Christ's death--in order to be in God's presence. Even infants must gain eternal life on the basis of Christ's death--Christ merits it for them. That's what the phrase in Christ alone means: there is no other basis (or no other grounds)--even innocence won't do it--by which any human being merits eternal life except the merit of Christ.

 

[Allan]

Except that pesky passage in 2 Sam indicates otherwise.

Ok, Please show me this dispensation.

The Bible says "All have sinned" right? "There is none that does good." Yet you want to omit infants from that. So all doesn't mean all? Can you please explain?

Janison-Faust Commentaries:
verse 14. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression--But who are they?--a much contested question. Infants (say some), who being guiltless of actual sin, may be said not to have sinned in the way that Adam did [AUGUSTINE, BEZA, HODGE]. But why should infants be specially connected with the period "from Adam to Moses," since they die alike in every period? And if the apostle meant to express here the death of infants, why has he done it so enigmatically? Besides, the death of infants is comprehended in the universal mortality on account of the first sin, so emphatically expressed in Rom 5:12 ; what need then to specify it here? and why, if not necessary, should we presume it to be meant here, unless the language unmistakably point to it--which it certainly does not? The meaning then must be, that "death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those that had not, like Adam, transgressed against a positive commandment, threatening death to the disobedient." (So most interpreters). In this case, the particle "even," instead of specifying one particular class of those who lived "from Adam to Moses" (as the other interpretation supposes), merely explains what it was that made the case of those who died from Adam to Moses worthy of special notice--namely, that "though unlike Adam and all since Moses, those who lived between the two had no positive threatening of death for transgression, nevertheless, death reigned even over them."

Though it is not stressed by this commentary he does show other (specifically Calvinists) do hold to the aspect I am speaking of.

I think you are missing some things on the respecter of persons idea, but I am not going to get involved in that for the sake of time.

No problem there.

 

[Brother Bob]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brother Bob
You know, what is a sin nature if one is not able to understand.


It's the imperfection in the makeup we are born with that will surely blossom into disobedient acts when the understanding and the opportunity come. It's already there, in a baby, before the know-how to carry out actual acts of disobedience is present.

So, it also could be called "subject to vanity" when they blossom, could it not?

Of course it still takes the Grace of God to give babies eternal life for they sure are not born with it.
Grace of God being the "Love of God".


Which way did they go, which way did they go.

 

[pinoybaptist]

Just as a matter of note, I'm not sure anyone has said that God sends infants and babies to hell. I certainly haven't. The conversation is about whether we all have original sin--a sin nature and imputed guilt from Adam--or not.

My own point about infants is that even they--who I agree are innocent as to their deeds, just not perfectly righteous--do not go to heaven on their own merit.

Okay, I'm sorry if I said something nobody has said. I apologize.

Brother Bob: What I understand of the term "for of such" is that those who belong to the kingdom of heaven have the childlike character of unquestioning trust. I guess that's what yours is, too.

 

[russell55]

So, it also could be called "subject to vanity" when they blossom, could it not?

Yep. Subject to vanity when they blossom into actual doers of evil deeds, but also, as you said, born subject to vanity.

You'll notice, in that verse from Romans that you are quoting, that God subjecting the creature to vanity gives them hope. Pastor Larry has been pointing out about imputed guilt (which is part of the doctrine of original sin) is part of the basis for our condemnation, but it's also the part of our condemnation that gives us hope. It means that in the same way that Adam's sin was counted against us, Christ's righteousness can be counted for us. Babies who go to heaven need Christ's righteousness, too--and all the benefits that come from that, like adoption and glorification and inheritance--even though as to actual sins they are innocent.

Of course it still takes the Grace of God to give babies eternal life for they sure are not born with it.

If you think babies need the grace of God in order to have eternal life, then you believe, in some form anyway, in original sin.

Grace of God being the "Love of God".

Yes, God's grace comes his love.

 

[russell55]

Okay, I'm sorry if I said something nobody has said. I apologize.

No problem. I was just afraid that my questions about whether infants were glorified or not might be interpreted to mean that I thought that infants automatically went to hell or something like that.

 

[Brother Bob]

Quote:
Of course it still takes the Grace of God to give babies eternal life for they sure are not born with it.
If you think babies need the grace of God in order to have eternal life, then you believe, in some form anyway, in original sin.

Depends on where you want to put the orginal sin, the child or Adam. I do not believe in "original sin of the infant" but his pronouncement of death came from Adam sinning.

I don't think of "orginal sin" as to the child itself but to Adam sin, and the penalty was passed unto them, for they were born to die and begin dying the minute they were born. There is a difference though. Adam also was pronounced to die the second death and that is where I think the child is free from until it comes to know vanity.


Also, "being made subject to vanity". What give the Hope is "not willingly but by reason of Him(God), who subjected the same in Hope" (Jesus Christ)