For some reason, we only want to see what Adam done to all mankind and not focus on what Christ done for all mankind. Rom 5:12 Wherefore, 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 :13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. :14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.
Here we see that death entered into the world by the transgression of Adam. Even those that had not sinned after the likeness of Adam's transgression, death reigned over them.
5:18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.
Here it is accepted by many,
that the judgement came upon all men, as being without question a spiritual seperation from God. But in the same verse, the same words are described about justification of life. Why do we suppose that this justification is for a select few? Or why do we say it came to all men, but doesn't apply to all men when the judgement of condemnation does?
:20 Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound:
Many accept that through the transgression of Adam, we are all born in a deep hole with no way out. Only a life line can save us and it will only be given to a select few. Yet grace did much more than the offence. "Where sin abounded, grace did much more abound" - Where did sin abound??? Wherever it did abound, grace did much more abound!!!
When looking at the origin of sin, we see that Adam was naked and was not ashamed. After he sinned, he was naked and ashamed. We see that death came because of that sin.
Doesn't anyone remember what God did for Adam? Didn't He provide a covering for his sin? This is grace. We are all guilty, but He provided for all of us. Surely if we accept the punishment (Because we are "in" Adam) surely we get the covering too.
Christ said "If ye believe not that I am He, ye shall die in your sins" - not Adam's original sin.
Not being argumentative, but it's not dogma, since it is not an article of faith. It is what I said - comfort and rebuttal. Besides, doctrine is resolved from the inferences of Scripture - some is more substantial than others, but that is the reason and spirit behind semper reformanda.
About as good as we are going to get it Outsider. I like the way that I have posted about when the Law enters, it teaches that what was not sin, becomes sin. Therefore we don't go out in sin, but become accountable for our sins. Before that it is by the Grace of God for all infants, that they are without sin.
I think I have tried to make this point in the past on these boards saying that the Scripture is scant on the subject. And I agree, a dogmatism here is unwarranted. But I can state my conviction on the matter. I can give my view on the subject and base my views and conclusions on Scripture. I think this is exactly what Spurgeon did when he preached on the subject. The first part of his sermon deals with the how of infant salvation. The second part with the why. It is on the why that I quote him,
However, the Bible does have quite a bit to say about justice, and we can conclude that infants are judged justly being not guilty of Adam's sin.
Using your reasoning, since the Bible has little to say about the Trinity, we shouldn't hold so strongly to that either.
I disagree.
Like I stated, God's justice, and justice in general is addressed throughout. We can be confident justice demands that infants are not condemned and are found not guilty.
There was a time when the reformed preached of infants in hell, it became so unpopular and hard for people to accept, that it has been watered down. In my neighborhood, it used to be preached of infants in hell, but not anymore. They may still believe it, I do not know, but they sure do not preach it anymore. I am not taking someone else's word for it either. I have heard with my own ears. The hard liners have died off, and the new generation just do not preach on it at all. But it seems the old timers just could not leave it alone. Almost every time they come to the stand, they would touch on it some way or another. They were a tough bunch and had a large membership also. But that doctrine began to hurt them, so the young just don't touch it.