Original Sin

Original sin has to do the state in which the child was born. First of all, were they, as you say, born with the penalty for Adam's sin passed onto them? And secondly, were they born with an inclination toward sin rather than righteousness? (In other words, even though they can't actually commit sin yet, is their heart inclined that way so that when they can sin, they will.)

Don't they need the second birth, like Jesus said in John 3?

Aren't they included in the word person here? How can they enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of both water and the spirit? The are born of the flesh, but they haven't yet been born of the spirit, have they? Don't they need that?

 

They were indeed born with the penalty of Adam and begin to die the day they are born.
Are they inclinded to sin? They were made subject to vanity and though good and evil are put before them because of the weakness of the flesh they have all sinned and come short of the Glory of God. Scripture says to choose to do good and cease to do evil, so according to scripture man chose evil.

this is what I meant when I said they needed the Grace of God. For they were born to die and not live eternal therefore are in need of the Grace of God which would include the water and Spirit. Though they don't have the second death pronounced upon them because they have not sinned, they can't go to Heaven without The Grace of God. They just would never live again if not for the Grace of God and neither would they face the second death either for they never sinned.

How do you see this? I have alway felt that babies without sin just go to Heaven by God's Grace which would have to include His Spirit.

same as above.

Adam was born without sin and therefore no death so He was not in need of the water and the Spirit until He disobeyed God. He not only brought the natural death but God pronounced the second death upon him also and if we sin God pronounces the second death upon us. I believe we bring the second death upon our ownselves.

It certainly is a great big question and I can see where it would lead to different answers.

 

Cancelled my misformatted earlier post.

 

Well, there obviously is a disconnect between what we each think Rom 5 says. We'll work that out momentarily.

Yes, one trespass led all the be condemned to PHYSIACL death, right?

One sin kills one man in soul immediately -- in spirit progressively -- in body eventually. It does NOT lead to all 3 condemnations of the rest of mankind.

Here's the point I would make on that issue --- the "conscience" issue was one husband, one wife, Gen 2:24. But they took as many as they desired -- except Noah and his children. This answers, I hope, your question with "conscience" as well.

That's just it -- no sin BUT the knowling trespass of God's command, right? Is that not condemned also?

No, that's your interpretation of what the Bible says. It ain't necessarily so.

Don't get nasty. As you can see, I am using scripture. That you don't agree with it leaves you with the conundrom of saying that there is a different "dispensation" for infants. Find how that works, not just that it works, in scripture, please.

You shouldn't be a Calvinist at all! Scripture does NOT confirm Calvinism. What other questions do you not find answers for in Calvinism??

I don't think you are discerning my motivation or my knowledge of the subject correctly, sir. Can we just talk about the issues, please?

blessings back at ya!

skypair

 

Speak for yourself regarding "clouds." I have my belief on the authority of the scriptures.

Which you then say is "deafeningly silent." So basically you haul out your "baggage and desires?"

So you grant that the answer in NOT here -- and that you have to fabricate a theology to accomodate this verse, right?

But suppose you could really tell them the truth from scripture. Suppose that children don't inherit the sins of their fathers (Ezek 18:20 trusting that this no sin can be inherited) and so are not guilty of anything. Suppose that means that God is fair and righteous to not condemn them for sin they didn't commit. That the only thing attributable to Adam was their PHYSICAL death.

Archangel, start giving this possibility more thought than you have so far. So far you are trusting that Calvin was right. Start thinking in terms of Calvin having written this 2 years after becoming a Christian. Start thinking that maybe his early paradigm was flawed and shown to be in error and that there are much more learned and spiritual expositors of scripture in our day than in his.

I know that you are overlooking a lot of flaws just to admit that you are a "reluctant" Calvinist. You should start questioning much of what you now believe of Calvinism, sir (unless, of course, it is too late to switch churches vocationally).


skypair

 

Russell, those are two different perspectives. The Mt 19 passage speaks of having the INNOCENCE of a child being as the INNOCENCE of those who are in heaven.

Of course, we need to be receptive as children, too. But the 2 passages are not one explaining the other. They give 2 perspectives of the issue of children.

Thanks for jumping in though

skypair

 

...

Perhaps if Calvinists and freewillers don't accept that children are innocent, then we CAN agree that 1) Christ died for ALL sin and 2) they have NEVER committed the unpardonable sin -- rejection of the Holy Spirit/God/Christ.

Does THAT please everyone? Cause I can see either or both, actually. Infants are "double-indemnified!" :laugh:

My "follow-on," for your consideration (Russell and bro. bob particularly), would be that they are resurrected postrib to see Jesus AND to have knowledge of good and evil and will be called upon to choose just as we have. Hence, they actually come "through Christ" Who alone is the Way, right?

skypair

 

If they are innocent then the second death has not been pronounced upon them and as David of Old, when his child died he said I can go to where he is, which I take to be with the Lord.

Through the resurrection of Jesus Christ he conquered over death hell and the grave. Just because the child is not condemned to hell it is condemned to grave, death and still takes the blood to conquer over death and the grave, to overcome the sin of Adam.

No, I believe the child is already covered by the blood. God so loved the "world", that He gave His only begotten Son.

 

I'm not sure that connotation of "second death" is right, Bob. Second death occurs after one is resurrected to a phyical body again at the GWT. Once that judgment is complete, the person dies again phyically forever.

If an infant is resurrected to earth in the MK to choose Christ (along with the OT saints), if he/she doesn't receive Christ, he/she will (hmmm) die and appear at the GWT and die the third death (??). Maybe there is a flaw in my theology? Or maybe 3rd death is just never mentioned. Hmm. Got any suggestions? :saint:

skypair

 

The second death occurs at the GWT but the pronouncement of that second death upon someone is in this life and if they repent they can escape it but if they don't repent they will stand there along with the rest. If you die in your sins where the Lord is you cannot come. That is now!

If you start using the dead in sin as one of the "deaths" then you would have to use the "dead to sin" also so we could come up with at least 4 deaths using that theory. He told us what the second death is and its the ones that he said in this life I judge you not but the words I speak will judge you in the last day.