Is the Rejection of Christ 'the' Damning Sin?

>He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed on the name of the only begotten Son of God

>NNE EVER notices the import of this verse. Namely, that the the state of being condemned must be a temporary condition.

If "he that believeth not is condemned already" then every one of us humans must have been condemned at one time because we didn't believe before we believed. Some of us humans believed and had our condemnation reversed. At least for some humans, condemnation must be a temporary condition.

 

yes a state of unbelief = condemnation

 

I had a thought. if the penalty of sin is death including physical, then why do babies die?

Hell is a whole different issue that the bible is silent on other than Davids comment about him seeing his baby again.

 

From a previous post:

>We can only teach what is written.

WE can't know anything that people 2000 years ago didn't know? Or we can know but are forbidden to teach?

I can't teach but can only observe that some people who study these things say that 60% of conceptions are spontaneously aborted. "Spontaneously" means what? Aborted by an unknown cause? Is not the cause known to God?

 

To get back to the OP, I'm recalling my childhood before I was saved. Although I was not saved at age seven, I loved to go to church, I loved the pastor, I loved my teachers, I really enjoyed the worship services, and I loved to hear preaching (although I was not always paying attention).

I knew Jesus loved me because everybody said so, and we even sang about it. And we all loved Jesus, my friends and I.

So, in no way was I rejecting Jesus. I know now that I was not resisting his call, for he had not yet called me. The Holy Spirit had not yet convicted me, nor had he opened my eyes my sinfulness.

I was lost, but I didn't have a clue as to what it meant, and I'm not even sure I knew I was lost. Until, that is, that April Sunday, when he convicted me, illumined me and called me to repentance and faith. Only on that day did I understand my sin, my rebelliousness, and the consequences.

I happened very quickly, for God saved me shortly after the Holy Spirit started doing a number on me, at age nine.

Had I died before that day, would I have stood condemned before God? Yes. But not for rejecting Jesus.

 

Thank you, brother, you are too kind.

I think we have to distinguish between unbelief and rejection. To reject means we have been exposed to the truth and rejected it. That's not the same as not believing the truth because we don't know what it is.

For instance, up to the point of their conversions, Cornelius and Lydia had not rejected Christ. They both were fervent worshipers of God. One could say that neither was in a state of unbelief in the sense that they were active unbelievers. Yet both were unsaved and needed the gospel.

Do I understand all this? No. I do understand that there is a relationship between faith in Christ and our salvation. But I think we have to be careful and try to be precise in the language we use, lest we confuse rather than clarify.

 

My thoughts on this, is what's the difference with rejecting Christ and those who die never hearing the Gospel. Do all go to the lake of fire? What about babies and infants etc killed in war or abortion etc etc?

Or is God more gracious than we can ever know.

Can God save if He wishes regardless of response. His good pleasure and will.

How efficacious is the blood of Christ?

 

I believe these debates on this board are focused on Christain held doctrines and how they hold up verses the Scriptures (or 'what has been written').

So as I said, we can only teach what has been written (as a matter of fact). "Teach" would be "teach Christian doctrine as fact". "What has been written" would be what has been written in the scriptures for us Christians to know.

My appologies for not being more clear, I thought given the context of these debates this would have been understood.

God Bless! :jesus:

 

Again, the context is biblical truths concerning salvation and other Christian doctrines.

The cause of these abortions would be the curse of sin.

:godisgood:

 

You don't see any support for it because there isn't any :thumbsup:

All are born with the curse of sin and in need of God's salvation.

Rom 5:12Wherefore, 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:


It's been said before, Set two toddlers down together and give just one an ice cream cone, the one with the cone will not share and the one without will try to steal it.

The sin in children can be observed. Some try to say that if they don't understand their sin then they are not guilty of sin. Adam did not understand or know "good and evil" when he "sinned".

 

You are misapplying the scripture of the children. It states "of such", the scripture is clearly teaching how anyone must accept Jesus, that is "as a little child", by faith.

Infants may be morally innocent in the fact that they have not committed any sin. But this does not change the fact that they are born, even concieved with the curse of sin and thus must have the blood of Christ applied to them for salvation. How God does this or if God does this is not revealed to us in the scriptures. I for one simply trust God knows what He is doing.

:jesus: