Users who viewed this discussion (Total:0)

Loyal Member
"Guilty"?
Of what?
Being human?
Death is passed on-not sin.
It's a matter of standing versus state. I'm talking in terms of a baby's standing before God; you're talking about their state before God.

In matters of standing:


Babies are most certainly guilty of sin at birth: they are born with a sin nature. That is what I was referring to when I said that a baby isn't a sinner because it sins; it sins because it's a sinner. No one has to teach a baby, as it grows in the first couple years of life, to do wrong. Its natural bent is toward sin. If you want to call it ''guilty of being human,'' that's a fair description. Babies, as the rest of us, are guilty of being decendants of the first Adam, whose sin of disobedience and rebellion against God cursed the world and everything in it.

Accordingly, if we can't be held guilty of another man's sin, as the Bible says we are when we're born ''in Adam,''(1 Cor 15:22) then why do we need a Saviour?

Sure, death was passed on. And Romans 5:12 KJV plainly says that death entered into the world by sin. Romans 6:23 KJV plainly says the wages of sin is death. No sin=no death. If death is passed on, it's passed on because of the original presence of sin.

If babies are sinless, then why do they sometimes die of illness, or in accidents, or in the case of SIDS, for no apparent reason?

David said in Ps 51:5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me. He also said iin Ps 58:3 The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.

What sin was committed by David's son, born of the adulterous affair with Bathsheba? The baby died in 2 Sam 12. Kinda looks like the baby was collateral damage to David and Bathsheba's sin as Nathan told him in verse 14 KJV Howbeit, because by this deed thou hast given great occasion to the enemies of the LORD to blaspheme, the child also that is born unto thee shall surely die.


Jesus didn't commit sin.
That point is applicable to the ages before Christ...only.
A baby doesn't require the Holy Ghost in order to be saved on judgement day.
The point that sin isn't imputed when there's no law is valid when you consider that it was a point that Paul was making to the church at Rome. He used OT examples to explain NT truths more than once. In Galatians 3, he expounded on the relationship between the law and faith and in Romans 3:20 Paul said that by the law is the knowledge of sin. He was talking to Christians both times: the church in Galatia and the church in Rome, respectively. I used the Romans 5:12-13 passage as an example. (Paul also used the OT as an example in the passage he wrote to the Corinthian church in 1 Cor 10, written for our admonition and learning.)

That is crazy talk..(if you'll forgive the vernacular).
What sin can a baby...or the mentally deficient... commit?

That flies in the face of James' words in James 1:14-15..."But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.
Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death."
You can't tempt a baby using it's lusts
What sin can the mentally deficient commit? That depends on your definition of ''mentally deficient.'' If you mean someone like the adults I cared for years ago at the Home I worked at, they're in the same category as babies because while their bodies were between 20 and 60 years old chronologically, they were stuck at the mindset of an infant. If you mean someone who is mentally deficient like my friend Vicki, she commits sin every day. She's also saved. She's 54, with the mentality of approximately a 12 year old.

As for tempting a baby using its lusts, well, no one needs to do that for them. They're quite adept at doing it themselves, as I'm reminded of when I want to hold my six month old granddaughter and she doesn't want to be held. When she's screaming in my ear, it doesn't take much to figure out she wants Mommy to hold her, not Grandma. Try taking a toy or a bottle away from a baby who wants to keep it: they'll let you know they're not happy with you. Why do they do that? Because they're the most selfish, self-centred bunch going! Their lives are characterized by catering to their flesh. They're hungry, they have gas and are uncomfortable, they're wet, you took the bottle away from them too soon, they want their paci, the list goes on and on. Their little lives are all about me-me-me. They have to be taught manners, they have to be taught how to share: none of it comes naturally to them as it should if they weren't born sinners. (Plus, if they weren't born sinners, why is the Book of Proverbs loaded with child-rearing advice?)

In matters of state:

He is also a realist.
When my granddaughter is acting like the 6 month that she is, we overlook her selfish nature because she doesn't know any better. If she screams because her bottle's been momentarily taken away, we give it back to her. It was only taken away so someone could wipe her chin and we planned on giving it back to her anyway, but she doesn't know that.

A baby's standing before God is that of an unbeliever, just by way of their being born in original sin. A baby's state before Him is one of innocence due to lack of moral awareness.

Because of that lack of moral awareness, they can't choose to accept Christ's sacrifice for their sin. (Christ's sacrifice paid for every sin, btw, ones committed past, ones we're committing now, and ones we'll commit in the future.) Babies can't reject salvation any more than they can accept it.

God not imputing sin to babies means that the Blood remains available to cover their sin till they develop that moral awareness and can choose to accept or reject Christ for themselves.
 
Loyal Member
@At Peace

At Peace said: "Eternal" life? No man.
Aye, no man could enter in until Jesus made a Way where there was no way!




At Peace said:
You will need to explain Enoch's condition relative to your thesis.
He didn't sin, and he didn't die.
Babies don't commit sin, so your point is...What is your point?
Is it that babies are condemned even before they reach an age of reason?
I hope not...
Where does it say that Enoch did not die?

"And all the days of Enoch were three hundred sixty and five years:
And Enoch walked with God: and he was not; for God took him." Gen 5:23-24

Enoch was already dead like all of the descendants of Adam.

"By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God." Heb 11:5

"These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth." Heb 11:13

Enoch did not "see death" but that does not mean that he was not dead. He means that he did not perceive it as death. He pleased God so God took him and held him [though he was dead], for until Jesus paid the price the Door to Life was closed so Enoch was not dead forever... The Messiah came and paid the price and the Door was opened. What do we suppose happened to all of the OT people who pleased God? Until Jesus opened the Door there was no Life for any of them including Enoch and Elijah.


At Peace said: The carnally born babies have no sin, until they sin on their own, but they also have no spiritual Life without Jesus.
I hope you are not arguing in favor of a need for infant baptism.
No, I am not. I believe that babies receive what their parents receive unless the baby lives to the point where he becomes accountable for his own sin. What do you suppose happened to all of the Amalekite babies when Saul killed all of the Amalekites? They went the way of their parents.

To ease you a little bit, I am an annihilationist. No eternal torment... simply unending death, but that is for another day and another thread if someone wishes to pursue it.
 
Loyal Member
It's a matter of standing versus state. I'm talking in terms of a baby's standing before God; you're talking about their state before God.
So much for reality...

In matters of standing:
Babies are most certainly guilty of sin at birth: they are born with a sin nature. That is what I was referring to when I said that a baby isn't a sinner because it sins; it sins because it's a sinner. No one has to teach a baby, as it grows in the first couple years of life, to do wrong. Its natural bent is toward sin. If you want to call it ''guilty of being human,'' that's a fair description. Babies, as the rest of us, are guilty of being decendants of the first Adam, whose sin of disobedience and rebellion against God cursed the world and everything in it.
You have a doctrine that condemns every aborted child to hell.
It is not of God.

Accordingly, if we can't be held guilty of another man's sin, as the Bible says we are when we're born ''in Adam,''(1 Cor 15:22) then why do we need a Saviour?
For the atonement of our own sins.

Sure, death was passed on. And Romans 5:12 KJV plainly says that death entered into the world by sin. Romans 6:23 KJV plainly says the wages of sin is death. No sin=no death. If death is passed on, it's passed on because of the original presence of sin.
Death was inflicted on the world because of Adam.
His sin brought the impending death of everyone.
But punishment for our sins is brought on by ourselves.

If babies are sinless, then why do they sometimes die of illness, or in accidents, or in the case of SIDS, for no apparent reason?
Because Eve ate the fruit.
That elicited deathinto the world.

David said in Ps 51:5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me. He also said iin Ps 58:3 The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.

To imply that babies are worthy of hell from David's lament is just a lack of understanding by you.

What sin was committed by David's son, born of the adulterous affair with Bathsheba? The baby died in 2 Sam 12. Kinda looks like the baby was collateral damage to David and Bathsheba's sin as Nathan told him in verse 14 KJV Howbeit, because by this deed thou hast given great occasion to the enemies of the LORD to blaspheme, the child also that is born unto thee shall surely die.

David's son committed no sin.
Adam didn't bring sin into the boys life. He brought death into the world.

The point that sin isn't imputed when there's no law is valid when you consider that it was a point that Paul was making to the church at Rome. He used OT examples to explain NT truths more than once. In Galatians 3, he expounded on the relationship between the law and faith and in Romans 3:20 Paul said that by the law is the knowledge of sin. He was talking to Christians both times: the church in Galatia and the church in Rome, respectively. I used the Romans 5:12-13 passage as an example. (Paul also used the OT as an example in the passage he wrote to the Corinthian church in 1 Cor 10, written for our admonition and learning.)
So why are YOU imputing sin to babies?

What sin can the mentally deficient commit? That depends on your definition of ''mentally deficient.'' If you mean someone like the adults I cared for years ago at the Home I worked at, they're in the same category as babies because while their bodies were between 20 and 60 years old chronologically, they were stuck at the mindset of an infant. If you mean someone who is mentally deficient like my friend Vicki, she commits sin every day. She's also saved. She's 54, with the mentality of approximately a 12 year old.
It seems you just feel the need to condemn.

In matters of state:
A baby's standing before God is that of an unbeliever, just by way of their being born in original sin. A baby's state before Him is one of innocence due to lack of moral awareness.
That POV is contrary to scriptures like...Matthew 18:3..."And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven."
Original sin is a catholic doctrine, and not of God.

Because of that lack of moral awareness, they can't choose to accept Christ's sacrifice for their sin.
What sin?

(Christ's sacrifice paid for every sin, btw, ones committed past, ones we're committing now, and ones we'll commit in the future.) Babies can't reject salvation any more than they can accept it.
A true repentance from sin will preclude any future sin.

God not imputing sin to babies means that the Blood remains available to cover their sin till they develop that moral awareness and can choose to accept or reject Christ for themselves.
What sin?
 
Loyal Member
Probably not a good time to throw fuel on a debate I'm not involved in....

Two things come to mind here.... perhaps not 'all" babies are clean before God.

1 Cor 7:14; For the unbelieving husband is sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified through her believing husband; for otherwise your children are unclean, but now they are holy.

As long as one parent is a believer fine... but what if both are unbelievers?

The second thing that comes to mind here is the Book of Life.

Anyone whos name is not in the Book of Life is thrown into the lake of Fire... ( Rev 20:15; ) only those whos names are written in
the BOL can enter heaven ( Rev 21:27; )

So... the question here... are "ALL" babies written in the book of life, and then their names are erased later (when they reach the age of accountability,
or sin, or reject Jesus, or whatever the case may be)
 
Loyal Member
Where does it say that Enoch did not die
"And all the days of Enoch were three hundred sixty and five years:
And Enoch walked with God: and he was not; for God took him." Gen 5:23-24
Enoch was already dead like all of the descendants of Adam.

"By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God." Heb 11:5

Looks like you provided the answer to your ow question.

"These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth." Heb 11:13
"All", except Enoch, who did "not see death".

Enoch did not "see death" but that does not mean that he was not dead. He means that he did not perceive it as death. He pleased God so God took him and held him [though he was dead], for until Jesus paid the price the Door to Life was closed so Enoch was not dead forever... The Messiah came and paid the price and the Door was opened. What do we suppose happened to all of the OT people who pleased God? Until Jesus opened the Door there was no Life for any of them including Enoch and Elijah.
Just conjecture. Man's wisdom.


No, I am not. I believe that babies receive what their parents receive unless the baby lives to the point where he becomes accountable for his own sin. What do you suppose happened to all of the Amalekite babies when Saul killed all of the Amalekites? They went the way of their parents.
More conjecture?

To ease you a little bit, I am an annihilationist. No eternal torment... simply unending death, but that is for another day and another thread if someone wishes to pursue it.
Annihilationist?
Just another doctrine to enable men to commit sin without conscience of God.
 
Loyal Member
Probably not a good time to throw fuel on a debate I'm not involved in....

Two things come to mind here.... perhaps not 'all" babies are clean before God.

1 Cor 7:14; For the unbelieving husband is sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified through her believing husband; for otherwise your children are unclean, but now they are holy.

As long as one parent is a believer fine... but what if both are unbelievers?

The second thing that comes to mind here is the Book of Life.

Anyone whos name is not in the Book of Life is thrown into the lake of Fire... ( Rev 20:15; ) only those whos names are written in
the BOL can enter heaven ( Rev 21:27; )

So... the question here... are "ALL" babies written in the book of life, and then their names are erased later (when they reach the age of accountability,
or sin, or reject Jesus, or whatever the case may be)
Hi, B-A-C,
What sin can a baby be accused of?
For their own deeds will they be held accountable, no other's sin's pertain unto them.
 
Loyal Member
For their own deeds will they be held accountable, no other's sin's pertain unto them.
Exod 34:6; Then the Lord passed by in front of him and proclaimed, “The Lord, the Lord God, compassionate and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in lovingkindness and truth;
Exod 34:7; who keeps lovingkindness for thousands, who forgives iniquity, transgression and sin; yet He will by no means leave the guilty unpunished, visiting the iniquity of fathers on the children and on the grandchildren to the third and fourth generations.”

You didn't the question about the BOL.
 
Loyal Member
@AtPeace

Based on your reply to me, you don't seem to have understood what I wrote. I've explained it a couple times now; I'm not going to explain it again especially when you tell me I feel a need to condemn because I talked about my own experiences with the mentally deficient. Those people are some of the sweetest ones I've known, and I've often thought that Vicki, although born brain-damaged, has more on the ball than some of the so-called normal people that I know. It seems if you understood what I wrote, you'd see that I was explaining quite the opposite of imputing sin to babies.

I'm unclear on the statement you made about a true repentance from sin precluding any future sin. Are you saying that once you're saved, you never sin again? Because the Apostle Paul wrote about quite the struggle he had with just that in Romans 7:14-25.

Also, do you have any BCV (book, chapter, verse) to back up your idea that Enoch was without sin? You said to @amadeus2 that Enoch didn't sin and Enoch didn't die.

Now I know Enoch was translated without dying because Heb 11:5 KJV says By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God.

It's a stretch to say that Enoch's testimony "that he pleased God" means he was without sin unless you have book, chapter, verse to prove it? The only other places the phrase "pleased God" appears in my KJV is 1Co 1:21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. and Ga 1:15 But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace. Scripturally, the phrase "pleased God" doesn't imply sinlessness.

Plus, although Elijah sinned in the matter with Jezebel, he was also translated in 2Ki 2:11 And it came to pass, as they still went on, and talked, that, behold, there appeared a chariot of fire, and horses of fire, and parted them both asunder; and Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven. So sinlessness isn't a prerequisite to translation without death.

(1 Kings 19 shows Elijah's lack of faith in the Lord and whatsoever is not of faith is sin according to Romans 14:23)
 
Loyal Member
Looks like you provided the answer to your ow question.


"All", except Enoch, who did "not see death".
What happened to his physical body matters not, for in the eyes of God since everyone was dead until and if he received the Life that Jesus alone provided. If Enoch did not see physical death, what does that mean? It could simply mean that because he pleased God simply a hold put on him until spiritual Life through Jesus was available to him.

More conjecture?
No, but you failed to provide any explanation which is supported by all scriptures with regard to babies. There is a basis in scripture for a baby receiving that which his parent deserves. Only when and if the child begins to think for himself and make decisions for himself would this change. I won't go to the trouble to find scriptures for you if you are simply effectively going to say, "I am and right and you are wrong" and call my ideas conjecture. You skimmed right over my comments with regard to the OT and the Amalekites as if that had no bearing on it, but it most certainly does.

Annihilationist?
Just another doctrine to enable men to commit sin without conscience of God.
Every man born of women is already condemned until and if they have been redeemed. They are already dead. What judgment is needed for someone who is dead? You don't believe which is your choice, but don't expect me or anyone to stand with you simply because you say it.

"He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God." John 3:18

Unbelievers require no judgment and therefore remain forever dead. The difference between the ones walking around in their corrupted flesh and the ones who have already had dirt thrown over their face is hope. Those who walk around in their flesh while spiritually dead to God still have hope that they may see and receive Light before their time is finished.

 
Loyal Member
Hi, B-A-C,
What sin can a baby be accused of?
For their own deeds will they be held accountable, no other's sin's pertain unto them.
The question just regarding babies, but anyone. How can anyone move from the death into which they are born from their mother's womb to the Life which is Jesus? A baby cannot. It is an assumption to say that innocent babies who die physically must go to be always with God. Scripture does not support that. People may want to believe that because they love children and feel that a young child does not deserve punishment. If the only alternative to being always with God is eternal torment it would leave many people in a quandary including me. It is one of the reasons that I do not believe in eternal torment for all who have not received the Life Jesus brought.
 
Loyal Member
Exod 34:6; Then the Lord passed by in front of him and proclaimed, “The Lord, the Lord God, compassionate and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in lovingkindness and truth;
Exod 34:7; who keeps lovingkindness for thousands, who forgives iniquity, transgression and sin; yet He will by no means leave the guilty unpunished, visiting the iniquity of fathers on the children and on the grandchildren to the third and fourth generations.”
Some things changed later.
This is one of them..."And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works." (Rev 20:13)
This concurs..."And if ye call on the Father, who without respect of persons judgeth according to every man's work, pass the time of your sojourning here in fear:" (1 Peter 1:17)

You didn't the question about the BOL.
Everyone who has not died in trespasses and sin is in the book of life. That would include children.

I find it unsettling that some would condemn a baby that has done nothing wrong.
 
Loyal Member
What happened to his physical body matters not, for in the eyes of God since everyone was dead until and if he received the Life that Jesus alone provided. If Enoch did not see physical death, what does that mean? It could simply mean that because he pleased God simply a hold put on him until spiritual Life through Jesus was available to him.

The spiritually dead don't "walk with God".


No, but you failed to provide any explanation which is supported by all scriptures with regard to babies. There is a basis in scripture for a baby receiving that which his parent deserves. Only when and if the child begins to think for himself and make decisions for himself would this change. I won't go to the trouble to find scriptures for you if you are simply effectively going to say, "I am and right and you are wrong" and call my ideas conjecture. You skimmed right over my comments with regard to the OT and the Amalekites as if that had no bearing on it, but it most certainly does.
You are still living in the OT.
It is written..."And if ye call on the Father, who without respect of persons judgeth according to every man's work, pass the time of your sojourning here in fear:" (1 Peter 1:17)
Also..."But he slew not
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 die for the children, neither shall the children die for the fathers, but every man shall die for his own sin." (2 Chro 25:4)
This scrip' is in reference to Deut. 24:16.

Every man born of women is already condemned until and if they have been redeemed. They are already dead. What judgment is needed for someone who is dead? You don't believe which is your choice, but don't expect me or anyone to stand with you simply because you say it.
You gotta tell me which sect condemns babies.
What do they need to be redeemed from?

"He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God." John 3:18
Now your condemnation has spread to every man in the OT.
None of them ever heard the name of "the only begotten Son of God".


Unbelievers require no judgment and therefore remain forever dead. The difference between the ones walking around in their corrupted flesh and the ones who have already had dirt thrown over their face
is hope. Those who walk around in their flesh while spiritually dead to God still have hope that they may see and receive Light before their time is finished.

How can unbelievers have hope?
 
Loyal Member
The question just regarding babies, but anyone. How can anyone move from the death into which they are born from their mother's womb to the Life which is Jesus? A baby cannot. It is an assumption to say that innocent babies who die physically must go to be always with God.
Scripture does not support that.
People may want to believe that because they love children and feel that a young child does not deserve punishment. If the only alternative to being always with God is eternal torment it would leave many people in a quandary including me. It is one of the reasons that I do not believe in eternal torment for all who have not received the Life Jesus brought.
This scripture supports that..."But when Jesus saw it, he was much displeased, and said unto them, Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God." ((Mark 10:14)
Or are you going to differentiate between babies and young children?
 
Loyal Member
@AtPeace
Based on your reply to me, you don't seem to have understood what I wrote. I've explained it a couple times now; I'm not going to explain it again especially when you tell me I feel a need to condemn because I talked about my own experiences with the mentally deficient. Those people are some of the sweetest ones I've known, and I've often thought that Vicki, although born brain-damaged, has more on the ball than some of the so-called normal people that I know. It seems if you understood what I wrote, you'd see that I was explaining quite the opposite of imputing sin to babies.
I'm glad you took the time to explain it again.
I was under the impression you were calling babies and the mentally challenged "unsaved"

I'm unclear on the statement you made about a true repentance from sin precluding any future sin. Are you saying that once you're saved, you never sin again? Because the Apostle Paul "wrote about quite the struggle he had with just that in Romans 7:14-25.
If you "turn from" something you don't "un" turn again.
It is written..."For godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation not to be repented of: but the sorrow of the world worketh death." (2 Cor 7:10)
Only a false repentance would accommodate more sin.
As for Paul, The first few verses of Ro 7 clearly show that it is speaking of a former time. Verse 5..."For when we WERE in the flesh..."
The entire middle of Ro 7 is about Paul's former life as a Pharisee; trying to live the Mosaic Law, but failing. And again, a reference to the past in verse 18; (that is, in my flesh).
And the end, especially verse 23; "But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to THE LAW OF SIN which is in my members."...points again to a former time. Because....
we read in Romans 8:2...."For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from THE LAW OF SIN and death.
Why would Paul be subject to something he is free of?
If you could see the truth of Ro 7, and its proximity to Ro 6, which speaks of baptism and the death of the flesh, you would see that Paul is making the past-present transition, and Ro 8 continues on into the life walked in the Spirit.

Also, do you have any BCV (book, chapter, verse) to back up your idea that Enoch was without sin? You said to @amadeus2 that Enoch didn't sin and Enoch didn't die.
Sure.
In Hebrews 11:5 it is written..."By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God.
Sinners can't "please God".

It's a stretch to say that Enoch's testimony "that he pleased God" means he was without sin unless you have book, chapter, verse to prove it? The only other places the phrase "pleased God" appears in my KJV is 1Co 1:21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. and Ga 1:15 But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace. Scripturally, the phrase "pleased God" doesn't imply sinlessness.
Is it a stretch to think a man who lived before the Mosaic law was enacted could live according to his conscience before God?
Not to me.

Plus, although Elijah sinned in the matter with Jezebel, he was also translated in 2Ki 2:11 And it came to pass, as they still went on, and talked, that, behold, there appeared a chariot of fire, and horses of fire, and parted them both asunder; and Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven. So sinlessness isn't a prerequisite to translation without death.
(1 Kings 19 shows Elijah's lack of faith in the Lord and whatsoever is not of faith is sin according to Romans 14:23)
You will need to demonstrate his "lack of faith".
Either that or show where any other "unfaithful sinner" was translated.
 
Loyal Member
Is it when the child starts to know the difference between right or wrong.
I dont know about aborted babies having not had an abortion I wouldnt know...but if their parents prayed for them maybe. Maybe the because the parents still live God reaches to them and they realise what theyve done wrong..? If one of them is born again or even both maybe they will see their aborted child in heaven?

I cant imagine all the aborted babies from all over the world in heaven but maybe there are billions, esp from china and america, who end up in heaven, guarded by angels, while their parents on earth are going to hell.

Two quotes from a post of mine in March of this year after watching Max Lucado on a TV in a hotel room talk about his "cancelled insurance."



Firm in Faith



If you read back carefully over what he said in "cancelled insurance" he parallels his car insurance policy to his life insurance policy with God, and when he talked about his car insurance, he basically said that he got insurance because he is a bad driver and one who regularly and willfully breaks the law, i.e. he has a lead foot. And, his idea of salvation appears to be merely that Jesus paid the debt for his sin so that he would no longer be charged guilty for his sin, but there is no sense of repentance, or of a change of heart or lifestyle present in what he said, only that Jesus took his penalty for his sin so now he is declared righteous forever, the indication being no matter how he lives from this point forward.
Hmm you might have to email him and ask him what he believes about repentance..he cant get away with this bad driving and expect to still be on the road.

Just remind him that the woman caught in adultery did she go and commit adultery again? No, Jesus told her go and sin no more.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Loyal Member
The spiritually dead don't "walk with God".

You are still living in the OT.
It is written..."And if ye call on the Father, who without respect of persons judgeth according to every man's work, pass the time of your sojourning here in fear:" (1 Peter 1:17)

God has never changed. He is the same God in the NT that He was in the OT.

Also..."But he slew not
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 die for the children, neither shall the children die for the fathers, but every man shall die for his own sin." (2 Chro 25:4)
This scrip' is in reference to Deut. 24:16.

What happened to Achan's family? [Joshua 7:24ff]
Adult children do not die for the sins of their adult parents and vice verse. Achan's children that died were those still underage in his household.


You gotta tell me which sect condemns babies.

Give me a verse that tells me how they are saved if their parents are not.

What do they need to be redeemed from?
Death!


Now your condemnation has spread to every man in the OT.
None of them ever heard the name of "the only begotten Son of God".
How can unbelievers have hope?
Unbelievers which all of us were have hope until the glimmer of Light with which every man was born from his natural mother is put out. This happens either when he commits the unpardonable sin or when his time as a man of flesh is ended:

"That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world." John 1:9

This verse is NOT speaking of the born again, but the unbelievers. The light they have is sufficient only for them to see to move into the greater Light of Jesus. It is not enough light to have the Life which Jesus is.
 
Loyal Member
This scripture supports that..."But when Jesus saw it, he was much displeased, and said unto them, Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God." ((Mark 10:14)
Or are you going to differentiate between babies and young children?
That verse refers to what God wants us to be like. It makes no promises to children who are dead. The kingdom is not made of anyone who is dead. Children are the responsibility of their parents until they become responsible for themselves. Thus it behooves a parent to bring up children in the way that they should go so that the children may see the Light and receive the Life.

What is our vision? Both OT and NT?

"Where there is no vision, the people perish: ... " Prov 29:18

"For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known." I Cor 13:12

"I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see." Rev 3:18

Don't draw conclusions based on the natural eye and the natural heart of a man. No one wants babies to die, but how many millions are aborted each year unnecessarily? Parents need to know God and then give heed to their children.
 
Loyal Member
At Peace said:
I'm glad you took the time to explain it again.
I was under the impression you were calling babies and the mentally challenged "unsaved"
No worries. I did say in that post that Vicki is saved. But not because she's mentally challenged: she's told me her testimony of how she accepted Christ after a church service a few years back. Almost every time I take her to the mall, she asks me when Jesus is coming back. :smile:

I think you and I agree that babies, including aborted babies, and the mentally challenged without moral awareness go to Heaven if/when they die.

If you "turn from" something you don't "un" turn again.
It is written..."For godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation not to be repented of: but the sorrow of the world worketh death." (2 Cor 7:10)
Only a false repentance would accommodate more sin.
Thanks for answering. I agree, with the operative word being ''accomodate.'' After we're saved, if we've truly repented, we ought not carry on in a lifestyle of sin. We ought not sin presumptuously or willfully.

Romans 6:1-2 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?


As for Paul, The first few verses of Ro 7 clearly show that it is speaking of a former time. Verse 5..."For when we WERE in the flesh..."
The entire middle of Ro 7 is about Paul's former life as a Pharisee; trying to live the Mosaic Law, but failing. And again, a reference to the past in verse 18; (that is, in my flesh).
And the end, especially verse 23; "But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to THE LAW OF SIN which is in my members."...points again to a former time. Because....
we read in Romans 8:2...."For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from THE LAW OF SIN and death.
Why would Paul be subject to something he is free of?
If you could see the truth of Ro 7, and its proximity to Ro 6, which speaks of baptism and the death of the flesh, you would see that Paul is making the past-present transition, and Ro 8 continues on into the life walked in the Spirit.
This passage is written in present tense though. Paul is describing his own struggle against sin and the ongoing battle that he had between the old man (carnal, fleshly nature) and the new man (spiritual, godly nature).

Ro 7:14 ¶ For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.
Ro 7:15 For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I.
Ro 7:16 If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good.
Ro 7:17 Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
Ro 7:18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.
Ro 7:19 For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.
Ro 7:20 Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
Ro 7:21 I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me.
Ro 7:22 For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:
Ro 7:23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.
Ro 7:24 O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?
Ro 7:25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.

He also speaks of putting off the old man and putting on the new man and instructs Christians to do just that in Ephesians 4:22-32 and Colossians 3:8-17.


Sure.
In Hebrews 11:5 it is written..."By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God.
Sinners can't "please God".

Is it a stretch to think a man who lived before the Mosaic law was enacted could live according to his conscience before God?
Not to me.
In the NT, sinners can't please God if they're walking in the flesh (Romans 8:8) or friends with the world (Jas 4:4). And they certainly can't if they don't even believe to begin with (John 3:18). In the OT sometimes sinners did please God. I'm thinking of Enoch, because Heb 11:5 specifies that he pleased God, and also David, whom God called "a man after mine own heart" in Acts 13:22; Noah, because he was perfect in his generations and found grace in the eyes of the Lord (Gen 6:7-9) and also Job and Daniel, who, along with Noah, the Lord called righteous in Eze 14:14, 20.

Enoch, Noah and Job lived before the Mosaic law was enacted; David and Daniel after it was enacted. Scripture shows they all lived well before God although the Bible doesn't call any of them was sinless.

Neither Enoch, nor Noah, Job, David or Daniel died for my sins. They couldn't: they all had human parents. Only Christ was sinless, and only He could die for my sins because He wasn't born of a human male seed, but of the Holy Spirit.


You will need to demonstrate his "lack of faith".
Either that or show where any other "unfaithful sinner" was translated.
Elijah's doubt and his pity-party under the juniper tree are well-documented in 1 Kings 19.

Thanks for a good discussion. Have a blessed Lord's Day tomorrow.
 
Loyal Member
God has never changed. He is the same God in the NT that He was in the OT.

Same God, but different testament.
Not everything in the OT applies to the NT.

What happened to Achan's family? [Joshua 7:24ff]
Adult children do not die for the sins of their adult parents and vice verse. Achan's children that died were those still underage in his household.
They were all destroyed.
My bible makes no mention of the children's ages.
You are adding to scripture.

Give me a verse that tells me how " are saved if their parents are not.
If they were younger than the age of reason, there was no sin held against them.

It is written..."For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad." (2 Cor 5:10)
"That HE hath done".

Now you will need to supply the verse to back that up.



Unbelievers which all of us were have hope until the glimmer of Light with which every man was born from his natural mother is put out. This happens either when he commits the unpardonable sin or when his time as a man of flesh is ended:
Perhaps someone "hopes" on their behalf, but why would any unbeliever "hope" for anything pertaining to the Lord?

"That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world." John 1:9
This verse is NOT speaking of the born again, but the unbelievers. The light they have is sufficient only for them to see to move into the greater Light of Jesus. It is not enough light to have the Life which Jesus is.
You're mixing your metaphors.
You are combining "light" with "hope'.
 
Loyal Member
That verse refers to what God wants us to be like. It makes no promises to children who are dead. The kingdom is not made of anyone who is dead. Children are the responsibility of their parents until they become responsible for themselves. Thus it behooves a parent to bring up children in the way that they should go so that the children may see the Light and receive the Life.

Jesus was talking about the children who were within reach of His arms.
You know, the ones you say are unworthy of heaven.

What is our vision? Both OT and NT?
"Where there is no vision, the people perish: ... " Prov 29:18
"For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known." I Cor 13:12
"I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see." Rev 3:18
Don't draw conclusions based on the natural eye and the natural heart of a man. No one wants babies to die, but how many millions are aborted each year unnecessarily? Parents need to know God and then give heed to their children.
What is my vision relevant to what?
Babies can't commit sin so have nothing to worry about in regard to the final judgement.
 

Similar threads

Top