Does Jesus Hate Children?

[popsthebuilder]

POPS....

Whether you hold that God loves those under the age of X CONDITIONALLY, because they are as morally perfect and loving as God Himself is, as Holy as God himself is - fine, then you hold that God loves children (evidently a LOT more than He does the mircosecond they hit that age of X and become sin). Whether MennoSota believes that God loves those under the age of X UNCONDITIONALLY because God loves the whole world and because God IS love and because God loves even His enemies - well - either way - you are both saying God extends His love and mercy and offers to those under the age of X. The only difference is you hold that children earn it and MennoSota is saying God is simply being gracious and loving and merciful to them.


Yeah, you could ASK how does God's mercy 'fit' with that since a little child can't intellectually comprehend the Gospel, can't chant the Sinner's Prayer and can't give public proof of their choosing Jesus as the personal Savior?" Well, I can't answer that question, but it makes me wonder if God has provided something kinda like He did when He sent the Angel of Death throughout the land of Egypt, on ALL first born males? Something that would mean God's wrath would pass over them and instead mercy fall upon them????? Just a question. But of course, you hold that those under the age of X need nothing from God since they are perfect, holy, without sin (and thus never die) - but all that changes the moment they reach their Xth birthday.



- Josiah

When did I say children earn grace?

That is nonsensical.

An infant doesn't know or knowingly commit sin, so how would grace even come into the equation?



Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

 

[Josiah]

An infant doesn't know or knowingly commit sin, so how would grace even come into the equation?

Thus your point is that those under the age of X don't need God... certainly not His mercy or grace or love or salvation....

Where does the Bible say that if we feel no remorse, we thus haven't sinned?
Where does the Bible say that if we don't realize we've sinned, thus we haven't sinned?

The Bible says "for ALL have sinned" It doesn't say, "For all those who realize it and feel bad about it have sinned."

So, if that guy who shot those 17 school children didn't realize that was wrong, he thus didn't sin? No one died? No breaking of the commanment "Thou shall not kill?"

The Bible says that the result of sin is death. It says for ALL have sinned and therefore for ALL die. If it is true that those under the age of X don't sin or are't accountable for it, why do those under the age of X die?



I "get" your argument with MennoSota relative to this thread: You are insisting God does NOT extend love or mercy or grace or blessings to those under the age of X simply because they don't need that (they don't need anything from God since they are perfect, holy, loving, living forever). MennoSota is arguing that they DO need God (and His mercy, grace, blessings) - He just doesn't do that via any means but immediately and by pure fiat. My position is that those under the age of X DO need God (no less than adults) and (because they need) that they ARE included in His heart, blessings and gifts.

 

[popsthebuilder]

Thus your point is that those under the age of X don't need God... certainly not His mercy or grace or love or salvation....

Where does the Bible say that if we feel no remorse, we thus haven't sinned?
Where does the Bible say that if we don't realize we've sinned, thus we haven't sinned?

The Bible says "for ALL have sinned" It doesn't say, "For all those who realize it and feel bad about it have sinned."

So, if that guy who shot those 17 school children didn't realize that was wrong, he thus didn't sin? No one died? No breaking of the commanment "Thou shall not kill?"

The Bible says that the result of sin is death. It says for ALL have sinned and therefore for ALL die. If it is true that those under the age of X don't sin or are't accountable for it, why do those under the age of X die?



I "get" your argument with MennoSota relative to this thread: You are insisting God does NOT extend love or mercy or grace or blessings to those under the age of X simply because they don't need that (they don't need anything from God since they are perfect, holy, loving, living forever). MennoSota is arguing that they DO need God (and His mercy, grace, blessings) - He just doesn't do that via any means but immediately and by pure fiat. My position is that those under the age of X DO need God (no less than adults) and (because they need) that they ARE included in His heart, blessings and gifts.

I never said they didn't need GOD. Only that they don't need grace prior to sin.


If an infant dies without being baptised do they go to hell in your opinion?

If so why? What did they do to deserve eternal torment? Did they cause themselves to be conceived or did GOD? Are they capable of sin as described in scripture prior to being able to walk and talk or even hit puberty?

How is an infant guilty of fornication?

How bout one that can't speak being one who backbites and intentionally causes strife and needless contention?

Can a child who isn't even aware of GOD be capable of turning away from GOD?

let's go over all the descriptors of sin throughout the entire bible and see which of those an infant is capable of.

On a side note;

Are you going to respond to my response to you in the other thread about the bible and quran?
Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

 

[MennoSota]

What need does one have for grace when they do not yet know sin?



Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

Are infants born without sin?
What does the Bible say? Read Psalm 51:5 until you get it.

 

[popsthebuilder]

Are infants born without sin?
What does the Bible say? Read Psalm 51:5 until you get it.

You really shouldn't take single verses out of a Psalm, and consider that singular piece to be whole truth.

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

 

[Josiah]

I never said they didn't need GOD. Only that they don't need grace prior to sin.

..... thanks for confirming what I noted about your position.


And again, this thread is not about Original Sin, it's not about those under the age of X being as perfect as God, it's not about how children don't die...... see the opening post.

 

[MennoSota]

Psalm 51: 7. Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean:

wash

(One has to be dirtied by the knowledge of sin to be in need of washing)

me and I shall be whiter than snow. 8. Make me to hear joy and gladness; that the bones which thou hast broken may rejoice. 9. Hide thy face from my sins, and blot out all mine iniquities. 10. Create in me a clean heart, O God; and

renew

a right spirit within me. 11. Cast me not away from thy presence; and take not thy holy spirit from me. 12.

Restore

unto me the joy of thy salvation; and uphold me with thy free spirit. 13. Then will I teach transgressors thy ways; and sinners shall be converted unto thee. 14. Deliver me from

bloodguiltiness

(Are infants guilty of such)

, O God, thou God of my salvation: and my tongue shall sing aloud of thy righteousness. 17. The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit:

a broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise.

(Why would a child have a broke contrite spirit unless they personally knew sin?)



Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

All those come after God extends grace. This thread is regarding those who are not the elect. You ignore the prior and add everyone to the latter. You are displaying poor hermeneutics in the text.
Once again, your man-made philosophy is taking first place and you are making your interpretation through the lens of your philosophy. I suggest you allow scripture to remove your man-made philosophy.

 

[MennoSota]

You really shouldn't take single verses out of a Psalm, and consider that singular piece to be whole truth.

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

We shared Romans 3 with you as well. Why are you making excuses for ignoring what God has declared? You keep tossing in your little "but."

 

[popsthebuilder]

All those come after God extends grace. This thread is regarding those who are not the elect. You ignore the prior and add everyone to the latter. You are displaying poor hermeneutics in the text.
Once again, your man-made philosophy is taking first place and you are making your interpretation through the lens of your philosophy. I suggest you allow scripture to remove your man-made philosophy.

What?!?!

It's the same psalm you referenced.

I also didn't see anything about children being tortured for all eternity due to their GOD given nature in Romans chapter 3.

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

 

[popsthebuilder]

Romans 3: 10. Thus it stands written, <"There is not one righteous

man.

12. All have

turned aside

from the right path; they have every one of them

become corrupt.

There is no one who does what is right--no, not so much as one." 19. But it cannot be denied that all that the Law says is addressed to those who are living under the Law, in order that

every mouth may be stopped,

(Does that pertain to those who have yet to learn to speak?)


and that the whole world may await sentence from God. 20. For on the ground of obedience to Law no

man

living will be declared righteous before Him. Law simply brings a sure

knowledge of sin.

(A child not knowing the Law doesn't know sin)

(Simple stuff people)


( No child mentioned whatsoever)

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

 

[MennoSota]

What?!?!

It's the same psalm you referenced.

Indeed. But verse 5 comes before verse 7. Acknowledge this.

I also didn't see anything about children being tortured for all eternity due to their GOD given nature in Romans chapter 3.

This is a red herring.
I pointed out what God shared through King David in 2 Samuel 12:22-23.
David replied, "I fasted and wept while the child was alive, for I said, 'Perhaps the Lord will be gracious to me and let the child live.' But why should I fast when he is dead? Can I bring him back again? I will go to him one day, but he cannot return to me."
Is David in heaven? By God's grace the answer is yes. Is David's child in heaven? By God's grace the answer is yes.
Without God's grace, the answer for both of them would be no. Therefore it is vital that God extend unmerited favor (grace) to both the zygote/infant as well as the adult.
pops, neither you nor I get to make that decision. The decision is entirely God's to make.

 

[MennoSota]

Romans 3: 10. Thus it stands written, <"There is not one righteous

man.

12. All have

turned aside

from the right path; they have every one of them

become corrupt.

There is no one who does what is right--no, not so much as one." 19. But it cannot be denied that all that the Law says is addressed to those who are living under the Law, in order that

every mouth may be stopped,

(Does that pertain to those who have yet to learn to speak?)


and that the whole world may await sentence from God. 20. For on the ground of obedience to Law no

man

living will be declared righteous before Him. Law simply brings a sure

knowledge of sin.

(A child not knowing the Law doesn't know sin)

(Simple stuff people)


( No child mentioned whatsoever)

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

You have a twisted methodology to your hermaneutics. Throw away your philosophy and let God's word speak as is.

 

[popsthebuilder]

You have a twisted methodology to your hermaneutics. Throw away your philosophy and let God's word speak as is.

I just showed you that Romans chapter 3 is about sinful man and has zero to do with any baby or infant.

You simply refuse to admit such it seems.

It's okay, just stop accusing me of doing what it is you are guilty of.

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

 

[popsthebuilder]

You have a twisted methodology to your hermaneutics. Throw away your philosophy and let God's word speak as is.

So turning aside and becoming corrupt are synonymous with being that way from conception to you?

Strange doctrine indeed.

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

 

[MennoSota]

I just showed you that Romans chapter 3 is about sinful man and has zero to do with any baby or infant.

You simply refuse to admit such it seems.

It's okay, just stop accusing me of doing what it is you are guilty of.

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

Yes, the last I checked...infants are human beings. Do you think they are alien species that later morph into homo sapiens?
Romans 3 applies to all humanity at every stage of life.
Let go of your philosophy and let God's word speak.

 

[popsthebuilder]

Yes, the last I checked...infants are human beings. Do you think they are alien species that later morph into homo sapiens?
Romans 3 applies to all humanity at every stage of life.
Let go of your philosophy and let God's word speak.

Stop squirming and set still; children are not men.

I have a sixteen year old who thinks he's a man. He's well on his way; but he is no man; not yet.

Guess what!....he's not an alien species; he just doesn't have the maturity and experience that he will have as an adult; making him not a man.

I showed with your own references how children are changed to a sinful thing at some varied point in experience, but you want to cling to what is wholly absent. I showed you the actual Hebrew interlinear showing the word renew....and you ignore it. I attempt to explain that grace is wholly fundamental just as you verify; even going so far to show my testimony as just that. But you ignore that too after I answer question after question. I like answering questions, but when are you gonna even consider my perspective or hear it at all? It's like you're asking questions waiting for some off thing, and when you don't get it, you don't stop and think; you just look for another potential accusation.

How bout we discuss the actual scripture or don't speak to one another? Who ate you really trying to help by such means anyway? Have you checked your motives lately?

Who isn't against us is on our part.....ring any bells? Why are you still in attack mode? I'm not talking to hear myself, so if you aren't hearing me enough to even admit I have a point then why are we continuing in this?

Are we setting an example of edification or even righteous rebuke?


Okay; real question; can you plainly and simply state what problem it is you have with me( my doctrine that you KNOW of)?



Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

 

[MennoSota]

Stop squirming and set still; children are not men.

I have a sixteen year old who thinks he's a man. He's well on his way; but he is no man; not yet.

Guess what!....he's not an alien species; he just doesn't have the maturity and experience that he will have as an adult; making him not a man.

I showed with your own references how children are changed to a sinful thing at some varied point in experience, but you want to cling to what is wholly absent. I showed you the actual Hebrew interlinear showing the word renew....and you ignore it. I attempt to explain that grace is wholly fundamental just as you verify; even going so far to show my testimony as just that. But you ignore that too after I answer question after question. I like answering questions, but when are you gonna even consider my perspective or hear it at all? It's like you're asking questions waiting for some off thing, and when you don't get it, you don't stop and think; you just look for another potential accusation.

How bout we discuss the actual scripture or don't speak to one another? Who ate you really trying to help by such means anyway? Have you checked your motives lately?

Who isn't against us is on our part.....ring any bells? Why are you still in attack mode? I'm not talking to hear myself, so if you aren't hearing me enough to even admit I have a point then why are we continuing in this?

Are we setting an example of edification or even righteous rebuke?


Okay; real question; can you plainly and simply state what problem it is you have with me( my doctrine that you KNOW of)?



Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

You are trying to change the parameters to adults, but that is not shown or stated in any biblical text.
Are infants human beings? If so then the text applies to them. Age is not an issue.
You are forcing age into this because your philosophy demands it.

 

[Josiah]

Are infants human beings? If so then the text applies to them. Age is not an issue..

I agree.

There goes anti-paedobaptism and credobaptism and the whole Anabaptist list of prohibitions and limitations....

 

[popsthebuilder]

You are trying to change the parameters to adults, but that is not shown or stated in any biblical text.
Are infants human beings? If so then the text applies to them. Age is not an issue.
You are forcing age into this because your philosophy demands it.

Hey....uhhh....a man.....is an adult.....you are the only one adding things to the texts that aren't there.....aliens buddy....really.....stretchin pretty far ayhhh?


By the way; what you are forcing makes our one Creator GOD of all existence out to be evil....you need to be careful not to add to scripture for a reason...
Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

 

[MennoSota]

Hey....uhhh....a man.....is an adult.....you are the only one adding things to the texts that aren't there.....aliens buddy....really.....stretchin pretty far ayhhh?

You are getting desperate and working any angle to force your philosophy upon God. You are wrong. Just admit it.

By the way; what you are forcing makes our one Creator GOD of all existence out to be evil....you need to be careful not to add to scripture for a reason...

Hmmm...sounds like you are calling God's word a lie and declaring your image of God to be the truth. I call what you are doing...idolatry.
God never forced Adam and Eve to sin. God is not responsible for the corruption that happened to man and his offspring by virtue of the fall.
An analogy: ISIS rebels against the ruling authorities and those ISIS rebels produce children who embrace the ideology of their parents. This goes on for generations. The young ones embrace the ideology from conception.
Is the ruler of the land obligated to save anyone in ISIS from the destruction that comes upon them? Is the ruler loving when he destroys everyone in ISIS?
Humans are sinful from conception. The Bible is very clear. Humans are born in rebellion to the Sovereign God. God is not obligated to save even one rebel or the rebels offspring. The fact that God does choose to save even one is an example of His love. The fact that God rightly destroys rebels is an example of His righteous and holy justice.
The Bible shares this truth from Genesis to Revelation. You, on the other hand seem to reject this truth. Instead, you create a false image of God based upon your man-made philosophy.