Are babies sinners?

[atpollard]

So, babies are sinners and you/your church baptizes unrepentant sinners who are infants.
At what age do(es) you/your church stop baptizing unrepentant sinners?

We Particular Baptists baptize them sinners just as soon as they can repent. There ain't nuttin' we luv more than a good old-fashioned dunkin'! arty2:

 

[Josiah]

Are babies sinners?

That's the topic.

We have at least 3 options:
1. No one is sinful, ever - so babies aren't sinful.
2. Everyone is sinful - so babies are sinful.
3. Everyone STARTS out perfect as God but on a certain date (so many days after their birth) that all changes and suddenly they are no longer perfect like God.


I think there are some Scriptures that address that. I gave them in post #7.



.

 

[Josiah]

Anyone who claims children are perfect has never known a child and has entirely forgotten their own past.

Anyone who claims children START perfect but then on a certain birthday, all that completely changes... well, I sure want to know what birthday that is! My son is 15 months and he CERTAINLY is a sinner,but that was obvious before his first birthday, too, so what birthday IS that? And how does that jibe with the Bible?

 

[tango]

"Abraham believed God and it was credited to him as righteousness" [Rom 4:3, Gal 3:6, Jas 2:23] and "For in the gospel the righteousness of God is revealed--a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: "The righteous will live by faith." [Rom 1:17]

Yesterday, today and forever ... there is only one way to find favor with God and it isn't about US.
So a baby still in the womb is no closer or further from GOD than any other human being of any age.

No closer or further is hard to apply unless you've got another subject to compare to, and it's safe to say that a Christian is closer to God than a non-Christian.

This question of babies and sinfulness seems like one that doesn't have an entirely satisfactory answer whichever way we turn.

If we take the concept of original sin and being sinful from the point of conception, that means that those who don't survive from conception to birth die in sin. If the only way to escape the penalty of sin is to place our faith in Jesus Christ, where does that leave these untold numbers? If life truly begins at conception then the sheer number of abortions performed means that this is an issue affecting literally millions of souls, unless an embryo has some means whereby it can find faith.

Of course if we flip it around and argue that children are born sinless then a logical conclusion is that it would at least theoretically be possible for someone to live an entirely sinless life and therefore earn their own way into heaven. That doesn't sit well against Eph 2.

I think it's perfectly possible to have a concept of an age of responsibility without putting a specific number on it. Although it potentially creates plenty of gray areas I don't think it creates any more gray areas than putting a specific age - the idea that at some point we know we have done wrong doesn't seem any more vague than the idea that once we reach age X we are suddenly responsible, not least because the latter is either horribly unjust to those who are developmentally slower or unrealistically permissive by setting the bar very low. And of course there's the small matter than if a specific age was intended Scripture might be expected to mention it.

Going back to the analogy of breaking a secular law, it seems to be a pretty standard notion that ignorance of the law isn't a defense but ignorance of a situation can be. If you've done something in good faith it may be permissible as a legal defense. Putting that concept onto the idea of salvation, I wonder if we all reach a stage where we recognise we have a need for a Savior and that's the point that matters. It still seems to create a big gray area regarding children and their salvation so I'm not sure I'm entirely happy with the idea.

 

[JRT]

I do not read the Genesis myth as a fall from an original state of perfection into sin and death. The first couple were completely innocent and naive creatures. They were certainly capable of making a mistake but, without knowing good from evil, they lacked even the ability to sin. That ability came only with them eating of the "Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil". To me the story is a "coming of age story". Our mythical first couple graduated from animal status into to fully self aware human beings capable of making moral judgments. This is not an Original Sin story but rather an Original Blessing story that should be celebrated. We are not a people fallen from an original state of perfection into sin and death.
Why the expulsion from Eden? In the mythology, I believe it to be symbolic that mankind was no longer a naïve creature living in moral ignorance but had become real men and women living in a real world where there was real good and evil.

What we are is a people that is still evolving and that evolution has profoundly affected not just our bodies but our psyches as well. The world in which we evolved was a difficult and dangerous one and mere survival was of the highest priority. Selfishness became a part of who we are as a survival mechanism. This selfish instinct is no longer as necessary as it was in our savage past but it is still powerful. If there is an "Original Sin", this is it. Of course it is not a sin really but an innate part of our nature and it can be overcome.

In the words of John Spong: "Every living thing, plant and animal is programmed to survive. What is true of all these living things is also true of human life. The only difference is that we human beings are self-conscious, while plants and animals are not. If survival is our highest goal, self-centeredness is inevitable and thus this quality becomes a constant part of the human experience. Traditionally, the church has called this "original sin" and has explained it with the myth of the fall. That was simply wrong. Survival is a quality found in life itself. There was no fall. Self-centered, survival driven, self-conscious creatures is simply who we are. There is thus no such thing as "original sin" from which we need to be rescued by a divine invader. So much of traditional Christianity assumes this false premise."

 

[atpollard]

[MENTION=62]tango[/MENTION]

At the risk of upsetting people and driving this discussion into a ditch, the presence or lack of a satisfactory answer depends on what you think saves people. As one of those “mean Calvinists”, I have no problems with dead infants and salvation. If the infant lived to 20 years old, they would still be no more capable of saving themself than the newborn is (or than a 30 week old fetus is).

[Ephesians 2:1-5 NIV] 1 As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, 2 in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient. 3 All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our flesh and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature deserving of wrath. 4 But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, 5 made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions--it is by grace you have been saved.​

This applies to anyone of any age.

[Romans 9:15-16 NIV] 15 For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." 16 It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God's mercy.​

This applies to anyone of any age, too.

So the infant is saved the same way that the teenager is and the same way that an adult is.
By the will of God and not the will of man.

 

[tango]

[MENTION=62]tango[/MENTION]

At the risk of upsetting people and driving this discussion into a ditch, the presence or lack of a satisfactory answer depends on what you think saves people. As one of those “mean Calvinists”, I have no problems with dead infants and salvation. If the infant lived to 20 years old, they would still be no more capable of saving themself than the newborn is (or than a 30 week old fetus is).

[Ephesians 2:1-5 NIV] 1 As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, 2 in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient. 3 All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our flesh and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature deserving of wrath. 4 But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, 5 made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions--it is by grace you have been saved.​

This applies to anyone of any age.

[Romans 9:15-16 NIV] 15 For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." 16 It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God's mercy.​

This applies to anyone of any age, too.

So the infant is saved the same way that the teenager is and the same way that an adult is.
By the will of God and not the will of man.

If the doctrine that we either are elect or we are not elect and there is nothing we can do about it is true, what you write makes a lot of sense. If life really is little more than a crapshoot where we play the game as best we can and then at the end we find out whether we were one of the chosen few then it is entirely reasonable to figure that the aborted fetus has as much chance of happening to be one of the elect as the person who makes it to 100 before croaking.

That said, the doctrine falls down in a few places. When Peter first spoke to the masses after Pentecost and they asked him what they should do, he told them to repent and be baptised. There's not much point in doing that if the elect/non-elect status was determined before the dawn of time because the elect are OK anyway and the non-elect are condemned regardless. Even Jesus talked of the narrow path that few would find, in terms that suggested people would seek and find rather than be predetermined to be placed on the path whatever they did. There also seems little point in the angel described in Revelation warning people what happens if they take the mark of the beast, if people are predestined to take it anyway. And then there's the matter of Jesus talking about punishment which, if the doctrine of election is strictly true, is like dropping an egg on the ground and then blaming the egg for breaking.

I appreciate that truth is truth however distasteful it may be, I'm just not sure that the doctrine of election where man has nothing to do with anything except tagging along for the ride is sufficiently consistent with Scripture to consider it a full answer.

 

[Lamb]

Are babies sinners?

That's the topic.

We have at least 3 options:
1. No one is sinful, ever - so babies aren't sinful.
2. Everyone is sinful - so babies are sinful.
3. Everyone STARTS out perfect as God but on a certain date (so many days after their birth) that all changes and suddenly they are no longer perfect like God.


I think there are some Scriptures that address that. I gave them in post #7.



.

Number 2. Everyone is sinful. Everyone needs a Savior.

 

[FredVB]

If there is belief in what the Bible says of this, it would not be questioned, which may be happening still, in sin we were conceived. That does not mean the sex of the parents from which we were conceived was necessarily sinful, we inherit the universal sin nature. Our babies have that, even when they are not already sinning, though sinning will start.

 

[Michael]

Sin is always a willful choice.

We do well to remember this, especially those of us who have been "saved." For those of us who know what sin is will be punished more severely in that Day than those who did the same but were not "saved" and "enlightened." (see Luke 12:47-48, Matt 25:31-46)

Thus says the Word of the Lord.

 

[RichWh1]

Sin is a state that we are born in. Sinning is a deliberate, willful choice.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Lamb]

Sin is a state that we are born in.

=Sinner

Sinning is a deliberate, willful choice.

= Sinner

 

[JRT]

Sin is a state that we are born in. Sinning is a deliberate, willful choice.

You have just stated a contradiction. Both statements cannot be true at the same time so which one is your belief?

 

[JRT]

From an early date Christianity adopted the Doctrine of Original Sin. In its strict interpretation unbaptized infants who die would go straight to hell. The Doctrine was subsequently modified by the concept of Limbo.

I do not read the Genesis myth as a fall from an original state of perfection into sin and death. The first couple were completely innocent and naive creatures. They were certainly capable of making a mistake but, without knowing good from evil, they lacked even the ability to sin. That ability came only with them eating of the "Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil". To me the story is a "coming of age story". Our mythical first couple graduated from animal status into to fully self aware human beings capable of making moral judgments. This is not an Original Sin story but rather an Original Blessing story that should be celebrated. We are not a people fallen from an original state of perfection into sin and death. Why the expulsion from Eden? In the mythology, I believe it to be symbolic that mankind was no longer a naïve creature living in moral ignorance but had become real men and women living in a real world where there was real good and evil.

What we are is a people that is still evolving and that evolution has profoundly affected not just our bodies but our psyches as well. The world in which we evolved was a difficult and dagerous one and mere survival was of the highest priority. Selfishness became a part of who we are as a survival mechanism. This selfish instinct is no longer as necessary as in our savage past but it is still powerful. If there is an "Original Sin", this is it. Of course it is not a sin really but an innate part of our nature and it can be overcome.

In the words of John Spong: "Every living thing, plant and animal is programmed to survive. What is true of all these living things is also true of human life. The only difference is that we human beings are self-conscious, while plants and animals are not. If survival is our highest goal, self-centeredness is inevitable and thus this quality becomes a constant part of the human experience. Traditionally, the church has called this "original sin" and has explained it with the myth of the fall. That was simply wrong. Survival is a quality found in life itself. There was no fall. Self-centered, survival driven, self-conscious creatures is simply who we are. There is thus no such thing as "original sin" from which we need to be rescued by a divine invader. So much of traditional Christianity assumes this false premise."

 

[RichWh1]

=Sinner




= Sinner

To be a sinner you must have actively sinned
The state we are all born is not an act. It is a position. We all possess a sin nature and that nature condemns us Jesus and His shed blood forgives the sin yet doesn’t remove the sin nature



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[RichWh1]

From an early date Christianity adopted the Doctrine of Original Sin. In its strict interpretation unbaptized infants who die would go straight to hell. The Doctrine was subsequently modified by the concept of Limbo.

Paul spoke of all of us sinning in Adam. That is not the early church making doctrine. That is Paul speaking truth.

I do not read the Genesis myth as a fall from an original state of perfection into sin and death. The first couple were completely innocent and naive creatures. They were certainly capable of making a mistake but, without knowing good from evil, they lacked even the ability to sin.

If that is true then the New Testament is false and Jesus died in vain! According to your logic, there was no sin in Adam, making Paul a liar and his epistles false!

That ability came only with them eating of the "Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil". To me the story is a "coming of age story".

When did Adam sin? Before he knew good and evil or after?

Our mythical first couple graduated from animal status into to fully self aware human beings capable of making moral judgments. This is not an Original Sin story but rather an Original Blessing story that should be celebrated. We are not a people fallen from an original state of perfection into sin and death. Why the expulsion from Eden? In the mythology, I believe it to be symbolic that mankind was no longer a naïve creature living in moral ignorance but had become real men and women living in a real world where there was real good and evil.

You seem to believe that the writings of Genesis are fable and not fact! If that is the case, you don’t trust the Bible to be the revelation of God. What a shame!

What we are is a people that is still evolving and that evolution has profoundly affected not just our bodies but our psyches as well. The world in which we evolved was a difficult and dagerous one and mere survival was of the highest priority.

So you’re an evolutionist and not a Christian. More of a scientist? Conjecturing?


In the words of John Spong: "Every living thing, plant and animal is programmed to survive. [/quote]

Programmed by whom?





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[JRT]

Paul spoke of all of us sinning in Adam. That is not the early church making doctrine. That is Paul speaking truth.

I respect Paul's opinion but I disagree.

If that is true then the New Testament is false and Jesus died in vain! According to your logic, there was no sin in Adam, making Paul a liar and his epistles false!

Paul had his own interpretation of the meaning of the life and death of Jesus. I am sure he was sincere.

When did Adam sin? Before he knew good and evil or after?

After. You cannot sin without knowing good and evil.

You seem to believe that the writings of Genesis are fable and not fact! If that is the case, you don’t trust the Bible to be the revelation of God. What a shame!

While much of genesis is mythology ---- it may not be factual but that does not make it untrue.

Rabbi Brian Zachary Mayer wrote ~~~ I do not take the Bible literally. But I take it seriously. To take it literally would mean that I believe that every word, as it is written, was spoken by God. I cannot do that. But I can and do take it seriously. To take the Bible seriously means to examine it in its time and for the culture in which it was written. I want to offer up a very handy distinction that can help in our understanding of the Bible. That distinction I would like to make is revealed in the two words: true and truth. True is if it actually happened. It is a fact of history. Truth is the moral. It is the actual essence of things. I do not believe that most of the biblical stories are true stories. But I sure do believe that they are truth stories. It doesn’t matter to me if the Red Sea parted or if Noah had an ark. I don’t care if Jonah was swallowed by a whale or if that’s not necessarily factually so. To me, the great meaning of these stories has nothing to do with whether they’re historically accurate or not. Whether Jonah slept or didn’t sleep for three nights in the proverbial halibut hotel does not take away from the moral of the story – that it is human nature to run away from the things that we don’t want to do. I don’t believe this historically happened. I don’t believe Jonah was swallowed by a great fish and brought to the bottom of the sea-world after not doing what he knew he had to do. This is a truth story. Not a true story. This is a story about humanity, about me, about the troubles we get into when we don’t do what we should do and about how it will bring us down to the very bottom of our existence. It’s a truth story, not a true story. And if we look at the miracles in the Bible as truth stories, what we learn from these stories will be liberative for us. In this important way the Bible can be a very liberating force in our lives. If we read the Bible in this way we will probably fight less with what we read in the Bible. Moreover, seeking the “truth” of the stories can allow us to have meaningful conversations with people who might read the stories to be true stories rather than truth ones. The truth aspect of the story offers a place of connection between myself and those who read the words literally.

So you’re an evolutionist and not a Christian. More of a scientist? Conjecturing?

I am both a scientist and a Christian. I regard the Theory of Evolution not as the truth but as a very successful model that conforms to observed facts.

In the words of John Spong: "Every living thing, plant and animal is programmed to survive. Programmed by whom?

Programmed from our evolutionary history.

 

[RichWh1]

One question: What is sin?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Lamb]

One question: What is sin?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sin means to miss the mark. The mark being God's command to be perfectly holy. We miss the mark because of Original Sin we inherit due to the fall and when we commit an act or thought that is sinful.

 

[Michael]

We do well to remember that sin began in heaven around the very Throne of God.

When the physical realm was created the fallen elohim infected it with sin and rebellion.

God, through the Man Christ Jesus is reversing that.

One Day sin and sinners will be eradicated from the Kingdom.

Are we doing our part to "hasten that Day"?