The Nature of Man

[annsni]

The same could be asked of you, were does the bible teach that: The Scriptures teach that a person is born hereditarily totally depraved...

I'll refer you to Old Regular's post #18.

If God is the author of our souls and He is and if we are born totally depraved then God bestills in us a soul tarnished by our first father Adam, but scriptures repeatedly tell us that we DO NOT bear the guilt of our fathers.

I do not see that. I see Scripture tell us over and over again that we are sinful from the womb. That because one man sinned, we all reap the consequences.

To say a baby is born sinful and then to proclaim that they are going to heaven is contrary to each other.

To say that any of us are sinful then proclaim that we're going to heaven is contrary to each other. Babies are no different.

Scripture teach that from the womb we go astray, but it does not teach that we are born that way. I know someone will bring up Psalm 51, but even that passage does not say that we are born sinful.

If we go astray from the womb, do we get better just before we're born?

The passages below may help with why I do not believe that man is born as a child of the devil.

Eccl 7:29

29 Truly, this only I have found: That God made man upright, But they have sought out many schemes."
NKJV

Ezek 28:15

15 You were perfect in your ways from the day you were created, Till iniquity was found in you.
NKJV

Ps 106:37-38

37 They even sacrificed their sons And their daughters to demons,

38 And shed innocent blood, The blood of their sons and daughters, Whom they sacrificed to the idols of Canaan; And the land was polluted with blood.
NKJV

Deut 1:39-40

39'Moreover your little ones and your children, who you say will be victims, who today have no knowledge of good and evil, they shall go in there; to them I will give it, and they shall possess it.

40 But as for you, turn and take your journey into the wilderness by the Way of the Red Sea.'
NKJV

2 Chron 25:3-4

3 Now it happened, as soon as the kingdom was established for him, that he executed his servants who had murdered his father the king.

4 However he did not execute their children, but did as it is written in the Law in the Book of Moses, where the LORD commanded, saying,"The fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor shall the children be put to death for their fathers; but a person shall die for his own sin."
NKJV

Ezek 18:4

4 "Behold, all souls are Mine; The soul of the father As well as the soul of the son is Mine; The soul who sins shall die.
NKJV

Yet we are told in Ephesians 2:1-3:

"And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience— among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind. "

That screams volumes to me about who we are without Christ.

 

[annsni]

Romans 7:9

Reading the whole passage tells us a lot:

7What then shall we say? That the law is sin? By no means! Yet if it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin. For I would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, "You shall not covet." 8But sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, produced in me all kinds of covetousness. For apart from the law, sin lies dead. 9I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin came alive and I died. 10The very commandment that promised life proved to be death to me. 11For sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, deceived me and through it killed me. 12So the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good.

13Did that which is good, then, bring death to me? By no means! It was sin, producing death in me through what is good, in order that sin might be shown to be sin, and through the commandment might become sinful beyond measure. 14For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am of the flesh, sold under sin.

Paul is not saying that he was alive before the law came - as in the idea that he was sinless before the law came. But the law showed him where sin was. Was there no sin before the law came to Moses? No.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Ann: Paul is not saying that he was alive before the law came - as in the idea that he was sinless before the law came. But the law showed him where sin was. Was there no sin before the law came to Moses? No.

HP: I have my own questions about many things Paul said, but if I can not believe his personal testimony, I would have to throw out two thirds of the NT. “Ac 23:1 ¶ And Paul, earnestly beholding the council, said, Men and brethren, I have lived in all good conscience before God until this day.”

Now that did not set well with the naysayers in his day, but either it is the truth or he is a liar and his words untrustworthy. I say, “Let God’s Word be true and every man a liar.” (That does not indicate that all men are liars either.)

 

[JSM17]

Eph 2:1-3
And you were dead in your trespasses and sins,

2 in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience.

3 Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest.
NASU

As already stated by someone else, sin is trangression of God's law (1 John 3:4) on part of us transgressing.

Our position before God in the above scripture deals with your trespasses and sins, the way we walked by choice, according desires of the flesh. This sin and I agree.

However "by nature" does not imply sinful at birth just because the word nature is used.

Thayer's says this about the word:
NT:5449
c. a mode of feeling and acting which by long habit has become nature: eemen fusei tekna orgees, by (our depraved) nature we were exposed to the wrath of God, Eph 2:3 (this meaning is evident from the preceding context, and stands in contrast with the change of heart and life wrought through Christ by the blessing of divine grace;
(from Thayer's Greek Lexicon, Electronic Database. Copyright (c) 2000 by Biblesoft)

 

[Thinkingstuff]

HP: When one attaches guilt and punishment where no choice exists, it violates this principle of immutable justice: In order to do anything praiseworthy or blameworthy, man must have choice. With the confusion over what the word ‘choice’ consists of, I must also add that ‘choice’ is not simply the results of ‘doing as one wills,’ (a purely Calvinistic notion) but rather man must have the ability to choose something other than he does under the very same set of circumstances in order for choice to be present. Man has to be the first cause of his moral intents for choice to actually exist and blame or praise attached to them.

How about the rest of my post. But I did a online research of immutable Justice and I came up with Plato's Minos. Which Plato defines immutable justice as natural Law or Political organization but law non-the-less. So what you're saying is that it is against the law that man is condemned before birth as in Psalm 51 based on the decision of his ancestor. Where I described that with in the context of God's mercy that even though our species has species guilt he satisfied his law or immutable justice since christ was slain at the foundations of the world.

 

[webdog]

Reading the whole passage tells us a lot:



Paul is not saying that he was alive before the law came - as in the idea that he was sinless before the law came. But the law showed him where sin was. Was there no sin before the law came to Moses? No.

Reading the whole passage proves my point...apart from the law sin lies dead, and that's exactly what he was saying. Before he knew what the law and sin were, he was spiritually alive (not separated from God). I'll take his words at face value, that his "death" did not occur upon conception.

 

[Amy.G]

Reading the whole passage tells us a lot:



Paul is not saying that he was alive before the law came - as in the idea that he was sinless before the law came. But the law showed him where sin was. Was there no sin before the law came to Moses? No.

Paul isn't saying that he was sinless. He's saying that he wasn't held accountable until he understood the law. Once the law comes into our heads and hearts and we comprehend the full meaning of it, we realize we've sinned and at that point become guilty of transgressing the law and we are separated from God spiritually. We must be born again at this point.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Thinkingstuff: So what you're saying is that it is against the law that man is condemned before birth as in Psalm 51 based on the decision of his ancestor.

HP: Psalms 51 indicates no such thing as guilt based on the decision of his ancestor. Here is a brief note on that passage.

It would indeed appear to me that this is a Psalm of personal penitence. Having committed a sexual sin with Bathsheba, David showed true remorse for his actions. He acknowledges his sin and then enters into verse five(5) which is the verse the OP deals directly with. “ 5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.” Many believe this establishes original sin, but does it?

The plain rendering of this verse places guilt on David’s mother for conceiving him in sin. He could have said, my mother conceived me in an act of sin, or I was formed as an act of sin by my mother, either one would be within the confines of a reasonable rendition of this text. The question arises, why would David be speaking of the sin of his mother if the context is his own guilt? I believe a reasonable response to this question is simply that David was expressing the fact that from his very conception, sin was at work influences and setting an example that would in fact lend influence and example for him to follow and direct his own personal acts of sin by. I see David pouring out his heart by saying, certainly it is I alone that has done this wicked sin, yet I know that the sins of others have had a strong influence upon my life, even in my conception. While he focuses upon his own sin and guilt, in verse five he points not to the ‘cause’ of his sin, but rather points to sinful examples and influences upon him by the acts of his very mother that indeed influenced his life and subsequent choices and actions.

Who has not done this in their own life? Is it uncommon for one to recognize themselves as the sole ‘cause’ of their sin, yet still recognize and relate sinful influences that precipitated their demise? I certainly think so.

 

[DHK]

HP: Psalms 51 indicates no such thing as guilt based on the decision of his ancestor. Here is a brief note on that passage.

Guilt no; a sin nature that is passed on, yes.

It would indeed appear to me that this is a Psalm of personal penitence. Having committed a sexual sin with Bathsheba, David showed true remorse for his actions. He acknowledges his sin and then enters into verse five(5) which is the verse the OP deals directly with. “ 5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.” Many believe this establishes original sin, but does it?

Indeed it does establish that all men have inherited a sin nature from Adam.

The plain rendering of this verse places guilt on David’s mother for conceiving him in sin.

Your opinion only. In fact you only wish it said that so it would suit your pre-conceived theology. But we don't make up our theology according to our own likes and dislikes. Here is what that verse says (probably more accurately) in the NET translation:

Look, I was guilty of sin from birth,
a sinner the moment my mother conceived me

David puts the emphasis on the fact that he was a sinner from birth, and his sin from birth. It had nothing to do with his mother's sin, and never did. It would be totally out of the context of the psalm to refer to anyone else's sin but his own. He is not confessing his mother's sin! Rather his own.

He could have said, my mother conceived me in an act of sin, or I was formed as an act of sin by my mother, either one would be within the confines of a reasonable rendition of this text.

No, those are not acceptable. The marriage bed is holy and undefiled. The Bible does not contradict itself. Why are you trying to make it contradict itself.

The question arises, why would David be speaking of the sin of his mother if the context is his own guilt?

He isn't speaking of his mother's sin, and he is speaking of his own sin nature.

I believe a reasonable response to this question is simply that David was expressing the fact that from his very conception, sin was at work influences and setting an example that would in fact lend influence and example for him to follow and direct his own personal acts of sin by. I see David pouring out his heart by saying, certainly it is I alone that has done this wicked sin, yet I know that the sins of others have had a strong influence upon my life, even in my conception. While he focuses upon his own sin and guilt, in verse five he points not to the ‘cause’ of his sin, but rather points to sinful examples and influences upon him by the acts of his very mother that indeed influenced his life and subsequent choices and actions.

Yeah, Right!! ("My mother made me do it," excuse). Blame it on your mother, on society, on environment, on the devil; on anything but yourself. Fail to take responsibility for your own sin. Is that your philosophy--this humanistic, anti-Biblical teaching?
There were no sinful influences of his mother that influenced him to sin. He was pointing to his sinful nature, the fact that he himself was a sinner; he himself had sinned; he himself had to take responsibility for his sin, and no one else.

Again:
Look, I was guilty of sin from birth,
a sinner the moment my mother conceived me
--Fairly clear isn't it?

Who has not done this in their own life? Is it uncommon for one to recognize themselves as the sole ‘cause’ of their sin, yet still recognize and relate sinful influences that precipitated their demise? I certainly think so.

"Hath God said," said Satan
"You shall not surely die," Satan said.

And Adam blamed Eve, And Eve blamed the serpent.
Why? Because Adam did not want to repent and recognize himself as the "sole 'cause' of their sin" Your philosophy is very relative to the philosophy that Lucifer presented to Adam and Eve. I hope you can see that. Man must take sole responsibility for his sin. David could not blame it on his mother or on any one else.

He plainly said: "Against thee only have I sinned." He took responsibility.

 

[annsni]

Reading the whole passage proves my point...apart from the law sin lies dead, and that's exactly what he was saying. Before he knew what the law and sin were, he was spiritually alive (not separated from God). I'll take his words at face value, that his "death" did not occur upon conception.

So you're saying that before the law came into existence, men were not separated from God? What about Adam? Cain?

Whether one knew the law or not, it was still the law. Why don't we just not tell anyone about the law and then they can all go to heaven? That's just not Scripturally supported in the least.

 

[annsni]

Paul isn't saying that he was sinless. He's saying that he wasn't held accountable until he understood the law. Once the law comes into our heads and hearts and we comprehend the full meaning of it, we realize we've sinned and at that point become guilty of transgressing the law and we are separated from God spiritually. We must be born again at this point.

Again, why not just keep everyone ignorant to the law and then everyone will go to heaven? Is that supported by Scripture? I don't see it anywhere.

Verse 13 is pretty clear: "Did that which is good, then, bring death to me? By no means! It was sin, producing death in me through what is good, in order that sin might be shown to be sin, and through the commandment might become sinful beyond measure."

The law showed what is sin is sin but sin is there - and sin separates us from God. Sin was there before the law and just because we now know the law doesn't mean that now we're separated from God but before we knew the law we were not. That's fully not founded in Scripture.

 

[annsni]

HP: Psalms 51 indicates no such thing as guilt based on the decision of his ancestor. Here is a brief note on that passage.

It would indeed appear to me that this is a Psalm of personal penitence. Having committed a sexual sin with Bathsheba, David showed true remorse for his actions. He acknowledges his sin and then enters into verse five(5) which is the verse the OP deals directly with. “ 5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.” Many believe this establishes original sin, but does it?

The plain rendering of this verse places guilt on David’s mother for conceiving him in sin. He could have said, my mother conceived me in an act of sin, or I was formed as an act of sin by my mother, either one would be within the confines of a reasonable rendition of this text. The question arises, why would David be speaking of the sin of his mother if the context is his own guilt? I believe a reasonable response to this question is simply that David was expressing the fact that from his very conception, sin was at work influences and setting an example that would in fact lend influence and example for him to follow and direct his own personal acts of sin by. I see David pouring out his heart by saying, certainly it is I alone that has done this wicked sin, yet I know that the sins of others have had a strong influence upon my life, even in my conception. While he focuses upon his own sin and guilt, in verse five he points not to the ‘cause’ of his sin, but rather points to sinful examples and influences upon him by the acts of his very mother that indeed influenced his life and subsequent choices and actions.

Who has not done this in their own life? Is it uncommon for one to recognize themselves as the sole ‘cause’ of their sin, yet still recognize and relate sinful influences that precipitated their demise? I certainly think so.

How does this fit with another Psalm of David?

Psalm 58:3 "The wicked go astray from the womb, they err from their birth, speaking lies."?

I do not see any support for the idea that David now suddenly is saying that his mother sinned in conceiving him. She was married - David had a mother and father. How could she have sinned in his conception?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Ann: How does this fit with another Psalm of David?

Psalm 58:3 "The wicked go astray from the womb, they err from their birth, speaking lies."?

HP: If one takes the time to read this short Psalm in it’s entirety, one will come to the plain truth that this Psalm was NOT written in any way to support some notion of original sin or inherited depravity, not only because of the context but the fact that the Jews did not hold to inherited depravity in the least. There was no place in their theology for such a notion. Original sin was simply foreign to them.

The context of the Psalm clearly indicates two groups of individuals being addressed. From verse 3-9 David addresses the wicked and speaks clearly to their final destruction. David cries out to God to let “every one of them pass away that they may not see the sun.” He proclaims that God is going to destroy ‘all’ of them and wash His feet in their blood. Is DHK holding to the belief that God is going to wash His feet in the blood of innocent babies, millions of which are the product of the abortionist’s knife? God help us!

Starting with verse 10-11, David shifts his focus from the wicked and onto the righteous. He states, “10 The righteous shall rejoice when he seeth the vengeance: he shall wash his feet in the blood of the wicked.
11 So that a man shall say, Verily there is a reward for the righteous: verily he is a God that judgeth in the earth.

One thing is clear. David is not trying to establish a dogma of original sin in this text in the least, but rather is simply contrasting the wicked with the righteous. He in NO way insinuates or states that the righteous are as the wicked, neither in birth nor in life.

In simple terms, David was just expressing in poetic terms that the wicked appeared to be wicked from the earliest light of moral agency, and that as soon as they were able to understand and communicate, even from a very early age, they appeared to him to be engaging in wickedness. Nothing in this passage establishes any such idea as original sin would indicate.

 

[DHK]

HP: If one takes the time to read this short Psalm in it’s entirety, one will come to the plain truth that this Psalm was NOT written in any way to support some notion of original sin or inherited depravity, not only because of the context but the fact that the Jews did not hold to inherited depravity in the least. There was no place in their theology for such a notion. Original sin was simply foreign to them.

Psalms 19:5 Which is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, and rejoiceth as a strong man to run a race.

Psalm 19 was not written about bridegrooms; nor about strong men running races. But the truths are still there, even if they are there in illustrative form. God does not lie. The context does not matter so much here. God is not lying here. He is stating a truth whether or not you think it fits the context of your pre-conceived idea. The truths presented are still true. God is not lying. Please don't attribute lies to the Lord God Almighty.

The context of the Psalm clearly indicates two groups of individuals being addressed. From verse 3-9 David addresses the wicked and speaks clearly to their final destruction. David cries out to God to let “every one of them pass away that they may not see the sun.” He proclaims that God is going to destroy ‘all’ of them and wash His feet in their blood.

And simply for that reason alone, you think that God is telling a lie?? That is unbelievable. God still tells the truth. What he says in verse three is still true about all mankind. All mankind is still wicked at birth. They are born with a sin nature. They are born into the wrong family. Thus Jesus says: "you must be born again."

Is DHK holding to the belief that God is going to wash His feet in the blood of innocent babies, millions of which are the product of the abortionist’s knife? God help us!

As I have said before, if you can't quote me saying what you think I am saying, then don't! Find the quote or retract the false accusation.
David fell on the mercy of God praying for his dying child. The child died. David was absolutely sure that he "would go to the child," meaning that he would see the child in heaven. It was (and is) the mercy of God that brings a child into the Kingdom of Heaven, and for no other reason. God is not unjust.

Starting with verse 10-11, David shifts his focus from the wicked and onto the righteous. He states, “10 The righteous shall rejoice when he seeth the vengeance: he shall wash his feet in the blood of the wicked.
11 So that a man shall say, Verily there is a reward for the righteous: verily he is a God that judgeth in the earth.

One thing is clear. David is not trying to establish a dogma of original sin in this text in the least, but rather is simply contrasting the wicked with the righteous.

Were you righteous at birth. No. There is none righteous no, not one. There is none that understandeth. There is none that doeth good; no, not one. That includes infants. It includes all mankind. They need to be born again. No one is "righteous" until they are made righteous with the righteousness of Jesus Christ. And that includes you--even from your birth onward. At what point in your life did you become righteous? At what point were you unrighteous? Were there two phases in your life that you were righteous? Were you born again twice then? Once when you reached the age of accountability, and once when you realized that you needed Christ? I don't find such teaching in the Bible.

He in NO way insinuates or states that the righteous are as the wicked, neither in birth nor in life.

He states plainly that those coming from the womb speak lies as they come forth--they have a sin nature as soon as they are born. Why do you continue to disbelieve the Bible?

In simple terms, David was just expressing in poetic terms that the wicked appeared to be wicked from the earliest light of moral agency, and that as soon as they were able to understand and communicate, even from a very early age, they appeared to him to be engaging in wickedness. Nothing in this passage establishes any such idea as original sin would indicate.

1. There is nothing to indicate that it is simply poetry.
2. We are all wicked when we are born; thus the need to be born again.
3. We are born with a sin nature as the verse teaches. Thus, as every parent knows, one must teach their children to tell the truth. Telling lies is an automatic thing. You don't have to teach anyone to tell a lie. It is part of their sin nature.

 

[Marcia]

Paul isn't saying that he was sinless. He's saying that he wasn't held accountable until he understood the law. Once the law comes into our heads and hearts and we comprehend the full meaning of it, we realize we've sinned and at that point become guilty of transgressing the law and we are separated from God spiritually. We must be born again at this point.

Amy, I have to disagree with you. The law did convict Paul of his sin but all men are accountable to God, with or without the Law. This is what Rom. 1:18ff and Rom. 2 are about.

 

[Amy.G]

Amy, I have to disagree with you. The law did convict Paul of his sin but all men are accountable to God, with or without the Law. This is what Rom. 1:18ff and Rom. 2 are about.

Marcia, say it aint' so. :laugh:

The law was given to the Jews, but it was also written on the hearts of Gentiles, the knowledge of right and wrong, or a conscience. So that man is without excuse. But I disagree that infants are held accountable for their sin. They do not yet understand what sin is.

Ro*2:14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
Ro*2:15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another.


There is an age at which one is held accountable to God, but only God knows what this age is. But even though an infant does not understand that he has broken the law, his sins are still covered by the blood because the atonement was for all.

 

[Marcia]

Marcia, say it aint' so. :laugh:

Ha! I can't! :laugh:

The law was given to the Jews, but it was also written on the hearts of Gentiles, the knowledge of right and wrong, or a conscience. So that man is without excuse. But I disagree that infants are held accountable for their sin. They do not yet understand what sin is.

I totally agree that everyone has a conscience.

There is an age at which one is held accountable to God, but only God knows what this age is. But even though an infant does not understand that he has broken the law, his sins are still covered by the blood because the atonement was for all

I'm not disagreeing with this but only with your statement that Paul was not accountable until he had the law. You said this:

He's saying that he wasn't held accountable until he understood the law.

I disagree. He was accountable even before he understood any law. I think he's saying he did not understand sin or feel the conviction of sin until he knew the law - but this does not mean he was not accountable. I did not believe in sin before I was a Christian (or in any law), but I was still accountable.

Once the law comes into our heads and hearts and we comprehend the full meaning of it, we realize we've sinned and at that point become guilty of transgressing the law and we are separated from God spiritually. We must be born again at this point

I was guilty before I understood any law. I did not understand the law until quite a while after I was saved (although I had heard of the 10 commandments, of course, but they did not mean much to me).

Think of all the unsaved people out there who do not know about any law from God or maybe even don't believe in sin (this would include Wiccans and New Agers). They are guilty and accountable, nevertheless.

 

[Amy.G]

I did not believe in sin before I was a Christian (or in any law), but I was still accountable.

Aha! :laugh:

You knew right from wrong even without knowing the commandments. And Paul says that all people know who God is and that He is, but they choose to reject Him.


Ro*2:14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
Ro*2:15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;

Paul is saying that even those who have never heard of the commandments are still held accountable for their sin because God put His moral standard in their hearts and they are not even able to keep that.
All societies have moral laws, even those that are anti-God or worship a false God. They have laws against murder, theft, ect. These morals came from God. He placed them in their hearts and He holds them accountable to them.



The bible says that everyone knows God is creator and has His laws written on their hearts.

Ro*1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
Ro*1:19 ¶ Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
Ro*1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
Ro*1:21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

People stifle God's truth that He reveals to them in order to justify going their own way. ("hold the truth in unrighteousness) You and I did the same thing before God saved us. So we did know God and His righteousness, but we chose to reject it.

Children and infants do not have the maturity, either physically or mentally to process this information. So God does not hold them "accountable" until they comprehend it. Meaning they will not go to hell for their sins. Christ atoned for their sins, so they are covered, but when they understand what God reveals to all people, and they do wrong knowing full well it's wrong, they will die spiritually. ("when the law came (or when I understood right from wrong) I died".)

 

[steaver]

HP: If one takes the time to read this short Psalm in it’s entirety, one will come to the plain truth that this Psalm was NOT written in any way to support some notion of original sin or inherited depravity, not only because of the context but the fact that the Jews did not hold to inherited depravity in the least. There was no place in their theology for such a notion. Original sin was simply foreign to them.

So let's follow your reasoning to it's logical conclusion as you like to say.

Since a suffering Christ who would die for the sins of His people was "simply foreign to the Jews and had no place in their theology" then there must be no such thing as a suffering Christ dying for the sins of the people.


In fact, I believe if you read the gospels you will find that Jesus had to correct the Jews on quite a bit of their OT theology.


I would abandon the "Jews never taught it" angle in debating these issues.

Jesus came to set the OT record straight and to deliver to His bride the mysteries hidden in the OT scriptures about Himself. THen the apostles by inspiration of the Holy Spirit delivered to us further understanding of God and His plans and truths. So I would stay clear of the "Jews theology" angle.

:jesus:

 

[annsni]

Children and infants do not have the maturity, either physically or mentally to process this information. So God does not hold them "accountable" until they comprehend it. Meaning they will not go to hell for their sins. Christ atoned for their sins, so they are covered, but when they understand what God reveals to all people, and they do wrong knowing full well it's wrong, they will die spiritually. ("when the law came (or when I understood right from wrong) I died".)

While I don't disagree with you, because Scripture doesn't state this, we cannot know for sure that this is the way it is. I do think that God has shown us that children will go to heaven, but there is no explanation of how they can go. I can speculate but that is about it. I know that God is good. That He is just. So I trust Him with the two babies that I lost to miscarriage and whatever His choice was to do with them.