Are Babies Born With Sin ? (All Bible all the time)

[Lazy Suesun]

God says, no!



Are Children Born With Sin?

(Sic) ".... Jesus Himself said: “Let the little children come to Me, and do not forbid them; for of such is the kingdom of God” (Mark 10:14, emp. added). Paul declared that none who are unclean can enter into the kingdom of heaven (Ephesians 5:5). Jesus added: “nless you are converted and become as little children, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 18:3, emp. added). If children come to the world with a “fallen human nature and tainted by original sin” (to use the words of the Catechism), why would men have to become as little children, who are also “contaminated” with sin? The Bible is clear: sin is not inherited. No baby has ever been born bearing the guilt of Adam’s sin. No one bears the responsibility for Adam’s sin but Adam himself. " Source/Complete Article

 

[Josiah]

God says, no!



Are Children Born With Sin?

(Sic) ".... Jesus Himself said: “Let the little children come to Me, and do not forbid them; for of such is the kingdom of God” (Mark 10:14, emp. added).

The context is faith/trust. We are to have simple trust, even as infants. Jesus is not saying that those under some never-disclosed age are without sin, without need of salvation, and equal to God.


.

 

[Josiah]

Four questions for you, Lazy Suesun,


1. If children are without sin, then why do they sometimes die? The Bible says for humans, "the result of sin is death." Only sinners die. So, is God wrong to permit the death of children since they have no sin? Or is the Bible wrong when it says "the result of sin is death?" Which is it? They can't both be true.


2. If children are born perfect - every thought, word and deed is the perfectly moral and just and godly; everything God wants done they do, every though He wants they think; they love all others just as God does - you know, without sin. Then when does sin "turn on?" At what age might they not love others as God loves them? At what age might they have a thought that is self-centered or unkind? At what age do they cease to be "perfect as your father in heaven is perfect", at what age to they begin to miss that mark (the definition of sin: "To miss the mark of God's perfection."). State that age. And the verse that shares that.


3. Let's say that age is 1909 days after birth. Okay. Then wouldn't the best way to save them to kill them on day 1908 while they are yet saved and before day 1909 when they become fallen and sinful and in need of forgiveness? If they just died saved, they'd be certain of going to heaven. Of course the executioner would have to be younger than 1909 days old, too (still sinless).


4. Have you ever known a child? I have a son who is 2 years old. And I'm 100% absolutely CERTAIN that he sins. Many times. Every day. I love him very much, but I'd be a fool and an idiot to not notice that he is not morally perfect, not everything he thinks and says and does is within the perfect will of God and reveals the perfect love of God. Sometimes he is selfish. Sometimes he doesn't consider others as more important than himself. Why, I recall a time or two when I told him to do something.... there was a twinkle in his eye... and he ran the other way. You think that's moral perfection? That's being as holy as God is? This was undeniable a long, long time ago. Have you every known a child? Were all of them holy as God, perfect as God, loving as God - always fully doing the will of God, never lacking that, you know, sinless? Because, I want to meet that kid!

Perhaps you have a very, very wrong idea of sin and sinlessness..... or have never known a child.




+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++



The article you quote gives a very false idea that original sin is some Roman Catholic idea. Perhaps the author never studied history or theology. This will help:

.

 

[tango]

There are problems with both notions where children and sin are concerned.

If we claim that children are inherently sinful we have to address the question of what happens to a child who dies in their sin before repenting. Depending on our views regarding when a human acquires a soul this can cause greater or lesser problems. For those who believe that a human acquires a soul at the point of conception the issue of the eternal fate of those who die in their sin between conception and birth ends up becoming little more than a fudge. Even if the soul isn't acquired until the point of birth it creates problems relating to those who die in infancy before having any chance to repent.

On the other hand if we claim that children are inherently sinless we create all sorts of other problems. If we are born without sin then those who die in infancy are sinless and therefore don't need a Savior. It also creates the possibility that someone could live their entire life, however long or short, without committing any sin and therefore getting into heaven on their own merits. That doesn't sit very well with Eph 2:8-9. Furthermore such a person could conceivably become a "lamb without blemish" and offer themselves as a perfect sacrifice to atone for the sins of others.

Even trying to strike a balance seems to involve theological minefields at every turn. Since the forbidden fruit was from the tree of knowledge of good and evil it doesn't seem like a huge stretch to argue that humans have a knowledge of right and wrong that we were never supposed to have, and that a child's sin nature takes over as soon as they understand the difference between right and wrong. As Josiah mentioned many (most? all?) children who know the difference between right and wrong still do the things they know are wrong. But even here there are problems because a child who knows it's wrong to steal or to hit but does it anyway, even if only sometimes, doesn't necessarily understand the concept of repentance.

 

[Josiah]

What is the Law?

The Law is the will of God - flowing from His absolute perfection and justice. It is, in essence, that we be as He is - not in terms of essence but character.


Psalm 51:5 "I was sinful atmy birth"

Genesis 8:21, "Every inclination of man's heart is evil from childhood."

Romans 5:12, "Sin entered the world through one man's sin, and death through sin, and therefore death came to all for all have sinned."

Romans 3:12, "There is no one who does good, not even one."

Mark 10:18, "There is none who is good but God exclusively."

First John 1:10, "If we claim we have no sin, we make God a liar and His word is not in us."

There are at least 613 laws specifically written just in the Old Testament. We think often of the Ten Commandments but actually there are many, many more just in the OT- and still more in the NT.




What does the Law mandate?

Essentially, that our character be identical to His.


Matthew 5:48, "You must be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect."

1 Peter 1:16, "You must be holy even as God in heaven is holy."

John 15:12, "Love all people just as I (Jesus) first loved you."

Ephesians 4:32, "forgiving one another, just as God in Christ first forgave you."

First John 2:6, "Whoever claims to live in him must live as Jesus did."

Philippians 2:5, "You must have the same attitude that Christ did."


What is "sin?"


The word "sin" literally means "to miss the mark." The theological definition is, "To fall short of God's Law." If one fully and always and perfectly meets all the criteria mentioned above under "what does the Law mandate?" then they "hit the target" and thus aren't sinful, if they miss - they are (by definition) sinners.

In ancient Greece, if an archer missed the target, the therefore "sinned" because he missed the mark, missed the target. The Bible says "ALL fall short." IF you have absolutely, perfectly, divinely, 24/7 "hit" all the targets above, then you are obedient and free of sin. Otherwise...... Well, the Bible would be correct and not lying when it says that "NO ONE is righteous, no, not even one." "For ALL fall short." "NO ONE is good." "If you claim to have no sin (you hit the mark), then you lie and call God a liar."

Nowhere does the Bible declare that those under a certain age always hit the mark of the Law and thus are sinless. There is no verse that says, "all under the age of _________ are sinless" or "only those over the age of _________ are sinful." It speaks consistently in very inclusive terms: ALL.... NO ONE.... etc.

For humans, the result of sin is death. So if a human dies, they must be a sinner (or God is punishing one for sin who has no sin and thus is unjust and wrong).

Babies may be cute.... but nowhere does the Bible say they are sinless by being as holy and perfect and loving as God is. Nowhere does the Bible give an age (say 1923 days after birth) when someone suddenly becomes a sinner (and thus in need of forgiveness and salvation). So even if one held to the unbiblical idea that we are born Gods, it would be impossible to know when that ceases to be the case since there is no age mentioned in the Bible for such a thing, you'd have no way to know if this age is 2 days or 200 days or 2000 days or 20000 days or 2000000 days. You'd just be guessing.


What is "Original" and "Actualized" Sin?


While both equally "sin," for many centuries, Christians have spoken of ORIGINAL and ACTUALIZED sin.....

Original: The inclination, the propensity, that DISEASE that means we are self-centered, egotistical, self-serving, rebellious, unkind, inconsiderate. It's what is in our hearts that LEADS to sins, it is the root of sin. When a man shoots his boss, the "problem" didn't start with the bullet entering the guys' chest, it began with something deep in the heart of the shooter - which LEAD to the chain of things that ultimately meant his pointed his gun and pulled the trigger. If I have a cold, I may sneeze. The sneeze is not the disease, it flows from the disease (which I may have even if I'm not sneezing at that microsecond; even if I take enough pills to never sneeze I still have a cold).

Actualized: These are the symptoms. They may be our thoughts or our words or our deeds. They may be known (observed) or not (even the sinner may not be aware of them). They may be thoughts or words of deeds we SHOULD have had but didn't (being imperfect)... they may be thoughts or words or deeds we should NOT have had but did (being sinful).



Now, let's see all the verses that state that those under the age of X are sinless (quote the verse and give the value of X)



.

 

[tango]

This is arguably an appeal to emotion rather than Scripture, but it's really hard to claim that God loves all of us if he allows people who never had a chance to repent of their sin to spend eternity in hell for failing to make a choice they were never given a chance to make. The child who is born with severe health issues, who spends the entirety of their short life strapped to machines that keep them alive for a few days before their entire system packs up, who then faces judgment only to be told that they can't come into heaven because they never accepted this guy Jesus they never even heard of, doesn't paint a picture of a loving God at all.

Perhaps there is something in the Jewish tradition that parents are responsible for the sins of their children until the age of accountability (I think that's 12 for girls and 13 for boys but can't be sure) and after the bar/bas mitzvah the child is held accountable for their own misdeeds. It's far from a perfect answer - but at least it goes some way towards solving the dilemma. And since there's Scriptural support for baptism offering salvation to our children (I think it was Acts 2 where Peter told the crowd to be baptized so that they and their children could be saved, but don't have my Bible on hand right now) it's not a huge stretch to figure that parents may be able to repent on behalf of their children. Of course that leaves children's eternal fate in the hands of whether their parents are believers or not.

For another Scriptural precedent, when the son Bathsheba bore David became sick and died after Nathan confronted David about the whole Uriah issue, David commented that "he cannot come to be but I can go to him". That suggests David knew his son was headed for heaven, and so the son was either sinless or his sin wasn't going to be held against him.

 

[Josiah]

This is arguably an appeal to emotion rather than Scripture,

... yes



But we are discussing original sin. See post 5. We are not discussing whom God may have mercy upon. Or whether there is some unstated age requirement before one can be given trusting faith or a contrite heart.

Oh, and nothing wrong with what what humans may see as "dilemma." I can think of a few hundred in Christianity, starting with the existance God Himself and then the Fall itself. My doctrine prof was very frequent in noting that until the 15th Century, Christians didn't speak of theology, they spoke of the mysteries of God. Fond of noting that RARE is the heresy that results from saying too little, COMMON is the heresy that results from saying too much, trying to help God out of His problems, thinking self smarter than God. Luther said, "Humility is the foundation of all sound theology." Sometimes, it's best to believe...

age of accountability

A JEWISH idea, founded in Greek philosophy, not the Bible. And it has nothing to do with salvation.

It's an idea from ancient, secular philosophy revived especially in the Enlightenment, with the glorification of man and self. It DOES appeal to modern folks.... this idea that we are wonderful. But it kind of negates the whole point of Christianity since (as many seem to believe) no one needs to be SAVED (rescued), all we need is a good motivational speaker and inspirer, a grand model and example and teacher, a little help from a friend (insert Beatle's music here).... no need for SALVATION, just a little understanding, some help communicating, a bit of leading and inspiration. You know, I'm OK and you're OK. That's modern theology and of course what every OTHER religion says. Which (if you check out the video above) is exactly the point so many Christian leaders and writers throughout history have said.

David knew his son was headed for heaven, and so the son was either sinless or his sin wasn't going to be held against him.

.... or he believed in divine forgiveness.... or simply trusted in God's mercy.... or......

But I'm not sure I'd throw out 2000 years of Christian belief based on this account; profound as it is.




Blessings my friend.


Josiah




.

 

[tango]

... yes



But we are discussing original sin. See post 5. We are not discussing whom God may have mercy upon. Or whether there is some unstated age requirement before one can be given trusting faith or a contrite heart.

Oh, and nothing wrong with what what humans may see as "dilemma." I can think of a few hundred in Christianity, starting with the existance God Himself and then the Fall itself. My doctrine prof was very frequent in noting that until the 15th Century, Christians didn't speak of theology, they spoke of the mysteries of God. Fond of noting that RARE is the heresy that results from saying too little, COMMON is the heresy that results from saying too much, trying to help God out of His problems, thinking self smarter than God. Luther said, "Humility is the foundation of all sound theology." Sometimes, it's best to believe...

We are discussing original sin, with the associated question of whether or not that original sin condemns those who die in infancy. If so it becomes more difficult to imagine the God behind such a rule to be loving, and if not it creates questions about whether the lack of condemnation is universal or if there is any pattern to it.

David clearly had a strong belief that his deceased son was in heaven so I don't think this is necessarily one of those things where we just have to shrug and say we don't know whether the child who died at the ripe young age of three days is in heaven or hell. I'm just not sure what the answer is

A JEWISH idea, founded in Greek philosophy, not the Bible. And it has nothing to do with salvation.

It's an idea from ancient, secular philosophy revived especially in the Enlightenment, with the glorification of man and self. It DOES appeal to modern folks.... this idea that we are wonderful. But it kind of negates the whole point of Christianity since (as many seem to believe) no one needs to be SAVED (rescued), all we need is a good motivational speaker and inspirer, a grand model and example and teacher, a little help from a friend (insert Beatle's music here).... no need for SALVATION, just a little understanding, some help communicating, a bit of leading and inspiration. Which is of course what every OTHER religion says. Which (if you check out the video above) is exactly the point so many Christian leaders and writers throughout history have said.

I'm not sure you can really get there from the concept of the age of accountability. Truth be told I don't see how you get any of your points from the concept of an age of accountability - the sin still deeply offends God and still requires a sacrifice to be made, it's just that the sacrifice must be made by the parents rather than the child. Or, since Jesus made the sacrifice for us, the parents have to accept salvation on behalf of the child until the child is old enough to make their own decisions.

I really don't get how this concept spins off into self-help, self-glorification or any concept that we are wonderful and all you need is love.

.... or he believed in divine forgiveness.

True - but did he believe in divine forgiveness that was universal or selective and, if selective, on what basis?

 

[Josiah]

I'm not sure you can really get there from the concept of the age of accountability. Truth be told I don't see how you get any of your points from the concept of an age of accountability - the sin still deeply offends God and still requires a sacrifice to be made, it's just that the sacrifice must be made by the parents rather than the child. Or, since Jesus made the sacrifice for us, the parents have to accept salvation on behalf of the child until the child is old enough to make their own decisions.

....an argument some Catholics make for the validity of infant baptism.... and they often point to the last of the Plagues in Egypt where the faith/trust/obeidence of the PARENTS resulted in the salvation of their child (it seems, REGARDLESS of the age of the child, even if the first born was 92). It's an interesting Catholic apologetic I've often read and heard, but I don't understand that as some "age of accountability" which, at least as I've heard it, is that children under the age of who knows either 1) have no sin or 2) aren't held accountable for it. Until that certain age (which of course the Bible never mentions)

I really don't get how this concept spins off into self-help, self-glorification or any concept that we are wonderful and all you need is love.

This idea that babies are cute and thus must be sinless..... This I'm OK you're OK.... The whole point that we are beautiful, wonderful.... until BAD adults mess us up and turn us into sinners and Republicans....

Now, IF by "age of accountability" you mean that their forgiveness and salvation is in some sense in the hands of believing parents.... well..... I'm very familiar with that, it's very common in Catholicism, and while I'd be careful there, I'm not fundamentally opposed. But that doesn't mean children are born sinless (which is the issue of this thread), it only means parents can play a role in their forgiveness and salvation which they need.





.

 

[tango]

....an argument some Catholics make for the validity of infant baptism.... and they often point to the last of the Plagues in Egypt where the faith/trust/obeidence of the PARENTS resulted in the salvation of their child (it seems, REGARDLESS of the age of the child, even if the first born was 92). It's an interesting Catholic apologetic I've often read and heard, but I don't understand that as some "age of accountability" which, at least as I've heard it, is that children under the age of who knows either 1) have no sin or 2) aren't held accountable for it. Until that certain age (which of course the Bible never mentions)

One key trouble with the concept of a universal age of accountability is that it doesn't consider the way different children mature at different rates, nor does it cater to those with mental development issues who never achieve what might be considered a normal level of adult cognitive ability. I think of a girl I knew of years ago who was in her 20s but needed full-time care, carried a teddy bear everywhere she went and processed things the way you might expect someone more like 4-5 years old to process them. Physically she was an adult, mentally she was still a child. There's no way she could be expected to understand adult things.

And, as usual, we have to be careful about inferring too much from Scriptural silence. I forget if it was this board or another board some years ago when someone drew a spectacularly unusual conclusion about the disciples' activity at Pentecost, based largely on the fact Scripture didn't say it wasn't that way. So I made a counter proposal that the disciples spread the word by firing printed material into the crowd using luminous orange trebuchets, which was just as valid since Scripture didn't say they didn't do that.

This idea that babies are cute and thus must be sinless..... This I'm OK you're OK.... The whole point that we are beautiful, wonderful.... until BAD adults mess us up and turn us into sinners and Republicans....

Now, IF by "age of accountability" you mean that their forgiveness and salvation is in some sense in the hands of believing parents.... well..... I'm very familiar with that, it's very common in Catholicism, and while I'd be careful there, I'm not fundamentally opposed. But that doesn't mean children are born sinless (which is the issue of this thread), it only means parents can play a role in their forgiveness and salvation which they need.

Woah.... easy there. Need a lot of sin and deprivation before we turn into Republicans. Surely we can become floating voters first - you know, like the people with plenty of melanin in their skin who ain't black because they don't vote for Joe Biden

The topic is whether children are born sinless although considering the implications of a sinless child and a sinful child seem to be a logical part of the process of answering the question. Since it seems nobody can point to chapter and verse that says anything like:

Obfuscations 4:15 - and then Jesus said "No child is sinful until the age of six"

we have to look for Scriptural precedents, guidelines, examples, that might give some indication as to what the reality is.

 

[Josiah]

One key trouble with the concept of a universal age of accountability is that it doesn't consider the way different children mature at different rates

1. The problem with the whole Jewish concept of "the age of accountability" is that it comes from Greek philosophy and not the Bible.

2. The reason the Bible gives no such age is because there is no such thing as an age of accountability.

3. I agree that children mature at different rates, but all that means is that no one has a clue what this supremely critical "age of accountibility" is. One person may say its 200 days old, another 2000 days old, another 20,000 days old. Heck, I know a lot of 30 year olds that are pretty immature as you agree.

The topic is whether children are born sinless .... Since it seems nobody can point to chapter and verse that says anything like:

Obfuscations 4:15 - and then Jesus said "No child is sinful until the age of six"

we have to look for Scriptural precedents, guidelines, examples, that might give some indication as to what the reality is.

I completely agree. Thus post #5. I'll wait to see if the opening poster has verses that indicate no one is sinful until their Xth birthday. Meanwhile, I think we are left with what Scripture says.... and 2000 years of Christianity has affirmed. And note the video I shared; this is one of THE most universal teachings there is in Christianity (or at least was until the recent "I'm okay, you're okay" philosophy began to overtake modern people"


Appreciate the discussion, Tango.



Blessings!


Josiah



.

 

[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 judgements. 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 Bishop 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."
In conclusion, we are born sinless but we are not born perfect. We have the defect of selfishness and from that flows every other sin --- greed, gluttony, lust, anger, sloth and the like.

 

[tango]

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 judgements. 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 Bishop 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."
In conclusion, we are born sinless but we are not born perfect. We have the defect of selfishness and from that flows every other sin --- greed, gluttony, lust, anger, sloth and the like.

... except that none of this really explains the way someone will risk their own life to save another's. When the other is genetically related we could claim all sorts of evolutionary advantages to such altruism but what about situations in which someone risks their life to save the life of a complete stranger? There is clearly no evolutionary advantage, no biological advantage, no advantage of any nature at all.

 

[tango]

1. The problem with the whole Jewish concept of "the age of accountability" is that it comes from Greek philosophy and not the Bible.

2. The reason the Bible gives no such age is because there is no such thing as an age of accountability.

3. I agree that children mature at different rates, but all that means is that no one has a clue what this supremely critical "age of accountibility" is. One person may say its 200 days old, another 2000 days old, another 20,000 days old. Heck, I know a lot of 30 year olds that are pretty immature as you agree.

I agree that there is no specific age defined in the Bible. Anything that says you suddenly become accountable at a designated age - meaning one day before and you're sinless but one day after means you're tainted even if the passing of that age occurs while you're asleep - is clearly flawed. That said I don't know that it's such a huge leap to extrapolate the concept of "knowledge of good and evil" and consider a point at which an individual is aware of the difference between good and evil, between right and wrong, and figure that is their "age of accountability". I use quotes there because usually the term is used to suggest a universal age whereas in this context it refers to an age that varies based on the individual. Perhaps for one person it might be 30 months while for another it might be 30 years and for another with severe cognitive impairments it might be never.

I completely agree. Thus post #5. I'll wait to see if the opening poster has verses that indicate no one is sinful until their Xth birthday. Meanwhile, I think we are left with what Scripture says.... and 2000 years of Christianity has affirmed. And note the video I shared; this is one of THE most universal teachings there is in Christianity (or at least was until the recent "I'm okay, you're okay" philosophy began to overtake modern people"

At least "I'm OK, you're OK" is more tolerant than the more modern "I'm OK, you're anything but OK" philosophy that has pervaded so much these days

Appreciate the discussion, Tango.

Likewise

 

[Lamb]

If babies are born without sin then why would they need a Savior? Why would Jesus need to be born to be the sinless lamb of God to die on the cross at all if one of them could take His place? None of them could which means they are afflicted by the disease of sin just like the rest of the world.

 

[Bluezone777]

All children are born corrupted from the start as I believe the issue is the belief that not being able to manifest your sinful nature means you are without sin which is not true. I would also say a child needs to be able to tell right from wrong before they are held accountable for it. The guilty party needs to be aware of the nature of what they did before they can be held accountable for it. I don't think there is some set in stone age for this but it's safe to say you aren't likely to argue that an infant can distinguish right from wrong so how could you justly punish someone for something they don't even know is wrong? Better yet, how could God punish someone for something they don't even know is wrong as wouldn't a right judgment require the guilty to be aware of what they are doing is wrong beforehand?

 

[Josiah]

I would also say a child needs to be able to tell right from wrong before they are held accountable for it.

What age would that be?

Perhaps God should have never given us those Two Tablets on Mount Sinai.... perhaps He should not have given those 615 laws in the Old Testament... then we would not know right from wrong - and thus never be accountable and all saved. That would have saved God from having to send Jesus (and all that Cross thing). Seems to ME that is ignorance is salvation (because there's no accountability where there is ignorance) then the problem is not that we have fallen into sin but God informed us and thus destroyed our innocence.

Doesn't St. Paul state that no one would know right from wrong except that God's law tells us? Doesn't he mention a specific issue and state no one would know that's wrong unless God stated that it is? So, again.... did God create the whole problem by not keeping us innocent? It's actually God's fault? Or maybe the problem is not on God's end but on ours? Maybe we have this propensity that means we aren't as holy as God, not perfect as God, we fall short of that (which is, of course, the definition of sin)? The Law points out our fault, condemns our sin, but isn't the cause of it? So that "sin" actually predates the Giving of the Law by a whole bunch of centuries?

how could God punish someone for something they don't even know is wrong?

The Bible says that for humans, the punishment for sin is death. For humans, death is God's punishment for sin. But don't children die? Is that because God is wrongly punishing those who actually are unaccountable, God is making a mistake or being injust? Or that the Bible is wrong when it says that death is the punishment for sin?

Again, wouldn't the easiest approach for God simply to not tell us what is wrong? Then all would be saved - and no Savior would be needed?

Aren't there Scriptures that talk about the "sin written on hearts"? Aren't there many Scriptures that state that NO ONE is sinless, no, not even one?" And "for everyone is sinful? Can you think of a verse that says, "But if one doesn't know they are doing wrong, they aren't accountable?"

On day, I was driving down the freeway here in California on a beautiful day, quite early in the morning, in my Mazda Miata. It was a holiday and (uncharacteristicly for California) there were few cars on the road, but the ones that were were traveling briskly. I was not watching my speedometer but I was going along with the flow of traffic, keeping safe distance from others, not changing lanes - driving safely. Suddenly, to my great disturbance, out of nowhere, came this friendly Highway Patrol officier. She pulled me over. She was very polite, actually... but told me I was going 80 in a 65 MPH zone. I apologized.... said I was not aware of my speeding but simply going with the flow of all the other cars, and she seemed to understand. I said I'd me more careful in the future. And she thanked me for that. And she wrote me a ticket. Cost me $415.00. Do you think that was unjust? Should the law ONLY apply to those who KNOW they are violating it? And would the best way to eliminate any violations to just eliminate all laws, then no one would be doing wrong and there would be no fines?


Just thinking....


Thanks for your submission!! It's appreciated. I think many agree with you.






.

 

[Lamb]

We are all saved in the same way...by grace through faith. Without faith there is no salvation. Unless babies hear the Word spoken (specifically the Gospel about Jesus and forgiveness of sins) in the womb then they do not have faith when they are born. Baptism gives faith which is why God always provides

When we start to blame God for anyone not having salvation then we forget how bad sin actually is in the world. God is just and God is good and holy. Someone not holy will not have eternal life and the only way to be holy is to be covered by Jesus, not anything from ourselves because the taint of sin is too strong.

 

[tango]

What age would that be?

It doesn't have to be any determinable, universal age. One child might know right from wrong at the age of 2 while another might not know until 3 and another might have cognitive issues such that they never really grasp it for their entire life.

Perhaps God should have never given us those Two Tablets on Mount Sinai.... perhaps He should not have given those 615 laws in the Old Testament... then we would not know right from wrong - and thus never be accountable and all saved. That would have saved God from having to send Jesus (and all that Cross thing). Seems to ME that is ignorance is salvation (because there's no accountability where there is ignorance) then the problem is not that we have fallen into sin but God informed us and thus destroyed our innocence.

Or maybe Adam and Eve informed us, when they ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil?

Doesn't St. Paul state that no one would know right from wrong except that God's law tells us? Doesn't he mention a specific issue and state no one would know that's wrong unless God stated that it is? So, again.... did God create the whole problem by not keeping us innocent? It's actually God's fault? Or maybe the problem is not on God's end but on ours? Maybe we have this propensity that means we aren't as holy as God, not perfect as God, we fall short of that (which is, of course, the definition of sin)? The Law points out our fault, condemns our sin, but isn't the cause of it? So that "sin" actually predates the Giving of the Law by a whole bunch of centuries?

God gave Adam and Eve the choice whether to eat from the forbidden tree. He told them the consequences, they knew they were not allowed to eat it, but they chose to eat it anyway. You could blame God (Adam tried that one, that whole "the woman you gave me..." line).

The Bible says that for humans, the punishment for sin is death. For humans, death is God's punishment for sin. But don't children die? Is that because God is wrongly punishing those who actually are unaccountable, God is making a mistake or being injust? Or that the Bible is wrong when it says that death is the punishment for sin?

Unless it refers to death in a spiritual sense as well as a physical sense.

Again, wouldn't the easiest approach for God simply to not tell us what is wrong? Then all would be saved - and no Savior would be needed?

Unless God wants us to love him, and that love is meaningless unless the option to not love is also available.

Aren't there Scriptures that talk about the "sin written on hearts"? Aren't there many Scriptures that state that NO ONE is sinless, no, not even one?" And "for everyone is sinful? Can you think of a verse that says, "But if one doesn't know they are doing wrong, they aren't accountable?"

There are problems on both sides of this one. If sin leads to death then a child who dies within days of birth is doomed to perish unless they somehow found a way to accept Jesus as their Savior even without even knowing they were supposed to. If children are born sinless the possibility exists, however theoretical, that they could reach adulthood and earn a place in heaven through their own righteousness. Both situations create problems of their own.

On day, I was driving down the freeway here in California on a beautiful day, quite early in the morning, in my Mazda Miata. It was a holiday and (uncharacteristicly for California) there were few cars on the road, but the ones that were were traveling briskly. I was not watching my speedometer but I was going along with the flow of traffic, keeping safe distance from others, not changing lanes - driving safely. Suddenly, to my great disturbance, out of nowhere, came this friendly Highway Patrol officier. She pulled me over. She was very polite, actually... but told me I was going 80 in a 65 MPH zone. I apologized.... said I was not aware of my speeding but simply going with the flow of all the other cars, and she seemed to understand. I said I'd me more careful in the future. And she thanked me for that. And she wrote me a ticket. Cost me $415.00. Do you think that was unjust? Should the law ONLY apply to those who KNOW they are violating it? And would the best way to eliminate any violations to just eliminate all laws, then no one would be doing wrong and there would be no fines?

Maybe that sort of thing encourages you to defund the police

More seriously, analogies between spiritual laws and secular laws don't always work very well and I suspect this is one that kinda falls through the gaps. You know the speed limit exists and you have a duty to watch for speed limit signs, and a duty to keep an eye on your speed. You didn't necessarily know you were violating the law but you had everything you needed to monitor your compliance and, for whatever reason, you overlooked your obligation to use them and act accordingly.

On the other hand if you had come from a "speed limit 80" zone into a "speed limit 65" zone but didn't know because the sign had been defaced (or fallen over, or otherwise not visible) then nobody could expect you to know the speed limit had changed. You'd still know the speed limit existed, you'd have every reason to believe the speed limit was 80 (based on the last clearly visible speed limit sign), and you'd have every reason to believe you were in full compliance (based on your speedometer showing a number that matched the last speed limit sign). If the highways department had removed the speed limit sign and then you got a fine for not complying with the no-longer-posted speed limit, I think you'd have a pretty solid case for saying that was unjust.

 

[JRT]

I was stopped for speeding and the young female officer took my license and ran it and then she played it to the hilt. I received a stern lecture about road safety and then she said "I am Jane Doe I was in your calculus class seven years ago." We had a pleasant chat for about 10 min in her cruiser. As we parted she gave me a warning ticket.