Featured Children who die

Yes, good point!

The teaching of Jesus about children was shocking in His day - much more than most of us can imagine. I'm reading a book at the moment, "When Children Became People," by O.M. Bakke that really brings out the radical shift in the view of children that Christianity wrought in the Western world. I recommend reading it if you have any interest in the subjects of children, first century matters related to unwanted pregnancies/children (abortion, infanticide, etc.), the sexual slavery of children, and the perceived value of children.

Jesus and the first century church began a revolution in compassion for children and preserving life.

 

Source: Calvin Memorial Addresses, page 112.

 

Isn't that strange? The concept of merit keeps coming up and being used against arguments in favor of God's loving character.

Human beings know that it is wrong to hold infants morally accountable for their actions, but somehow God does not know?

 

Nope, not writing my own bible, not ignoring anything. Simply understanding that Paul lays culpability upon each man in Romans 1:18-25, then casts the blame on Adam in 5:12-21. Either he was confused, or there's a context in which each needs to be considered.

And, as I've already shiwn, Paul made a few very emphatic statements in 5:1-11 which show cleatly that he was speaking about the inner man previously, then the outer man afterwards.

And never mind the fact that he said....JUST AS by one man's act of disobedience the many were made sinners, so also by one man the many will be made righteous.

And never mind the fact that this universal Adam/Christ isdue is reiterated in 1Corinthians 15, which is clearly in the context of physical death and resurrection.

And never mind the fact that what Paul wrote in 5:1-11 is reiterated in chapter 8, making bookends for a string of parenthetical thought.

But that's ok. You keep on painting a picture of a schizophrenic God who can't figure out who to blame for our sin. Good job


.

 

If babies DESERVE torment in hell, that's merit. Then merit would be required for rescue. If they don't, then merit isn't an issue for them.

You seem to have a view where God simply winks at babies and gives them a pass for something they deserve, whereas scripture never charges tgem with guilt in the first place


.

 

You are reading things into my arguments that were never there. Infants are not bound for divine destruction.

Merit is not an issue for anyone. No one deserves anything from God.

No I don't.

 

Your verse wasn't in response to someone's statment "no on has merit?"

 

We can argue all day, and no one will change his mind. You are basically saying there is a class of human that is either not in need of redemption, or that is "in Christ" temporarily, and then out of Christ.

If it's the first, then we'll argue about the meaning of the word "all," and then jeopardize your "who will have all men repent" understanding. If it's the second, well, that's just paganistic, wishful thinking.

 

God is no respecter of persons. There is only one way into Heaven, and that is by grace through faith--for the infant as well as for the aged.

If you think faith or belief is something impossible for an infant, but not for a grown man, then you should examine those concepts more carefully, and see if it really is faith that you are exercising. Do you really believe?

 

Help me out here, please, because we agree on this - yet arguing about it?

WHY or HOW are infants not bound for divine destruction?

Are they in need of redemption, or not? Because that is the whole of the issue. NEEDED REDEMPTION

If they need redemption, then it is not without cause. Who or what caused their need for redemption?

If they do not need to be redeemed, then just say so.

 

He had mentioned in that thread about merit but I was not addressing that issue. I was addressing the fact that children do have access to God as Jesus taught in scripture. I did quote his entire post but I was only addressing the latter half.

 

I await his response as well. PLEASE!

 

You said that spiritual death is attributed to Romans 1:18-25 rather than to adam's sin. Please provide any scripture in Romans 1:18-25 that says "spiritual death" occurred. There is no such text. Indeed, Romans 1:18 and the word translated "hold" means to "suppress" infers spiritual death already exists and Romans 1:18-25 are simply the consequences of spiritual death not the cause of it. However, you provide a text within your claimed context that says spiritual death is the consequence rather than the cause of these things. Good luck, cause you will need it.

In other words, never mind what the Word of God explicity and clearly states to be the cause of sin in all men, but ignore that and believe your INFERENCES that have absolutely no explicit scriptures to support them! Wonderful! [personal attack against a brother snipped; infraction given]

 

Infants are not responsible moral agents.

In Judaism, bar mitzvahs and bat mitzvahs are held for boys and girls, respectively, at the age of 13. At that time, the teens are considered "under the commandment", aka the Law of Moses. They are responsible moral agents toward God for keeping the covenant. There is an understanding that young children are not responsible moral agents and God does not see then as such.

As a child gets older, they learn the difference between right and wrong - not just because their parents say so, but because they sense that they have broken their own moral code - and they become responsible toward God. They repeat the sins of their ancestors going all the way back to Adam and Eve. THEN, they are in need of embracing redemption in a personal way. Just as Jewish children are expected to enter into the covenant to be a "kingdom of priests" (see Exodus 19), the Christian message is that we are called to enter into the Kingdom of God (see Matthew 3:2; Matthew 4:17, Mark 1:15; Luke 10:8-12; Acts 1:3; Acts 8:12; Acts 19:8; Acts 20:25; Acts 28:23; Acts 28:31 AND Matthew 6:33; Matthew 7:21-23 for starters).

All need redemption, but there are those who do not need to embrace redemption in a personal way because they are not yet a responsible moral agent. God does not hold infants accountable to something they cannot understand or act upon.

Jesus has redeemed them, just like the rest of us. They are not responsible for personally embracing it until they are able to do so.

I hope you are satisfied.

 

Satification comes when you know you have a loving and just Loed......yes, i am content.

 

Just because infants are not responsible agents does not mean they are born with a sinless nature. Jesus said a good tree (heart) cannot bring forth evil fruit (evil works) and an evil tree (heart) cannot bring forth good fruit (good works). The hearts of infants bring forth evil works.

David, Isaiah, Job all assert that infants from the womb come into this world with a depraved nature.

Paul asserts that infants (all humans come into the world as infants) were made sinners BY ONE MAN'S ACT OF DISOBEDIENCE - Rom. 5:15-19. However, your whole position is that it is by many individual acts of disobedience that many are made sinners - the very opposite of what Paul claims to be the case.

The whole argument in Romans 5:12-19 is BY ONE MAN'S SIN many sinned as the whole human nature existed in one man and thus the whole race sinned when that one man sinned. That is why all humans between Adam and Moses suffered death not due to individual disobedience to the Law of Moses or due to violation the law of conscience as infants cannot violate conscience as they are incapable of discerning right from wrong. Hence, their sinful nature and death can only originate from ONE MAN'S VIOLATION of the law in the garden - Rom. 5:12-14 and that fact is repeated over and over again in Romans 5:15-19.

Finally, death is attributed to sin, the one sin of Adam - Rom. 5:12 - not to individual sins of individual post-Adam human beings. There can be no just condemnation, and death is viewed in this context as just condemnation if all did not participate in that one sin. The Aorist tense "all have sinned" and "by one man's disobedience MANY WERE MADE SINNERS" explicitly declare that is the case.

Jewish tradition is not a substitute or an basis of authority for interpreting God's Word.

 

I have never claimed that.

Yes, in time, they exhibit their sin nature. I said that.

Yes.

They have the sin nature from their ancestors.

Please don't tell me what my "position" is, especially when you are wrong.

I wrote, "As a child gets older, they learn the difference between right and wrong - not just because their parents say so, but because they sense that they have broken their own moral code - and they become responsible toward God. They repeat the sins of their ancestors going all the way back to Adam and Eve. THEN, they are in need of embracing redemption in a personal way."

I know what Paul has written. I have studied it carefully. I am open to correction, but you don't seem to even understand what I have been trying to communicate.

That's not the whole argument, but that is a major portion of it.

Did you notice verse 13?

"...for before the law was given, sin was in the world, but there is not accounting for sin when there is no law."

While the effects of sin (physical death, the malaise of creation, etc.) are endured by everyone, the responsibility for sin is only held against us when we have knowledge of it. Paul - the writer of the argument you cite - said to the Athenians, "Therefore, although God has overlooked such times of ignorance, he now commands all people everywhere to repent..." (Acts 17:30). While we do not have to have an explicit witness of the law (as Jewish believers had) or an explicit Christian witness, like the hearers of Paul and many of us had, we can know that there is a God through the evidence of creation (Romans 1:20).

But infants do not know that yet. There are others who do not have the capacity to confirm themselves in the guilt of their ancestors yet. God does not hold them accountable for what they do not know.

Not an authority, but it can be used as an example of a God-ordained faith tradition that recognizes some realities about humankind.

May I point out that you are reading Romans through a lens formed by the Reformation and later traditions, and you don't mind using those as a guide to interpreting God's word? Take a deep breath and realize that there may be more to this than you imagined.

 

And in my opinion, not only for, "children who die."

Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. John 3:7

Let's just give birth to ourselves. Let's impregnate and bring forth.

 

Why did the body die 930 years later? Exactly when did the spirit return to God who gave it? What exactly was giving life to that body for 930 years?

 

not a direct answer to that found in the Bible, but based upon the attributes of God as he has given them to us, and in His dealings with us, would say that my understanding would be that God provided for all children/mentally challenged to be saved by the death of jesus, a kind of Special Election unto them, as He did for them what they could not do for themselves!

Now if there is an actual Age of Accountibility to factor into this, will let God decide that issue!