# Lifestyles & Discussion > Peace Through Religion >  Calvinists: Defend your idea that God burns babies in hell forever

## jmdrake

Okay.  I should qualify this as "some Calvinists".  But *I'm calling all of you out because some of you who believe otherwise have not stood up for the honor of Yaweh against the insane charge made by Sola_Fide*.

And yes, it is insane.  Calvinists agree with others that God is limited by the fact that He can't do something that goes against His nature.  Well burning a baby forever in hell goes against His nature.  And the blaphemous idea that God "needs" people to burn forever to "satiate His wrath" can be found nowhere in the Bible.  Sola_Fide just made that up out of thin air.  There is much Biblical evidence that hell doesn't last forever anyway.  Even some Calvinist acknowledge this.  But even if you believe that, the idea that a baby, who has yet to have a sinful thought, could be sent by a loving God to burn in hell is simply a lie straight from Satan to discredit God.  And don't give me some crap about "Well God can do whatever the hell He wants".  No He can't.  Not if the Calvinist claim that God doesn't go against His own nature is true.  It's pagans that believe that their gods are able to do whatever level of evil humans are capable and somehow it's good because it's God.

The Bible makes it clear.

Ezekiel 18:20 _The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him._

Children do no burn in hell for the sins of their parents.  And that includes our ultimate parent Adam.  Those who go to hell will end up their for their own sins.  Even if you believe God dictates who will and will not be saved, the idea that He punishes someone for what they did *not* do is simply unbiblical.  And no, questioning the insanity of those who think God burns little babies forever to satiate His wrath is not "questioning God".  It is questioning people who sink so spiritually low that they act like they are God.  Religious fanatics who have murdered in the name of their god and/or convinced their followers to do so are quick to say "Don't question God" when people are merely questioning them.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

/grabs popcorn

----------


## Beorn

It is true that God can punish someone who has never sinned.

And if I were you I would be thankful for that.

----------


## Origanalist

My apologies to everyone here for that post.

----------


## jmdrake

More on the subject from a less inflammatory perspective.  And my apologies for my state of anger when I first posted this.  But it is an important topic regarding the misrepresentation of the character of God.

http://www.apologeticspress.org/apco...3&article=1201
_Do Babies Go to Hell When They Die?
by  	Kyle Butt, M.A.

One of the most often-used weapons in the skeptic’s arsenal is to seize statements from religious people that make God look like a cruel despot waiting to cast any and everyone into a torturous lake of eternal fire. However, this frequently lands the skeptic in a less-than-defensible position when the actual text of the Bible is consulted. Consider the following paragraph from Ronald Defenbaugh, a self-avowed atheist:

    One evening, a friend about the same age as us rode home with us from one of our children’s sporting events. This was the first time I realized I may have a real problem with believing. She was a good friend of my spouse’s, a member of our Church and very religious. I don’t remember how the subject came up but salvation was our subject of conversation. She stated that even though my father had been an honest, caring person who did nothing but good, he would not receive salvation. He could only go to Heaven if he accepted Christ as his Savior. I remember thinking that I wanted no part of a deity that sent my father to Hell under those circumstances. Why would a baby, or my father, or even me be sent to Hell just because we didn’t accept Christ as our Savior? What about the Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists? Again, what about me? This started me thinking that I probably was without belief. Or at least I didn’t understand it. It didn’t fit my logic (2003, emp. added).

After hearing from his religious friend that his father would not be in heaven because of his failure to obey Jesus’ teachings, Mr. Defenbaugh quickly constructed a straw man by insinuating that the God of the Bible would have no problem sending babies to hell along with disobedient, reasonable adults.

Does the Bible teach that babies go to hell when they die? In order to answer this question, we must find a biblical example in which an infant died, and in which his or her eternal destination is recorded. To do such is not difficult. In 2 Samuel 12, King David’s newborn son fell terminally ill. After seven days, the child died. In verses 22 and 23, the Bible records that David said: “While the child was alive, I fasted and wept; for I said, ‘Who can tell whether the Lord will be gracious to me, that the child may live?’ But now he is dead; why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me.” It is clear that David’s dead infant son would never return to this Earth, but David also said that one day, he would go to be with his son. Through inspiration, David documented that his own eternal destination was going to be “in the house of the Lord” (Psalm 23:6). Therefore, we can conclude that “the house of the Lord” would be the eternal destination of his infant son to whom David would one day go. King David was looking forward to the day when he would be able to meet his son in heaven. Absolutely nothing in this context gives any hint that the dead infant son’s soul would go to hell.

Furthermore, Jesus said in Matthew 18:3-5:

    Assuredly, I say to you, unless you are converted and become as little children, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven. Therefore whoever humbles himself as this little child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. Whoever receives one little child like this in My name receives Me.

And in Luke 18:16-17, Jesus remarked: “Let the little children come to Me, and do not forbid them; for of such is the kingdom of God. Assuredly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God as a little child will by no means enter it.”

Therefore, we have been given a specific example in the Old Testament of an infant who died and would live forever in heaven. And Jesus Christ Himself, in the New Testament, stated that little children retain the qualities that make a person eligible to inherit the kingdom of God. We see, then, that infants and small children that die are in a safe state, and will live eternally in heaven.

With such clear statements from the Bible about the eternal destiny of dead infants and small children, why have religious people mistakenly taught that babies go to hell when they die? Due to the influential nature of John Calvin and his teachings, many people have taught that sin is “passed” from one generation to the next. It is believed by many religious people that children “inherit” the sins of their parents. Yet, the Bible pointedly and explicitly teaches that such is not the case. In Ezekiel 18:20, the Bible says: “The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son.” Also, in Exodus 32, Moses pleaded with God to forgive the sins of the Israelites when he said: “Yet now, if You will forgive their sin—but if not, I pray, blot me out of Your book which You have written. And the Lord said to Moses, ‘Whoever has sinned against Me, I will blot him out of My book’ ” (Exodus 32:32-33). The Bible is plain in its teaching that babies do not inherit the sins of their parents. [One commonly misapplied scripture used to teach that infants inherit sin is Psalm 51:5-6, which has been dealt with in detail by Wayne Jackson (2000).]

The Bible nowhere teaches that babies go to hell if they die in infancy. Neither does it teach that babies inherit the sins of their parents. Although many skeptics have tried to portray God as an evil tyrant Who condemns innocent children to eternal destruction, their arguments are without merit or any semblance of biblical credence. In the words of Jesus Christ, “Let the little children come to me.”
REFERENCES

Defenbaugh, Ronald (2003), “Why I Couldn’t Deconvert,” [On-line], URL: http://www.secweb.org/asset.asp?AssetID=263. Jackson, Wayne (2000), “ ‘Original Sin’ and a Misapplied Passage,” [On-line], URL: http://www.christiancourier.com/arch...riginalSin.htm_

----------


## loveableteddybear

JMdrake, are we at odds?

I posted that though I cannot prove it, that the only thing in the Bible that lends the possibility of not all babies are damned is Psalm 8:2 ("Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings hast thou ordained strength because of thine enemies, that thou mightest still the enemy and the avenger") and 1 Peter 4:6 ("For for this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit").

So, the logical conclusion is at least _some_ babies are praising God in heaven, and the reason probably is not their innate goodness/lack of guilt, but rather the possibility they were converted after death.

Here is my question for you: Where does the Bible state that all babies are universally saved?

And don't give me the "we are not judged for the sins of our fathers."  The Bible says unequivocally "There is none righteous, no, not one" (Rom 3:10) and "Indeed, I was born guilty, a sinner when my mother conceived me." (Psalm 51:5)


I think you are coming from the heterodox viewpoint. The truth is that all men are under condemnation, regardless of age. This has been the stance of the Bible and the Church Fathers.

And, if not what's the cut-off for not being accountable for sin before God? 3 months? 3 years? 13 years? 17 years? What is it, a statutory damnation law?

All men are under condemnation, aside those that are in Christ. "There is, then, now no condemnation to those in Christ Jesus, who walk not according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit." (Romans 8:1)

----------


## jj-

God needs to have some fun too!

----------


## loveableteddybear

There are 5 threads on this, so I missed your reply:




> You're reading too much into Psalm 51:5. First this Psalm was most likely written after David was confronted by Nathan about his sin with Bathsheba. One plausible interpretation is that David was talking about the child they had who was "born in sin" as he was born from an illicit relationship. The other is that David was talking about his inherited sinful nature. But having a sinful nature is not the same as having committed sin. There are many people who come from alcoholic families who might have a genetic predisposition to alcohol but never drink. Assuming binge drinking is a sin (I know some would argue anyway), that person has not yet committed the sin of binge drinking even if he could.


Point taken. It depends on the translation on whether my or your viewpoint in vindicated. Not knowing greek or hebrew, I won't pursue this farther than to ask you to keep an open mind about the fact men are inborn with sin.




> Further Romans saying that "none are righteous" is not the same as saying that a baby has sinned before even having the opportunity. A righteous person isn't merely someone who has not sinned yet. He is someone who will not sin. From that perspective Jesus is the only one righteous. Everyone else either has already sinned or will given enough time.


Yes, it is the same. The baby certainly does not perform any good acts if we judge by works, and babies are by nature selfish, because that's how they survive.

To be honest, almost all adult negative behaviors are just more sophisticated selfish behaviors that have never been grown out of since youth. Studies show that babies lie about pain for attention...they just broke 2 commandments right there. But screw science, just look at a baby. A baby is no more guilty than a fully grown atheist who's a nice guy, gives to charity, doesn't cheat on his wife, is part of the volunteer fire department. Actually, I'd say the adult is a better guy. But, apart from a sovereign act of grace on God's behalf, not the man's behalf, he's going to hell.




> And lastly, the Bible clearly says that God will judge everyone according to their works. Yes those who are in Christ have His blood covering their evil works. But in the case of someone who dies before having done a work, what is there to judge? The answer is nothing. If Ezekiel is true that God will not punish the son for the sins of the father, then it is impossible for God to send a baby who isn't even mature enough to conceive of a sin, let alone commit one, to hell for eternity.


That's salvation by works, not by grace.

There is not some two tiered system into heaven--bad people who get to go because Christ will pay their tab, and good people with a good enough credit score that they don't need Christ. I once believed this myself, but I trusted God's word over my own intuition.

Again, "no one is righteous." There works will not save them. "Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death came through sin, and so *death spread to all* because *all have sinned*." (Romans 5:12) That in my mind totally settles it, all men are under condemnation.




> The "error of Job"? You do not understand your Bible. Job 1:22 In all this, Job did not sin by charging God with wrongdoing.


He did not sin when he said "`Naked came I forth from the womb of my mother, and naked I turn back thither: Jehovah hath given and Jehovah hath taken: let the name of Jehovah be blessed.'" (Job 1:21). You need to read the whole thing.

"Who is this [Job] that darkens counsel by words without knowledge?
Gird up your loins like a man,
    I will question you, and you shall declare to me.
“Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth?
    Tell me, if you have understanding.
Who determined its measurements—surely you know!"  (Job 38:2-5)

God couldn't lay the sarcasm any thicker.

What's Job's ultimate response?

"I know that you can do all things,
    and that no purpose of yours can be thwarted...
therefore I despise myself,
    and repent in dust and ashes." (Job 42:2, 6)

Job rightfully admits he cannot question God's justice after God makes clear to him that he cannot understand His reasoning.

“For who has known the mind of the Lord?
    Or who has been his counselor?”
 “Or who has given a gift to him,
    to receive a gift in return?” (Romans 11:34-35)

We have no righteousness of our own in which to offer to God. We cannot question Him. He's big, we are small, that's that.




> You are committing the error of Job's friends, attributing to God the works of Satan.


God takes credit for "evil" (isaiah 45:7) when it suits His righteous purpose. The exile and Israel's destruction wasn't the sovereign decision of satan. It was God's righteous judgment.




> Paul was talking about how God chose Jacob to be the progenitor of Jesus as opposed to Essau who was the firstborn. But that had nothing to do with God's view towards Essau in general or Essau's eternal salvation.


Again, you ignore the Pharaoh, whose heart God HARDENED.

"What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience the objects of wrath that are made for destruction?" (Romans 9:22)

Can you please answer that question for me?  Just that question if nothing else. It's okay if you don't have a good response, I'm not trying to out argue you or something. But that's God speaking to you. What do you say in response?




> You are using circular reasoning and I see you have yet to address the verse I posted from Ezekiel.


Ezekiel is speaking of the misunderstanding that Joe's life sucks, because it's a punishment from God because his grandfather killed somebody or something. That was a common error in those times, even until the days of Christ when his disciples asked why the man was born blind in John 9.

We have our own sin to be judged by God by, we don't need to be screwed over by our father.

Let me make this extremely clear:

"Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death came through sin, and so death spread to all because all have sinned." (Romans 5:12)

All have sinned, my friend. Baby, adult, hindu, Christian--all means everyone.




> All men are under condemnation because all men (adults) have sinned. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that all babies are under condemnation or that even some babies are under condemnation.


You just added a qualifier there. Only adults have sinned? How about the children that Elisha sent the bear after? Children are ancestors of Adam in Romans 5:12. That's the context we need to understand who is culpable for sin. According to Romans 5:12, it's ALL the ancestors of Adam.




> The underlying theology throughout the old and new testament is that God is love and God is just. A just and loving God doesn't punish someone in hell for sins he didn't commit.


Maybe that's what you think a just and loving God would do. And, maybe you're right. But, babies are ancestors of Adam and are in sin for that reason. How God works out His sovereign grace is, to me, mysterious.




> What the scripture is specific about is that God doesn't punish people in hell for their parents sins.


That line from Ezekiel is being applied wrongly, though. It is addressing the issue brought up in John 9:2.




> "Conceived in sin" does not mean "already has sinned". And "no one is righteous" doesn't mean "everyone has already sinned".


No one is righteous means no one is right in God's eyes.

God tells us that, "For just as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous." (Romans 5:19)

We are amongst the many, you and me have been made sinners. But Christ's obedience His righteousness is given to us!

----------


## TheTexan

Sending babies to hell to burn forever.. what the $#@! is wrong with some people, that's messed up

----------


## Confederate

> Sending babies to hell to burn forever.. what the $#@! is wrong with some people, that's messed up


Well if the Calvinist god didn't chose them to be one of his elect, then they totally deserved it.

/Sola_Fide

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Well if the Calvinist god didn't chose them to be one of his elect, then they totally deserved it.
> 
> /Sola_Fide


*You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Confederate again*

----------


## matt0611

I'm a "calvinist" in that I believe everything is predetermined and predestined by God. 

I won't say ALL babies go to hell, but I can't definitely say that ALL babies go to heaven either. It may be that some do and some do not. I don't know. The Bible isn't clear enough for me to say definitively either way. At least not that I've found anyway, I may change my mind on it. 

I don't really take a dogmatic position either way.

I don't believe there's an official "calvinist" position on this topic anyway, I've heard Reformed people debate the topic from both sides, so...

----------


## jmdrake

> JMdrake, are we at odds?
> 
> I posted that though I cannot prove it, that the only thing in the Bible that lends the possibility of not all babies are damned is Psalm 8:2 ("Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings hast thou ordained strength because of thine enemies, that thou mightest still the enemy and the avenger") and 1 Peter 4:6 ("For for this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit").
> 
> So, the logical conclusion is at least _some_ babies are praising God in heaven, and the reason probably is not their innate goodness/lack of guilt, but rather the possibility they were converted after death.


First off, you are using Psalms 8:2 entirely differently than how Jesus used it.  He quoted that verse to talk about babies on earth praising Him.

_
15 And when the chief priests and scribes saw the wonderful things that he did, and the children crying in the temple, and saying, Hosanna to the son of David; they were sore displeased,

16 And said unto him, Hearest thou what these say? And Jesus saith unto them, Yea; have ye never read, Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings thou hast perfected praise?
_

That said, your point bears no relevance as I'm not suggesting no babies are saved.  You seem to be assuming that either babies go to heaven and live forever or hell and burn forever.  I assume that you believe in the immortality of the soul?  I do not.  The serpent told Eve "You shall not surely die" and that first lie ever recorded in the Bible is still propagated various ways (reincarnation, new age movement etc).  Immortality is a gift that is given to the righteous.  But even if you believe that all souls are inherently immortal, that doesn't mean that babies that don't go to heaven must go to hell.  There's the possibility of "limbo".  There's also the possibility that a truly all powerful God could strip immortality from babies that for whatever reason didn't go to heaven.  The question is not does someone who never actually sinned "deserve" heaven.  The question is does someone who never actually sinned "deserve" hell.  If you truly believe that what Ezekiel says about sons not paying for the sins of the father, there is no reason for babies to burn in hell.




> Here is my question for you: Where does the Bible state that all babies are universally saved?


That question is irrelevant as I've already pointed out.  It is erroneous to assume that unless babies are universally saved, some must go to hell and burn for eternity.




> And don't give me the "we are not judged for the sins of our fathers."  The Bible says unequivocally "There is none righteous, no, not one" (Rom 3:10) and "Indeed, I was born guilty, a sinner when my mother conceived me." (Psalm 51:5)


You're misapplying Romans 3:10 and Psalms 51:5.




> I think you are coming from the heterodox viewpoint. The truth is that all men are under condemnation, regardless of age. This has been the stance of the Bible and the Church Fathers.


TER is the expert on "Church Fathers" and he would disagree with you.  But since you are appealing to church fathers, please quote from one of them where they say that babies who don't go to heaven must therefor burn forever in hell.  I think you are simply making a vain appeal to the charge of "heterodox" without having any basis in reality.




> And, if not what's the cut-off for not being accountable for sin before God? 3 months? 3 years? 13 years? 17 years? What is it, a statutory damnation law?


Why are you trying to do God's work for Him?  Even human courts are wise enough to know that not everyone reaches the same mental state at the same age.  In your mind God has less wisdom than humans?  Well if that's the case I disagree.  I think God is wise enough to uphold His position that He doesn't punish children for their parents sins, and thus does not punish someone who died before they sinned, in hell.

Tell me this.  You believe Jesus died for the "sins" of the babies that end up in heaven right?  Well if a baby died prior to ever actually sinning, which sin did Jesus die for?  What the sin of Adam applied to Jesus multiple times to cover the babies that didn't sin?




> All men are under condemnation, aside those that are in Christ. "There is, then, now no condemnation to those in Christ Jesus, who walk not according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit." (Romans 8:1)


It's funny how Calvinists selectively use "all".  They don't believe "all" means "all" the Bible teaches that Jesus was the propitiation for the sins of the whole world.

_1 John 2:2 He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world_

But tell me this.  How do the babies that you believe end up in heaven "walk in the spirit"?  And how do the "believe" in Jesus?

----------


## jmdrake

> Ezekiel is speaking of the misunderstanding that Joe's life sucks, because it's a punishment from God because his grandfather killed somebody or something. That was a common error in those times, even until the days of Christ when his disciples asked why the man was born blind in John 9.


I have too little time to respond all of your post at the moment.  But I will respond to this.  The idea that God would not punish someone in this life for what his parents did, but would instead burn him forever is just too blatantly fallacious to ignore.  Actually in the Bible there is evidence of generational curses.  For example Elisha's servant Gehazi was cursed white with leprosy and Elisha declared that the curse would last for his generations.

_2 Kings 5:27 Naaman's leprosy will cling to you and to your descendants forever." Then Gehazi went from Elisha's presence and he was leprous, as white as snow._

So just because Jesus pointed out that in *that* instant that a man was born blind without there being any fault of his parents doesn't mean that *everytime* something bad happens to someone a parent is not at fault.  Look up "fetal alcohol syndrome" if you doubt me.

----------


## Eagles' Wings

As a woman who has had two miscarriages and as one who mourns the deaths of millions of aborted babies, I hope and pray that our good Lord Jesus has those little ones in His loving arms.  And all little babies and small children.

----------


## jj-

God is all knowing, so he probably knows what the babies WOULD'VE chosen if they didn't die, so if they would've chosen to do evil, then they go to hell.

----------


## VIDEODROME

wtf

----------


## jmdrake

> As a woman who has had two miscarriages and as one who mourns the deaths of millions of aborted babies, I hope and pray that our good Lord Jesus has those little ones in His loving arms.  And all little babies and small children.


My heart goes out to you in your loss.

----------


## jmdrake

I'm interested if anyone wishes to respond to this article.  I think the author did a better job than I did.




> More on the subject from a less inflammatory perspective.  And my apologies for my state of anger when I first posted this.  But it is an important topic regarding the misrepresentation of the character of God.
> 
> http://www.apologeticspress.org/apco...3&article=1201
> _Do Babies Go to Hell When They Die?
> by  	Kyle Butt, M.A.
> 
> One of the most often-used weapons in the skeptic’s arsenal is to seize statements from religious people that make God look like a cruel despot waiting to cast any and everyone into a torturous lake of eternal fire. However, this frequently lands the skeptic in a less-than-defensible position when the actual text of the Bible is consulted. Consider the following paragraph from Ronald Defenbaugh, a self-avowed atheist:
> 
>     One evening, a friend about the same age as us rode home with us from one of our children’s sporting events. This was the first time I realized I may have a real problem with believing. She was a good friend of my spouse’s, a member of our Church and very religious. I don’t remember how the subject came up but salvation was our subject of conversation. She stated that even though my father had been an honest, caring person who did nothing but good, he would not receive salvation. He could only go to Heaven if he accepted Christ as his Savior. I remember thinking that I wanted no part of a deity that sent my father to Hell under those circumstances. Why would a baby, or my father, or even me be sent to Hell just because we didn’t accept Christ as our Savior? What about the Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists? Again, what about me? This started me thinking that I probably was without belief. Or at least I didn’t understand it. It didn’t fit my logic (2003, emp. added).
> ...

----------


## jmdrake

> God is all knowing, so he probably knows what the babies WOULD'VE chosen if they didn't die, so if they would've chosen to do evil, then they go to hell.


For what purpose?

----------


## american.swan

The burning forever is not Biblical. The word translated forever in references to hell is mistranslated in my view. For example, is sadam and gamorrah(sp?)  still burning today? No. They were burned "completely", but not still burning today. Hell is therefore a complete "gone". A complete burning. There's not eternal flame. 

Just as Jesus said Lazarus was sleeping, dead is just*a sleep. It's not painful. 

Since we sleep everyday, it seems to me a blessing we wake up each day.

----------


## loveableteddybear

Please excuse me that I dont address every single point you bring up, because Im not trying to create an argument. Ill answer specifically your questions.




> Tell me this. You believe Jesus died for the "sins" of the babies that end up in heaven right? Well if a baby died prior to ever actually sinning, which sin did Jesus die for? What the sin of Adam applied to Jesus multiple times to cover the babies that didn't sin?


Former question, yes, Christs sacrifice atones for the sins of all men for all time. Second question, the baby inherits sin and already exercises sins (deception, selfishness) pretty much after birth. (Scientific studies have shown this as early as six months http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/s...y-pretend.html) I dont understand the third question.




> How do the babies that you believe end up in heaven "walk in the spirit"? And how do the "believe" in Jesus?


I dont have a cogent theology of baby salvation or damnation.  Id guess just like beheaded people get their heads back, and people with Alzheimers are cured, the babies have their minds matured so that they can sing praises and such in heaven. God then decides to save some by grace, theoretically. The Bible doesnt give any details, its just the only way I can see babies going to heaven.

----------


## loveableteddybear

> The idea that God would not punish someone in this life for what his parents did, but would instead burn him forever is just too blatantly fallacious to ignore. Actually in the Bible there is evidence of generational curses. For example Elisha's servant Gehazi was cursed white with leprosy and Elisha declared that the curse would last for his generations.
> 
> 2 Kings 5:27 Naaman's leprosy will cling to you and to your descendants forever." Then Gehazi went from Elisha's presence and he was leprous, as white as snow.
> 
> So just because Jesus pointed out that in that instant that a man was born blind without there being any fault of his parents doesn't mean that everytime something bad happens to someone a parent is not at fault. Look up "fetal alcohol syndrome" if you doubt me.


I think you are contradicting yourself a little here, so let's interpret scripture with Scripture.

Explain to me Romans 5:12, 19: "Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death came through sin, and so death spread to all because all have sinned; For just as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous."

I want to tease something out, so if you care answering a simple question:

If babies do not go to hell because as best you know they have no sins to be judged by, how about a fully grown person in the countryside of Thailand where the gospel was never preached? By accident of birth, is he damned? How does God judge someone who was not taught the gospel and would not have the cultural and educational background to find the gospel even coherent if he were just to hear it in passing changing channels on the radio? How, in your mind, is an otherwise good man like this judged?

----------


## loveableteddybear

> In 2 Samuel 12, King Davids newborn son fell terminally ill. After seven days, the child died. In verses 22 and 23, the Bible records that David said: While the child was alive, I fasted and wept; for I said, Who can tell whether the Lord will be gracious to me, that the child may live? But now he is dead; why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me. It is clear that Davids dead infant son would never return to this Earth, but David also said that one day, he would go to be with his son. Through inspiration, David documented that his own eternal destination was going to be in the house of the Lord (Psalm 23:6). Therefore, we can conclude that the house of the Lord would be the eternal destination of his infant son to whom David would one day go. King David was looking forward to the day when he would be able to meet his son in heaven. Absolutely nothing in this context gives any hint that the dead infant sons soul would go to hell.


It's highly probably that David said they were both going to Sheol, which is neither heven or hell, ut some sort of resting place for the dead before the Final Judgment.

Remember what Jacob said when he though Joseph was killed?

No, I shall go down to Sheol to my son, mourning. Thus his father bewailed him. (Gen 37:35)

Jacob isn't saying that they're both going to hell together, or even heaven together. Just that his presumably dead son is in Sheol, and he will mourn before he dies and joins him there.




> Furthermore, Jesus said in Matthew 18:3-5:
> 
> Assuredly, I say to you, unless you are converted and become as little children, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven. Therefore *whoever humbles himself* _as this little child_ is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. Whoever receives one little child like this in My name receives Me.


My interpretation, including my Study Bibles' this has nothing to do with age, but rather the attitude of humility of the believer. To read into it that Jesus is saying "unless you are young enough not to sin bad enough to be judged, you're not going to heaven" is just an odd interpretation, up their with my interpretation of Psalm 8:2!

We already discussed Ezekiwl, and that quote from Exodus is woefully misapplied, so I'm not going to address it any more than saying if God will not blot out those who sin against Him, that is not to be universally applied to everyone, but to those who are in Christ Jesus, for that was God's plan all along. The Law was made so transgression may increase.

----------


## jmdrake

> I think you are contradicting yourself a little here, so let's interpret scripture with Scripture.


Not at all.  2 Kings 5:27 is clear and needs no further interpretation.  God struck Gehazi with a punishment that was passed onto his children.  You claim I'm "contradicting myself" but in your response you have not even addressed 2 Kings 5:27.  What are you afraid of?  Admitting you are wrong?  Because you are.  It is laughable that you claim I'm ignoring scripture and say I'm "contradicting myself" without even asserting what the contradiction is, and yet totally ignore the text I brought up.

Just so you can be clear that there is no contradiction, my position, *and the Biblical position*, is that God does indeed sometime allow, or even in the case of Gehazi's children *cause* earthly punishment on people because of their parents' sinful acts.  Where the disciples erred biblically is the same way that you err.  The disciples erred when they asked "Did this man sin or did his parents sin to cause him to be born blind".  It is *impossible* for a baby to commit some act in utero to bring down the wrath of God upon himself.  It is quite possible for a parent to bring down punishment on himself or herself that affects the newborn or even the unborn child, though in the case of John 9 neither was responsible.  Do you realize there were likely pregnant women in Sodom and Gomorrah?  When God's wrath came down, they suffered the same earthly punishment as their parents.  So your vain attempt to twist Ezekiel 18:20 away from its original meaning just doesn't fly.  It's clear that children have died the first death (the physical death) due to the sins of their parents.  So Ezekiel 18:20 can only be talking about the second death or the "spiritual" death.  I don't believe the second death lasts forever anyway, but whether or not it does, it doesn't apply to children too young to have committed a sin themselves.  As for what the "cut off age is" that is irrelevant.  God is smart enough to figure that out on a case by case basis.  The only duty of the parent is to "Train up a child in the way he should go" and not worry about things like age of accountability.




> Explain to me Romans 5:12, 19: "Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death came through sin, and so death spread to all because all have sinned; For just as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous."


A sinner is someone prone to sin.  And yes, by one man's disobedience we have all been made prone to sin.  As soon as a sperm fertilizes an egg, that newly created being has the same genetic predispositions to sin as did his parents.  That's being "born in sin".  As he develops in his mothers womb if she smokes he smokes.  If she drinks he drinks.  If she is angry, he feels it.  That's being shaped in iniquity.  All of this happens before having a conscious thought and before transgressing any law.  

But you also need to read the entire chapter of Romans 5.

_Romans 5:13 For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law._

And when is there no law?

Romans 7:7-9
_7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.

8 But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead.

9 For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died._

Note Paul said he was *alive* before he knew the law!  God holds us accountable for what we *know*.  Now it's true that God reveals aspects of His law through nature so people who didn't have the law given to Moses were and are still without excuse.  (Romans 2:14)  But even that doesn't apply to someone who hasn't even made it out of his mothers womb yet.

Now back to Romans 5:12 and 19.  Again we were all made sinners.  And again we were all made subject to the *first* death regardless of whether we live long enough to sin.  (Clearly a stillborn baby was subject to the first death because by definition he's already experienced it.)  The first death is the penalty we all must pay for Adam's sin unless we are translated.  The question is, does the mere fact that this child is a descendant of Adam make him subject to the *second* death?  The second death is when we pay for *our own sin*!  

_Revelation 22:12 And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be._

Every mainstream Christian denomination on the planet understands that while grace is a gift, punishment is earned.  

_Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord._

So in your theology, how much punishment in hell does a stillborn get?  Is he burned for all of Adam's sins even though Adam gets off scot free?  Why stop at Adam?  Does his punishment include the sins for all of his ancestors on down the line?  There is *no way* to square such a theology with the Bible.  Everywhere in scripture it is clear that the punishment sinners receive in the final judgement is based on what *they* did.




> I want to tease something out, so if you care answering a simple question:


Before I answer your question I must first demand that you address 2 Kings 5:27.  I've seen this pattern before.  Some people never truly answer the questions or Bible verses posed to them, then throw some other irrelevant question at the person they are debating with.  If you think I have 2 Kings 5:27 wrong and that God didn't actually punish Gehazi *and his descendants* with leprosy, then please explain what you believe happened.




> If babies do not go to hell because as best you know they have no sins to be judged by, how about a fully grown person in the countryside of Thailand where the gospel was never preached? By accident of birth, is he damned? How does God judge someone who was not taught the gospel and would not have cultural and educational background to find the gospel even coherent if he were just to hear it in passing changing channels on the radio? How, in your mind, is an otherwise good man like this judged?


How can you be a Calvinist and you haven't read Romans 2?

Romans 2:14-16
_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:

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

16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel._

Someone in Thailand is judged according to the law God has revealed to that person.  People in Thailand know that it's wrong to steal, kill etc.  Their civil laws and even their religious laws reflect that.  And even if external society is so corrupt that religious and civil law requires you to do evil, their is still the effect of the Holy Spirit revealing to someone through nature that "this is wrong" or "that is wrong".  Here is how Paul explained this in Acts 17.

_29 “Therefore since we are God’s offspring, we should not think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone—an image made by human design and skill. 30 In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent. 31 For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to everyone by raising him from the dead.”_

I don't know why the "What happens to people born in some country where their are not Christians" question is such a stumbling block to Calvinists when Paul makes it clear that God hasn't forgotten those people, that God provided a way for their salvation, and that God doesn't hold what they do in ignorance against them.  Paul even went so far as to say that the Greeks were actually worshipping God without knowing it!

Again Acts 17:

_22 Paul then stood up in the meeting of the Areopagus and said: “People of Athens! I see that in every way you are very religious. 23 For as I walked around and looked carefully at your objects of worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: to an unknown god. So you are ignorant of the very thing you worship—and this is what I am going to proclaim to you._

So I hope this answers your question and you will no longer believe the falsehood that people who die in some land that had no opportunity to know about Christ must automatically be lost.  Paul taught the opposite truth.  They have an opportunity for salvation based on the revelation of God that God granted to them and God doesn't hold them accountable for what they didn't know and didn't have the opportunity to know.  Since Paul was preaching to them they could no longer claim "ignorance" and were then being called to repent.

But that doesn't mean I'm letting you off the hook for not actually addressing 2 Kings 5:27.  If God never gives earthly punishment that is passed down to someone's child, then how do you explain what the Bible says happened to Gehazi?

----------


## loveableteddybear

> I don't know why the "What happens to people born in some country where their are not Christians" question is such a stumbling block to Calvinists when Paul makes it clear that God hasn't forgotten those people, that God provided a way for their salvation, and that God doesn't hold what they do in ignorance against them. Paul even went so far as to say that the Greeks were actually worshipping God without knowing it!


Okay, let me tease that question a little further, if you don't mind. And, out of respect, I will address at your point concerning 2 Kings.

So, you interpret that those without the Law, or knowledge of Christ, are a law onto themselves and are judged accordingly by their works and motivations. Okay.

Let me ask one more question. If a person by accident of birth is brought up a Muslim in a Christianized country like the United States, how will God judge him? He does not have the cultural background to understand Christianity in the way people of European descent do. Also, due to racism and prejudice, as a coping mechanism he naturally learns to invalidate much of what he learns from Americans of European descent, including their different religion. He is otherwise very devout, not a hypocrite, and all around good guy. The difference is that the circumstances of his life have prevented him from even wanting to understand Christianity. Is he going to hell without Christ?

----------


## loveableteddybear

> The idea that God would not punish someone in this life for what his parents did, but would instead burn him forever is just too blatantly fallacious to ignore. Actually in the Bible there is evidence of generational curses. For example Elisha's servant Gehazi was cursed white with leprosy and Elisha declared that the curse would last for his generations.
> 
> 2 Kings 5:27 Naaman's leprosy will cling to you and to your descendants forever." Then Gehazi went from Elisha's presence and he was leprous, as white as snow.
> 
> So just because Jesus pointed out that in that instant that a man was born blind without there being any fault of his parents doesn't mean that everytime something bad happens to someone a parent is not at fault. Look up "fetal alcohol syndrome" if you doubt me.


There was a time where God held children accountable for their parents' sin (exodus 34:7) but God promised in Ezekiel 18, as well as a parallel passage in Jeremiah, to judge each man for his own sins. So God, in His sovereignty, changed how he was going to conduct business roughly 2,500 years ago on this matter, though not in its entirety, as anyone can observe the sin of parents (divorce) easily affecting their children. But, the difference was that God is not going to go out of his way to punish children of peopler like Gehazi without the parent directly bringing it upon the next generation (i.e. crack babies, etcetera).

So, my interpretation of the Ezekiel and Jeremiah passages aren't that man is somehow not inborn with the sin from Adam, which Romans 5 makes explicit, but that children are not going to be individually accountable for a specific sin from a parent. It's explicit in Romans that before the law, people were dead in trespass like Adam even if they did not sin exactly as Adam did (Romans 5:14). So, we are not judged, _because_ he sinned. Rather, we _inherited_ his sinful nature. It's in our DNA to kill, steal, lie, disobey God. No man is born without that proclivity. The proclivity to sin is what Adam has passed to the whole human race, and apart from Christ, we cannot be rescued from it.

As a side note about Paul, him nor anyone in the history of all time is born without sin that leads to death (Romans 5:12). Paul rather observed, "Indeed I would not have known what sin was except through the law." (Romans 7:7). So, the Law rather increased the trespass so that grace may abound all the more. Law also brought the awareness of sin and the need for a savior, which is specifically why the Jews are first and the Greeks are second. However, lack of knowledge is no excuse:

"For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that *men are without excuse*. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened." (Romans 1:20-21).

God's chosen people are actually given the advantage of having the Law made explicit to them and the promises of the prophets made known to them. However, both in the theology of Christianity would be justly subject to God's wrath because of their lack of righteousness.

----------


## jmdrake

> There was a time where God held children accountable for their parents' sin (exodus 34:7) but God promised in Ezekiel 18, as well as a parallel passage in Jeremiah, to judge each man for his own sins.


Ezekiel is in the old testament.  And even in Exodus the same principle, that God's generational judgement was limited, can be seen.

Exodus 20:5-6
_ 5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, 6 but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments._

The key to avoiding God's temporal judgement for generational curses is seen in the part I have in bold.  (Something Calvinists can't deal with).  You see the same thing repeated in Ezekiel 18.

_19 Yet say ye, Why? doth not the son bear the iniquity of the father? When the son hath done that which is lawful and right, and hath kept all my statutes, and hath done them, he shall surely live.

20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him._

It's the same in Ezekiel as it was *when God gave the 10 commandments in Exodus*!  There is no honest way to say this is some prophecy of what would happen under the new covenant.  It's how God has always operated.  Parental sins can and often do bring temporal consequences.  I've already given you an example of that, which you ignored.  (Fetal alcohol syndrome).  There is nothing in the Bible to support the idea that parental sins bring eternal consequences beside the fact that parental sins can make it easier for the next generation to follow the same path to destruction.  (The child of the alcoholic is more likely to become an alcoholic.  The sex abused child is more likely to become an abuser).  The answer to day is the same as it was in Exodus 20 and Ezekiel 18.  Turn to God for guidance and follow His commands.  Rahab did that and as a result her life was spared as well as that of her entire household.  Recognizing you have a problem and *doing* something about it is the secret to the success of Alcoholics Anonymous and other addiction programs.  And all habitual sin is basically some for of addiction.  Those who say "Oh great!  God loves me, I'm elect and I have a free ticket to heaven" are *missing the point*.  But the good news is, with the power of God and the right support system any negative habit can be replaced with positive ones.  That's the way the brain works.  Yes the old wiring is still there, but it's not nearly as strong.  And the "epigenome" is good news when it comes to inherited tendencies towards wrong.  The choices you make today can affect what genes get turned own *in your children*.  So the sooner you cooperate with God to break the cycle of habitual, generational sin the better off you will be and your future generations.

----------


## loveableteddybear

Do you mind I address what you just wrote after you answer my question here, please?

If a person by accident of birth is brought up a Muslim in a Christianized country like the United States, how will God judge him? He does not have the cultural background to understand Christianity in the way people of European descent do. Also, due to racism and prejudice, as a coping mechanism he naturally learns to invalidate much of what he learns from Americans of European descent, including their different religion. He is otherwise very devout, not a hypocrite, and all around good guy. The difference is that the circumstances of his life have prevented him from even wanting to understand Christianity. Is he going to hell without Christ?

I don't think this is a pie in the sky theoretical, it's rather relevant for me to understand your position.

----------


## Eagles' Wings

> My heart goes out to you in your loss.


Thank you, jm, and all who wrote me.  I get a catch in my heart every time I hold a baby.   We have Hannah Rose and Robert James in heaven and our living children have a deep love for them.  Praise God.

----------


## jmdrake

> Do you mind I address what you just wrote after you answer my question here, please?
> 
> If a person by accident of birth is brought up a Muslim in a Christianized country like the United States, how will God judge him? He does not have the cultural background to understand Christianity in the way people of European descent do. Also, due to racism and prejudice, as a coping mechanism he naturally learns to invalidate much of what he learns from Americans of European descent, including their different religion. He is otherwise very devout, not a hypocrite, and all around good guy. The difference is that the circumstances of his life have prevented him from even wanting to understand Christianity. Is he going to hell without Christ?
> 
> I don't think this is a pie in the sky theoretical, it's rather relevant for me to understand your position.


I don't mean to be rude but...*can you read?*  I answered your question even before you actually addressed mine.  I will cut and paste my answer.




> Before I answer your question I must first demand that you address 2 Kings 5:27.  I've seen this pattern before.  Some people never truly answer the questions or Bible verses posed to them, then throw some other irrelevant question at the person they are debating with.  If you think I have 2 Kings 5:27 wrong and that God didn't actually punish Gehazi *and his descendants* with leprosy, then please explain what you believe happened.
> .
> .
> .
> How can you be a Calvinist and you haven't read Romans 2?
> 
> Romans 2:14-16
> _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:
> 
> ...


Now I'm glad you *finally* made an attempt to address 2 Kings 5:27 even though your answer is a clear misapplication of scripture.  But I addressed your question fully the first time.  The short answer is *God as a righteous judge is smarter than you and He can figure out how to save people in pagan countries.  Paul makes it clear that God doesn't hold people's ignorance against them but rather holds them to account for the revelation He has given them.*  It is ignorance to assume that people born in a Christian country are judged by God the same way as people born in a non Christian country.  But for some odd reason Calvinists continually make this mistake.

----------


## erowe1

> Well if the Calvinist god didn't chose them to be one of his elect, then they totally deserved it.
> 
> /Sola_Fide


"The Calvinist God"? Doesn't Catholicism teach that babies can only be saved if they're baptized?

----------


## Confederate

> "The Calvinist God"? Doesn't Catholicism teach that babies can only be saved if they're baptized?


No. 




> “As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus’ tenderness toward children which caused him to say: ‘Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,’ allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism.” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1261)]


The Church teaches that we don't have "sure knowledge" on the issue (like how we can say that if you die in mortal sin, you go to Hell). With this, its more like: if an unbaptized infant dies, we hope and have strong reasons to believe that God saves them, but we don't know for sure.

----------


## loveableteddybear

Okay, so right or wrong your viewpoints are:

-Babies are not judged, because they have no sin to be judged by and do not understand Christ, so God would not hold them liable for that.
-Non-Christians are not judged if life circumstances prevent them from knowing Christ (either by geographic or social isolation).

I think I understand now. Let me ask one more question then, just one, please bear with me. I think I'm being polite and I appreciate you taking your time to speak with me.

This situation is happening to my sister, so it is very personal to me.

My sister is brought up in a nominally Christian family. She is baptized a Lutheran. She is told that Jesus is a "special son of God," but the message is not very cogent to say the least. She is very intelligent. She prays and nothing ever happens. She grows up and decides superstition isn't for her, so she becomes an agnostic, lacking anything logical to prove whether God exists or does not. She is a good, though over-bearing sister and a loyal wife to her husband. She is honest with her business dealings, and she does care for people. She's very intelligent and as a MBA from Wharton. The Gospel was explained to her, but it just doesn't make sense being that she doesn't know if God is really out there and legitimately does not know what would prove the Bible is the word of God any more than the Quran, her husband's holy book.

I take no offense if your answer is yes, but is my sister going to hell?

----------


## Confederate

> Babies are not judged, because they have no sin to be judged by and do not understand Christ, so God would not hold them liable for that.


All men from the moment of conception have sin: the original sin. 

We don't know what happens to infants who die before baptism or aborted babies, but we Catholics trust in our Lord's infinite mercy and His desire that all men be saved.

The Bible does not say "unbaptized infants are saved/unsaved", nor is there anything in Sacred Tradition on the issue. Instead, the Vatican says that based on what we do know, there is grounds for prayerful hope that unbaptized infants are saved, though this is not a "sure knowledge".

----------


## loveableteddybear

> All men from the moment of conception have sin: the original sin. 
> 
> We don't know what happens to infants who die before baptism or aborted babies, but we Catholics trust in our Lord's infinite mercy and His desire that all men be saved.
> 
> The Bible does not say "unbaptized infants are saved/unsaved", nor is there anything in Sacred Tradition on the issue. Instead, the Vatican says that based on what we do know, there is grounds for prayerful hope that unbaptized infants are saved, though this is not a "sure knowledge".


That's JMdrakes position. As for me Romans 5:12 pretty much confirms original sin explicitly.

----------


## Pericles

> Here is my question for you: Where does the Bible state that all babies are universally saved?


As we many things in the scriptures, we can not say with certainty. But a reasonable supposition from my point of view is that we are born in a state of grace, lose that grace by committing the sin, and then have the possibility of redeeming grace by salvation (Christian) or obedience to the law (Jewish).

Can't prove it, just saying that is where I am.

----------


## Confederate

> As we many things in the scriptures, we can not say with certainty. But a reasonable supposition from my point of view is that we are born in a state of grace, lose that grace by committing the sin, and then have the possibility of redeeming grace by salvation (Christian) or obedience to the law (Jewish).
> 
> Can't prove it, just saying that is where I am.


So you reject original sin? You must if you believe we are born in a state of grace.

----------


## erowe1

> With this, its more like: if an unbaptized infant dies, we hope and have strong reasons to believe that God saves them, but we don't know for sure.


That's pretty much where I am. Except I don't think baptism has anything to do with it, and I wouldn't go so far as to say "strong reasons." And I would emphasize that it really is merely a hope.

----------


## jmdrake

Okay.  Sorry for my earlier angry response.  And yes you have accurately represented my position.  As for your sister, all I can say is that I truly believe God will do everything possible to save your sister.  There is someone who used to post a lot here named "YumYum".  He initially was an agnostic.  He became a Christian.  His testimony is this.  He saw Christians actually having a positive discussion here at RPF.  (Imagine that?)  He thought to himself "I wish I had what they had".  Sometime later he was afflicted with pain that was worse than he had ever felt.  It was so bad that he wanted to die.  He prayed for healing.  Here's his testimony in his own words.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post3725701
_Ok..John, I read the entire thread, and I got uncomfortable when the argument began between the Calvinist Aqua Buddha, and Conza 88. What happened to me is that I was dying of cancer (the same cancer that Joe Frazier just died of), and I prayed out to Jesus to either end my life or save save it (I couldn't take the pain), and within five seconds, the pain ended. I went to the doctor and he was astounded. The cancer was gone. I am as fit as a fiddle, but I still deal with emotional problems. So, I am part of a prayer group, and our ministry is to help people who are suffering. I cannot tell you how happy I am with the results! The power of prayer is real!_ 

As I read this again, I'm embarrassed.  I need to stop engaging in hurtful debates with other Christians or anyone else for that matter.  Who does that help?  Who gets saved by arguments?  Yes at times people say things that make me angry and that happens to everyone.  But Jesus said "Blessed are you when men revile you and persecute you and say all manner of evil against you falsely for My sake.  Rejoice and be exceeding glad because great is your reward in heaven for so persecuted they the prophets who were before thee."

I'm sorry.  I'm all over the place and I haven't answered your question regarding your sister.  I'll get to that.  But the more I think about it, the more I'm bothered by the fact that some of us (myself included) seem to act like the most important things for Christians to do are to make sure other people believe exactly like us instead of making sure other people know what God has done for us.  People are hurting from emotional abuse, sexual abuse, physical abuse, growing up in homes and seeing parents abuse each other, and instead of offering people real hope and help we spend our time arguing over this interpretation of that verse?  If you have the right "belief" and God hasn't actually done anything for you in your life so you are just as dysfunctional as someone who is not a Christian, what good is that belief?  Heaven begins here on earth according to Jesus.  And for those who have not been delivered by God from the results of the dysfunction thrust on them often in childhood, they are still living in hell.  God is helping me put my living hell behind me.  I'm not at all worried about future hell.

As for your sister, I believe God wants more than anything to see her saved.  And because of that, there is hope.  If it consoles you to believe that either God wants her to be saved and he will save her later whether she wants to be saved or not, or that God doesn't want her to be saved and that is no hope, then that's fine.  I'm not a universalist (someone who believes everyone will go to heaven) or a restorationist (someone who believes that everyone will eventually go to heaven though some will have to go through some kind of purgatory first), but I have nothing against those who are and I believe they are Christians as well.  I hope that answers your question.  And again, my apologies for my attitude.  I plan to go into 2013 with a much more positive outlook especially with regards to how I spread the version of Christianity I believe.




> Okay, so right or wrong your viewpoints are:
> 
> -Babies are not judged, because they have no sin to be judged by and do not understand Christ, so God would not hold them liable for that.
> -Non-Christians are not judged if life circumstances prevent them from knowing Christ (either by geographic or social isolation).
> 
> I think I understand now. Let me ask one more question then, just one, please bear with me. I think I'm being polite and I appreciate you taking your time to speak with me.
> 
> This situation is happening to my sister, so it is very personal to me.
> 
> ...

----------


## Confederate

> As I read this again, I'm embarrassed.  I need to stop engaging in hurtful debates with other Christians or anyone else for that matter.  Who does that help?  Who gets saved by arguments?


St. John Cassian, the greater founder of western monasticism, wrote:




> The knowledge of everything is attained by those who think well and with simplicity about all matters and who strive to imitate faithfully rather than to discuss everything that they see being taught or done by the elders. *But whoever begins to learn by discussion will never enter into the reason for the truth*, because the enemy will see him trusting in his own judgment rather than in that of the fathers and will easily drive him to the point where even things which are very beneficial and salutary will seem useless and harmful to him. The clever foe will so play upon his presumption that, stubbornly clinging to his own unreasonable understanding, he will persuade himself that only that is holy which he considers to be correct and righteous, guided by his erroneous obstinacy alone.

----------


## loveableteddybear

Well, JMdrake, thank you for the kind response and thank you for the apology. I caught myself in my first reply being inflammatory and I decided that I was doing the wrong thing and was conscious not to react to provocation.

I have stated before on this thread that predestination or any other doctrinal matters are not prerequisites for salvation, as only Christ's work on the cross is sufficient for salvation. As Paul talks about in 1 Corinthians 3, that is the foundation, and everyone else builds on top of that foundation. God will subsequently test what's on the foundation, and if what it built is bad the individual is saved "as if through fire."

To me, whether or not babies go to hell is one of those disputable matters.

I might even say that whether or not every single person who didn't know Christ in this life will go to hell is somewhat a mystery, due to 1 Peter 4:6, but I'm not opposed to a different reading of that passage.

But, I can say with confidence that knowing Christ is the only way to heaven. Apart from that grace that enables us to confess His name, we are dead with sin. So, if it is preached there is any other way to heaven, including works for the non-believer, that is in my humble opinion apart from the gospel. The non-believer, like my sister, would have to be converted by God to be faithful in Christ Jesus. Apart from that, whenever this process occurs, she cannot be saved.




> If you have the right "belief" and God hasn't actually done anything for you in your life so you are just as dysfunctional as someone who is not a Christian, what good is that belief? Heaven begins here on earth according to Jesus. And for those who have not been delivered by God from the results of the dysfunction thrust on them often in childhood, they are still living in hell. God is helping me put my living hell behind me. I'm not at all worried about future hell.


Sadly, there are a lot of better non-Christians out there than "Christians." But Christ said people would know who we are by how we loved one another.

----------


## jmdrake

> Well, JMdrake, thank you for the kind response and thank you for the apology. I caught myself in my first reply being inflammatory and I decided that I was doing the wrong thing and was conscious not to react to provocation.


You're welcome and thank you for toning things down as well.




> I have stated before on this thread that predestination or any other doctrinal matters are not prerequisites for salvation, as only Christ's work on the cross is sufficient for salvation. As Paul talks about in 1 Corinthians 3, that is the foundation, and everyone else builds on top of that foundation. God will subsequently test what's on the foundation, and if what it built is bad the individual is saved "as if through fire."


Cool.  For some believing in predestination is essential to believing in Christ.  I'm glad that at the very least we can agree it's not a point of salvation.




> To me, whether or not babies go to hell is one of those disputable matters.


Fair enough.




> I might even say that whether or not every single person who didn't know Christ in this life will go to hell is somewhat a mystery, due to 1 Peter 4:6, but I'm not opposed to a different reading of that passage.


Yeah.  I saw TER bring that up.  I'm not sure what to make of that one.  There's also Romans 14:11.

_It is written: "'As surely as I live,' says the Lord, 'every knee will bow before me; every tongue will confess to God.'"_

I've always assumed that this was a "forced confession" that would take place at the end but that would not result in salvation.  But I will admit that I don't know.




> But, I can say with confidence that knowing Christ is the only way to heaven. Apart from that grace that enables us to confess His name, we are dead with sin. So, if it is preached there is any other way to heaven, including works for the non-believer, that is in my humble opinion apart from the gospel. The non-believer, like my sister, would have to be converted by God to be faithful in Christ Jesus. Apart from that, whenever this process occurs, she cannot be saved.


I would not disagree.  I just trust God to deal with situations like this in His own way.




> Sadly, there are a lot of better non-Christians out there than "Christians." But Christ said people would know who we are by how we loved one another.


Yes.  That is sad.  I intend to be a party of 1 to change that.  Feel free to remind me of that if/when I slip.

----------


## Southron

> I'm a "calvinist" in that I believe everything is predetermined and predestined by God. 
> 
> I won't say ALL babies go to hell, but I can't definitely say that ALL babies go to heaven either. It may be that some do and some do not. I don't know. The Bible isn't clear enough for me to say definitively either way. At least not that I've found anyway, I may change my mind on it. 
> 
> I don't really take a dogmatic position either way.
> 
> I don't believe there's an official "calvinist" position on this topic anyway, I've heard Reformed people debate the topic from both sides, so...


I'm a Calvinist and don't take a definite position either.  

At the same time, I'm am not convinced that babies do not sin.  For those who think it abhorrent for babies to go to hell, you must believe them to be completely innocent and sinless.

----------


## jj-

Aren't babies born with sin? If not, what the hell is the concept of "original sin" all about? Babies are sinners whether they sin or not.

----------


## Beorn

> I'm a Calvinist and don't take a definite position either.  
> 
> At the same time, I'm am not convinced that babies do not sin.  For those who think it abhorrent for babies to go to hell, you must believe them to be completely innocent and sinless.


I'm a Calvinist and take this position too. I think it's probably the majority amongst Calvinists. Probably because we're more into exegesis than eisegesis and the bible just doesn't talk about this. However, my Presbyterian view is that children of believers hold a special relationship with God and should be treated as if they are within a covenantal relationship with God despite not making a profession of faith. If I extend that view to this situation then I do think Christian Parents have every reason to hope and trust that God will take care of their covenant children. Baptists may see things differently since they view God's relationship with children entirely differently than Presbyterians.

----------


## FreeHampshire

> Aren't babies born with sin? If not, what the hell is the concept of "original sin" all about? Babies are sinners whether they sin or not.


There is no original sin. This is an Augustinian invention. There is, however, an ancestral sin. Just like if one's parents lose their house prior to their child being born. The child may be born into poverty and suffer the consequence of their parents' poor financial choices, but they do not inherit the guilt. This is the understanding of Old Testament Jews, modern Jews, and eastern Christians such as the Orthodox. Thus, babies don't go to hell for they have no sin.

----------


## loveableteddybear

It is important to keep in mind Freehampshire, that whatever we call "it," man does inherit sin from Adam and exercises this sin. Please see Romans 5:12.

"Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned."


OT: Suffice it to say, but adherence to the doctrine of original sin creates divergent forms of belief.

The lens in which a Protestant that adheres to the doctrine of original sin understands salvation is that Christ on the cross is a man's only hope. If he is too young, too far away, different religion, or etcetera the assumption that such a man outside of his own free will, by accident of birth, is born _into_ sin makes him subject to wrath by default, apart from a savior to pay his price.

Now, the lens in which a Protestant does not adhere to the doctrine of original sin is that men are not culpable for not knowing Christ before they have sinned bad enough (because children sin, they just cannot reject Christ in a profound way nor are mentally capable of sinning in a profound away, aside from the home alone kid in that movie "The Good Child.") Without original sin, it appears that the only way man is subject to wrath is if he hears about Christ and then rejects him. Others will add that such a man who never heard of Christ but was for all intents and purposes "bad" will be judged accordingly. Thus, those who reject original sin appear to have a confusing Gospel. Christ saves some people, some people save themselves, some people reject Christ and go to hell, and some go to hell on their own accord.

To me, if you accept the doctrine of original sin or not is not what's important, it's if you accept Christ as your Lord and Savior.

But, to me, original sin makes the gospel straight forward. Without it we get into a confusing "was it a strike or not" baseball situation for a ton of people and worse yet, _it turns knowing about Christ into a curse._ Why preach the Gospel if people can be saved without it? In fact, if people hear the Gospel and reject it, they are then subject to judgment. They were better off never hearing about it.

Probably the strongest motivation behind missions is Christ's clear command and Paul's example. The second biggest motivation has to be original sin. The belief need Christ for salvation no matter what is a far bigger motivator than the idea that telling people about Christ might actually be to their detriment.

----------


## FreeHampshire

> It is important to keep in mind Freehampshire, that whatever we call "it," man does inherit sin from Adam and exercises this sin. Please see Romans 5:12.
> 
> "Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned."


This verse is describing an ancestral 'sin' as we inherited the consequence, rather than the guilt. Your doctrine of original sin is contradicted in Ezekiel when the prophet says: 

Ezekiel 18:20 
The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him.


If you have taken this verse to the utmost literal interpretation, the guilt of sin is passed down from the mother. But, of course, this would mean the Lord Jesus Christ was a sinner, since the Virgin Mary would carry such sin. 


Like I said earlier, the idea of an "original sin" is not found in Jewish or earliest of Christian thought. It comes from Augustine and him alone.

----------


## jj-

I'm going to just do what the other posted suggested: give my lawyer the bible, so he can just tell me what the hell I need to do, if anything.

----------


## acptulsa

> I'm going to just do what the other posted suggested: give my lawyer the bible, so he can just tell me what the hell I need to do, if anything.


lol +rep

You don't need a lawyer.  The epistles are there for the would-be lawyers to amuse themselves with, trying to loophole their way to eternity.  For everyone else, Jesus kindly told us what the bottom line is, and in the clearest terms imaginable:




> 31 “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. 32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.
> 
> 34 “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’
> 
> 37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’
> 
> 40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’
> 
> 41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’
> ...


The simple fact is, heaven wouldn't be heaven if entry weren't limited to those who have made themselves fit for heaven.  Make yourself fit for heaven, even if you're a devout Atheist, and not only will you hedge your bets but you'll have an easier time living with yourself in the meanwhile.

There's an added benefit, too:  When you take Jesus at His word regarding the bottom line, you can just laugh at the Pharisees who tell you you're condemned for eternity because you don't jump through their hoops.  That's awfully nice.

----------


## loveableteddybear

Freehampshire, we know from another thread that you are a gnostic or something, so we already know that you come from a heterodox belief.

But that aside, let me respectfully disagree with this:



> This verse is describing an ancestral 'sin' as we inherited the consequence, rather than the guilt. Your doctrine of original sin is contradicted in Ezekiel when the prophet says: 
> 
> Ezekiel 18:20 
> The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him
> 
> If you have taken this verse to the utmost literal interpretation, the guilt of sin is passed down from the mother. But, of course, this would mean the Lord Jesus Christ was a sinner, since the Virgin Mary would carry such sin.


As I explained previously, is that we don't need our father's sins to be guilty, we have our own. Romans 5:12 doesn't say all men die because of one man's sin. It says all men have become sinners.

Those opposed to the doctrine of original sin have what is in my opinion a warped philosophy of man that stems from renaissance humanism, the delusion that men are essentially perfectible. I never meant anyone out there that was without sin, baby or adult. To be honest, I don't know any two week year olds, so I can't speak about that from personal experience. But, the passage of Ezekiel can be true, but at the same time men can universally be sinners.

It is because men are universally sinners, born with it or learned 0.00001 microseconds after their birth, that they are subject to wrath.

Hab 1:13 says "Thy eyes are too pure to behold evil, and thou canst not look on iniquity."

James 2:10 "For whoever keeps the whole Law but fails in one point is guilty of breaking all of it."

So, God cannot accept any man which there is any sin at all.

I believe the Bible is clear all men have sinned, original sin or otherwise, it does not even matter:

"They have all turned aside; together they have become corrupt; there is no one who does good, not even one." (Psalm 14:3)

"What then? Are we better than they? Not at all; for we have already charged that both Jews and Greeks are all under sin; as it is written, 'There is none righteous, not even one.'" (Romans 3:9, 10)

"for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23)

"Therefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned." (Romans 5:12)

Show me a single human being of any age that has not sinned and then we can say that this man is not subject to His righteous wrath. That man is Christ, our very God.

----------


## jmdrake

> I'm a Calvinist and don't take a definite position either.  
> 
> At the same time, I'm am not convinced that babies do not sin.  For those who think it abhorrent for babies to go to hell, you must believe them to be completely innocent and sinless.


I'm going by my understanding of the Bible.  Sin is the transgression of the law.  Paul said he didn't become dead in sin until he knew the law.  He also told the Greeks that "God winked at your ignorance but now calls all men to repentance."  It's not that babies are so "good", it's just that they haven't had a chance to do anything "bad" yet.  And if you think "baby is thinking bad thoughts that he just doesn't remember latter", fine.  Regress back to early enough in the pregnancy where there isn't any brain function.  But hey, if you think "born in sin and shaped in iniquity means somehow a zygote has committed some sin, that's your belief.

----------


## jmdrake

> Aren't babies born with sin? If not, what the hell is the concept of "original sin" all about? Babies are sinners whether they sin or not.


Being born "sinners" and being "born with sin" are two entirely different things.  Consider a fruit tree.  You could buy one that already has fruit on it.  Or you could buy one that eventually produces fruit.  Both are fruit trees.

----------


## FreeHampshire

The fact that all the Calvinists in this thread either believe babies go to hell or are unsure about it really disturbs me. If god turned out to be a Calvinist god, then he wouldn't be worthy of worship. Further proof calvinism is a man-made religion.

----------


## Confederate

> The fact that all the Calvinists in this thread either believe babies go to hell or are unsure about it really disturbs me. If god turned out to be a Calvinist god, then he wouldn't be worthy of worship. Further proof calvinism is a man-made religion.


I'm a Catholic and I share that position. We simply do not know what happens, neither the Bible nor Oral Tradition give us a definitive answer. All we can do is pray, hope, and trust in God's infinite mercy that they shall be saved.

----------


## acptulsa

> If god turned out to be a Calvinist god, then he wouldn't be worthy of worship.


Of course, Dante's hell is a man-made bit of fluff to have faith in as well.  If you believe that hell is not eternal torment, but merely a lack of eternal life, you see that babies who die babies are neither tormented nor likely to ever know what they're missing.  That might change things a bit.  Never has such a house of cards been built on one passing reference to a lake of fire--a lake of fire which no verse ever claimed doesn't put you to sleep forever.

I don't worship anyone's misconception of God, myself.  That would be idolatry.  Faith is a handy thing--it saves you the trouble and bother of becoming omniscient.

----------


## loveableteddybear

> The fact that all the Calvinists in this thread either believe babies go to hell or are unsure about it really disturbs me. If god turned out to be a Calvinist god, then he wouldn't be worthy of worship. Further proof calvinism is a man-made religion.


The fact you ignore my post in response to you and simply respond with, "If God turns out to be this, then I refuse to worship Him" reveals issues system of belief. Namely that, pardon me for being frank, that your religion is man made, that man being yourself. You have a preconception of God and if the real God does not fit with it, you will refuse to worship Him.

I ask that you take back that if God is not the way you want Him to be, that you refuse to worship Him. I, for example, never said if God doesn't send babies to hell, I refuse to worship Him. In fact, I wish a hell simply didn't exist. It is a matter of not making an idol that I accept the true God and what He reveals about Himself.

If you can address the Scripture from my post so I can intelligently understand your position, that'd help me understand a little more.

----------


## jmdrake

> The fact you ignore my post in response to you and simply respond with, "If God turns out to be this, then I refuse to worship Him" reveals issues system of belief. Namely that, pardon me for being frank, that your religion is man made, that man being yourself. You have a preconception of God and if the real God does not fit with it, you will refuse to worship Him.
> 
> I ask that you take back that if God is not the way you want Him to be, that you refuse to worship Him. I, for example, never said if God doesn't send babies to hell, I refuse to worship Him. In fact, I wish a hell simply didn't exist. It is a matter of not making an idol that I accept the true God and what He reveals about Himself.
> 
> If you can address the Scripture from my post so I can intelligently understand your position, that'd help me understand a little more.


Are you really accepting the true God, or are you accepting your interpretation of Him?  Let me put it another way.  What makes Christianity superior to you to say....Hinduism?  If you say "Because Christianity is true" that's not a real answer.  Someone raised Hindu will more likely believe Hinduism is true.  And as for what is or is not "man made religion"...well God made man.  And He gave us a moral compass.  He did that for a reason IMO.  That way when could grow up in darkness, but seek the truth when they hear something that "rights true".  If I believed in Zeus I wouldn't serve him because his legend doesn't fit any semblance of a moral compass.

----------


## loveableteddybear

> I'm going by my understanding of the Bible.  Sin is the transgression of the law.  Paul said he didn't become dead in sin until he knew the law.  He also told the Greeks that "God winked at your ignorance but now calls all men to repentance."  It's not that babies are so "good", it's just that they haven't had a chance to do anything "bad" yet.  And if you think "baby is thinking bad thoughts that he just doesn't remember latter", fine.  Regress back to early enough in the pregnancy where there isn't any brain function.  But hey, if you think "born in sin and shaped in iniquity means somehow a zygote has committed some sin, that's your belief.


JMdrake, being that we are "at peace" in this thread, don't take the following as some sort of way of causing an argument.

What in your opinion is the point of age (roughly) when a human can sin? Do the sins have to be profound enough to be worthy of consideration?

I understand that Biblically youy draw your position from Acts 17:30. Is it possible that men from times previous to that had the opportunity to be saved as per 1 Peter 4:6?

----------


## jmdrake

> JMdrake, being that we are "at peace" in this thread, don't take the following as some sort of way of causing an argument.


No problem.  I'm "at peace" myself at the moment.  No arguments here.  




> What in your opinion is the point of age (roughly) when a human can sin? Do the sins have to be profound enough to be worthy of consideration?


_James 4:17 Anyone, then, who knows the good he ought to do and doesn't do it, sins._

At what age does someone know when he's doing wrong or not doing right?  I'm not a psychologist so I don't know.




> I understand that Biblically youy draw your position from Acts 17:30. Is it possible that men from times previous to that had the opportunity to be saved as per 1 Peter 4:6?


I suppose that's possible.  I'm not sure how that squares with Eccl 9:5.

_For the living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing; they have no further reward, and even the memory of them is forgotten._

----------


## loveableteddybear

> Are you really accepting the true God, or are you accepting your interpretation of Him? Let me put it another way. What makes Christianity superior to you to say....Hinduism? If you say "Because Christianity is true" that's not a real answer. Someone raised Hindu will more likely believe Hinduism is true. And as for what is or is not "man made religion"...well God made man. And He gave us a moral compass. He did that for a reason IMO. That way when could grow up in darkness, but seek the truth when they hear something that "rights true". If I believed in Zeus I wouldn't serve him because his legend doesn't fit any semblance of a moral compass.


I think a fair way of answering the question is this.

The God of the Bible is the true God and specifically what He reveals about Himself is true. I have zero proof of this, other than the movings of the Holy Spirit within me as to the veracity of Scripture.

Now, what FreeHampshire is putting forward, and perhaps you as you didn't make it explicit, is that God has to be the most moral and least arbitrary, but by our own standards of morality.  For example, someone with this viewpoint doesn't like when God said, "Kill all the Canaanites, including their children" or the fact there is a hell and people going there. Why? Because they are using their own moral compass.

My own  moral compass would exclude the reality of hell and existence of certain things being classified as sin, such as monogomous homosexuality.

However, my own moral compass is not reality. Neither is your. The truth is beyond our subjective opinions. This does not prove the Bible is true, but if we claim it is, it does prove the wrongheadedness of imposing our view of what is right on wrong as a means of deciding religion. If Christianity is the real religion, God decided it, not us.

Marcion wasn't a bad guy. He gave up his whole fortune, which was built up in shipping, to charity and the church. Marcion really believed the writings of Paul. His heresy was that he used his own moral compass to exclude other parts of God's revelation. What I don't want is others here to repeat the error of Marcion.

----------


## loveableteddybear

> No problem.  I'm "at peace" myself at the moment.  No arguments here.  
> 
> 
> 
> _James 4:17 Anyone, then, who knows the good he ought to do and doesn't do it, sins._
> 
> At what age does someone know when he's doing wrong or not doing right?  I'm not a psychologist so I don't know.
> 
> 
> ...


Ecc 9:5 maybe speaks to the time before Christ? As for the quotation of James, that sounds like the as soon as someone learns how to lie, which would reflect the knowledge of knowing one thing but purposely saying another. That can be as early as even a few months old, according to some studies.

----------


## jmdrake

> However, my own moral compass is not reality. Neither is your.


Actually it is.  And it is because God created it.  Sure it's warped over the years but that doesn't change the fact that it exists.  It's what helps us figure out that even if the God of the OT said "kill all of the Canaanites", that genocide is in general wrong.  And while the Canaanite genocide was bad, I take solace in believing that the babies at least only died once.

----------


## loveableteddybear

This then all stems to my original point, on another thread, having to deal with epistemology. If one's theory of the "truth" is that the truth is merely one's own individual perceptions, I can never convince such a person that their view of the truth is wrong. After all, they define truth simply as whatever they think it is. This notion does not seem ridiculous when it is applied to a situation such as, "It feels wrong to lie, so lying is wrong;" but fails miserably as a worldview when it is applied to extremes such as "I think Toronto is the capital of Germany, so it is the capital of Germany." Now, the latter is patently ridiculous, but my point is if the latter is ridiculous, then the method in which the former derives his truth statement is equally ridiculous. After all, a broken clock is right twice a day.

----------


## jmdrake

> Ecc 9:5 maybe speaks to the time before Christ?


Maybe.  Or maybe 1 Peter 4:6 was talking about people who were spiritually dead before hearing the gospel.




> As for the quotation of James, that sounds like the as soon as someone learns how to lie, which would reflect the knowledge of knowing one thing but purposely saying another. That can be as early as even a few months old, according to some studies.


Well I haven't known babies a few months old to even be able to talk.  But let's go with that.  Again, look at how Paul said he was alive until the law.  Again, knowing to do good and doing it not is not the same as simply having the mental capacity to do something wrong.  Under my understanding of James 4:17, if you grew up in a society where lying was considered normal and moral (a typical political family for instance  ) you're not held accountable to the same extent as someone who knows better.

----------


## jmdrake

> This then all stems to my original point, on another thread, having to deal with epistemology. If one's theory of the "truth" is that the truth is merely one's own individual perceptions, I can never convince such a person that their view of the truth is wrong. After all, they define truth simply as whatever they think it is. This notion does not seem ridiculous when it is applied to a situation such as, "It feels wrong to lie, so lying is wrong;" but fails miserably as a worldview when it is applied to extremes such as "I think Toronto is the capital of Germany, so it is the capital of Germany." Now, the latter is patently ridiculous, but my point is if the latter is ridiculous, then the method in which the former derives his truth statement is equally ridiculous. After all, a broken clock is right twice a day.


If one attributes an argument to his opponent that he's never made, he can always win the debate.    Nobody has said "truth" is "merely one's own perceptions".  That said, according to the Bible, God has revealed some levels of truth to everyone through nature.  I'm assuming you agree with the Bible.    If we agree with the Bible and if the Bible does teach there is some kind of "inherent truth" then we should be able to interpret things outside of someone's "fortune cookie proof text".  Does the interpretation make *sense*?  Does it fit what the rest of the Bible has to say about God?

At the end of the day, everybody (Catholic, Calvinist, Arminianist, Anabaptist, ect) has some what to justify whatever it is they believe via the Bible.  That's where John 16:13 kicks in.

_But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come._

The Holy Spirit is eternal (He did quit granting inspiration once the cannon was adopted) and He is personal (He doesn't belong to one particular "church").  How do you know "one's own individual perceptions" aren't being guided by the Holy Spirit?

----------


## loveableteddybear

Let's look at Romans 7:

"Nevertheless, I would not have known what sin was had it not been for the law.  But sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of coveting. For apart from the law, sin was dead. Once I was alive apart from the law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died." (Romans 7:7-9)

It appears you read this to mean that Paul, in his ignorance, was not subject to God's wrath for he "was alive apart from the law."

However, how do we reconcile that idea, not only with the rest of the Bible, but just a few sentences later:

"Did that [the Law] which is good, then, become death to me? By no means! Nevertheless, in order that sin might be recognized as sin, it used what is good to bring about my death, so that through the commandment sin might become utterly sinful." (Romans 7:13)

The Law did not make Paul die, he was dead in sin already. Rather, by making him recognize His sin, he realized his need for a savior. In Galatians Paul calls the Law a "tutor" for this reason, because that's how the Law leads us to salvation. Romans 3:20 makes this explicit: "Therefore no one will be declared righteous in God’s sight by the works of the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of our sin."

"So I find this law at work: Although I want to do good, evil is right there with me...I see another law at work in me, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within me." (Romans 7:21-23)

So Paul was seemingly alive apart from the Law, but he always had the "law of sin" working within him the whole time. It is just when he became councious of God's Law that he realized that he _really was_ dead, because the Law just made the coming of God's wrath in consequence of his sin all the clearer to him.

----------


## jmdrake

You can explain the meaning away, but if you compare it to James 4 and Acts 17 the meaning is clear.  You are held accountable for what you know or at least should have known.  That's it.




> Let's look at Romans 7:
> 
> "Nevertheless, I would not have known what sin was had it not been for the law.  But sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of coveting. For apart from the law, sin was dead. Once I was alive apart from the law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died." (Romans 7:7-9)
> 
> It appears you read this to mean that Paul, in his ignorance, was not subject to God's wrath for he "was alive apart from the law."
> 
> However, how do we reconcile that idea, not only with the rest of the Bible, but just a few sentences later:
> 
> "Did that [the Law] which is good, then, become death to me? By no means! Nevertheless, in order that sin might be recognized as sin, it used what is good to bring about my death, so that through the commandment sin might become utterly sinful." (Romans 7:13)
> ...

----------


## loveableteddybear

> Nobody has said "truth" is "merely one's own perceptions".


Using one's personal moral compass to decide whether the moral compass in the bible is adequate would be exactly that, however.




> That said, according to the Bible, God has revealed some levels of truth to everyone through nature.  I'm assuming you agree with the Bible.    If we agree with the Bible and if the Bible does teach there is some kind of "inherent truth" then we should be able to interpret things outside of someone's "fortune cookie proof text".  Does the interpretation make *sense*?  Does it fit what the rest of the Bible has to say about God?
> 
> At the end of the day, everybody (Catholic, Calvinist, Arminianist, Anabaptist, ect) has some what to justify whatever it is they believe via the Bible.  That's where John 16:13 kicks in.
> 
> _But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come._
> 
> The Holy Spirit is eternal (He did quit granting inspiration once the cannon was adopted) and He is personal (He doesn't belong to one particular "church").  How do you know "one's own individual perceptions" aren't being guided by the Holy Spirit?


One's own internal perceptions might be guided by the Spirit. But, as a matter of consistency in how we derive truth, it is important that we don't say we use our own subjectivity to decide whether what a religion dictates is true or not. If we do, we err in dictating our own religion as opposed to following the dictates of what the religion tells us about itself.

I am not a Christian because Christianity makes the most sense, given the evidence. To be fair to everyone, deism makes the most sense given the evidence. So, if we accept a truth higher than ourselves, then why would we hypocritically gauge that truth by deciding "if that higher truth doesn't agree with me, I'll just conjure up something else to believe that does make sense.

If we were to do that many of us here would be deists, atheists, or a couple thousand years ago, old-school idolators.

----------


## jmdrake

> Using one's personal moral compass to decide whether the moral compass in the bible is adequate would be exactly that, however.


A) You, lt, cannot decide for anyone else but yourself what the Bible actually means.  You can look at your "pet verses", others can do look at theirs.  Each side ignoring or explaining away what doesn't fit.  Everyone claiming the other is not accepting "truth".
B) Each person also has to come to a realization for himself that the Bible is actually truth.  Otherwise someone born Hindu or Muslim would never become a Christian.  
C) It's not a "personal moral compass".  It's a God created moral compass that the Holy Spirit guides those seeking truth as promised in the Bible.




> I am not a Christian because Christianity makes the most sense, given the evidence. To be fair to everyone, deism makes the most sense given the evidence. So, if we accept a truth higher than ourselves, then why would we hypocritically gauge that truth by deciding "if that higher truth doesn't agree with me, I'll just conjure up something else to believe that does make sense.


Really?  Deism best fits the rest of the Bible?  I don't think so.  Maybe you do.  If you believe that Deism best fits the teachings of scripture than why are you not a Deist?

Again, what I said, and what you *think* you are responding to:

_Does the interpretation make sense? Does it fit what the rest of the Bible has to say about God?_

The key most important characteristic of God revealed in the Bible is that He is love.




> If we were to do that many of us here would be deists, atheists, or a couple thousand years ago, old-school idolators.


Actually the opposite is true.

----------


## loveableteddybear

> You can explain the meaning away, but if you compare it to James 4 and Acts 17 the meaning is clear. You are held accountable for what you know or at least should have known. That's it.


Being that I am being held "accountable," then according to your theology, Christ is a curse to me. If I had a bunch of wrong opinions about, say, Islam, according to your Gospel I'd be saved by God anyway if I was a good person overall. But, because I know Christ, now I am under "account" and subject to God's wrath. So, hearing of Christ to me was never good news at all, but rather bad news. The word "gospel," then, is a sham.

To repeat what I said in a previous reply:



> But, to me, original sin makes the gospel straight forward. Without it we get into a confusing "was it a strike or not" baseball situation for a ton of people and worse yet, it turns knowing about Christ into a curse. Why preach the Gospel if people can be saved without it? In fact, if people hear the Gospel and reject it, they are then subject to judgment. They were better off never hearing about it.


Your "gospel" has very dangerous consequences for its hearers, JMdrake. According to your Gospel, which you have revealed on this thread, people that never heard of Christ can go to heaven, people that have heard of Christ but were brought up a different religion can go to heaven, and people who heard of Christ in a nominally Christian family and then reject Him, like my sister, can go to heaven. I'm not saying you're going to hell for believing this stuff, but if you're Gospel is that the people in the most danger are people brought up in God fearing Christian families with the Bible drilled into their head, then maybe you need to seriously reevaluate what you are putting forth here.

----------


## loveableteddybear

> A) You, lt, cannot decide for anyone else but yourself what the Bible actually means.  You can look at your "pet verses", others can do look at theirs.  Each side ignoring or explaining away what doesn't fit.  Everyone claiming the other is not accepting "truth".
> B) Each person also has to come to a realization for himself that the Bible is actually truth.  Otherwise someone born Hindu or Muslim would never become a Christian.  
> C) It's not a "personal moral compass".  It's a God created moral compass that the Holy Spirit guides those seeking truth as promised in the Bible.


Drake, my whole view of the Bible can be wrong on the face of it, I don't deny that. But if the way I'd evaluate truth was derived from my perceived right and wrong, then I'm just inventing my own truth. I really don't want to beat this dead horse any more than it needs to be, but the difference between personal interpretation of higher truths to the best of one's ability and to _evaluating_ the veracity of higher truths by comparing them to personal beliefs of what is true are two very different things. The former is like a student that is learning math and is interested in getting the correct answer and the latter has an answer and if the math doesn't agree with it, he'll get the GAO to reinvent the definition of unemployment so the economy will look better before the election.




> Really?  Deism best fits the rest of the Bible?  I don't think so.  Maybe you do.  If you believe that Deism best fits the teachings of scripture than why are you not a Deist? Actually the opposite is true.


My point is the Bible is 66 different crusty old books that seemingly contradict each other and take a lot of effort to make them relate to one another and propose truisms requiring unverifiable phenomena that cannot be scientifically explained. By anyone's own judgment, Christianity should be rejected right on its faith. And, for that very good reason, atheists do.

So, I ask you, what convincing evidence exists that would prove to an atheist that he is foolish for not believing in an impossible to understand Triune-yet-singular God who needed to kill him,self and rise himself from the dead instead of simply forgiving people for a lot of stuff that is morally relative to begin with?

----------


## jmdrake

> Being that I am being held "accountable," then according to your theology, Christ is a curse to me. If I had a bunch of wrong opinions about, say, Islam,. according to your Gospel I'd be saved by God anyway. But, because I know Christ, now I am under "account" and subject to God's wrath. So, hearing of Christ to me was never good news at all, but rather bad news. The word "gospel," then, is a sham.


Why is it bad news?  Do you believe that being a Christian is burdensome?  If so than I suppose it is bad news.  But that contradicts the Bible.  Jesus said His yoke is easy and His burden light.  John said God's commands are not burdensome.  If you are following Islam and truly seeking truth, and the truth is further revealed to it, why would you not accept it?  But say if you were seeking truth, and for some reason died in a car accident before getting to the "truth of Christianity crusade".  Are you damned?  *That* is "bad news" and a "sham gospel".




> To repeat what I said in a previous reply:
> 
> 
> Your "gospel" has very dangerous consequences for its hearers, JMdrake.


Only if you think the teachings of Jesus have very dangerous consequences.




> According to your Gospel, which you have revealed on this thread, people that never heard of Christ can go to heaven, people that of heard of Christ but were brought up a different religion can go to heaven, and people who heard of Christ in a nominally Christian family and then reject Him, like my sister, can go to heaven.


Did you mistype?  Nowhere can you draw the conclusion from what I wrote that people who grew up in a Christian family and reject Christ go to heaven without repenting and accepting Christ.  I don't think you meant to type that, but I'm checking to be sure.

As for the first part of your point, it's clear in Acts 17 that Paul was teaching that some Greeks were worshiping the true God and didn't fully realize it and that God "winked at their ignorance".  I know what that means.  What do you think it meant?  And what do you think Paul meant when he said they were now "called to repentance"?  Do you think Paul was just talking for the sake of effect?




> I'm not saying you're going to hell for believing this stuff, but if you're Gospel is that the people in the most danger are people brought up in God fearing Christian families with the Bible drilled into their head, then maybe you need to seriously reevaluate what you are putting forth here.


Take it up with Jesus.

Luke 12:48 _But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows. From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked._

Matthew 11:21-22 _"Woe to you, Korazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! If the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. But I tell you, it will be more bearable for Tyre and Sidon on the day of judgment than for you._

Jesus makes it clear that people are held to different accounts based on their knowledge.  I'm sorry if that seems to make things worse for your sister.  All I can say is pray for her.  I have a brother to pray for.  But tell me this.  (And I think I've asked you this before).  Does it make you feel better for her if you believe she is (or may be) predestined to hell without a chance at salvation at all?  How is that "good news"?

----------


## jmdrake

> Drake, my whole view of the Bible can be wrong on the face of it, I don't deny that. But if the way I'd evaluate truth was derived from my perceived right and wrong, then I'm just inventing my own truth.


Two yes or no questions.

1) Do you believe in the Holy Spirit's promise to lead you personally into all truth?
2) Do you believe God has given a natural revelation of truth to all men?

If the answer to both of those questions is "yes" then how can you call that a "inventing your own truth"?





> My point is the Bible is 66 different crusty old books that seemingly contradict each other and take a lot of effort to make them relate to one another and propose truisms requiring unverifiable phenomena that cannot be scientifically explained. By anyone's own judgment, Christianity should be rejected right on its faith. And, for that very good reason, atheists do.


Maybe you feel that way.  I don't.  The new testament is one of the most attested books ever.  Since you are somewhat Calvinist, you may enjoy this presentation by Dr. James White confirming the reliability of the new testament.







> So, I ask you, what convincing evidence exists that would prove to an atheist that he is foolish for not believing in an impossible to understand Triune-yet-singular God who needed to kill him,self and rise himself from the dead instead of simply forgiving people for a lot of stuff that is morally relative to begin with?


Watch the above video.  You may find it helpful.  

As for the last part of your question, if sin was merely "forgiven" without any penalty being paid by anyone, would God's creation realize the pain sin causes?  And where would be the justice in that?  Remember, Satan is the "accuser of the brethren".  He also stands ready to accuse God as seen in the book of Job.

But tell me this.  How do you think Calvinism makes sense to an atheist?  In that case God caused sin so that He could kill himself and raise himself form the dead as opposed to allowing free choice and paying the penalty for those who made the wrong choice but repent and accept His sacrifice.

----------


## loveableteddybear

I'll watch that video with my wife, but I never was too convinced by the worthiness of the Bible on the face of it any more than Augustine, who 1650 years ago rejected Scripture for the same exact reason. Try having a debate with a Muslim. The Quran is certainly a much more consistent "revealed" work. It's shorter too and benefits from having one author and being written at one time (during the Caliph Uthman).

If you can come up maybe with one or two points from that 1.5 hour video for our non-Christian friends, that might be helpful.




> As for the last part of your question, if sin was merely "forgiven" without any penalty being paid by anyone, would God's creation realize the pain sin causes? And where would be the justice in that? Remember, Satan is the "accuser of the brethren". He also stands ready to accuse God as seen in the book of Job.


My answer to your questions is that God does not require any of us to realize anything, because he is not reliant upon us in any way. Speaking to the non-converted, why does God's creation have to realize anything then? Can you answer that without invoking Scripture? Why can't the world just continue on oblivious to that fact?




> But tell me this. How do you think Calvinism makes sense to an atheist? In that case God caused sin so that He could kill himself and raise himself form the dead as opposed to allowing free choice and paying the penalty for those who made the wrong choice but repent and accept His sacrifice.


Oh, it would make no sense whatsoever. It's needlessly fatalistic if man's desires and values were the center to how the universe goverened itself.

----------


## jmdrake

> I'll watch that video with my wife, but I never was too convinced by the worthiness of the Bible on the face of it any more than Augustine, who 1650 years ago rejected Scripture for the same exact reason. Try having a debate with a Muslim. The Quran is certainly a much more consistent "revealed" work. It's shorter too and benefits from having one author and being written at one time (during the Caliph Uthman).
> 
> If you can come up maybe with one or two points from that 1.5 hour video for our non-Christian friends, that might be helpful.


Well if I can dig it up, there is a debate between James White and a Bible skeptic in which the skeptic is forced to admitted that the new testament is one of the best, if not the best, attested book in history.




> My answer to your questions is that God does not require any of us to realize anything, because he is not reliant upon us in any way. Speaking to the non-converted, why does God's creation have to realize anything then? Can you answer that without invoking Scripture? Why can't the world just continue on oblivious to that fact?


You want me to answer a question about God without invoking scripture?    Okay.  Regardless you are starting with a faulty premise.  Two actually.  Faulty premise number 1 is that if God does not require us to realize anything that means He doesn't desire us to realize anything either.  Faulty premise number 2 is that if God requires something of us, that is the same thing as Him "relying" on us.

I know you said don't invoke scripture, but I can't help it.

_Micah 6:8 He has showed you, O man, what is good. And what does the LORD require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God._

If you believe the Bible is true, then God does in fact have requirements for His creation.  Those requirements do not imply reliance.

Sorry, but I can't argue from the standpoint of agreeing with faulty premises and then not invoking the Bible to show that they are false.




> Oh, it would make no sense whatsoever. It's needlessly fatalistic if man's desires and values were the center to how the universe goverened itself.


Who created man?  Who gave man his desires and values?  And who works in man to conform those desires and values to Himself?  The Bible answers all of those questions.  It is God.  To deny that God puts a moral compass in man is to deny God.

----------


## loveableteddybear

I wrote a whole careful reply and lost it. I take it as a sign from God to relent. If I click xontrol V, I have the following quote from Genesis 8:21:

"Never again will I curse the ground because of humans, even though every inclination of the human heart is evil from childhood."

God destroyed every human because the inclination of their hearts was "continually evil" (Gen 6:5) and apparently, even though by grace Noah was set apart this woulds be true of his descendants as well, as evident if Genesis 8:21. I think you suffer from too high a view of yourself, myself, and all men Drake. We deserve universal destruction just as mankind did in Noah's time. Genesis 8:21 explicitly says this. Romans 5:12 confirms this and makes it plain, that God's opinion never changed.

But God had mercy on Noah. And the good news is God makes his grace available to all of us, even still, even though the inclination of all our hearts, every human heart, is evil and hatred towards God. So, if God does not save my sister or some ancient Persian guy from 527 BC or anyone else, yes that's very sad, but how great is it that God overlooks any of us? I deserve to be damned as do you, as does every single baby, as does every single Nobel Peace Prize winner. That's what the Bible says in Genesis 8:21 and Romans 5:12. And God gives the reason why: 

Your eyes are too pure to look on evil;
    you cannot tolerate wrongdoing. (Hab 1:13)

Yet, God has mercy on a sinner like me? On any sinner? Praise God for his unsolicited, unmerited mercy on men through His Son Jesus Christ.

Amen.

----------


## jmdrake

> I wrote a whole careful reply and lost it. I take it as a sign from God to relent. If I click xontrol V, I have the following quote from Genesis 8:21:
> 
> "Never again will I curse the ground because of humans, even though every inclination of the human heart is evil from childhood."
> 
> God destroyed every human because the inclination of their hearts was "continually evil" (Gen 6:5) and apparently, even though by grace Noah was set apart this woulds be true of his descendants as well, as evident if Genesis 8:21. I think you suffer from too high a view of yourself, myself, and all men Drake. We deserve universal destruction just as mankind did in Noah's time. Genesis 8:21 explicitly says this. Romans 5:12 confirms this and makes it plain, that God's opinion never changed.


I think you suffer from an inability to comprehend what people who disagree with you are actually saying.  I never said mankind doesn't deserve destruction.  I said that God puts in us a moral compass and the Holy Spirit activates it.

Take a break from your Calvinist "total depravity" worldview and read Psalms 139.  It might make you truly love God and what He did for you when He created you.

Then mosey on over to Philippians 2:13 and combine it with John 16:13.  God isn't the evil tyrant you are making Him out to be.  Nor is He an inept creator.  He is a loving creator and redeemer.  You know that at the same time that men were "doing evil continually" before the flood, Enoch walked with God so completely that God took him to heaven without seeing death?  I'm not seeing myself higher than I might.  I'm seeing God higher than you see Him.  I hope you can better understand His love eventually.  His love is not the kind where it would be even possible to burn babies in hell forever.  It saddens me that some Christians have such a dim view of the loving creator and redeemer.

One more thing.  You said you realize your that it is possible that your understanding of the Bible is not correct.  I agree.  Same for me.  Did you ever in your life consider the possibility that your Judeo-Christian viewpoint itself might not be correct?  Have you looked at other religions?  I have.  And for me a God who has a moral standard (justice) yet was willing to die so that people who failed that moral standard didn't have to (mercy) is worthy of honor, glory and praise.  That's the power of the cross.  Sure, as Paul said it's "crazy" to some and a "stumbling block" to others.  But to humble poor sinners it is the essence of love.  That essence is not compatible with a god that would burn babies forever.

----------


## Smart3

It was never an orthodox view that infants go to Heaven by virtue of not reaching an "age of maturity" or "age of reason". That was only introduced when infant baptism was.

Since the New Testament is quite clear that every single human being (save a handful like Job, Enoch, Asa and Jesus) was/is a sinner, the Christian god is free to eliminate them as he deems fit. It can be assumed that all of the children killed by Adam Lanza are now in Hell, as none of them were Calvinists. The Christian response to such massacres is to rejoice that God used Lanza to rid the world of those sinners.

This is not Westboro Baptist Church's unique belief, this is the traditional a-moral Christian belief, and it's a very compelling reason to hate Christianity.

----------


## erowe1

> It was never an orthodox view that infants go to Heaven by virtue of not reaching an "age of maturity" or "age of reason". That was only introduced when infant baptism was.


Actually, I think the "age of accountability" idea is more closely connected with the rejection of infant baptism than the acceptance of it.

Part of what went on in the debates between Augustinians and Pelagians revolved around infant baptism, which at that time was taken for granted, such that infants must be sinful, since it is necessary to baptize them.

----------


## Smart3

> Actually, I think the "age of accountability" idea is more closely connected with the rejection of infant baptism than the acceptance of it.
> 
> Part of what went on in the debates between Augustinians and Pelagians revolved around infant baptism, which at that time was taken for granted, such that infants must be sinful, since it is necessary to baptize them.


That's one way to look at it, the other is to realize there is no infant baptism anywhere in early Christian writings, so clearly they're exempt from Hell.

(playing Devil's advocate here)

----------


## erowe1

> That's one way to look at it, the other is to realize there is no infant baptism anywhere in early Christian writings, so clearly they're exempt from Hell.
> 
> (playing Devil's advocate here)


Isn't this the opposite of what you just said?

----------


## Smart3

> Isn't this the opposite of what you just said?


Precisely.

----------


## erowe1

> Precisely.


I don't think most ancients considered the damnation of infants a problem. I think that's more based on relatively modern sensibilities, with Baptists and other deniers of infant baptism being the main advocates of an age of accountability theory.

----------


## FreeHampshire

> The fact you ignore my post in response to you and simply respond with, "If God turns out to be this, then I refuse to worship Him" reveals issues system of belief. Namely that, pardon me for being frank, that your religion is man made, that man being yourself. You have a preconception of God and if the real God does not fit with it, you will refuse to worship Him.
> 
> I ask that you take back that if God is not the way you want Him to be, that you refuse to worship Him. I, for example, never said if God doesn't send babies to hell, I refuse to worship Him. In fact, I wish a hell simply didn't exist. It is a matter of not making an idol that I accept the true God and what He reveals about Himself.
> 
> If you can address the Scripture from my post so I can intelligently understand your position, that'd help me understand a little more.



I looked at your post. It had little material and didn't really try to debunk my claims about original sin/ancestral sin. But I will reply

----------


## FreeHampshire

> As I explained previously, is that we don't need our father's sins to be guilty, we have our own. Romans 5:12 doesn't say all men die because of one man's sin. It says all men have become sinners.


Yes, let me reiterate. The earliest of Christians and Jews believed the "original sin" was an ancestral sin. That is, we inherit the consequences of Adam's actions. Not the guilt. That's a historical fact and not disputed. It was Augustine who invented this insane "original sin" doctrine. So far you are agreeing with everything I said.





> Those opposed to the doctrine of original sin have what is in my opinion a warped philosophy of man that stems from renaissance humanism,



See, this is what cults do. You can't defend what you asserted going by the scripture so you are now just making things up. I guess 11th century Eastern Orthodox Christians were 'warped by renaissance humanism' too. Or 2nd century Gnostics and Catholics who rejected original sin were also influenced by renaissance thought.  Give me a break.






> the delusion that men are essentially perfectible. I never meant anyone out there that was without sin,*baby* or adult.


The death of Christianity, everyone.. it's been taken over by the Manicheans. 




> To be honest, I don't know any two week year olds, so I can't speak about that from personal experience. But, the passage of Ezekiel can be true, but at the same time men can universally be sinners.



Ezekiel said a sin cannot be passed down from father to son. No exception. Why is it that you adherents to sola scriptura just start making things up when you can't find it in scripture? Or we can assume Ezekiel literally meant a mother can pass her sin to her offspring but a father cannot. Oh yeah, that would be a bit of a problem for Christians, for obvious reasons. 




> It is because men are universally sinners, born with it or learned 0.00001 microseconds after their birth, that they are subject to wrath.


Where is that in the bible




In the end, the Augustinian understanding of original sin is not found in Gnosticism, Orthodoxy, tradition, Mosaic Judaism, Rabbinical Judaism, or any kind of scripture. It's a man-made invention that is contradicted all throughout the bible. The adherents to such an absurd idea only have Romans 5:12 which 1) doesn't support their position 2) is mistranslated.

----------


## jmdrake

> It was never an orthodox view that infants go to Heaven by virtue of not reaching an "age of maturity" or "age of reason". That was only introduced when infant baptism was.
> 
> Since the New Testament is quite clear that every single human being (save a handful like Job, Enoch, Asa and Jesus) was/is a sinner, the Christian god is free to eliminate them as he deems fit. It can be assumed that all of the children killed by Adam Lanza are now in Hell, as none of them were Calvinists. The Christian response to such massacres is to rejoice that God used Lanza to rid the world of those sinners.
> 
> This is not Westboro Baptist Church's unique belief, this is the traditional a-moral Christian belief, and it's a very compelling reason to hate Christianity.


Wrong.  There is a difference between being a sinner and having committed a sin.  Again:

_Being born "sinners" and being "born with sin" are two entirely different things.  Consider a fruit tree.  You could buy one that already has fruit on it.  Or you could buy one that eventually produces fruit.  Both are fruit trees._

Think of the fruit a tree produces as "works".  It is clear from the Bible that while we are saved by grace we are punished for our sinful works.  The Bible also makes it clear in Acts 17 and other places that the works we are held accountable for are not those done in ignorance.  I know you hate Christianity and want to paint it in the worst possible light.  But your position isn't biblical.

----------


## jmdrake

loveableteddybear: Please answer this question.  Why do you think your belief system comforts you regarding your sister?  Why do you think it is bad that God would hold your sister, who had clear opportunity to know Jesus, to a different standard than someone who never had that opportunity?  Jesus makes it clear that people who had the opportunity to know Him and instead rejected Him are held to a higher standard.  Why does that truth bother you?  You've brought this up several times so obviously it does.

----------


## jmdrake

> I don't think most ancients considered the damnation of infants a problem. I think that's more based on relatively modern sensibilities, with Baptists and other deniers of infant baptism being the main advocates of an age of accountability theory.


So you *really* believe that 2,000 years ago mothers and fathers didn't love their babies and didn't care if they went to heaven or not?  And if your saying "ancients didn't consider damnation of infants that weren't their own a problem" that still doesn't make sense.  You had Christian grandparents, uncles, friends ect of people who weren't Christian.  I don't believe for a minute these people walked around thinking "Oh, if my grandchild, nephew etc dies before he has a chance to understand and accept Jesus he may likely go to hell and burn for eternity, but it's all good."

Any evidence for your argument?  Ancient writings on how it's okay that infants burn forever in hell?

----------


## erowe1

> So you *really* believe that 2,000 years ago mothers and fathers didn't love their babies and didn't care if they went to heaven or not?  And if your saying "ancients didn't consider damnation of infants that weren't their own a problem" that still doesn't make sense.  You had Christian grandparents, uncles, friends ect of people who weren't Christian.  I don't believe for a minute these people walked around thinking "Oh, if my grandchild, nephew etc dies before he has a chance to understand and accept Jesus he may likely go to hell and burn for eternity, but it's all good."
> 
> Any evidence for your argument?  Ancient writings on how it's okay that infants burn forever in hell?


Mothers didn't really count for much. I think fathers did generally care about their own children, and that's why infant baptism probably came about. But I wasn't really talking about how people dealt with the immediate problem of infant death when it affected them, but more the abstract problem as a theological issue, where it would be considered a mar on some religion if it held that the souls of babies went somewhere bad. For most nonchristians it seems to have been expected that everybody goes somewhere bad when they die (see the Iliad). And I also don't think they had this view of babies that is common today of them being adorable little darlings. It wasn't uncommon for them to look at their babies after they were born and decide then whether they were fit for life or should instead be left to the elements to die. If they did live, then throughout their childhood, whether boy or girl, they were a marginalized group who spent most of their time around women and slaves and were held to be of similar worth. I would have to look up primary sources to give the evidence for this.

----------


## jmdrake

> Mothers didn't really count for much. I think fathers did generally care about their own children, and that's why infant baptism probably came about. But I wasn't really talking about how people dealt with the immediate problem of infant death when it affected them, but more the abstract problem as a theological issue, where it would be considered a mar on some religion if it held that the souls of babies went somewhere bad. For most nonchristians it seems to have been expected that everybody goes somewhere bad when they die (see the Iliad). And I also don't think they had this view of babies that is common today of them being adorable little darlings. It wasn't uncommon for them to look at their babies after they were born and decide then whether they were fit for life or should instead be left to the elements to die. If they did live, then throughout their childhood, whether boy or girl, they were a marginalized group who spent most of their time around women and slaves and were held to be of similar worth. I would have to look up primary sources to give the evidence for this.


I was talking about ancient judeo-Christians.  I wasn't talking about ancient pagans.  In some ancient religions child sacrifice was routine.  As far as the Greeks, their concept of "Hades" was quite different from the Christian concept of hell.  People in Hades' realm weren't going around being tortured for eternity.  Yes there was Tarturus, but that was reserved for people who had actually done something bad.

And again, much of this is driven by the (false IMO) belief of inherent immortality which differs from the view of immortality as a gift.  If immortality is inherent then God has no choice but to allow the suffering of unsaved souls to continue forever.

----------


## shane77m

http://www.gty.org/resources/sermon-...babies-who-die

----------


## erowe1

> As far as the Greeks, their concept of "Hades" was quite different from the Christian concept of hell.  People in Hades' realm weren't going around being tortured for eternity.


I don't think that's so easy to say. Sysiphus's time in Hades seems to have been torture. And IIRC, he was just one of many examples. And I wouldn't assume that most early Christians had a very uniform view of Hell. Revelation gives a vivid picture of torture. But it was never a very popular book, and questions about whether or not to take it literally go back to its earliest interpreters. I assume that there was a lot of overlap between Pagan and Christian views of Hades. Christians and Jews did, after all, adopt the use of that word for the place of the dead.

I don't think it's just a matter of believing in inherent immortality. Annihilation of the soul is one of the possibilities of how God deals with the souls of infants. I don't think that would mean that immortality is a gift, though, either, since at least some beings could still endure punishment forever.

----------


## jmdrake

> I don't think that's so easy to say. Sysiphus's time in Hades seems to have been torture.


Sysiphus wasn't in Hades.  He was in Tarturus.  Or to be more clear, there was a general realm that everybody went to.  Not too bad, not too good.  (Catholic equivalent would be limbo).  Those who were particularly bad would go to Tarturus.  Those who were particularly good would go to the Elysian fields.  Still I fail to see the relevance of any of that to Christian theology.  Again, some pagan religions routinely sacrificed children.




> And IIRC, he was just one of many examples. And I wouldn't assume that most early Christians had a very uniform view of Hell. Revelation gives a vivid picture of torture. But it was never a very popular book, and questions about whether or not to take it literally go back to its earliest interpreters. I assume that there was a lot of overlap between Pagan and Christian views of Hades. Christians and Jews did, after all, adopt the use of that word for the place of the dead.


Again, non sequitur.  I'm not saying that hell cannot involve torture.  I'm saying that there is no concept in Christianity (or Greek mythology for that matter) of a place of torture for people who haven't done anything wrong other than being born.




> I don't think it's just a matter of believing in inherent immortality. Annihilation of the soul is one of the possibilities of how God deals with the souls of infants. I don't think that would mean that immortality is a gift, though, either, since at least some beings could still endure punishment forever.


In that case immortality becomes a "curse".  Still, if you think it's possible that babies could be tortured forever in hell, as opposed to soul annihilation just existing in limbo (the main realm of Hades) what purpose would that serve in your opinion?  I saw in another thread that you believed those in hell had to burn forever because they kept sinning by hating the God who was torturing them.  Why do you think that?

----------


## erowe1

> In that case immortality becomes a "curse".  Still, if you think it's possible that babies could be tortured forever in hell, as opposed to soul annihilation just existing in limbo (the main realm of Hades) what purpose would that serve in your opinion?  I saw in another thread that you believed those in hell had to burn forever because they kept sinning by hating the God who was torturing them.  Why do you think that?


I base that on Revelation 22:11



> Let the one who does wrong, still do wrong; and the one who is filthy, still be filthy; and let the one who is righteous, still practice righteousness; and the one who is holy, still keep himself holy.


I don't feel a need to figure out the purpose. I'm just content that whatever God will do will be perfectly just. If it does turn out that infants end up eternally punished, and if I can't conceive of how that could be just now, then I trust that I'll have an understanding in eternity that will make clear to me that God will have done what is perfectly right. This may be for reasons I can't even conceive of now, or things I could merely imagine. I do believe that God will punish different people differently, and that he will never punish anyone beyond what they truly deserve. But I know nothing about what the soul of an infant will be like in the afterlife. Will they then have mature knowledge of God's law, and if so, will they hate God? I don't know.

As for the pagan views, I think there were a variety. In the Odyssey, which was essentially scripture for many pagans, the afterlife is supposed to be detestable for all mortals. So if Christianity offered any hope of eternal bliss to anyone at all, it was already more sanguine than that.

----------


## jmdrake

> I base that on Revelation 22:11


That talks about the close of probation prior to judgement.  That does not say that people cast into hell will be kept alive to burn some more because they are sinning while they are in hell.  




> I don't feel a need to figure out the purpose. I'm just content that whatever God will do will be perfectly just. If it does turn out that infants end up eternally punished, and if I can't conceive of how that could be just now, then I trust that I'll have an understanding in eternity that will make clear to me that God will have done what is perfectly right. This may be for reasons I can't even conceive of now, or things I could merely imagine. I do believe that God will punish different people differently, and that he will never punish anyone beyond what they truly deserve. But I know nothing about what the soul of an infant will be like in the afterlife. Will they then have mature knowledge of God's law, and if so, will they hate God? I don't know.


Well by that token someone may "trust" Shiva to perfect and just.  As for the souls of infants, Jesus gave pretty clear teaching on that.

_Matthew 19:14 Jesus said, "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these."_

----------


## erowe1

> That talks about the close of probation prior to judgement.  That does not say that people cast into hell will be kept alive to burn some more because they are sinning while they are in hell.


It looks to me like it's talking about the New Heaven and New Earth, and that those inside vs. those outside are the same groups mentioned in 22:3 and 14-15.

Also, Revelation 20:10 says:



> And the devil who deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are also; and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.





> Well by that token someone may "trust" Shiva to perfect and just.  As for the souls of infants, Jesus gave pretty clear teaching on that.
> 
> _Matthew 19:14 Jesus said, "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these."_


The only way I could really know what God will do would be if he revealed that to us. I don't think he has. But I can still rely on what I do know, and that God is perfectly just is one of those things. Matthew 19:14 and some other verses give me some hope, but they don't come anywhere close to saying that when babies die their souls always go to Heaven.

----------


## jmdrake

> It looks to me like it's talking about the New Heaven and New Earth, and that those inside vs. those outside are the same groups mentioned in 22:3 and 14-15.


Revelation 22:12 (the very next verse after the one you quoted) indicates quite the opposite.

_12 “Look, I am coming soon! My reward is with me, and I will give to each person according to what they have done._ 




> Also, Revelation 20:10 says:


Young's literal translation is better IMO.

_and the Devil, who is leading them astray, was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where are the beast and the false prophet, and they shall be tormented day and night -- to the ages of the ages._

Regardless, the reasoning you gave in the other thread was made up.




> The only way I could really know what God will do would be if he revealed that to us. I don't think he has. But I can still rely on what I do know, and that God is perfectly just is one of those things. Matthew 19:14 and some other verses give me some hope, but they don't come anywhere close to saying that when babies die their souls always go to Heaven.


Yes.  God is perfectly just.  He punishes people for what they've actually done.  That's just.  Punishing people in hell for what Adam did is not just.  God says He doesn't punish people for their parents sins.  That doesn't mean there are no earthly consequences for parental mistakes.  Clearly there are.  But eternal torture in hell isn't just.  Saying "Well maybe God will do that and if He does then it must be just" is just circular reasoning.

----------


## erowe1

> Revelation 22:12 (the very next verse after the one you quoted) indicates quite the opposite.
> 
> _12 “Look, I am coming soon! My reward is with me, and I will give to each person according to what they have done._


I don't see how that does indicate that. Verse 12 is talking to us as the audience of the book. Those other verses aren't. In v. 12, the punishments and rewards are announced for the future, in vv. 3 and 14-15 they are described from the vantage point of while they are happening. If you do take v. 11 to be talking about the same people addressed in v. 12, then wouldn't that be people alive on earth now, and not in a future pre-judgment probation, like you said?




> Young's literal translation is better IMO.
> 
> _and the Devil, who is leading them astray, was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where are the beast and the false prophet, and they shall be tormented day and night -- to the ages of the ages._


Is that also how that phrase should be translated when it's talking about Heaven? Or is it just for bad things?




> Regardless, the reasoning you gave in the other thread was made up.


Are you talking about the thing that I just told you I based on Revelation 22:11?




> Yes.  God is perfectly just.  He punishes people for what they've actually done.  That's just.


And if he does anything differently than that, then what he does is still just.

If I kill a mosquito because I judge it to be a blood-sucker before actually giving it a chance to suck my blood, does that make me unjust? Sin isn't just what we do, it's our natural condition.




> God says He doesn't punish people for their parents sins.


He doesn't say that he never does, just that he sometimes does and sometimes doesn't.

----------


## loveableteddybear

> It was never an orthodox view that infants go to Heaven by virtue of not reaching an "age of maturity" or "age of reason". That was only introduced when infant baptism was.
> 
> Since the New Testament is quite clear that every single human being (save a handful like Job, Enoch, Asa and Jesus) was/is a sinner, the Christian god is free to eliminate them as he deems fit. It can be assumed that all of the children killed by Adam Lanza are now in Hell, as none of them were Calvinists. The Christian response to such massacres is to rejoice that God used Lanza to rid the world of those sinners.
> 
> This is not Westboro Baptist Church's unique belief, this is the traditional a-moral Christian belief, and it's a very compelling reason to hate Christianity.


Sadly, Smart-3 is spot on and his feelings about Christianity, in that sense, are justified.

----------


## loveableteddybear

> loveableteddybear: Please answer this question.  Why do you think your belief system comforts you regarding your sister?  Why do you think it is bad that God would hold your sister, who had clear opportunity to know Jesus, to a different standard than someone who never had that opportunity?  Jesus makes it clear that people who had the opportunity to know Him and instead rejected Him are held to a higher standard.  Why does that truth bother you?  You've brought this up several times so obviously it does.


I think you hit the nail on the head with the term "total depravity." Original sin I can bend with, but I cannot bend with "total depravity." It's that singular doctrine that intellectually forces me to accept that grace is totally unmerited and gives us all reason to rejoice, simply because no one at all should have it.

I think a better thread would be over the soundness of the "total depravity" doctrine, which I think might be less offensive to people as it does not primarily concern babies per se.

----------


## jmdrake

> I don't see how that does indicate that. Verse 12 is talking to us as the audience of the book. Those other verses aren't. In v. 12, the punishments and rewards are announced for the future, in vv. 3 and 14-15 they are described from the vantage point of while they are happening. If you do take v. 11 to be talking about the same people addressed in v. 12, then wouldn't that be people alive on earth now, and not in a future pre-judgment probation, like you said?


The same phrase "Lo I come quickly" in verse 12 is also used in verse 7.

_7 Lo, I come quickly; happy [is] he who is keeping the words of the prophecy of this scroll.'_

It's not logical to assume that Revelation 22 is supposed to flow temporally all the way through to verse 11.  You can't draw the conclusion you are trying to draw when verse 7 messes up the flow and verse 12 affirms that.




> Is that also how that phrase should be translated when it's talking about Heaven? Or is it just for bad things?


Are Sodom and Gomorrah still burning?

Jude 1:7
_Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire._




> Are you talking about the thing that I just told you I based on Revelation 22:11?


I was talking about the claim you made in another thread that punishment of the wicked had to continue forever because they would keep sinning and keep requiring new punishment.  While you may be able to *derive* that from Revelation 22:11, that's not what the verse says.




> And if he does anything differently than that, then what he does is still just.


Not according to what God says about justice.




> If I kill a mosquito because I judge it to be a blood-sucker before actually giving it a chance to suck my blood, does that make me unjust? Sin isn't just what we do, it's our natural condition.


And the point of torturing said mosquito forever would be.......?  Sorry but that's not an accurate analogy of what we are talking about.  Besides, I don't care about justice for a mosquito.  If you killed an insect just because you found it irritating, what is that to me?  You can go out and shoot a deer just to hang it's head up on the wall.  And the deer has a right to think that's unjust....if a deer has the ability to think at that level.




> He doesn't say that he never does, just that he sometimes does and sometimes doesn't.


Ezekiel doesn't say "I sometimes do and I sometimes don't."  There are temporal consequences to sin that sometimes get passed to children and sometimes don't.  But everyplace in the Bible when it talks about the final judgement the Bible is clear that people pay for the sins they committed.  They don't pay for the sins they didn't commit or that they are going to commit in hell.  That's just not biblical.

----------


## erowe1

> The same phrase "Lo I come quickly" in verse 12 is also used in verse 7.
> 
> _7 Lo, I come quickly; happy [is] he who is keeping the words of the prophecy of this scroll.'_
> 
> It's not logical to assume that Revelation 22 is supposed to flow temporally all the way through to verse 11.  You can't draw the conclusion you are trying to draw when verse 7 messes up the flow and verse 12 affirms that.


I don't think Revelation 22 flows temporally all the way through. I just think that v. 11 is talking about the same time as vv. 3 and 13-14. I don't see a better alternative. How does a time of probation before the judgment get into this context?

And let's say Revelation 22:11 isn't saying that. I can accept that it might not be. But then we're left with the Bible not addressing whether sinners will continue to be sinners while they're being punished. So maybe they will, and maybe they won't. And if that's the case, then the possibility still remains that their continued wickedness could factor into how God could be just in continuing to punish them.




> Are Sodom and Gomorrah still burning?
> 
> Jude 1:7
> _Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire._


I don't know what exactly the function of the word "eternal" is in that verse. But notice that it says they are set forth as an example, or a proof (Gk. _deigma_) of the judgment of eternal fire, which doesn't necessarily mean that the fire that fell on them was eternal fire, since there's a difference between a sign or proof of a thing and the thing itself. But if you mean to say that the word _aionios_ (eternal) doesn't always mean "eternal," then I agree, it doesn't always mean that. On the other hand, if you're saying that it never means that, then I disagree, it clearly sometimes does. It seems like special pleading to me to say that any time it's talking about eternal life it really means eternal, but any time it's talking about eternal punishment, it doesn't.




> Not according to what God says about justice.


Where does God say that?




> And the point of torturing said mosquito forever would be.......?


I didn't mention torturing it. Nor did I say that God tortures babies. I didn't even bring the term "torture" into the discussion. You did. The Bible does use the word "torture" and similar words for the fate of the wicked. How exactly we are to take that I don't know. I assume that it's analogical language. And how it would relate to the differing punishments of different people, I also don't know. All I meant was that I would not be unjust in treating a mosquito to the fate that is right for mosquitoes, whether the mosquito had actually sucked my blood or not. Similarly, God would not be unjust to treat murderers, fornicators, idolaters, and so on, to the fate that is right for them even if he didn't let them live long enough to commit the acts that such people commit. We have no right to think that there is anything about us to endear us to God any more than a mosquito.




> Ezekiel doesn't say "I sometimes do and I sometimes don't."


Yes it does.
Ezekiel 18:2 talks about when God does do that, saying:



> What do you mean by repeating this proverb concerning the land of Israel, "The parents have eaten sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge"?


And then v. 3 talks about a coming situation in which that will no longer obtain:



> As I live, says the Lord GOD, this proverb shall *no more* be used by you in Israel.


And the following verses of the chapter are all talking about that situation in which God will no longer punish children for parents' sins.

The same thing goes for Jeremiah 31:29-30:



> In those days they shall *no longer* say: "The parents have eaten sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge." But all shall die for their own sins; the teeth of everyone who eats sour grapes shall be set on edge.


These promises for some future estate for Israel are in contrast to the situation they were in under the Mosaic covenant, where God said:



> Exodus 20:5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the LORD your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me,
> 
> Exodus 34:7 keeping steadfast love for the thousandth generation, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, yet by no means clearing the guilty, but visiting the iniquity of the parents upon the children and the children's children, to the third and the fourth generation."
> 
> Numbers 14:18 'The LORD is slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love, forgiving iniquity and transgression, but by no means clearing the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the parents upon the children to the third and the fourth generation.'
> 
> Deuteronomy 5:9 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the LORD your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and fourth generation of those who reject me,


I understand Ezekiel 18 and Jeremiah 31 to be talking about the millennial kingdom. But, whether I'm right about that or not, it's still the case that they are contrasting a situation in which God will not judge children for parents' sins with previous situations in which he has.




> But everyplace in the Bible when it talks about the final judgement the Bible is clear that people pay for the sins they committed. They don't pay for the sins they didn't commit or that they are going to commit in hell. That's just not biblical.


The Bible does talk about people being punished for sins they committed in this life. But I don't know of any places in the Bible that say that they will not sin any more in the afterlife. If you know for sure that they won't, then you know more about that than I do.

----------


## jmdrake

> I don't think Revelation 22 flows temporally all the way through. I just think that v. 11 is talking about the same time as vv. 3 and 13-14. I don't see a better alternative. How does a time of probation before the judgment get into this context?


Verse 7 breaks up the flow from verse 3 to verse 11.  So your assumption just doesn't make sense.  But hey, you can hold on to it if that what fits you.  It's clear from Revelation 14 that people receive the mark of the beast before the end of the world (at least to me).  That's when probation closes.




> And let's say Revelation 22:11 isn't saying that. I can accept that it might not be. But then we're left with the Bible not addressing whether sinners will continue to be sinners while they're being punished. So maybe they will, and maybe they won't. And if that's the case, then the possibility still remains that their continued wickedness could factor into how God could be just in continuing to punish them.


Could be.  Cause for speculation.  If you're saying that's your speculative belief then okay.  That's not how I read what you said before, but I may have misread you.




> I don't know what exactly the function of the word "eternal" is in that verse. But notice that it says they are set forth as an example, or a proof (Gk. _deigma_) of the judgment of eternal fire, which doesn't necessarily mean that the fire that fell on them was eternal fire, since there's a difference between a sign or proof of a thing and the thing itself. But if you mean to say that the word "eternal" doesn't always mean "eternal," then I agree, it doesn't always mean that. On the other hand, if you're saying that it never means that, then I disagree, it clearly sometimes does. It seems like special pleading to me to say that any time it's talking about eternal life it really means eternal, but any time it's talking about eternal punishment, it doesn't.


If someone dies and never comes back to life is he eternally dead?  The Bible talks about the "second death".  Your interpretation seems to be that at the second death someone doesn't actually die.  Ummm...okay.  I guess special pleadings go both ways.




> Where does God say that?


I've already covered that.  You just don't accept what was written as written.  I'm okay with that.




> I didn't mention torturing it. Nor did I say that God tortures babies. I didn't even bring the term "torture" into the discussion. You did.


Right.  *That's the premise of the entire discussion*.  Read the thread title again before responding.  Someone being "burned forever" is torture.  If you are defending that premise then you are defending torture.  If you disagree with the premise that God burns babies in hell forever then you really have no reason to be debating me on this.  I actually started this thread for SF, but he hasn't engaged it.  That's fine.




> The Bible does use the word "torture" and similar words for the fate of the wicked. How exactly we are to take that I don't know. I assume that it's analogical language. And how it would relate to the differing punishments of different people, I also don't know. All I meant was that I would not be unjust in treating a mosquito to the fate that is right for mosquitoes, whether the mosquito had actually sucked my blood or not. Similarly, God would not be unjust to treat murderers, fornicators, idolaters, and so on, to the fate that is right for them even if he didn't let them live long enough to commit the acts that such people commit. We have no right to think that there is anything about us to endear us to God any more than a mosquito.


Again, bad analogy IMO.  Killing mosquitoes has nothing to do with "justice" and everything to do with self defense.  If you want a real analogy, then go with "Minority Report" where people are locked up for "pre crime".  




> Yes it does.
> Ezekiel 18:2 talks about when God does do that, saying:


Huh?  You read Ezekiel 18:2 and came to the conclusion that God punishes children in hell for their parents sins?  That....makes....no...sense.




> And then v. 3 talks about a coming situation in which that will no longer obtain:
> _In those days they shall no longer say: "The parents have eaten sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge." But all shall die for their own sins; the teeth of everyone who eats sour grapes shall be set on edge_


What part of "But all shall die for their own sins" do you not understand?  Teeth set on edge != burning in hell.

----------


## jllundqu

> Okay.  I should qualify this as "some Calvinists".  But *I'm calling all of you out because some of you who believe otherwise have not stood up for the honor of Yaweh against the insane charge made by Sola_Fide*.
> 
> And yes, it is insane.  Calvinists agree with others that God is limited by the fact that He can't do something that goes against His nature.  Well burning a baby forever in hell goes against His nature.  And the blaphemous idea that God "needs" people to burn forever to "satiate His wrath" can be found nowhere in the Bible.  Sola_Fide just made that up out of thin air.  There is much Biblical evidence that hell doesn't last forever anyway.  Even some Calvinist acknowledge this.  But even if you believe that, the idea that a baby, who has yet to have a sinful thought, could be sent by a loving God to burn in hell is simply a lie straight from Satan to discredit God.  And don't give me some crap about "Well God can do whatever the hell He wants".  No He can't.  Not if the Calvinist claim that God doesn't go against His own nature is true.  It's pagans that believe that their gods are able to do whatever level of evil humans are capable and somehow it's good because it's God.
> 
> The Bible makes it clear.
> 
> Ezekiel 18:20 _The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him._
> 
> Children do no burn in hell for the sins of their parents.  And that includes our ultimate parent Adam.  Those who go to hell will end up their for their own sins.  Even if you believe God dictates who will and will not be saved, the idea that He punishes someone for what they did *not* do is simply unbiblical.  And no, questioning the insanity of those who think God burns little babies forever to satiate His wrath is not "questioning God".  It is questioning people who sink so spiritually low that they act like they are God.  Religious fanatics who have murdered in the name of their god and/or convinced their followers to do so are quick to say "Don't question God" when people are merely questioning them.


I'm more of a Deist/Neo-Pagan kinda guy...  no need for pointless religious bickering where I'm sitting.  I believe a 'god' exists.... that's as far as I go.

----------


## erowe1

> Teeth set on edge != burning in hell.


Correct. Nothing in Ezekiel 18 is about Hell.




> If someone dies and never comes back to life is he eternally dead?  The Bible talks about the "second death".  Your interpretation seems to be that at the second death someone doesn't actually die.  Ummm...okay.  I guess special pleadings go both ways.


I'm not sure what it means to "actually die." But whatever the second death is, it's the same as the lake of fire, which is described in Revelation 20:10 as being tormented forever and ever.

----------


## jmdrake

> Correct. Nothing in Ezekiel 18 is about Hell.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure what it means to "actually die." But whatever the second death is, it's the same as the lake of fire, which is described in Revelation 20:10 as being tormented forever and ever.


Ezekiel 28 is seen by most as a dual prophecy referring to the "king of Tyre" and to Lucifer.  Here is the ending of both.

_16 By the multitude of thy merchandise they have filled the midst of thee with violence, and thou hast sinned: therefore I will cast thee as profane out of the mountain of God: and I will destroy thee, O covering cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire.

17 Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty, thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness: I will cast thee to the ground, I will lay thee before kings, that they may behold thee.

18 Thou hast defiled thy sanctuaries by the multitude of thine iniquities, by the iniquity of thy traffick; therefore will I bring forth a fire from the midst of thee, it shall devour thee, and I will bring thee to ashes upon the earth in the sight of all them that behold thee.

19 All they that know thee among the people shall be astonished at thee: thou shalt be a terror, and never shalt thou be any more._

----------


## loveableteddybear

I feel like a real wuss for backing out of this convo, the shop got really busy.

I hope to intelligently speak about the issue of "total depravity," as it's the only way I understand the Gospel, soon.

----------


## Toxic

Everyone gets so crazy over mythology. Evolve already. Geeze.

----------


## loveableteddybear

> Everyone gets so crazy over mythology. Evolve already. Geeze.


I just grew my gills.

----------


## FreeHampshire

Calvinism is probably the most absurd branch of Christianity in existence. A fringe, man-made cult created by a known murderer that just figured out what "pre-destination" was and took it to an absurd extreme. Just another Augustinian-worshiping heresy.

----------


## FreeHampshire

Yep, this is all just Augustinian nonsense. So far, no one has found the Augustinian view of original sin in the bible. Hint: it isn't there. The Jews never believed one carries a generational sin that goes back to Adam. The Catholic Church never believed in this view until post-schism. Eastern Orthodoxy rejects your view on the original sin to this day. Humans are not born in sin or with sin and cannot be held accountable for ancestral actions. They are born with the *consequence* of Adam's sin. That's it. You Calvinists and Catholics in this thread and just making things up.

----------


## loveableteddybear

Romans 5:12 Hampshire

----------


## jmdrake

> Romans 5:12 Hampshire


Romans 5:13 teddybear

----------


## Christian Liberty

I know Sola has rejected the view that every infant who dies is saved, but has he ever explicitly said that they are all damned?

"Calvinists" take different views on this.  I can, however, think of two things that every 5-point Calvinist should be able to agree on.

1. Due to the fact that all human beings are conceived dead in Adam, if God did send an infant to Hell, or even all of them, he would not be unjust.  As sinful human beings, all infants, along with every single person ever to exist, deserves to go to Hell.

2. Any infant for whom Christ died will be saved.

The Bible isn't really all that clear beyond that.  I've seen 1 Samuel 12:23 to argue that all infants, or at least all infants with believing parents, are saved.  That's a plausible thought but not conclusive, IMO.  Matthew 19:14 is also a plausible argument about children who die being saved, but again, its not conclusive, and at any rate, I see no good reason at all that children could not have personal faith.  Infants shouldn't be able to (Although I believe God could  supernaturally cause them to) but I see no reason why a child could not.

The Bible is really too ambiguous on this to say, IMO.  Ultimately, I find it hard to believe that there aren't any elect who die as infants, but the Bible isn't completely clear on it.  So I'd ultimately leave it to God, hope that they are saved, but not claim to know for sure.

BTW: I see no Biblical evidence for any kind of a "third destination" I think its pretty clear that infants go to either heaven or hell just like anyone else.

----------


## Theocrat

> Okay.  I should qualify this as "some Calvinists".  But *I'm calling all of you out because some of you who believe otherwise have not stood up for the honor of Yaweh against the insane charge made by Sola_Fide*.
> 
> And yes, it is insane.  Calvinists agree with others that God is limited by the fact that He can't do something that goes against His nature.  Well burning a baby forever in hell goes against His nature.  And the blaphemous idea that God "needs" people to burn forever to "satiate His wrath" can be found nowhere in the Bible.  Sola_Fide just made that up out of thin air.  There is much Biblical evidence that hell doesn't last forever anyway.  Even some Calvinist acknowledge this.  But even if you believe that, the idea that a baby, who has yet to have a sinful thought, could be sent by a loving God to burn in hell is simply a lie straight from Satan to discredit God.  And don't give me some crap about "Well God can do whatever the hell He wants".  No He can't.  Not if the Calvinist claim that God doesn't go against His own nature is true.  It's pagans that believe that their gods are able to do whatever level of evil humans are capable and somehow it's good because it's God.
> 
> The Bible makes it clear.
> 
> Ezekiel 18:20 _The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him._
> 
> Children do no burn in hell for the sins of their parents.  And that includes our ultimate parent Adam.  Those who go to hell will end up their for their own sins.  Even if you believe God dictates who will and will not be saved, the idea that He punishes someone for what they did *not* do is simply unbiblical.  And no, questioning the insanity of those who think God burns little babies forever to satiate His wrath is not "questioning God".  It is questioning people who sink so spiritually low that they act like they are God.  Religious fanatics who have murdered in the name of their god and/or convinced their followers to do so are quick to say "Don't question God" when people are merely questioning them.


Jmdrake, where in Scripture does it teach that babies never sin? If you are affirming that, then you are putting babies in the same category as Jesus Christ, Who was sinless on this Earth.

----------


## Petar

> Jmdrake, where in Scripture does it teach that babies never sin? If you are affirming that, then you are putting babies in the same category as Jesus Christ, Who was sinless on this Earth.


Yeah, I bet that Jesus never took a $#@! in his diaper either; what a great human-being.

----------


## eduardo89

> Jmdrake, where in Scripture does it teach that babies never sin? If you are affirming that, then you are putting babies in the same category as Jesus Christ, Who was sinless on this Earth.


A baptised baby has no sin. They are unable to commit any personal sin due to their lack of understanding, and since baptism cleanses the soul of original sin, they are in a state of sinlessness.

With regards to an unbaptised baby, I would trust in God's infinite mercy and hope they are saved, but we have no assurance of that.

----------


## matt0611

> Yeah, I bet that Jesus never took a $#@! in his diaper either; what a great human-being.


Uhh I don't think crapping your diaper as a baby is a sin. I think you'd have a hard time trying to make a case for that by using the Bible.

----------


## Petar

> Uhh I don't think crapping your diaper as a baby is a sin. I think you'd have a hard time trying to make a case for that by using the Bible.


The point is that all of this dogma is stupid. Any belief system that makes you look at babies like possible capital offenders is ridiculous. I've "contributed" to this thread enough. Don't wanna fight about it.

----------


## Theocrat

> A baptised baby has no sin. They are unable to commit any personal sin due to their lack of understanding, and since baptism cleanses the soul of original sin, they are in a state of sinlessness.
> 
> With regards to an unbaptised baby, I would trust in God's infinite mercy and hope they are saved, but we have no assurance of that.


Once again, where is that taught in the Bible?

----------


## jmdrake

> Jmdrake, where in Scripture does it teach that babies never sin? If you are affirming that, then you are putting babies in the same category as Jesus Christ, Who was sinless on this Earth.


I didn't know this thread had been bumped.  But the Bible defines sin as transgression of the law.  (1 John 3:4) Sin is not imputed where there is no law.  (Romans 5:13);  Those who know to do right and don't do it have sinned.  (James 4:17).  Under what definition of sin as defined by the Bible do you declare newborns to have sinned?

As for your "Are you saying babies are like Jesus" straw man argument, do you believe that the angels who live in the presence of God and have never sinned are like Jesus?  How about Adam and Eve prior to sinning?  How about Lucifer prior to sinning?

----------


## Christian Liberty

The Bible says that all without the law will be judged without the law.  Their lack of the law is not an excuse.

----------


## eduardo89

> I didn't know this thread had been bumped.  But the Bible defines sin as transgression of the law.  (1 John 3:4) Sin is not imputed where there is no law.  (Romans 5:13);  Those who know to do right and don't do it have sinned.  (James 4:17).  Under what definition of sin as defined by the Bible do you declare newborns to have sinned?


We have all inherited original sin. Though a baby has no personal sin, it cannot possibly do so for he does not understand the concepts of right and wrong, that does not mean we have not inherited original sin from Adam and Eve. Read Romans 5:12-21, 1 Corinthians 15:22 and also:




> Indeed, I was born guilty, a sinner when my mother conceived me.

----------


## erowe1

> a baby has no personal sin, it cannot possibly do so for he does not understand the concepts of right and wrong


How do you know this?

----------


## eduardo89

> How do you know this?


Because a baby does not have the capacity to reason.

----------


## erowe1

> Because a baby does not have the capacity to reason.


1) How do you know that?

2) How much reasoning is really needed to know about right and wrong?

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Once again, where is that taught in the Bible?


Infant baptism has been an Orthodox tradition from the beginning. http://www.ephesus.com/Orthodox/InfantBaptism.html

----------


## erowe1

> Infant baptism has been an Orthodox tradition from the beginning. http://www.ephesus.com/Orthodox/InfantBaptism.html


Beginning of what?

----------


## eduardo89

> Infant baptism has been an Orthodox tradition from the beginning. http://www.ephesus.com/Orthodox/InfantBaptism.html


Infant baptism goes to the earliest days of the Church:

Paul alludes to infant baptism when he tells us that baptism replaces circumcision (Colossians 2:11). This is why the early Christians baptized infants on the eighth day after birth. The eighth day after birth is when Jewish boys were circumcised. Those who contend that infants shouldn’t be baptized have a faulty understanding of what baptism is. With baptism there is an infusion of grace, grace is what enables a child being raised in the faith to understand his or her need for God. 

The New Testament itself, while it does not explicitly say when (or whether) believers should have their children baptized, is not silent on the subject. 

Luke 18:15–16 tells us that "they were bringing even infants" to Jesus; and he himself related this to the kingdom of God: "Let the children come to me 
. . . for to such belongs the kingdom of God." 

When Baptists speak of "bringing someone to Jesus," they mean leading him to faith. But Jesus says "even infants" can be "brought" to him. Even Baptists don’t claim their practice of "dedicating" babies does this. The fact is, the Bible gives us no way of bringing anyone to Jesus apart from baptism. 

Thus Peter declared, "Repent, and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is to you and to your children" (Acts 2:38–39). 

The apostolic Church baptized whole "households" (Acts 16:33; 1 Cor. 1:16), a term encompassing children and infants as well as servants. While these texts do not specifically mention—nor exclude—infants, the very use of the term "households" indicates an understanding of the family as a unit. Even one believing parent in a household makes the children and even the unbelieving spouse "holy" (1 Cor. 7:14). 

Does this mean unbelieving spouses should be baptized? Of course not. The kingdom of God is not theirs; they cannot be "brought to Christ" in their unbelief. But infants have no such impediment. The kingdom is theirs, Jesus says, and they should be brought to him; and this means baptism. 

Baptism is the Christian equivalent of circumcision, or "the circumcision of Christ": "In him you were also circumcised with . . . the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead" (Col. 2:11–12). Thus, like circumcision, baptism can be given to children as well as adults. The difference is that circumcision was powerless to save (Gal. 5:6, 6:15), but "[b]aptism . . . now saves you" (1 Pet. 3:21). 

The first explicit evidence of children of believing households being baptized comes from the early Church—where infant baptism was uniformly 
upheld and regarded as apostolic. In fact, the only reported controversy on the subject was a third-century debate whether or not to delay baptism until the eighth day after birth, like its Old Testament equivalent, circumcision! (See quotation from Cyprian, below; compare Leviticus 12:2–3.) 

Consider, too, that Fathers raised in Christian homes (such as Irenaeus) would hardly have upheld infant baptism as apostolic if their own baptisms had been deferred until the age of reason. 

For example, infant baptism is assumed in Irenaeus’ writings below (since he affirms both that regeneration happens in baptism, and also that Jesus came so even infants could be regenerated). Since he was born in a Christian home in Smyrna around the year 140, this means he was probably baptized around 140. He was also probably baptized by the bishop of Smyrna at that time—Polycarp, a personal disciple of the apostle John, who had died only a few decades before. 

*Irenaeus*



> He [Jesus] came to save all through himself; all, I say, who through him are reborn in God: infants, and children, and youths, and old men. Therefore he passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, sanctifying infants; a child for children, sanctifying those who are of that age . . . [so that] he might be the perfect teacher in all things, perfect not only in respect to the setting forth of truth, perfect also in respect to relative age (Against Heresies 2:22:4 [A.D. 189]).


*Hippolytus*



> "Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them" (The Apostolic Tradition 21:16 [A.D. 215]).


*Origen*



> "Every soul that is born into flesh is soiled by the filth of wickedness and sin. . . . In the Church, baptism is given for the remission of sins, and, according to the usage of the Church, baptism is given even to infants. If there were nothing in infants which required the remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of baptism would seem superfluous" (Homilies on Leviticus 8:3 [A.D. 248]).





> "The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants. The apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of the divine sacraments, knew there are in everyone innate strains of [original] sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit" (Commentaries on Romans 5:9 [A.D. 248]).


*Cyprian of Carthage*



> "As to what pertains to the case of infants: You [Fidus] said that they ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, that the old law of circumcision must be taken into consideration, and that you did not think that one should be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day after his birth. In our council it seemed to us far otherwise. No one agreed to the course which you thought should be taken. Rather, we all judge that the mercy and grace of God ought to be denied to no man born" (Letters 64:2 [A.D. 253]).





> "If, in the case of the worst sinners and those who formerly sinned much against God, when afterwards they believe, the remission of their sins is granted and no one is held back from baptism and grace, how much more, then, should an infant not be held back, who, having but recently been born, has done no sin, except that, born of the flesh according to Adam, he has contracted the contagion of that old death from his first being born. For this very reason does he [an infant] approach more easily to receive the remission of sins: because the sins forgiven him are not his own but those of another" (ibid., 64:5).


*Gregory of Nazianz*



> "Do you have an infant child? Allow sin no opportunity; rather, let the infant be sanctified from childhood. From his most tender age let him be consecrated by the Spirit. Do you fear the seal [of baptism] because of the weakness of nature? Oh, what a pusillanimous mother and of how little faith!" (Oration on Holy Baptism 40:7 [A.D. 388]).





> "‘Well enough,’ some will say, ‘for those who ask for baptism, but what do you have to say about those who are still children, and aware neither of loss nor of grace? Shall we baptize them too?’ Certainly [I respond], if there is any pressing danger. Better that they be sanctified unaware, than that they depart unsealed and uninitiated" (ibid., 40:28).


*John Chrysostom*



> "You see how many are the benefits of baptism, and some think its heavenly grace consists only in the remission of sins, but we have enumerated ten honors [it bestows]! For this reason we baptize even infants, though they are not defiled by [personal] sins, so that there may be given to them holiness, righteousness, adoption, inheritance, brotherhood with Christ, and that they may be his [Christ’s] members" (Baptismal Catecheses in Augustine, Against Julian 1:6:21 [A.D. 388]).



*Augustine*



> "What the universal Church holds, not as instituted [invented] by councils but as something always held, is most correctly believed to have been handed down by apostolic authority. Since others respond for children, so that the celebration of the sacrament may be complete for them, it is certainly availing to them for their consecration, because they themselves are not able to respond" (On Baptism, Against the Donatists 4:24:31 [A.D. 400]).





> "The custom of Mother Church in baptizing infants is certainly not to be scorned, nor is it to be regarded in any way as superfluous, nor is it to be believed that its tradition is anything except apostolic" (The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 10:23:39 [A.D. 408]).





> "Cyprian was not issuing a new decree but was keeping to the most solid belief of the Church in order to correct some who thought that infants ought not be baptized before the eighth day after their birth. . . . He agreed with certain of his fellow bishops that a child is able to be duly baptized as soon as he is born" (Letters 166:8:23 [A.D. 412]).





> "By this grace baptized infants too are ingrafted into his [Christ’s] body, infants who certainly are not yet able to imitate anyone. Christ, in whom all are made alive . . . gives also the most hidden grace of his Spirit to believers, grace which he secretly infuses even into infants. . . . It is an excellent thing that the Punic [North African] Christians call baptism salvation and the sacrament of Christ’s Body nothing else than life. Whence does this derive, except from an ancient and, as I suppose, apostolic tradition, by which the churches of Christ hold inherently that without baptism and participation at the table of the Lord it is impossible for any man to attain either to the kingdom of God or to salvation and life eternal? This is the witness of Scripture, too. . . . If anyone wonders why children born of the baptized should themselves be baptized, let him attend briefly to this. . . . The sacrament of baptism is most assuredly the sacrament of regeneration" (Forgiveness and the Just Deserts of Sin, and the Baptism of Infants 1:9:10; 1:24:34; 2:27:43 [A.D. 412]).


*Council of Carthage V*



> "It seemed good that whenever there were not found reliable witnesses who could testify that without any doubt they [abandoned children] were baptized and when the children themselves were not, on account of their tender age, able to answer concerning the giving of the sacraments to them, all such children should be baptized without scruple, lest a hesitation should deprive them of the cleansing of the sacraments. This was urged by the [North African] legates, our brethren, since they redeem many such [abandoned children] from the barbarians" (Canon 7 [A.D. 401]).


*Council of Mileum II*



> "[W]hoever says that infants fresh from their mothers’ wombs ought not to be baptized, or say that they are indeed baptized unto the remission of sins, but that they draw nothing of the original sin of Adam, which is expiated in the bath of regeneration . . . let him be anathema [excommunicated]. Since what the apostle [Paul] says, ‘Through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so passed to all men, in whom all have sinned’ [Rom. 5:12], must not be understood otherwise than the Catholic Church spread everywhere has always understood it. For on account of this rule of faith even infants, who in themselves thus far have not been able to commit any sin, are therefore truly baptized unto the remission of sins, so that that which they have contracted from generation may be cleansed in them by regeneration" (Canon 3 [A.D. 416]).

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Beginning of what?


The beginning of the Orthodox Church. (capital C)  There's plenty of interesting info for you on the subject of infant baptism at the link I provided previously.

----------


## erowe1

> The beginning of the Orthodox Church. (capital C)  There's plenty of interesting info for you on the subject of infant baptism at the link I provided previously.


OK. I could go along with that. I'm not sure at what exact point in history to put the beginning of something that resembles what Eastern Orthodox Christians consider the "Church" (capital C), but since nothing like it existed until centuries after Jesus, it's safe to say that infant baptism was going on by then.

The info in the link didn't include any evidence of infant baptism happening earlier than the third century AD. As far as I can tell, that's about when the practice began.

----------


## Theocrat

> Infant baptism has been an Orthodox tradition from the beginning. http://www.ephesus.com/Orthodox/InfantBaptism.html


I'm not asking where is infant baptism taught in the Scriptures. I actually believe that the Bible teaches infant baptism. I was asking where does the Bible teach that baptized babies have no sin. The fact that a baby is called to be baptized assumes that the baby has sin, and therefore, he needs a spiritual and ceremonial washing as a sign of that. Think about it.

Also, if all babies are without sin, then what makes a baptized baby any more immaculate than an unbaptized one? In other words, what need is there for baptism to be applied to *any* baby?

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> I'm not asking where is infant baptism taught in the Scriptures. I actually believe that the Bible teaches infant baptism. I was asking where does the Bible teach that baptized babies have no sin. The fact that a baby is called to be baptized assumes that the baby has sin, and therefore, he needs a spiritual and ceremonial washing as a sign of that. Think about it.
> 
> Also, if all babies are without sin, then what makes a baptized baby any more immaculate than an unbaptized one? In other words, what need is there for baptism to be applied to *any* baby?


Oops...internet fail.  AFAIK, the bible does not say that baptized babies have no sin.

----------


## eduardo89

> Oops...internet fail.  AFAIK, the bible does not say that baptized babies have no sin.


Through baptism we are born again in Christ, so for that moment we are without sin. Baptism forgives all sins and we are born anew. We do, however, continue to sin after baptism, which is why Christ instituted the Sacrament of Reconciliation.

----------


## TER

Infant Baptism has been practiced from the beginning of the Christain Church.  What actually is innovative is the idea started by Zwingli and his followers in the 16th century and proposed in the 18th century in a new doctrine and tradition that a person must be able to profess the faith in order to be baptized.  As if the power and grace of Baptism is from the initiate and not from  God!  This notion that baptism is merely a sign is a fruit of modern Protestantism.  Baptism is a regeneration, a real mystery of transfiguration into the death and life of Christ.  It is not merely a sign but the work of the Holy Spirit.  How rich the irony that those Christians who besmirch any works of totally depraved men need those same men to verbally profess faith in Christ in order for the grace of God to be active in Holy Baptism!

Indeed, the new covenant in Christ was for all, including the children.  Far be it that Christ would reject the children.  That definitely is not the Christ I worship.  And for those whose entire faith and knowledge of the truth extend merely to the words written down in the Holy Scriptures while ignoring the Holy Spirit in the teachings and traditions and life of the Church, we read in the New Testament how entire households were baptized.

The fact is, infant and childhood baptisms were not the exception, they were the norm until the third century when due to political pressures and corruption within the Church, many began to delay baptism until old in age or in their deathbed.  Even then, the vast vast vast majority of the Church spread across continents practiced infant baptism.  This was not an innovation in the third century.  It was the practice performed everywhere across the known Christian world at that time.  It was the common tradition passed down by the Apostles and not once does this ever become an issue in the Church or needed to be proclaimed in a council.  Councils deliberated on much more smaller topics, would not such a controversy as this have not caused an uproar if other cities and nations practiced differently?  Surely such a debate would have sprouted up!  But it never did.  Because every church and every community of Christians practiced it.  The plain fact is that infant baptism corresponds with the ancient faith which was handed down by the Apostles.   Those who deny infant baptism in fact teach innovative doctrines.

----------


## Christian Liberty

Regarding the "And their whole household" bit.

That passage also says "The whole household rejoiced with them."

Were the infants rejoicing?  If not, this is a non-argument.

----------


## eduardo89

> Regarding the "And their whole household" bit.
> 
> That passage also says "The whole household rejoiced with them."
> 
> Were the infants rejoicing?  If not, this is a non-argument.


Read the passages:




> And he, taking them the same hour of the night, washed their stripes, and himself was baptized, and all his house immediately.





> And I baptized also the household of Stephanus; besides, I know not whether I baptized any other.



Regardless of what you wish to interpret those passages as, infant baptism has been the norm since the first day of the Church. I know for you baptism means something completely different, especially considering you say you were baptised twice...

----------


## TER

> Regarding the "And their whole household" bit.
> 
> That passage also says "The whole household rejoiced with them."
> 
> Were the infants rejoicing?  If not, this is a non-argument.


Were the children rejoicing?

----------


## TER

> Read the passages:


Thank you Eduardo.  

FF, if the weight of your evidence rests on your post above  you should reconsider your argument.

----------


## erowe1

> Read the passages:


Notice the parts you left out.

Acts 16:34 - He rejoiced, having believed in God, with all his household.

1 Corinthians 16:15 - The household of Stephanus devoted themselves to the ministry of the saints.

You can't make those very same households include infants too young to demonstrate that they had faith when it talks about them being baptized.

Infant baptism is an innovation that came up in the third century. I prefer to stick with the practice of the apostolic Church.

----------


## eduardo89

> Notice the parts you left out.
> 
> Acts 16:34 - He rejoiced, having believed in God, with all his household.
> 
> 1 Corinthians 16:15 - The household of Stephanus devoted themselves to the ministry of the saints.
> 
> You can't make those very same households include infants too young to demonstrate that they had faith when it talks about them being baptized.


Where do those verses exclude the children and infants from being baptised?




> Infant baptism is an innovation that came up in the third century. I prefer to stick with the practice of the apostolic Church.


If it's an innovation that came up in the third century, then why did Hippolytus write about in 215 when talking about traditions of the Church of the 2nd century and before?

----------


## erowe1

> Where do those verses exclude the children and infants from being baptised?


They're talking about people who believed, rejoiced, and ministered to the saints, and it is these people who are called "the household" of so-and-so. So you can't get the inclusion of infants from the word "household." These households in these two verses are the exact same households in the verses you quoted as supposedly including infants.




> If it's an innovation that came up in the third century, then why did Hippolytus write about in 215 when talking about traditions of the Church of the 2nd century and before?


You're talking about a work called "the Apostolic Traditions." This is a very complicated work. Some of it comes from Hippolytus, some of it doesn't. I don't know whether the part about baptism does or not, or if there's a reliable way to tell. But even if it does, that doesn't mean that it's talking about older traditions than his own day.

We have plenty about believers' baptism in the books of the New Testament, the Didache, the Epistle of Barnabas, and Justin Martyr, all of which consistently speak of it as something for people capable of demonstrating repentence, faith, and change of life. The idea of infant baptism is nowhere to be found in the first or second centuries, and doesn't fit with what is found there. It first clearly comes up in the mid-third century with Origen. It may or may not be the case that the so-called Apostolic Traditions constitute an earlier source mentioning it.

----------


## eduardo89

> You're talking about a work called "the Apostolic Traditions." This is a very complicated work. Some of it comes from Hippolytus, some of it doesn't. I don't know whether the part about baptism does or not, or if there's a reliable way to tell. But even if it does, that doesn't mean that it's talking about older traditions than his own day.


It was written in hopes of preserving older traditions, not those of his days.

Why did Irenaeus speak of infant baptism in Against Heresies which dates back to 180? How are infants reborn in Christ if not through baptism?

Why do we find absolutely no writings denouncing or chastising infant baptism?

----------


## erowe1

> It was written in hopes of preserving older traditions, not those of his days.


It claims to be. That's not the same as "was." And much of it is later than his days.




> Why did Irenaeus speak of infant baptism in Against Heresies which dates back to 180?


He didn't.





> Why do we find absolutely no writings denouncing or chastising infant baptism?


That's a great question. I think that part of the answer may be that infant baptism became the official orthodox position at the time of Augustine as a result of the condemnations of Pelagius. After that time it was not kosher to criticize it. Before that time there was probably more of a diversity of views about it. Not everybody talked about it at all. And of those that did, the ones that were preserved by later generations were those that supported infant baptism.

I think some did denounce it, because what Origen writes about it looks to me like he's defending the practice in light of such objections.

Those of the second century neither defend nor denounce it, because they haven't heard of it.

----------


## TER

> Infant baptism is an innovation that came up in the third century.


Proof?  Which church then started this?  In what city did this become an innovative doctrine?  What Bishop started this which you claim to be a heresy?  You have no answer.

By the third century the Christian Church was composed of five patriarchates representing hundreds of churches in numerous cities spread far across three continents, separated by months of travel.  Did it spontaneously just change to infant baptism over night by some email sent by the Pope?  Were the faithful in India (who have practiced infant baptism since St. Thomas preached the Gospel there) just one day willy nilly change such an important mystery and sacrament after getting a memo, without a council or debate on the matter?  Why must you blind yourself and ignore the historical reality in order to justify your beliefs?

I can tell you which men in what cities and in what years the innovative doctrines which deny infant baptism began.  How they were in contrast with the entire rest of Christendom which was ever recorded, and then you glibly pronounce that it was instead the practice of the apostolic Church?  How can someone so bright as yourself be such a fool?

----------


## eduardo89

> He didn't.


How are infants reborn in Christ if not through baptism?

----------


## eduardo89

There also this:




> St. Irenaeus was the disciple of St. Polycarp, who was the disciple of the Apostle John himself (as well as an associate of the Apostle Philip). And, in AD 155, St. Polycarp said this at his execution:
> 
> "Polycarp declared, 'Eighty and six years have I served Him, and He never did me injury. How can I blaspheme my King and Savior?" (Polycarp, Martyrdom of Polycarp 9 c. AD 156)
> 
> Now, it is well documented that "The Martyrdom of Polycarp" was written the year after the saint's execution; and so the quote above is extremely reliable. It is also well documented that Polycarp was 86 years old at the time of his death. *Therefore, if the saint claims to have served Jesus for 86 years, it therefore follows that he was Baptized as an infant.* And, in another place, we are told that Polycarp was Baptized by none other than the Apostle John! :-) Therefore, at least in the case of St. John, we can show conclusively that the Apostles Baptized infants.
> 
> http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/a26.htm


How do you explain away that?

Or what about this, from the 2nd century:

*St. Justin Martyr:*



> "And both men and women *who have been Christ's disciples since infancy*, remain pure, and at the age of sixty or seventy years ..." (Justin Martyr, First Apology,15:6 -- AD 110-165)

----------


## TER

> How do you explain away that?


With self-induced blindness, voluntary ignorance, and mental gymnastics.

----------


## eduardo89

> With self-induced blindness, voluntary ignorance, and mental gymnastics.


I just really want him to explain his thoughts on this:




> How are infants reborn in Christ if not through baptism?


Is there another secret way only Protestants know about?

----------


## erowe1

> How are infants reborn in Christ if not through baptism?


My own answer for me is, I don't know.

I also don't know Irenaeus's answer. He doesn't say anything about them being baptized. If he were a later author writing at a time when that belief of infants being reborn through baptism were known, then we could assume he meant that. But he wasn't.

----------


## eduardo89

> My own answer for me is, I don't know.
> 
> I also don't know Irenaeus's answer. He doesn't say anything about them being baptized. If he were a later author writing at a time when that belief of infants being reborn through baptism were known, then we could assume he meant that. But he wasn't.


He doesn't need to explicitly say the word baptism. There is no other way in which we are reborn in Christ. Regeneration happens through baptism. Are you saying that the Church did not believe that in Irenaeus' time? If so, please show some evidence for that.

Can you also explain this:





> There also this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 			
> 				St. Irenaeus was the disciple of St. Polycarp, who was the disciple of the Apostle John himself (as well as an associate of the Apostle Philip). And, in AD 155, St. Polycarp said this at his execution:
> 
> ...


And can you show evidence that infant baptism just sprung up randomly in the 3rd century, addressing the points TER made in his last post? Can you show any sources denouncing infant baptism in the early Church? Or any evidence showing that baptism was limited to adults?

----------


## TER

> My own answer for me is, I don't know.


How humble.  Yet you know that Irenaeus wrote in a time when infant baptism was not practiced.  How nice.  And with no evidence to support your claim.  How very convincing.

----------


## erowe1

> By the third century the Christian Church was composed of five patriarchates


No it wasn't.

It was composed of millions of individual people and individual assemblies. Some of these assemblies were united with one another in larger overarching hierarchies. Others weren't. There was no worldwide structure dividing them all into 5 patriarchates.

----------


## erowe1

> How humble.  Yet you know that Irenaeus wrote in a time when infant baptism was not practiced.  How nice.  And with no evidence to support your claim.  How very convincing.


What I'm saying is that we can't interpret his words on the assumption that they were written when it was practiced, and then turn around and claim that they are evidence that it was.

Either you read him with that assumption, or you appeal to him for evidence that it was practiced then. But you can't do both at once. And his words provide no evidence that it was practiced then until you read them with the assumption that you already know it was.

----------


## TER

> What I'm saying is that we can't interpret his words on the assumption that they were written when it was practiced, and then turn around and claim that they are evidence that it was.


What you are saying is that you don't want to believe he indeed is referring to infant baptism because it might mean other doctrines you follow might also be against the Apostolic faith.  So you do your mental gymnastics in order to justify your beliefs.

----------


## TER

> No it wasn't.
> 
> It was composed of millions of individual people and individual assemblies. Some of these assemblies were united with one another in larger overarching hierarchies. Others weren't. There was no worldwide structure dividing them all into 5 patriarchates.


You are a revisionist through and through.  The VAST majority of Christians who considered themselves to be so for the first three centuries on and afterwards were baptized members of ONE CHURCH which St. Paul alluded to and all the Apostles preached about.  And those VAST majority of Christians partook of the Holy Eucharist in ONE FAITH as ONE BODY.  Stop distorting history.  There was indeed ONE CHURCH in FIVE PATRIARCHATES in the third century no matter how much you want to pretend it wasn't so.

----------


## TER

The Church which believed, taught, preserved, defended and died for the Faith of the Apostles since the Day of Pentecost 2000 years ago.

----------


## erowe1

> He doesn't need to explicitly say the word baptism. There is no other way in which we are reborn in Christ. Regeneration happens through baptism. Are you saying that the Church did not believe that in Irenaeus' time? If so, please show some evidence for that.


He does need to say it if you're going to use that line for evidence of infant baptism. The earlier church did associate baptism and regeneration. But they never did this with baptism that did not go along with faith and repentance.

That passage in Irenaeus is for the purpose of countering a heresy of Jesus not living a normal human life with all stages. It is not meant to address infant baptism.




> Can you also explain this:


Again, Justin doesn't mention baptism there. Look where he does mention baptism. It was for people who had already repented.

The bit about Polycarp isn't evidence of anything. Polycarp didn't write that, and it's not a real quote from him. It's a reverential work about his martyrdom by someone who depicts him that way. They say 86 years because that's what the tradition was about how old he was. They didn't know anything about whether or not he was baptized as an infant, if they had even heard of such a thing.




> And can you show evidence that infant baptism just sprung up randomly in the 3rd century, addressing the points TER made in his last post? Can you show any sources denouncing infant baptism in the early Church? Or any evidence showing that baptism was limited to adults?


What points did TER make? I didn't see any.

Also, notice what Tertullian says about baptism in On Baptism. He specifically advises that children should not be baptized until after they have spent time learning and become able to know Christ.

This from Tertullian is definitely evidence of it having been a matter of discussion at the beginning of the third century. I would grant that this must mean that there were people by this time beginning to practice it. But this also means that it was not the norm yet either.

By Origen's time, 40 year later, it seems to be the other way around, at least in Alexandria.

----------


## TER

And even so, with regards to the heresies of the early centuries, even they, the Arians, the Docetists and ALL THE REST (except perhaps for the Gnostics), infant baptism was performed.  They did not have everything right, but they at least had that right.

----------


## erowe1

> The VAST majority of Christians who considered themselves to be so for the first three centuries on and afterwards were baptized members of ONE CHURCH which St. Paul alluded to and all the Apostles preached about.


Not just the vast majority, but 100% of them were. As am I.

----------


## erowe1

> And even so, with regards to the heresies of the early centuries, even they, the Arians, the Docetists and ALL THE REST (except perhaps for the Gnostics), infant baptism was performed.  They did not have everything right, but they at least had that right.


The Arians weren't until later.

But the Docetists? What Docetists are you talking about? Certainly not those of the second century.

----------


## TER

Personally, if someone doesn't want to baptize their baby, then that is their decision.  If they wish to wait until they have reached puberty or some certain age until they baptize them, after baptism I do not deny the power of the Holy Spirit or their real transformation.

But to sit there and make up history and deny obvious proofs (which above all is the unanimous and consistent witness of the Church), that should be called out.

----------


## erowe1

> What you are saying is that you don't want to believe he indeed is referring to infant baptism because it might mean other doctrines you follow might also be against the Apostolic faith.  So you do your mental gymnastics in order to justify your beliefs.


He doesn't mention baptism.

You can't say he's talking about infant baptism there unless you already assume he must have believed in it. But if you do that, then you can't go to this passage and use it as evidence that he did.

----------


## eduardo89

> He doesn't mention baptism.
> 
> You can't say he's talking about infant baptism there unless you already assume he must have believed in it. But if you do that, then you can't go to this passage and use it as evidence that he did.


Unless there is another way in which an infant can be reborn in Christ, then yes, he must be referring to baptism.

So if he doesn't mean baptism, what does he mean, in your opinion?

----------


## TER

> Not just the vast majority, but 100% of them were. As am I.


And what is your creed?  State it so that I can know if we are in the same Church.

----------


## TER

Erowe, why does it bother you that infants are baptized?  Is it because a man in the 18th century said they shouldn't?

----------


## erowe1

> And what is your creed?  State it so that I can know if we are in the same Church.


Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures. And he was buried, and he rose again on the third day according to the Scriptures.

----------


## erowe1

> Erowe, why does it bother you that infants are baptized?  Is it because a man in the 18th century said they shouldn't?


When did I say anything about being bothered?

In this thread I have been making historical arguments dispassionately.

As for being a revisionist, please research this topic, reading up to date historical scholarly research. There are plenty of books about it. You'll find that nothing I'm saying is at all outside the mainstream.

----------


## TER

> Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures. And he was buried, and he rose again on the third day according to the Scriptures.


A good creed, but the Arians believed that too.  Were you in the same Church as the Arians?

----------


## erowe1

> Unless there is another way in which an infant can be reborn in Christ, then yes, he must be referring to baptism.
> 
> So if he doesn't mean baptism, what does he mean, in your opinion?


He means saved by the work of Christ. He's not talking about baptism or any other ritual.

Again, he makes no mention of baptism.

Would you make this same argument about every other Christian reference to new life in Christ? That just by mentioning that they must mean water baptism?

----------


## erowe1

> A good creed, but the Arians believed that too.  Were you in the same Church as the Arians?


I don't know. I tend to think not. But I'm not the one who will judge them. If they had saving faith in Jesus Christ, then they belong to his Church. And neither you nor I nor any other human who has ever lived, apart from Jesus himself, have the authority to say otherwise.

----------


## TER

> When did I say anything about being bothered?
> 
> In this thread I have been making historical arguments dispassionately.
> 
> As for being a revisionist, please research this topic, reading up to date historical scholarly research. There are plenty of books about it. You'll find that nothing I'm saying is at all outside the mainstream.


Goodnight erowe.  Keep up the mental gymnastics.  You can be proud that you have become a pro at it.

----------


## erowe1

> Goodnight erowe.  Keep up the mental gymnastics.  You can be proud that you have become a pro at it.


OK. If you really are as interested in history as you claim, get back to me after you check this out some more.

If not, then take the plank out of your own eye.

----------


## TER

> OK. If you really are as interested in history as you claim, get back to me after you check this out some more.
> 
> If not, then take the plank out of your own eye.


It is you who ignores and manipulates history and makes the saints and Church Fathers to be liars so that your interpretation can be right.  Get back to me when you stop putting your mind above the mind of Christ and His Body, the Church.

----------


## Christian Liberty

I think Iranneus actually did believe in it, but he was probably one of the first http://www.christian-history.org/infant-baptism.html

----------


## erowe1

> I think Iranneus actually did believe in it, but he was probably one of the first http://www.christian-history.org/infant-baptism.html


It's not impossible. But without any other evidence of it that early, nothing he says is enough to prove it existed yet.

I think it was probably going on by the time of Tertullian, a generation later.

FF: Do you think "born again" in John 3:3 is talking about water baptism? Personally, I don't.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I don't know. I tend to think not. But I'm not the one who will judge them. If they had saving faith in Jesus Christ, then they belong to his Church. And neither you nor I nor any other human who has ever lived, apart from Jesus himself, have the authority to say otherwise.


Paul seemed to think he did with regards to the Judaizers.

Galatians 1:8-9

----------


## Christian Liberty

> There also this:
> 
> 
> 
> How do you explain away that?
> 
> Or what about this, from the 2nd century:
> 
> *St. Justin Martyr:*


Most likely wishful thinking on his part.

----------


## erowe1

> Most likely wishful thinking on his part.


I wouldn't even say that.

I could say something similar about myself. I was raised in a Christian home, believing in and being taught to live according to the Bible, since infancy. I know from scripture that I was dead in my sins, and that there had to be some point in my life when I went from that state to salvation. But I don't know exactly when that was. It might have been when I was 6 and I prayed a prayer to the effect that I wanted to turn from my sins and give my life to Christ. But I don't see any reason to postpone this moment of salvation until my baptism at the age of 12. Justin could be talking about people like me. There's nothing stopping someone who has a view of baptism like mine from saying what he said. The fact that Justin makes no mention of baptism in that context precludes me from seeing it as evidence for any practice of baptism. And the places that he does mention baptism don't fit with baptizing newborns.

Also, legal infancy in the Roman empire went up to the age of 7. So Justin may be saying that they were disciples since some nonspecific age younger than that.

Btw, if that part about child baptism in the Traditions of the Apostles is original (which I don't know one way or the other), then this same idea may well be involved. It may not be about merely being able to talk, but being considered old enough to make a vow on your own behalf, and needing an older relative to vouch for you because of that. Looked at this way it's really not that different from what Tertullian says.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I wouldn't even say that.
> 
> I could say something similar about myself. I was raised in a Christian home, believing in and being taught to live according to the Bible, since infancy. I know from scripture that I was dead in my sins, and that there had to be some point in my life when I went from that state to salvation. But I don't know exactly when that was. It might have been when I was 6 and I prayed a prayer to the effect that I wanted to turn from my sins and give my life to Christ. But I don't see any reason to postpone this moment of salvation until my baptism at the age of 12. Justin could be talking about people like me. There's nothing stopping someone who has a view of baptism like mine from saying what he said. The fact that Justin makes no mention of baptism in that context precludes me from seeing it as evidence for any practice of baptism. And the places that he does mention baptism don't fit with baptizing newborns.
> 
> Also, legal infancy in the Roman empire went up to the age of 7. So Justin may be saying that they were disciples since some nonspecific age younger than that.
> 
> Btw, if that part about child baptism in the Traditions of the Apostles is original (which I don't know one way or the other), then this same idea may well be involved. It may not be about merely being able to talk, but being considered old enough to make a vow on your own behalf, and needing an older relative to vouch for you because of that. Looked at this way it's really not that different from what Tertullian says.


That's possible.

----------


## TER

Tertullian died a heretic, so using his opinion that children should be older in order to get baptized should be understood in that light.  His suggestion in this matter does not prove anything.  And this is why the Church does not depend on the mind of one person, but by consensus.

The reason Tertullian taught such a thing was because the reality in fact _was_ that the churches everywhere did in fact baptize infants.  This was the Apostolic practice as proven by how far and wide and ancient its roots were.  And not only in northern Africa where he lived, but all over Christendom, in all corners of the known Christian world at that time.  What he recommended was an innovation and if anything only further proves that the practice of infant baptism preceded him.  Tertullian did not only stray from the apostolic tradition and teachings in this regards, but in other regards as well, which is evident by the fact that he died a heretic.

----------


## jmdrake

> We have all inherited original sin. Though a baby has no personal sin, it cannot possibly do so for he does not understand the concepts of right and wrong, that does not mean we have not inherited original sin from Adam and Eve. Read Romans 5:12-21, 1 Corinthians 15:22 and also:


I have, of course, read Romans 5:12-21 *because I just quoted Romans 5:13 so that should be obvious!*  And Romans 5:13 makes it clear that sin is not imputed where there is no law.  Yes all *men* have sinned.  (Romans 5:12).  There is not a person, other than Jesus, who descended from Adam who makes it to adulthood without sinning.  And death applies to all (Romans 5:14) because all are born with an inherited sin nature.  That's why everyone sins as soon as he/she is able to sin.  

1 Corinthians 15:22?  We are all born with a sinful nature and subject to death.  I agree.  I'm not sure what you are trying to read into that verse.

Ps 51:5 "I was born in sin and shaped in iniquity" is again saying we are all born with a sin nature.

http://ancientroadpublications.com/S...Psalm51.5.html
_ Quote Originally Posted by Psalm 51:5
Indeed, I was born guilty, a sinner when my mother conceived me._

Not sure what translation you are using.

----------

